You are on page 1of 276

An Introduction to Mathematical Fire Modeling

HOW TO ORDER THIS BOOK


BY PHONE: 800-233-9936 or 717-291-5609, AM- PM Eastern Time
BY FM: 717-295-4538
BY MAIL: Order Department
Technomic Publishing Company, Inc.
851 New Holland Avenue, Box 3535
Lancaster, PA 17604, U.S.A.
BY CREDIT CARD: American Express, VISA, Mastercard
BY WWW SITE: http://w~~.techp~b.com

PERMISSION TO PHOTOCOPY-POLICY STATEMENT


Authorization to photocopy items for internalor personal use, or the internalor personaluse
of specific clients, is granted by Technomic Publishing Co., Inc. providedthat the base fee of
US $5.00 per copy, plus US $.25 per page is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. For those organizations that have been
granted a photocopy license by CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.
The fee code for users of the TransactionalReporting Service is 1-56676100$5.00 + $.25.
SECOND EDITION

An
Introduction to
Mathematical
Fire Modeling

Marc L. Janssens, Ph.D.


Southwest Research Institute
This eBook does not include ancillary media that was packaged with the
printed version of the book.

An Introduction to Mathematical Fire Modeling


a~~c~~0~1~9ublication

Technomic Publishing Company, Inc.


851 New Holland Avenue, Box 3535
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17604 U.S .A.

Copyright O 2000 by Technornic Publishing Company, Inc.


All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a


retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America


l 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Main entry under title:


An Introduction to Mathematical Fire Modeling, Second Edition

A Technomic Publishing Company book


Bibliography: p.
Includes index p. 257

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 00-103008


ISBN NO. 1-56676-920-5
DEDICATION

This book is dedicated in memory of the late Professor Edward


Zukoski (1927- 1997)' who developed the plume flow correlation that
forms the core of the mathematical compartment fue models presented in
this book. This correlation was just one of Professor Zukoski's numerous
important and unique accomplishments in 30 years of pioneering work on
fluid mechanics of fires.
CONTENTS

Preface xi

lntroduction xv

Chapter 1. Basic Compartment Fire Theory ...........1


1. l Introduction 1
1.2 Approaches to Mathematical Fire Modeling 4
1.3 Computer Languages Used for Fire Modeling 8

Chapter 2. Introduction to Mathematical Compartment


Fire Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1 The Fire Compartment 11
2.2 The Fire Flame and Plume 12
2.3 The Hot and Cold Gas Layers 12
2.4 Heat Release Rate of the Fire 13
2.5 Heat Transfer in Enclosure Fires 14
2.6 A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 14

Chapter 3. ASET-QB: A Simple Room Fire Model . . . . . . . . 51


3.1 Introduction 51
3.2 Formulation of the ASET Equations 54
3.3 Solution of the Differential Equations 58
3.4 The ASET-QB Computer Program 59
3.5 Comparison between ASET-QB and ASET-B 61
3.6 Limitations of ASET-QB 63

Chapter 4. Modifications to ASET-QB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69


4.1 Venting of the Hot Layer 69
viii Contents

4.2 Oxygen-Limited Burning 80


4.3 Heat Loss Fraction Calculation 83
4.4 Heat Release Rate Predictions 87
4.5 The Prediction of Flashover 104

Chapter 5. The FIRM-QB Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111


5.1 Introduction 111
5.2 Fire Problem Modeled by FIRM-QB 11 2
5.3 Technical Description of FIRM-QB 11 3
5.4 FIRM-QB Program Description 1 17
5.5 FIRM-QB Data Libraries 117
5.6 Predictive Capability of FIRM-QB 11 8

Chapter 6. FIRM-QB User's Manual . .. .. . . . . . . . . . 119


6.1 Introduction 1 19
6.2 Technical Documentation 11 9
6.3 Program Description 120
6.4 Installing and Operating FIRM-QB 120
6.5 Program Considerations 120
6.6 Input Data 122
6.7 External Data Files 124
6.8 System Control Requirements 125
6.9 Output Information 125
6.10 Personnel and Program Requirements 12 7
6.1 1 Sample Problems 128
6.12 Restrictions and Limitations 144
6.13 Error Messages 14 4

Chapter 7. Evaluation of the Predictive


.
Capability of FIRM-QB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7.1 Introduction 147
7.2 Predictive Capability of Fire Models 148
7.3 Predictive Capability of FIRM-QB 153
7.4 Conclusions 174

Chapter 8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179


Appendix A: Conversion Factors and Constants 181

Appendix B: Review of Fundamentals


of Engineering for Fire Modeling 183
Contents

Appendix C: Installing and Running the Software 227

Appendix D: QBASIC Programmer's Notes 23 7

Appendix E: Visual Basic Programs 247

References 25 1

Index 257
PREFACE

This is the second, completely revised edition of an introductory


textbook on mathematical fire modeling. The first edition was written by
David Bitk, and published by Technomic Publishing Co. in 1991. Because
the book provided some unique material of interest to the ASTM
Subcommittee E05.39 on Fire Modeling, which I chaired at that time, I
obtained a copy of the book shortly after its release, and read it very
carefully fiom cover to cover. In 1992 I shared the results of my review
with the author, and made a number of suggestions for corrections and
improvements to be included in a future edition of the book. In 1995
Technomic approached me, and asked me whether I would be interested
in preparing a second edition. The book was almost out of print, the author
of the first edition was too busy, and I qualified as an alternate for the job
because of the suggestions for corrections and improvements that I had
made in 1992. Once the scope of the project was more clearly defined, I
decided to accept the challenge.
Originally, the plan was to keep the text largely intact. I was only going
to correct the errors that I had found in the fist edition, update the text
where necessary to include the latest developments in the rapidly evolving
field of fire science and technology, and convert the software fiom obsolete
GW-BASIC to QBasic. The revision was estimated to take six months.
Piece of cake!
Unfortunately it did not work out that way. It is now nearly four years
later, and what lies in fiont of you is almost a new book. Although the
concept and structure of the book have largely remained the same, the
details have changed significantly. Since 1991, ASTM published standard
guides for documenting and evaluating the predictive capability of
deterministic f i e models. The revision of the book provided a unique
opportunity to apply the guides. To my knowledge, the FIRM model
developed in this book, is the f i t fire model to be documented, validated,
verified, and evaluated according to the ASTM guidelines. Compared to
Birk's model, many changes have been made to the underlying physics of
FIRM, and more accurate numerical techniques are used to solve the model
equations. Since these changes slightly affect the sirnulations, all sample
xi i Preface

problems and applications in the first edition had to be reworked. Some


sample applications in the f ~ sedition
t were replaced with problems that
better illustrate the use and limitations of FIRM. In recent years, Microsoft
has phased out DOS-based programs such as QBasic in favor of Windows
software. This created the need to include a Visual Basic version of the
QBasic software. The decision to include Visual Basic programs was made
at the end of 1997, shortly after I delivered the final draft of the manuscript
to the publisher. To save time, the text, which only refers to the QBasic
programs, was kept more or less intact. An appendix was added to cover
the V i s d Basic software. Unfortunately, the addition of the new s o h a r e
delayed the project by nearly two more years. The main challenge was to
ensure consistency and compatibility between the two versions of the
software. I believe this fmally has been accomplished, and the reader
should be able to reproduce the sample applications of FlRM in this book
with either version.
The introctuction and first chapter are largely unchanged fiom the fust
edition of the book. The introduction describes the primary intent of the
book, and the approach that is followed, Chapter 1 provides a qualitative
description of enclosure fires, and summarizes different approaches to
simulate such fires. Chapter 2 is a completely revised and expanded
description of the quantitative aspects of two-zone compartment fire
models. A simple room fire model is developed in Chapter 3 by
simplifying the more general equations developed in Chapter 2. This model
is named ASET, an acronym for Available Safe Egress Time. The QBasic
version of the corresponding computer program is referred to as ASET-QB
(ASET-VB is its Visual Basic counterpart). Five significant and useful
modfications to ASET-QB are presented in Chapter 4. Similar
modifications were described in the fust edition of the book, but the
present material is more detailed, and quite different in many respects. For
example, the main modification is that of the addition of routines to
calculate mass flows of gases that enter or leave the compartment through
an opening in one of the vertical walls of the compartment. The routines
provided in the first edition only considered the main vent flow regime,
while two additional regimes are considered in the present routines. A
technical description of the modified ASET model, which is referred to as
FIRM (Fire Investigation and Reconstruction Model), is provided in
Chapter 5. The next chapter is a user's guide for the QBasic version of the
model, called FIRM-QB. Chapter 5 and 6, together with some of the
appendices comprise the documentation for FIRM-QB, which was
Preface xiii

prepared according to the guidelines for documenting deterministic fire


models in ASTM E 1472.A detailed evaluation of the predictive capability
of FIRM-QB, according to the guidelines in ASTM E 1355, forms the
subject of Chapter 7. Final conclusions and recommendations for further
study are presented in Chapter 8. The second half of the main text, i.e.,
Chapters 5-8, is completely revised fiom the corresponding material in the
first edition o f the book
Useful unit conversions and physical constants are provided in
Appendix A. To understand the technical sections of the book, the reader
must have some basic knowledge of mechanical engineering. The
necessary fundamentals are presented in Appendix B. Minimum system
requirements, and instructions for installing and using the software can be
found in Appendix C. In Appendix D, notes are provided for QBasic
programmers who wish to customize the source code to suit specific needs.
Appendix E covers the Visual Basic version of the software. The source
code, executables programs, and input and output data fies for all
applications and sample runs discussed in the book are on the
accompanying CD-ROM. Some files are in a compressed format, and can
only be installed as described in Appendix C.
The reader should fust quickly browse through Appendix B, to
determine whether he needs to look at this material in more detail. After a
review of the fundamentals, it is recommended that the chapters of the
main text be read in order, and the appendices be consulted as needed.
Impatient readers and experienced fue model users, who want to
immediately start exploring the FIRM software, may skip to Appendix C
for instructions to install and run the software, and subsequently consult
the FIRM-QB user's guide (Chapter 6).
I hope it is clear £tom the above summary that the present edition of
this book is very different fiom the first. Owners of the original edition of
the book should find more than enough new material in the present volume
to justify the purchase of a new copy. A sigtllficant amount of time was
put in the preparation of this revision. My wife, Ingrid, and children,
Jasmijn and Maarten, can testify to the extent of this effort. I would like to
use this opportunity to thank them for their encouragement, sacrifice, and
patience during the past four years while I was working on this book.

