Virtual Meeting: Summary of experimental data and calibration/modeling targets for the pyrolysis model calibration exercise

[leventon]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2026 (11:00am EST), the MaCFP Condensed Phase subgroup will organize a virtual meeting to share current results and next steps for the MaCFP Pyrolysis Model Calibration Exercise (target material: pine wood).

At this meeting, we will:
(1) Present an analysis of the experimental measurements available on the MaCFP Repository for material property calibration. Currently, ~20 institutions around the world have shared data to support this effort.

(2) Summarize modeling targets for MaCFP-4 (June, 2026):
a. How to format and submit material property sets, and
b. How to set up and submit computational results for model-to-model comparison (i.e., prediction of idealized 0D and 1D material decomposition scenarios)

Further details of how to contribute to this effort are available online: https://github.com/MaCFP/matl-db/wiki/How-to-Contribute.

We hope to see you soon. Best,

The Members of the MaCFP Organizing Committee

Virtual Meeting Link: https://umd.zoom.us/j/7239055335?omn=95746317498

[TristanHehnen]

The slides of the above meeting can be found in Release v4.0.0

[leventon]

A summary of questions & answers from the discussion of this online meeting is copied below:

Question: Can we [ask modelers to] run 0D tests under isothermal conditions (600K)?
Answer: Yes, it’s possible.
Note: The focus of the modeling exercise now is model-to-model comparison, not validation.

---

Question: Cone tests showed variability in initial mass — can this be the source of variability in measurement data/output?
Answer: Yes, some, but not all.
Further analysis is needed to look at correlation.

---

Question: Are more samples available?
Answer: Yes, but we will be somewhat cautious.
(Please commit to running experiments if requesting samples.)

---

Question: Do/have manufacturers shared guidance on how to best run TGA/DSC/MCC tests, and can this be shared?
Answer: Yes, some more than others.
Call to experimentalists to consider sharing this where possible.

---

Question: Can we submit multiple property sets?
Answer: Yes — let’s highlight that explicitly.

---

Question: Will we accept 0D-only / kinetics predictions?
Answer:

• Full sets are encouraged (0D and 1D; include radiation/conductivity).
• 0D-only is acceptable, but not preferred.
• If you submit properties, you must be able to reproduce at least the 0D modeling target.