A CFD solver will answer almost any question you put to it, including the ones your model was never capable of answering. Ashbeck's real work is knowing the difference — and stopping, in writing, with a code and a number, when the answer would not be worth having.
It builds the model. It meshes and solves it. It writes the document. And between every one of those steps it tries to prove the previous one wrong, because the failure that cost us most was not a crash — it was a complete run, a clean register and a specific, confident, entirely wrong answer.
Forty coded findings across geometry, mesh, ventilation, fire, pressure and results. Each one blocks, warns or notes — and names the number it examined, so you can disagree with it on the evidence rather than on tone.
How the register works →The document is only worth anything if it describes the simulation that was actually solved. So the emitted input file is reconciled against the model that commissioned it, and a promise the deck does not keep is a blocker.
What conformance checks →The grid is part of the answer, not a setting. Openings snapped for flow area rather than per edge, refinement that refuses to seal a shaft, and alignment rules enforced before the run rather than discovered during it.
How the grid is decided →Twelve field figures across visibility, temperature, velocity and pressure — and a written gap wherever a figure could not be drawn, because a results section that renders clean having shown nothing is the defect, not the fix.
What comes out →A runtime model measured against real runs rather than extrapolated, a standard queue, and a premium tier that starts hardware on demand. On your own machines, or on AWS, Google Cloud or Azure.
How long things take →Five jurisdictions supported and four explicitly refused, each with a written reason. The system will not cite English guidance at a building in Dubai and hope nobody checks.
Where it will and will not work →Your practice's name, marks and cover on the document. Your engineers' sign-off. Ashbeck does not appear in the output unless you want it to.
How branding works →We model a scheme you have already paid a consultancy to assess, and you compare the two documents side by side. That is the whole sales process, and it is the only one that settles the question.
The process, step by step →Ashbeck produces an assessment, a basis of design, a specimen-quality report and a register of findings. A competent fire engineer still reads it, argues with it and signs it. What it removes is the fortnight of setup, meshing, babysitting and document assembly between the question and the thing worth arguing about.
It also does not pretend to be certain. Where a criterion could not be evaluated, the document says NOT EVALUATED and explains why, rather than quietly omitting the row. That is a deliberate design decision and it is the one customers question most often — until they see what the alternative produced.
A report that renders clean having shown nothing is the most dangerous document this system could produce. Every refusal in it exists to stop that.
Bring a scheme you have already had assessed. We will model it, and you can hold the two documents next to each other. If ours is worse, that is a short conversation and you have lost an afternoon.