Marc L. Janssens
San Antonio, TX
September 1999
INTRODUCTION

The primary intent of this book is to introduce the reader to


mathematical compartment fue modeling. The approach is through the
development of a simple mathematical model that will provide an
engineering approximation of the time-varying conditions created by a f r e
in an enclosure that may be subject to hot-layer venting. The hot layer, as
it is commonly referred to in fire modeling, is the collection of hot gases
generated by a f r e that forms below the ceiling due to its buoyancy over
the ambient-temperature air in the compartment. The hot-layer gases
contain the products of combustion released by the fire, along with air
entrained by the fire and its resultant plume. In the model, venting due to
buoyancy forces is considered, while vent flows associated with forced
ventilation are not. Also, venting through openings in vertical planes
(walls) is considered, and openings in horizontal planes (floor and ceiling)
are not. The development of the model includes the derivation of the
governing equations, casting these equations into computer code, and the
evaluation and application of the resulting model.
It is also anticipated that the simplistic approach to the problem and the
documentation provided herein will result in a model that proves to be an
excellent instructional model for all students of mathematical fire
modeling.
There are two general approaches for the development of a simple
compartment fire model. The first approach is to simplify an existing, but
complex model, such as FIRST [l], or CFAST [2]. A second option is to
take an existing simple model, such as ASET [3], and upgrade it to meet
the requirements of the model and documentation sought.
This second option, that of taking a simple model and upgrading it,
appeared to be the more attractive procedure to follow. This method was
also suggested by Kanury [4] who wrote:
It seldom takes extraordinary skill to formulate an all-too-comprehensive
mathematical model of a given phenomenon. Complete solution of such a
model is usually unattainable. A gifted investigator skillfully sifis out all that
is not relevant to arrive at a tractable but approximate model which contains
all the essentials of his present vision of the phenomenon. One can obtain a
xvi Introduction

satisfactory approximate model by either gradually simplifying a


comprehensive model or by progressively complicating a simple model. The
close relationship between simplification and approximation is thus evident.
The approach of complicating a simple model, only to the extent necessary,
almost always leads to the most clear results. Through the solution of a
simplified model, the features of the phenomenon are more readily apparent.
The simpler the model yielding reasonable results, the easier, more elegant and
beautiful the explanation of the phenomenon.

This thought provided motivation for the procedure taken during the
development of the model developed herein.
Indeed, the initial approach followed during the development of the
model presented was the upgrading of an existing model. That model was
ASET. ASET is perhaps the most basic mathematical compartment fire
model available today that accounts for time-varying conditions. However,
the model developed here is not simply a modification of ASET, but a
completely new model. Initial motivation for the simplicity and structure
of the model was so that it could be used as a tool in the investigation and
reconstruction of fires. With this in mind the model developed herein was
titled FIRM, an acronym for Fire Investigation and Reconstruction Model.
As with ASET, the model is certainly not limited to those uses suggested
by its name. The ASET model did have an important role in the
development of FIRM. As such, Chapter 3 will address the ASET model
with primary emphasis on the development of the governing mathematical
equations.
The more complex models mentioned above also influenced the
development of FIRM. It is beyond the scope of this book to present these
models. However, the physical concepts that are at the basis of these
complex models will be reviewed in Chapter 2. This will provide the
reader with a good introduction to the discussion of the ASET and FIRM
models in subsequent chapters. The numerous references listed should be
consulted for a more complete discussion of the individual models and fire
modeling in general. A comprehensive list of fire models, with a concise
summary of and references to each model, can be found in the survey by
Friedman 151.
CHAPTER 1
Basic Compartment Fire Theory

INTRODUCTION
I.l

The ability to adequately model the conditions within an enclosure


resulting from a hostile fire requires an understanding of basic enclosure
fire theory. A knowledge of the various modeling techniques is also a
prerequisite. These topics will be covered in this chapter.
To present a qualitative introduction to basic compartment f i e theory,
consider an enclosure, such as a room, containing an object that has just
been ignited. After ignition, the fire may self-extinguish or it may grow
and become a great threat to life and property.
Assuming the fire does not extinguish, it will grow as long as there is
adequate fuel and oxygen and enough energy received at the fuel surface
to release further flammable volatiles. Associated with the process of
combustion is the presence of a flame and plume. As the fire progresses,
air is entrained into the rising plume where it mixes with the fuel vapors
released. The mixing of the oxygen, supplied ftom the entrained air, with
the flammable vapors emitted by the pyrolizing fuel results in combustion
that liberates heat. A large fiaction of this energy is absorbed by the gases
within the combustion zone resulting in an increase in the temperature of
these gases and airborne solid particulates. As the fire gases rise due to
buoyancy, they continue to entrain air. This lateral entrainment of air,
above that needed for combustion, results in the increase of the plume
mass flow while the plume gas temperature decreases with respect to the
height above the burning fuel surface. Thus the plume is composed of
mass and energy contributed by combustion and the entrained air. Figure
1- 1 depicts the primary processes associated with a burning object.
The plume gases will continue to rise vertically until they are impeded
by a horizontal surface, which is usually the ceiling of the enclosure. At
this time, the gases are forced to flow in a predominantly horizontal
1
2 BASIC COMPARTMENT FIRE THEORY

I l FUEL I
1 Conduction heat transfer through the fuel
2 Radiative heat losses f r o m the fuel surface
3 Convection a n d radiation from the flame
4 Flow of combustible fuel volatiles
5 Entrained a i r flow
6 Plume mass flow

FIGURE 1-1. Primary processes associated with a burning object

direction that results in what is commonly referred to as a ceiling jet. Since


the flow under the ceiling is turbulent, the flow is not strictly horizontal
due to the vortices present. As time goes on, the products of combustion
transported by the plume collect below the ceiling and form a hot smoky
layer. The bottom of this hot layer may continue to descend as long as the
fire progresses. The hot layer, made up of the products of combustion and
entrained air, poses a severe threat to life due to irritation effects, toxic
poisoning, and thermal burns. In addition to the human tissue damage, the
thermal radiation emitted by the hot layer can result in flashover of the
Introduction 3

enclosure. Just prior to and afker flashover, the thermal radiation fkom the
hot layer can also have a pronounced effect on the burning rate because the
increased heat flux incident on the fuel surface will increase the pyrolysis
rate and thus the burning and heat release rates. The concepts and
importance of flashover and the effects of hot-layer radiation to fuel
surfaces will be discussed in greater detail in Section 4.5.
Not all of the heat energy released by the fire remains within the
enclosure. At any given time, a portion of the energy released by the f r e
is radiated away from the combustion region and rising plume. A major
hction of this energy is received by the interior surfaces and is conducted
away fiom the interior of the enclosure through the bounding surfaces of
the enclosure 161.
The energy not radiated away fiom the combustion region and plume
is convected up through the plume into the forming hot layer. A fraction
of this energy is lost fiom the hot layer to the bounding surfaces through
convection and radiation. Once again, the energy imparted to the walls is
conducted througb the walls from the hot interior surface towards the cool
rear surface. The energy transferred to the bounding walls also results in
the elevation of the temperature of the walls. The energy remaining in the
hot layer is directly responsible for the increase in gas temperature of the
smoky hot layer. As will be shown, the energy and mass of the hot layer
are the unknowns that must be found in order to calculate the size and
temperature of the hot layer within the enclosure.
The other major source of energy loss from the hot layer is due to
hot-layer venting. Hot-layer venting also accounts for mass loss from the
hot layer. As a hot layer forms, it will descend. If a vent is present within
an enclosure, the hot layer may eventually drop below the top (or soffit) of
the vent. At this time, hot gas will flow out of the compartment due to the
pressure differential created by the temperature differences of the interior
and exterior (ambient) gases. Associated with this hot gas flow is the loss
of mass and energy that is important in the calculation of the hot-layer size
and temperature.
The inflow of relatively cool, ambient-temperature air, through the
lower portion of an opening (vent) in the enclosure boundaries, is partially
responsible for providing the owgen required for combustion within the
fire compartment. It is assumed that the ambient air supply is
uncontaminated, at a constant temperature, and that the supply available
is sufficient to provide the necessary volume needed throughout the course
of the fire. If insufficient amounts of air enter the compartment, the fire
4 BASIC COMPARTMENT FIRE THEORY

may become oxygen starved. This condition results in reduced heat release
rates and an increase in the products of incomplete combustion. Therefore,
it is quite important to consider the flow of air into an enclosure and the
oxygen needed for complete combustion. Figures 1-2(a)- (d) depict the
typical stages of a developing compartment fire with respect to
compartment venting. A more detailed explanation and discussion of the
various venting regimes is presented in Section 2.6.2.2. Oxygen starvation
is discussed in Section 4.2.

1.2 APPROACHES TO MATHEMATICAL FlRE MODELING

Fire modeling can be accomplished through the use of experimental or


mathematical techniques.
Experimentalmethods include such methods as reduced and fUII-scale
replicas of the situation or phenomenon being studied. Experimental
methods need not actually use a f r e or other form of heat source for a
particular study. For example, Steckler et al. [7] used saltwater modeling
to study vent flows with much success; Prahl and Emmons [g] used
reduced-scale kerosene/water analog experiments for the same purpose.
Mathematical methods are commonly divided into two groups:
stochastic and deterrninistic models [9].

1.2.1 Stochastic Models

Stochastic models, also referred to as probabilistic models, treat fire


growth as a sequence of events or steps. These events have a given
probability of occurring, hence the term probabilistic model. The events,
coupled with their probabilities, are used to predict the progress of a fire
within a compartment or building. Since these models are based on a
probabilistic approach to the fire problem, they typically fail to make use
of the known physical and chemical equations that can mathematically
describe the progress of fire development. One example of a stochastic or
probabilistic model is the Building Fire Safety Model developed by
Fitzgerald [l01; another is the Building Fire Simulation Model (BFSM)
maintained by the National Fire Protection Association [l l].
(W
FIGURE 1-2. Stages of the hot-layer formation in an enclosure fire
(4
FIGURE 1-2 (continued). Stages of the hot-layer formation in an enclosure fire
Approaches to Mathematical Fire Modeling 7

L2.2 Deterministic Models

Deterministic models predict fire development based on the solution


of mathematical equations that describe the physical and chemical behavior
of fire. The probability of an event occurring is not an integral part of the
approach. Most of the compartment f i e models available today are
deterministic. There are two are types of deterministic compartment fire
models: field models and zone models.

1.2.2.1 Field Models

Field models, as applied to compartment fire modeling, are those


models that are based on an approach that divides an enclosure into a large
number of elemental volumes. The model then solves the hdamental
equations governing the transfer of mass, momentum, and energy between
these small volumes to predict the progress of a fue within the enclosure.
Field models are also referred to as Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
models, because they are extensions of computer codes that were originally
developed to solve complex fluid flow problems. This type of modeling
can be considered as a micro approach to the fue modeling problem.
Field models are currently not considered for widespread use. This is
primarily due to the extensive computer requirements that are not available
to most computer users. Also, a more detailed understanding of the
fundamental physical phenomena, such as turbulence, combustion kinetics
arid chemistry, etc. are needed. As affordable personal computing power
continues to increase, it is expected that field modeling will gradually
become the preferred approach to simulate compartment fires. However,
this will take some time, and zone models (see Section 1.2.2.2)will remain
popular in the fire science and fire protection engineering community for
many years to come.
A detailed discussion of field modeling is beyond the scope of this
book. Reference [l21 provides an excellent introduction to field modeling.

1.2.2.2 Zone Models

Zone models are the most common type of physical compartment fire
models in use today. Zone models predict fxe development within an
8 BASIC COMPARTMENT FIRETHEORY

enclosure by solving the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy


equations for a small number of zones (control volumes). Typically, the
enclosure is divided into two distinct zones: an upper hot gas layer and a
lower uncontaminated cold gas layer. This technique can be considered as
a macro approach to the fire-modeling problem.
Zone models have been widely accepted and applied due to their
relatively simplified approach to the modeling problem, especially when
compared to the overwhelming requirements of field models. When
properly applied, zone models have proven to be a source of good
engineering approximations of fire development within enclosures. Indeed,
Emmons [l31 has stated, " ... the zone model provides all the accuracy
required for engineering decision making."
The Harvard Code, FIRST, CFAST, and ASET as well as most of the
other compartment fire models available today are zone models. The model
developed and presented in this book is also a zone fire model.

1.3 COMPUTER LANGUAGES USED FOR FlRE MODELING

Historically, mathematical f ~ modelers


e have written their programs
in FORTRAN. This was primarily due to FORTRAN being a widely
applied engineering language for computer programming. However, when
W. D. Walton of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology
(formerly the National Bureau of Standards) released ASET-B in 1985, he
opted to write the program in GW-BASIC. According to Walton [3], this
decision was due to personal computers becoming commonplace in
engineering offices, and GW-BASIC being "by far the most popular
programming language." In addition, ASET-B being written in
GW-BASIC would allow the program to be widely distributed and easily
modified by its users. For the same reasons, the models presented in the
first edition of this book were also written in GW-BASIC.
One of the mainproblems with GW-BASIC is that it lacks the tools for
developing well-structured programs. This problem has now been
eliminated with new-generation BASIC interpreters, such as QBasic,
which is shipped with the more recent versions of MS-DOS (5.0 and up)
and Windows 95. Perhaps the most significant changes in this book fiom
the first edition are the revised computer programs. The source code is
provided in QBasic, which allows virtually anybody with access to an
IBM-compatible PC to run the software with the QBasic interpreter. The
Computer Languages Usedfor Fire Modeling 9

source code is provided for every program, to allow the user to customize
the software to suit his specific needs. Stand-alone executables are also
provided for the programs described in this book.
More recent versions of BASIC, such as Visual Basic, would have
made it easier to include efficient and attractive user interfaces. To
illustrate this point, the programs are also provided in Visual Basic. This
version of the software is discussed in Appendix E.
Thus, the user can examine, customize, and use the models that are
developed in this book without any additional investment by using the
QBasic programs. Alternatively, he can purchase a Visual Basic compiler,
and use the Visual Basic code to develop a customized compartment fire
simulator with a professional user interface.
CHAPTER 2
Introduction to Mathematical
Compartment Fire Modeling

A qualitative description of the events that occur within an enclosure


subject to a hostile fue was presented in Chapter 1. In this chapter, an
introduction to the quantitative aspects of mathematical compartment fire
modeling will be presented. The approach that will be applied is that of
zone modeling of the fire development within an enclosure. To understand
the material that will be presented in this and some subsequent chapters,
it is assumed that the reader has a basic knowledge of fluid mechanics,
thermodynamics, heat transfer, combustion, and numerical methods. A
brief review of the pertinent fkdamentals of engineering is provided in
Appendix B.

2.1 THE FIRE COMPARTMENT

The problem to be studied is that of the time-varying conditions


produced by a fue within an enclosure. For a general solution, it will be
assumed that the compartment is a room that is basically rectangular in
shape with equal and parallel floor and ceiling areas. For simplicity, it will
be assumed that the room has a single vent that may or may not be open at
any given time. A vent may be a door, window, leak, or other opening in
a vertical boundary of the enclosure. It will also be assumed that there are
no horizontal vents, i.e., no openings in the floor or ceiling. Also,
throughout this book, the definition of terms such as compartment,
enclosure, room, or other similar words are considered to be consistent
unless otherwise noted.
12 INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL COMPARTMENT FIRE MODELING

2.2THE FlRE FLAME AND PLUME

In a basic sense, a fxe is simply an object that releases heat into an


enclosure. A small amount of mass in the form of fuel vapors is also
released. The fuel vapors mix with the smounding air and react with the
oxygen, releasing heat and forming products of combustion. The
combustion reactions take place in a luminous gas volume that is referred
to as the flame. The heat generated in the flame is released partly in the
form of radiation, and partly by convection. The hot products of
combustion rise fiom the flame, and form a thermal plume. Additional
surrounding air is entrained in the plume, resulting in increasing plume
mass flow and decreasing temperature as a function of height.
Some zone models, e.g., FRST [l], approximate the flame as a grey
gas volume of a particular shape, usually a cone or cylinder, with a
uniform temperature. The radiation fkom the flame is calculated on the
basis of simple engineering equations for emission of radiant heat fiom hot
gas mixtures. The volume of the plume is lumped into that of the upper hot
gas layer. Other models, such as CFAST [2], assume that the fire is a point
source of mass and energy, and that flame and plume volumes can be
neglected. In this case, the radiation fiom the flame is estimated as a
constant fi-action, L, of the total heat release rate. The convective heat
released by the fire, which is determined as the remaining fkaction of the
total heat release rate, is directly injected into the upper layer.

2.3THE HOT AND COLD GAS LAYERS

The rising plume gases collect below the ceiling and form a hot smoky
layer. This layer may continue to grow while the f ~ exists. e The space
between the floor and the hot layer consists of cool uncontaminated air.
Numerous pre-flashover full-scale room f i e tests have shown that the
interface between both layers is relatively sharp, while the composition and
temperature of the layers are reasonably uniform. Consistent with these
experimental observations, zone models are based on the assumption that
the room gas volume comprises two distinct and uniform layers or zones:
a lower layer of cold air and an upper layer of hot gases. The resulting
idealized geometry of the gas volume inside the compartment is shown in
Figure 2- 1.
Heat Release Rate of the Fire

FIGURE 2a1. Thermodynamic properties of upper and lower layer

In a thermodynamic sense, the gas layers inside the dashed lines in


Figure 2-1 are neither "syktems" (because mass flows across the
boundaries), nor "control volumes" (because some boundaries change with
time). Strictly speaking they should be referred to as "open systems." The
term "control volume" is most often used in practice. The state of each
layer is uniquely defined by the values of the thermodynamic properties
listed in Figure 2-1.

2.4 HEAT RELEASE RATE OF THE FIRE

Some zone fae models have the capability to predict heat release and
mass loss rate fi-om the fire as a function of calculated conditions within
the enclosure. However, this capability is available only for a few simple
fuel geometries. For example, FIRST has a growing fire subroutine that
predicts the size and heat release rate of a horizontal fuel slab such as a
mattress [l]. FIRST also includes a subroutine to model flammable liquid
pool fres.
In general, the heat release and mass loss history must be supplied by
the model user. It is a common misconception that zone models predict fire
growth, while, apart from the few exceptions cited above, they only
14 INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL COMPARTMENT FIRE MODELING

determine the effects of a fire that is specified by the user. There are
several methods and many data sources that can be used to estimate heat
release and mass loss rates from burning objects. This topic is addressed
in more detail in Section 4.4.

2.5 HEAT TRANSFER IN ENCLOSURE FIRES

The radiation from the flame is transferred to the floor, wall, and
ceiling surfaces, and is partly absorbed by the upper hot layer gases. In
addition, the bounding surfaces of the enclosure exchange heat internally
by radiation, and with the gas layers by radiation and convection. At each
surface, there is a balance between the total radiative and convective heat
flux that is received, and the heat flux that is transferred by conduction into
the solid. It is clear, therefore, that it is not trivial to calculate the heat
losses or gains of the gas layers. An enclosure-wide heat balance is needed
that includes the three modes of heat transfer. An engineering approach
will be used in Section 2.6.3.1 to arrive at an approximate, but reasonably
accurate solution.

2.6 A GENERIC COMPARTMENT ZONE FIRE MODEL

Zone models predict how the state of the upper and lower gas layers
change with time by solving the conservation equations of mass and energy
with the appropriate boundary conditions. To illustrate the technique of
zone fire modeling, a generic set of equations will be developed, and a
procedure for solving the equations will be presented below. However,
since there are eight properties (four for each layer), and only four
conservation equations, four additional equations are needed. These
additional equations are derived first.

2.6.1 Primary and Secondary Variables

The consemation equations that will be developed must be expressed


in twms of four of the eight properties that are listed in Figure 2-1: two
describing the lower layer and two describing the upper layer. There are
thirty-six possible choices, but some combinations are better than others.
A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 15

A good choice will result in a concise set of conservation equations, in a


form that makes it possible to easily obtain a numerical solution, avoiding
instabilities or other mathematical problems. The four properties that will
be selected are referred to as the primary variables. The remaining
properties are defined as secondary variables. To facilitate the selection
process, four additional equations that relate some of the properties will be
developed fust.
Because the total volume of the enclosure is fixed, the following
relationship exists between the volumes of upper and lower layer:

V, + V'= V = WLH
where

V, = volume of the upper layer (m3)


V, = volume of the lower layer (m3)
V = total volume of the enclosure (m3)
W = width of the enclosure (m)
L = length of the enclosure (m)
H = height of the enclosure (m)

The static pressure difference between floor and ceiling level is equal
to the hydrostatic pressure at the bottom of an air column of room height.
At ambient temperature this is approximately 12 Pa per meter of room
height, or 35 Pa for a typical room height of 3 m. Because atmospheric
pressure is close to 100,000 Pa, the pressure difference between the two
layers can be neglected and

where

P,, = average pressure in the upper layer (Pa)


P, = average pressure in the lower layer (Pa)
P = characteristic room pressure, for example at floor level (Pa)

A pressure difference of a few Pa is sufficient to cause significant air


movement. Therefore, hydrostatic pressure differences will have to be
considered when calculating gas flows through openings (see Section
2.6.2.2).
The question remains whether P is approximately equal to atmospheric
pressure, or whether there is a significant overall pressure rise in the
enclosure due to the f ~ eThe
. following section is based on an important
paper by Zukoski [14], that addressed this topic.
When heat is added to a gas (air and smoke for the present problem)
that is constrained to a specific fuced volume, the pressure must increase
in response to the temperature increase of the gas. However, if some of the
gas is allowed to escape fiom its enclosure, the pressure rise may be
negligible. To gain an appreciation for the pressures that can develop in a
sealed room, consider the following equation presented by Zukoski:

where

P = pressure created by the fire (Pa)


P, = ambient pressure (Pa)
Q = heat added to the gas by the fire (kW)
t = time (S)
p, = density of air (kg/m3)
c, = constant volume specific heat of air (W/kg=K)
T, = ambient temperature (K)

This analysis assumes that the process is adiabatic, the specific heat is
constant, the gas behaves like an ideal gas, hydrostatic pressures are
negligible, and the heat addition rate Q is constant.
Zukoski presented an example using Equation (2.3) in his paper. The
same example is repeated here. Consider a small fire that steadily releases
100 kW in a room that has a total volume of 28.5 m3. In ten seconds
(t = 10), the pressure would rise approximately 0.07 bar (1 psi). This
pressure increase would be sufficient to cause the breaking of a window
that would effectively vent enough gas to prevent any W e r rise, thus
limiting the pressure rise to a negligible amount. Other building
construction materials would also fail at such pressure increases (see
Reference [15], page 3-327). Table 2-1 lists damages to structures exposed
to various overpressures.
A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 17

Table 2-1. Damages to Construction Assemblies due to Overpressures


Damage Overpressure (bar)
Shattering glass windows 0.03 to 0.07
Buckling or connection failure of steel or aluminurn 0.07 to 0.13
paneling
Shearing and flexwe failure of 400-600 mm thick 0.13 to 0.20
nonreinforced cinder block walls
For Wood Frame Dwellings:
Minor Damage: similar to that caused by high wind 0.07
Slight Damage: doors, sashes, or frames removed; 0.13
plaster or wallboard broken; shingles or siding off
Moderate Damage: walls bulged; roof cracked;
studs or rafters broken
Severe Damage: standing but substantially
destroyed; some walls gone
Demolished, not standing 1.00
Collapse of self-framing steel panel building 0.20 to 0.27
Reprinted from the Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering [l 51 with permission
1 bar = 14.5 psi

Rooms typically have at least one door, especially in normal


occupancies. Other openings such as windows, heat and ventilating
registers connected to ducts, and other penetrations are also commonly
present that would allow for added leakage paths. Klote and Fothergill [l 61
published some leakage areas for walls and floors in typical commercial
buildings. Values for various occupancies, including residential
occupancies, are also available [17,18]. Thus, leakage paths are commonly
present in most normally constructed occupancies. Based on the data
provided by the Zukoski example, it is apparent that pressure increases
capable of causing structural damage can be generated by even small fires.
However, the early pressure rises are likely to cause structural damages that
would prevent any continued pressure increase within the enclosure. The
leakage paths that are normally found in most buildings would also allow
for the venting of gas from the enclosure, thus resulting in negligible
pressure rises.
This brief analysis of the pressures developed by a fire in an enclosure,
and the leakage normally associated with most buildings, suggests that a
near-atmospheric pressure approximation is reasonable. This condition
allows the use of Equation (2.2) in the development of the generic model.
Since mixing between the layers is usually minimal and can be
ignored, the lower layer consists of clean cool air. The pressure at floor
level is near ambient. Atmospheric air contains small amounts of carbon
dioxide and water vapor, but the radiation absorbed by these gases is
negligible. The temperature of the air rises slightly due to convective heat
transfer with the floor and lower wall sections, which are heated by
radiation from the flame, upper layer, upper wall sections, and ceiling.
Under such conditions of pressure and temperature, the lower layer air
behaves as an ideal gas for which the following equation of state is valid:

where

m, = mass accumulated in the lower layer (kg)


R, = gas constant for the mixture in the lower layer (Jkg-K)
T, = temperature of the lower layer (K)

For practical purposes, moisture may be ignored and the lower layer air
considered dry.
Based on the discussion above, pressure at ceiling level may also be
considered equal to atmospheric pressure. The upper layer temperature
seldom exceeds 1500 K. Therefore, the upper layer also behaves as an ideal
gas so that

where

m, = mass accumulated in the upper layer (kg)


R, = gas constant for the mixture in the upper layer (JkgK)
T, = temperature of the upper layer (K)

The main constituents of the upper layer are N,, 4,H20, CO2, and CO.
Under some conditions appreciable amounts of other species such as HC1,
A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 19

HCN, and unburnt hydrocarbons may also be present. The ideal gas
constant for the upper layer can be expressed as

all species

where

Y,, = upper layer mass fi-actionof species i (kgkg)


ki= gas constant of species i (J/kg*K)
Note that as the composition of the upper layer varies with time, the
value of 4 changes also. To determine Y,, it is necessary to solve
additional mass conservation equations for the species that need to be
tracked. To avoid this, the following approximation is often made [l91. Air
entrained into the flame, up to the tip of the flame, is typically 10-20 times
that required for complete combustion. Since the plume above the flame
continues to entrain more air, it is clear that the plume is composed mostly
of entrained air. (T~Isis particularly true forfree-burn fires, but is perhaps
questionable for oxygen-limited fires.) Therefore, it can generally be
assumed that the smoke produced by fies behaves like heated air.
The conservation equations of mass and energy for the two layers will
be developed in the next section. Equations (2. l), (2.2), (2.41, and (2.5)
will be used to eliminate the secondary variables, and to express the
equations in terms of the primary variables.
The topic of selecting primary variables for zone model equations, and
the consequences of choosing the wrong set are discussed in detail in
Reference [20]. According to the guidelines in this reference, a suitable set
of primary variables consists of T, and P, = P for the lower layer, and T,
and V, for the upper layer. However, instead of the volume of the upper
layer, the height of the interface between the two layers, Zi, will be used
because it has direct relevance to fire hazard assessment. The two variables
are related by

where

Z = height of the layer interface above the floor (m)


20 INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL COMPARTMENT FIRE MODELING

Furthermore, the pressure difference at the height of the layer interface,


AP(Zi), and the height of the neutral plane, Z,, will be used instead of the
pressure at floor level, P,. The neutral plane is located at a height where
there is zero pressure difference between the enclosure and the
environment, and, consequently, no flow through the vent. Provided the
neutral plane is located between the sill and soffit of the vent, hot smoke
is flowing to the outside above the plane and fiesh air is flowing into the
compartment below the plane. A relationship between AP(ZJ, Z, and P, is
given in Section 2.6.2.2.

2.6.2 Conservation of Mass

Conservation of mass of a layer can be expressed in general terms as

{rate of change of mass = { massflow in } - { massflow out } (2.8)


accumulated in layer

The terms on the right hand side of Equation (2.8) account for all flows
that add mass to or remove mass from the layer. They consist of the mass
loss rate of the fuel and rate of entrainment into the flame and plume (see
Figure 1-l), and mass flows through the vent (see Figures 1-2(a)- (d)).
The mass loss rate of the fuel, riz, is small compared to the other mass
flow terms and is often neglected. For the purpose of developing a generic
zone model, it is assumed that m, is specified. The remaining terms on the
right hand side of Equation (2.8) can be written as an algebraic function
of the primary variables. These functional relationships will be developed
fmt, before casting Equation (2.8) into mathematical form and applying
it to the two gas layers.

2.6.2.1 Entrainment Rate

Air is entrained from the lower layer into the flre flame and plume over
a height between the fuel surface and the hot layer interface. This provides
a mechanism for transfer of mass from the lower layer to the upper layer.
Hence, the mass conservation equations for upper and lower layer include
an entrainment term that is of the same magnitude, but opposite in sign.
A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 21

Numerous empirical correlationshave been developed to predict plume


mass flow. These correlations have the following general form

where

mp = plume mass flow (kg/s)


A2 = height above the source (m)
Q = heat release rate of the fire (kW)
D = characteristic fuel dimension (m)

For circular pool fires, D is the diameter of the fuel pan. For fres with a
rectangular or square surface, D is usually the equivalent diameter, i.e., the
diameter of a circle with the same area as the fuel surface.
A commonly used plume model of the form of Equation (2.9) is the
following correlation developed by Zukoski, Kubota, and Cetegen in 1980
12l]:

where

K = a constant (kglk~"~-rn~'~*s)
L, = radiative loss fraction
The fuel mass flow rate has usually been ignored in the derivation of
plume correlations. Therefore, Equation (2.9) can also be used to predict
the entrainment rate over a particular height above the fuel surface (see
Figure 2-2). Hence, the flow of lower layer air into the flame and plume
can be expressed as follows
22 INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL COMPARTMENT FIRE MODELING

FIGURE 2-2. Plume entrainment below upper layer

where

m, = air mass flow entrained in the flame and plume (kgls)


AZi = distance between the fuel surface and the layer interface (m)

Equation (2.11) takes the following form, based on the plume model of
Zukoski et al.

Equation (2.12) was used by Cooper in the development of ASET with


K = 0.076. Other values of K can be found in Reference [19]. Breaking out
the value of K allows the user some alternatives that were not readily
available in the original ASET work. The energy used in the plume
equations is the convective portion of the total heat release rate of the fie,
not the total heat release rate. Therefore, the radiative losses must be
accounted for before utilizing the plume equations, thus the presence of the
(1 - L$" term in Equation (2.12). The l/3 power is required because
Equation (2.12) is written with t)raised to the 1/3 power.
The model of Zukoski et al. was based on previous work reported by
Morton, Turner, and Taylor [22] combined with data reported by Yokoi
[23]. The following assumptions were made in these plume models:
A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 23

The fire is considered to be a point source of heat, i.e., the burning fuel
is considered to release its heat fiom a point and not fiom an area.
Variations of density in the flow are considered small when compared
to the ambient density.
Air entrainment into the plume is considered to be proportional to the
velocity of the plume at each location.
The profiles of the vertical velocity and buoyancy force in horizontal
sections are similar at all heights.

Plume correlations are generally based on the assumption of a point


source fire. However, unlike the model developed by Zukoski et al., most
of the point source correlations indirectly account for the fact that the
actual frre size is f ~ t (rather
e than infinitesimal). This is accomplished by
locating the point source at a distance below or above the actual fuel
surface, so that entrainment characteristics for the point source plume are
in agreement with those of real plumes. This approach is commonly
referred to as the "virtual origin correction." Various expressions for
calculating the virtual origin location, MO, are available in the literature.
The height of the virtual origin, rather than the height of the actual he1
surface, serves as the reference for A.2in Equations (2.9) and (2.1O), and
AZi in Equations (2.11) and (2.12) (see Figure 2-3).
A fi-equently used expression for the virtual origin is reported by
Heskestad in the SFPE Handbook (see Chapter 2-2 in Reference [15]):

where

AZ, = distance between the fuel surface and the virtual origin (m)

Negative values for calculated virtual origin corrections correspond to


locations above the actual fuel surface and are associated with low heat
release fies and./or large surface areas. Positive values correspond to
locations below the actual fuel surface and are typically associated with
high heat release frres.
FIGURE 2-3. Virtual origin correction

2.6.2.2 Mass Flows through ihe Vent

Gas velocities inside the compartment averaged over a short time


interval are negligible. At the vent, however, the horizontal component of
the average velocities can be sigmficant. The gas flow into and out of the
compartment are driven by hydrostatic pressure differences, which vary
with height in a piecewise linear fashion. In a similar way as for the flow
through an orifice, velocity v at height Z follows from Bernouilli's equation
(see Section B. 1.3.4):

where

v(2) = velocity at height Z (&S)


Z = height above floor level (m)
A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 25

C = orifice coefficient
PO&) = static pressure outside the compartment at height Z (Pa)
P,(Z) = static pressure inside the compartment at height Z (Pa)
p,@ = gas density in the vent at height Z (kg/m3)

A reasonable estimate for the orifice coefficient C is 0.68, as found by


Prahl and Emmom in salt water model experiments [g]. According to the
sign convention introduced in Equation (2.M),velocities are positive when
directed into the compartment.
Immediately after ignition, combustion products start to accumulate
beneath the ceiling. As the smoke layer descends, cold lower layer air is
pushed out. This ccpiston"effect is illustrated in Figure 2-4a. The static
pressure inside the compartment is higher than that outside the
compartment over the full height of the vent (G < Z < &). The neutral
plane, where P, = Pout,is located far below the sill of the vent.
At some time the upper hot layer descends to the soffit of the vent.
However, the upper layer still expands faster than the entrainment rate of
air into the fire. As shown in Figure 2-4(b), the total flow exiting the
compartment consists of lower layer air that is pushed out at the bottom of
the vent due to the piston effect, and upper layer gas that spills under the
sofit. Hydrostatic pressure inside the compartment still exceeds that
outside the compartment over the full height of the vent, and the neutral
plane remains below the sill of the vent.

FIGURE 2-4a. Piston flow (2,S Z,and Zi 2 2,)


26 INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL COMPARTMENT FIRE MODELING

Subsequently, the neutral plane rises above the sill and ambient air
starts to flow into the compartment at the bottom of the vent. The neutral
plane height continues to increase, and quickly exceeds the height of the
interface between the gas layers (see Figure 2-4c). The resulting flow
conditions prevail for almost the entire pre-flashover fire period, since the
duration of the preceding piston flow regime is typically less than one
minute.

FIGURE 2-4b. Piston flow (2, I Z,and Z,< & < ZJ

FIGURE 2-4c. Main pre-flashover fire flow regime


A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 27

If flashover conditions are reached, the inflow of air may no longer be


controlled by the entrainment rate, but by the size of the vent. This
"choking" effect or ventilation controued regime was first identified in
1958 by Kawagoe. For this regime, Kawagoe found that air flow is
proportional to A@?, where A, and H, are area (in m') and height (in m)
of the vent, respectively [24]. Eventually, when the fire dies down, a
reverse piston regime develops.
Equations to predict vent flows for the different regimes will now be
developed. Vent flows are calculated by integration of velocities over the
appropriate height. Integration intervals and the resulting equations are
different depending on the location of the neutral plane. Furthermore, T, is
initially equal to Ta.Some models, such as ASET, neglect the convective
heat transfer between the lower layer and the floor and lower wall sections,
so that T, is equal to Ta by default. This condition has to be considered
separately to avoid problems in the numerical calculation of lower layer
vent flows.
In the derivation of the vent flow equations, use is made of the
following relationship for dry air:

where

p(T) = density of dry air at temperature T (kg/m3)


pRf = density of dry air at temperature T, (kg/m3)
T, = reference temperature (K)
T = temperature (K)

It is assumed that the composition of the upper layer is close enough to that
of dry air, so that Equation (2.15) is applicable to both layers.

2, _c 2,and Zir 2, Typical pressure profiles for this case are shown in
Figures 2-5(a) (T, = TJ and 2-5(b) (T, > TJ. Pressure difference as a

-
function of height is given by

T, = Ta:A P (2) P
X
, 2 )- Pin(2) = constant and 2,- -m (2.16a)
28 INTRODUCTIONTO MATHEMATICALCOMPARTMENT FIRE MODELING

or

where

AP(2) = static pressure difference


g = acceleration of gravity ( ~ 9 .18m/sZ)

Consequently, vent flows are calculated fiom

FIGURE 2-5. Piston flow pressure profiles (2, I Z,, and Zi 2 2,)
A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 29

and

ni,=m,=O (2.17b)

where

m, = vent flow of lower layer gas leaving the compartment (kg/s)


W, = width of the vent (m)
p, = density of lower layer gas (kg/m3)
nia = vent flow of ambient air entering the compartment (kg/s)
m, = vent flow of upper layer gas leaving the compartment (kg/s)

, 2'' Z, 4.
2, S-2and Typical pressure profies for this case are shown
in Figures 2-6(a) (T, = Td and 2-6(b) (T, TJ. The pressure difference
below the interface (Z i ZJ can be calculated fiom Equation (2.16a)
(T,= Th or Equation (2.16b) (T, > T,). Between the interface and the soffit
of the vent, the pressure difference is given by

FIGURE 2-6. Piston flow pressure profiles (2, S Z, and Z,, < Z < ZJ
30 INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL COMPARTMENT FIRE MODELING

Vent flows are calculated fiom

z,
~ , = W v l p , ~ ( Z ) d Z ~ 2 6 . 6 W v ~ C ~ ~ d Z
(2.19a)
Zb Zb

and

The mass flow of ambient air into the compartment is still zero (ma = 0).

Zb c 2, S Ziand Zb < Zi< 2, Typical pressure profiles for this case are
shown in Figures 2-7(a) (T, = TA and 2-7(b) (T, TJ. The pressure
difference equations are the same as for the previous case, i.e., Equation
(2.16a) (T,= TJ or Equation (2.16b) (T,> TJ below the interface (Z S 23,
and Equation (2.18) above the interface. Note that the constant in Equation
(2.16a) in this case is equal to zero, and that 2, is equal to Zi. Equation
(2.19b) is still applicable for the upper layer flow, m,. However, ambient
air flows into the compartment below the neutral plane, and lower layer
gases leave the compartment between Z, and 3. The equations for ni, and
m, are given below. Equation (2.19b) is still valid for calculating the upper
layer flow, ni,.

and
A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 31

FIGURE 2-7. Pressures during transition to main flow regime (2,< 2, < Zi)

Zi< 2, < Z, and 2,< Zi< 2, Typical pressure profdes are shown in
Figures 2-8(a) (T, = T h and 2-8(b) (T, > Td. The pressure difference is
given by

and

Vent flows are calculated from

2,

1
f i a = W,, pJv(Z)ldZ=26.6Wy C
zb 7 \iar::z)..
zb
32 INTRODUCTlON TO MATHEMATICAL COMPARTMENT FIRE MODELING

FIGURE 2-8. Pressure profiles during main flow regime (Zi IZ, ZJ

and

The flow of lower layer gases leaving the compartment is zero, m, = 0.

2.6.2.3 Mnss Consetvation Equations

Mass flows are shown in Figure 2-9. The conservation equation of


mass for the lower layer is

Furthermore, to relate density to temperature for the lower and upper layer
gases, the equation of state for dry air, Equation (2.15) is used.
Consequently, the mass of the lower layer can be expressed as
A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model

FIGURE 2-9. Mass flows

Substitution of Equation (2.24) in Equation (2.23) leads to

It is shown below that the temperature derivative on the right hand side of
Equation (2.25) is a function of the primary variables. Hence, since m,, ni,
(see Section 2.6.2.2), and m, (see Section 2.6.2.1) are also functions of the
primary variables, the lower layer mass conservation equation is of the
following form

Conservation of mass for the upper layer is expressed by


34 INTRODUCTIONTO MATHEMATICALCOMPARTMENT FIRE MODELING

where

m, = mass loss rate of the fuel @/S)

Equation (2.27) can be transformed in an analogous way to

Substitution of Equation (2.25) into Equation (2.28), to eliminate the time


derivative of Zi leads to

Hence, because the time derivative of pressure is neglected, upper layer


mass conservation leads to an algebraic rather than a differential equation.

2.6.2.4 Species Conservation Equations

Since layer mixing is ignored, composition of the lower layer is equal


to that of the incoming air. Composition of the upper layer is determined
from the solution of species conservation equations. Before deriving these
equations, the following simplifying assumptions are made:

1 The moisture content of the incoming and lower layer air is neglected.
(Typically, the moisture content of ambient air is of the order of 1% by
mass.) With this assumption, the air consists of oxygen (23.2% by
mass) and a balance of inert gases, primarily nitrogen.
2 Air is entrained below the interface into the flame and plume at a rate
that exceeds the rate needed for complete combustion of the fuel
volatiles. This condition is generally met in the early stages of a fie.
A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 35

It may not be valid if the distance between the fuel surface and the
interface is too small, i.e., because the fuel is located far above floor
level, or because the layer interface has descended too close to the fuel
surface. Underventilated fires that occur in these cases are discussed
in more detail in Section 4.2.
3 The flame can be modeled as a Simple Chemical& Reacting System
(SCRS), in which 1 kg fuel reacts with s kg dry air to form 1 + S kg
products of combustion (see Section B.4.1 S). The air to fuel ratio, S,
is usually larger than the stoichiometric ratio, S,,,,. If the composition
of the fuel volatiles vary during the course of the fire (as they do for
realistic fuels), s may not be constant.

If more lower layer air is entrained into the flame and plume than needed
for stoichiometric combustion, only a fi-action (S,,, h ) is used. The
remaining fraction of the entrained air (m, - S, liz,) is theoretically not
needed for combustion, and is referred to as excess air. The excess air is
not affected by the combustion reactions, and acts as a diluent of the
products of combustion. The stoichiometric air to fuel ratio, S,,,,, is
usually not known. However, the stoichiometric mass flow of air can be
determined fi-om the heat release rate on the basis of the oxygen
consumption principle. In 1917, Thomton showed that for a large number
of organic liquids and gases, a nearly constant amount of heat is released
by complete combustion per mass unit of oxygen consumed 1251. Huggett
found this to be also true for organic solids [26], and determined an
average value for this constant of Ah,,Jr,,, = 13,100 kT/kg of 0 , where
Ah,,, is the net heat of combustion and rdCh is the stoichiometric oxygen
to fuel ratio. This generic value may be used for most practical
applications, and is accurate, with very few exceptions, to within &5%.
Consequently, the stoichiometric air flow rate can be estimated fi-omthe
heat release rate via

sstozch
. mf =

where
36 INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL COMPARTMENT FIRE MODELING

sstoi, stoichiometric dry air to fuel ratio (kgkg)


=
Ah,, net heat of combustion of the fuel (kJ/kg)
=
r,, = stoichiometric oxygen to fuel ratio (kgkg)
Y , 0, = mass fiaction of oxygen in air (~0.232kg O2kg dry air)

If the stoichiometric ratio of species i generated per mass unit fuel


burnt is denoted as y , the mass fraction of the various species comprising
the plume flow entering the upper layer can be written as (see Figure 2-10):

where

Y, =mass fraction of species i in the plume at the interface (kgkg)


yi =stoichiomebic ratio of species i generated per mass unit fuel b m t
(Wkg)
Y,, = mass fiaction of species i in the lower layer (kgkg)
The generation rate of oxygen is equal to zero. The generation rate of
nitrogen is equal to sm, Y,., The generation rate of other species such as
CO,, H20,etc. are either specified on the basis of experimental data, or are
calculated fiom the stoichiometry of combustion if the elemental
composition of the fire1is known. The upper layer mass balance for species
i is given by

Subtracting Y, times the overall upper layer mass balance Equation (2.27),
after rearrangmg, leads to
A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 37

FIGURE 2-10. Species generation in the flame

As a minimum, Equation (2.33) must be solved at every time step to


determine the upper layer mass fraction of oxygen. As long as the flow of
air supplied to the combustion system greatly exceeds the rate for
stoichiometric combustion, the mass fractions of all other species are
proportional to the oxygen depletion of the upper layer, provided the
stoichiometry does not change with time.

2.6.3 Conservation of Energy

The remaining two primary variables, T, antiT,, are obtainec fiom the
solution of the lower and upper layer energy conservation equations.
Conservation of energy of a layer can be expressed in general terms as

= { enthalpyfrow in }
- { enthalpyflow out }
+ { heat transferred to the layer )
- { work done by the layer ) (2.34)
38 INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL COMPARTMENT FIRE MODELING

This is the first law of thermodynamics (see Section B.2.2.6), applied to


a layer. Before these conservation equations can be developed and solved,
it is necessary to determine the net heat gained or lost by each layer. As
explained in Section 2.5, this can only be done on the basis of a
compartment-wide heat transfer analysis, which forms the subject of the
first sub-section below. The energy conservation equations are derived in
the next sub-section.

2.6.3.1 Enclosure Heat Transfer

Radiative Heat Transfer.The inside surface of the enclosure is subdivided


into N,usually rectangular, segments which are assumed to have a uniform
temperature 1; (j = 1...N. The enclosure is partially fded with an
absorbing-emitting gas at temperature T,. M segments are in contact with
the upper layer. The remaining N-M segments are in contact with the
transparent lower layer gas. The fire is approximated as a point source that
emits, but does not absorb radiation. The location of the point source for
the purpose of calculating radiation heat transfer may be different than for
the thermal plume model (see Section 2.6.2.1). The fire releases a certain
fraction, L, of its heat release rate, Q, in the form of thermal radiation.
Figure 2-10 shows a schematic of the geometry used to obtain the
following set of N transfer equations (k = 1...N.

where

N = number of segments or surfaces in enclosure


6,, = Kronecker delta, i.e., 6,, = 1 i f j = k, and 6,, = 0 i f j # k
Fkj = configuration factor between surface k and surfacej
X, = transmitted fi-actionof radiation from surfacej to k
ej = emissivity of surfacej
A Generic CompartmentZone Fire Model 39

FIGURE 2-11. Network for radiative heat transfer

q , net radiative heat flux entering surfacej (kw/m2)


=
elk = emissivity of gas volume between surfacej and surface k
o,, = configuration factor between the fire and surface k
z, = transmitted fraction of flame radiation to surface k
A, = area of surface k (m2)

The net radiative heat flux entering surface j is equal to the heat flux
removed fiom surface j by means other than radiation to keep it at
temperature I;. The set of radiation transfer equations is obtained by
integrating similar equations for monochromatic radiation derived by
Siege1and Howell [27] over all wavelengths, assuming that the gas and all
surfaces are grey, and taking flame radiation into account. With grey
surfaces and a grey gas, zjkand E,, may also be written as

where

k,, = extinction coefficient of the upper layer gas (llm)


L, = mean beam length in upper layer between surfacesj and k (m)

Equation (2.36) is also valid for radiation from the flame. Because the
calculation of the mean beam length in Equation (2.36) is rather complex,
40 INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL COMPARTMENT FIRE MODELING

the following simplified engineering approach is ofien adopted. If both


swrfacesj and k are in contact with the lower layer, then ej, = 0 and r,, = 1.
Likewise, if the fire is located below the layer interface and the receiving
segment k is in contact with the lower layer, then E, = 0 and .c,= 1. In all
other cases, an average transmissivity and emissivity are determined on the
basis of the overall mean beam length for the upper layer geometry:

where

z, = average upper layer transmissivity


E, = average upper layer emissivity
L, = overall mean beam length for the upper layer (m)
The extinction coefficient, k,is a complex function of the concentration
of absorbing/emitting gas species (CO,, H,O, etc.) and soot particles.
Modak [28] developed a method to calculate R,, that is used in FIRST [l].
The mean beam length is a function of the geometry and size of the upper
layer gas volume. It may be estimated fiom the following expression:

where

A, = enveloping area of the upper layer (m2)

Since the upper layer has the shape of a parallelepiped, V, and A, are given
by

and
A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 41

Convective Heat Transfer.The convective heat flux to each wall surface,


can be witten as

where

T,, = temperature of the gas layer in contact with surfacej (K)


Because the gas layers are relatively quiescent, the convection coefficient,
h, can be obtained fiom empirical correlations for natural convection over
an isothermal flat plate. Such correlations have the following
non-dimensional form:

where

Nu, Nusselt number for convective heat transfer to surfacej


=
= characteristic length of surfacej (m)
= thermal conductivity of gas in contact with surfacej (W1m.K)
= constant
Gr, = Grashof number for convective heat transfer to surfacej
Pr, = Prandtl number for convective heat transfer to surfacej
n = constant

Both C and n depend on the orientation of the plate, the flow regime
(laminar or turbulent) and whether the plate is cooled or heated by the
fluid. Appropriate values can be found in a textbook on heat transfer (e.g.,
Reference [29]). The Nusselt, Grashof, and Prandtl numbers in Equation
(2.41) are calculated using properties of air evaluated at the film
temperature, i.e., the average of fluid and surface temperature. The length
42 INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL COMPARTMENT FIRE MODELING

scale, I,, is equal to (LW)'" for horizontal surfaces, and to the height for
vertical surfaces.
If the momentum of the fire is sufficiently high when the plume hits
the ceiling, a forced flow is generated, commonly referred to as the ceiling
jet. Cooper developed an approach to account for the forced convection
heat transfer fiom the ceiling jet to the ceiling and upper wall sections.
Algorithms implementing this approach for a two-zone room fire
environment are described in Reference [30]. Beller included a ceilingjet
algorithm into the WPI fire code [3 l], which is an extended and modified
version of FIRST, developed at Worcester Polytechnic Institute [32]. For
the purpose of the generic model developed in this chapter, ceilingjet heat
transfer is not considered. Additional discussion of the subject can be
found in Section 4.3.

Heat Conduction.The net heat flux to a surfacej, q;,,, is the sum of the
net radiative and convective heat fluxes, which are calculated as described
above.

The heat that is supplied externally by radiation and convection is


conducted into the solid. The assumption that surface temperature of every
segment is uniform implies one-dimensional heat transfer (perpendicular
to the surface). Assuming each wall segment has thermal conductivity $
density pj, and specific heat cj, all of which may be a function of
temperature, the heat conduction equation takes the following form:
A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 43

where

4 = thickness of segmentj (m)


= heat loss from the unexposed side of segmentj (kw/m2)

The heat loss from the unexposed side, qy,,ms,may be a function of the
unexposed surface temperature, or it may be a constant (zero for a well-
insulated segment, approximating adiabatic boundary conditions).
Equations (2.43a) to (2.43d) are too complex for an analytic solution.
Most often, finte difference techniques are used to solve the equations
numerically [33]. Additional complexities, such as multilayered walls or
temperature-dependent thermal properties, can also be addressed without
too much difficulty if a finite-difference technique is used.

Source Termsfor the Energy Conservation Equations. The source term


for the energy conservation equations of a layer consists of the net amount
of heat supplied to the layer by external sources, i.e., other than the
sensible enthalpy of flows that add or remove mass from the layer. The
source term can be positive, indicating a net heat gain, or negative if there
is a net heat loss.
Because the lower layer is assumed to be transparent, it can only gain
or lose heat by convection with the floor and lower wall sections. Hence,
the source term for the lower layer is given by

where

Q~ = net heat transferred to the lower layer (kW)

In addition to convective heat gains or losses, the upper layer also


absorbs and emits radiation. Because of conservation of radiant energy, the
upper layer source term follows from
44 INTRODUCTIONTO MATHEMATICAL COMPARTMENT FIRE MODELING

where

i), = net heat transferred to the upper layer (kW)

2.6.3.2 Energy Conservation Equations

Figure 2-12 shows the enthalpy flows pertinent to the energy


conservation of the gas layers. Application of the fust law of
thermodynamics to the lower layer results in the following equation

where

U, = internal energy of the lower layer (kJ/kg)


ha = enthalpy of the incoming air at temperature Ta (kJ/kg)
h, = enthalpy of the lower layer gas at temperature T, (W/kg)

FIGURE 2-12. Enthalpy flows


A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 45

Because internal energy of the lower layer and enthalpy of the lower Iayer
are related via m,h, = mlul + P,&, and because P, is assumed to be
constant (see Equation 2.2), Equation (2.46) can be rewritten as

dm,h, dm, dh,


+ m,- = maha - m,h, fieh, + Q, (2.47)
hzdt
-
-dt = dt
Substitution of the lower layer mass balance Equation (2.23) to eliminate
the time derivative of m, on the left hand side of Equation (2.47), after
rearranging, leads to

Enthalpy of an ideal gas mixture can generally be written as

where

h" enthalpy of the mixture at reference temperature To (kJ/kg)


=
C = mean heat capacity between To and Tat constant P (kJ/kgK)

Because ambient air and lower layer gases have identical composition,
their reference enthalpies are identical. The energy balance of the lower
layer, therefore, can be rewritten as

where

= mean heat capacity of dry air between To and T, (kJ/kg-K)


= heat capacity of lower layer gas between To and T, (kJ/kg*K)
Because the composition of the lower layer does not change, c; only varies
with time due to lower layer temperature changes. Hence, the lower layer
energy conservation equation can be written in the following final form:

The first law of thermodynamics applied to the upper layer yields the
following equation, similar to Equation (2.46) for the lower layer:

or

where

uu = internal energy of the upper layer (kJ/kg)


h, = enthalpy of the fbel volatiles at temperature T, (kJ/kg)
h, = enthalpy of the upper layer gas mixture at temperature Tu(kJkg)

The reference enthalpies of fbel volatiles, entrained air, and plume gases
at the layer interface are related by the following equation

where
A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 47

h; = reference enthalpy at Toof the fuel vapors (kJ/kg)


h: = reference enthalpy at Toof the lower layer gases (kJ/kg)
nip = plume mass flow at the layer interface height (kg/s)
hi = reference enthalpy at Toof the plume gas mixture at Z = Zi (kJ/kg)

Since it is assumed that there is no combustion in the upper layer, the


following equation is also valid:

Combination of Equations (2.56) and (2.57) leads to

Subtracting Equation (2.58) from Equation (2.55) gives

The upper layer mass balance Equation (2.27) can be used to eliminate the
time derivative of m, on the left hand side of Equation (2.59). Therefore,
if he1 mass flow is neglected, Equation (2.59) can be rewritten as

W, - h,") = d,[(hl- hlo)- (h, - h a ] + i) + Q, (2.60)


mu dl

Using Equation (2.49) to express enthalpy differences as a function of


temperature then leads to
48 INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL COMPARTMENT FIRE MODELING

or

where

c; = heat capacity of upper layer gas between Toand Tu(kJ/kgK)

2.6.4 Solution of the Model Equations

Equations (2.26) for mass conservation of the lower layer, (2.33) for
upper layer species conservation, (2.53) for lower layer and (2.62) for
upper layer energy conservation form a set of ordinary differential
equations (ODEs). Equation (2.29) for mass conservation of the upper
layer, and auxiliary Equations (2.35), (2.40), (2.42), (2.43) (in a finite
difference form), (2.44), and (2.45) form a set of, primarily non-linear,
algebraic equations. The system of equations is very complex, so that an
analytic solution cannot be obtained. Numerical techniques have to be used
to estimate the values of the primary and auxiliary variables at discrete
times At, 2At, etc.
One approach to solve this complex combined system of ODEs and
non-hear algebraic equations is by using a canned solver that can handle
this type of problems. An example of such a solver is described in
Reference [34].
An alternative approach consists of an iterative sequence by which
groups of equations are solved in a predetermined order. If values are
available for the primary and auxiliary variables at time t, the following
steps are taken to obtain values at t + At:

1 Calculate radiative fluxes to surfaces j = 1 ... N at time t [Equation


(2.35)].
2 Calculate convective fluxes to the N surfaces at time t [Equation
(2.40)].
3 Estimate surface temperatures at t + At assuming that heat fluxes do
not change between t and t + At [Equations (2.42) and (2.43)].
A Generic Compartment Zone Fire Model 49

Calculate total heat transfer to lower [Equation (2.44)] and upper


[Equation (2.491 layer.
Estimate values of the primary variables at t + At [Equations (2.26),
(2.29), (2.53), and (2.62)], and determine updated mass flows in the
process.
Estimate radiative fluxes to the N surfaces at t + At pquation (2.35)].
Estimate convective fluxes to the N surfaces at t + At Pquation
(2.40)].
Obtain improved estimates of surface temperatures at t + At, using heat
flux averages between t and t + At [Equations (2.42) and (2.43)].
Calculate total heat transfer to lower [Equation (2.44)] and upper
pquation (2.45)] layer.
Obtain improved estimates of the values of the primary variables at
t + At @%pations (2.26), (2.29), (2.53), and (2.62)l.
Repeat steps 6-10 until the difference between successive
approximations of the values of the primary variables at t + At is within
a user-specified tolerance.
Rehun to step 1 to advance to the next time step.

If the time step At is small (e.g., of the order of 1 second) and the user-
specified tolerances are reasonable (e.g., of the order of 0.1 K for
temperatures), the solution usually converges rapidly and steps 6- 10 have
to be repeated not more than two or three times.
CHAPTER 3
ASET-QB: A Simple
Room Fire Model

3.1 INTRODUCTION

In 1980, Cooper presented the general methodology for computing the


available safe egress time fiom an enclosure subject to a hostile fire [6]. In
1982, Cooper and Stroup presented a computer program and user's guide
for the equations presented earlier by Cooper. The model was named
ASET, an acronym for Available Safe Egress Time [35].
The ASET program is basically a smoke-fiing model based on the
Zukoski et al. model for mass flow in a fue plume. In addition to
calculating the hot-layer location and temperature, ASET is capable of
providing estimates of the concentration of species within the hot layer.
The user can define the onset of untenable conditions for humans based on
the value or the rate of rise of the hot-layer temperature, location of the
layer interface, as well as concentrations of toxic gas species. The user can
also define the time at which the fire is detected. When the user-defmed
hazardous conditions are reached during the simulation, the available safe
egress time is then found by using

where t,, is the time into the simulation at which the user-defined
hazardous conditions are reached, and t, is the time at which the user-
defined conditions for fire detection are reached (i.e., the time that egress
is initiated). The concept of estimating the available safe egress time
according to Equation (3. l), which is at the basis of the ASET model, is
discussed in detail in Reference [36].
The original ASET program by Cooper and Stroup was written in
FORTRAN and contained over 1500 program lines. When it was released,
52 ASET-QB: A SIMPLE ROOM FIRE MODEL

personal computers were just becoming an available tool for practicing


engineers. Thus the original ASET program was not written for personal
computers. A more detailed description of the ASET model is provided
through References [3,6,35,36,37,38,39,40].
In 1985, Walton introduced ASET-B [3,40]. ASET-B was a response
to the desire to run the ASET model on personal computers that had
become generally available to the public and practicing engineers.
According to Walton, personal computers were not considered effective for
running the ASET model in its original form. As mentioned, ASET
consisted of over 1500 lines of FORTRAN source code. However, the
most popular programming language on personal computers, according to
Walton, was BASIC, not FORTRAN. Also, the size and run time of the
program made it difticult to work with on personal computers. A different
mathematical solution technique was used in the ASET-B model to reduce
the average nm time on a typical 16-bit personal computer from 5 minutes
for the original ASET model to 1 minute.
When ASET-B was being developed, it was decided that some of the
features of the original ASET model would be eliminated to produce a
program that was effective for personal computer use. ASET can handle
multiple runs, identifl user-defmed end points for the simulation, and
calculate hot-layer species concentrations. These features were eliminated
and the program was written in GW-BASIC.
The result, ASET-B, was a program of approximately 100 program
lines that solved the same basic equations used in the ASET model. As
mentioned above, a different numerical solution routine was selected for
ASET-B. ASET used a fourth-order Runge-Kutta method with a variable
time step. ASET-B was written using an improved Euler
predictor-corrector solution to the differential equations. Walton reported
this to be a major difference between the two models that resulted in
reduced run times; the mathematical agreement between the two methods
was reported to be within a fkaction of a percent [3]. A M e r discussion
of the numerical solution techniques will follow later in this chapter.
Today, personal computers can easily handle the original ASET
FORTRAN code. However, the ASET model is simple enough so that
comparable accuracy and acceptable calculation speed can be obtained
with BASIC, in particular if a compiler is used. The integrated
environment of modern versions of BASIC, such as QuickBasic, QBasic,
and Visual Basic greatly facilitate program development. It is easy to add
an efficient and atb-active user interface, in particular in Visual Basic.
Introduction 53

Finally, users of BM-compatible personal computers don't need to make


additional investments to run structured BASIC programs, because the
QBasic interpreter comes with the operating system.
The most recent version of ASET is included with FPETool[4 l], and
is referred to as ASETBX. The program was developed in QuickBasic, and
interacts with the enhanced FPETool user interface. However, the model
equations in ASETBX are the same as in ASET and ASET-B. FPETool is
a collection of fire protection engineering software tools for fire hazard
estimation that were developed at the Building and Fire Research
Laboratory (BFRL) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST). FPETool is in the public domain, and can be downloaded at no
cost fiom the NIST BFRZ, web site (URL: http://f~e.nist.gov/).
A qualitative and quantitative overview of mathematical fire modeling
was presented in Chapters 1 and 2, respectively. With this background, a
detailed description of the ASET model will now be presented. For reasons
described in Chapter 2, it is known that a vent is a requirement of all
enclosure fires. The ASET model assumes that the only vent in the
enclosure is a leak at the floor level. Figure 3-1 shows a schematic of the
problem addressed by the ASET model. The floor leak is a conservative
approach when concerned with life safety because floor leaks (as opposed
to other vents) will result in the most rapid development of the hot layer.

FIGURE 3-1. Schematic of the fue problem addressed by ASET


54 ASET-QB: A SIMPLE ROOM FIRE MODEL

3.2 FORMULATION OF THE ASET EQUATIONS

The assumptions used in the derivation of ASET are as follows:

Two-zone (layer) approximation is considered acceptable.


The pressure within the compartment is constant and equal to
atmospheric pressure (see Section 2.6.1).
Heat transfer from the floor and lower wall sections to the lower gas
layer is neglected, and the temperature of the lower gas layer is
constant and equal to ambient air temperature.
The specific heat at constant pressure is assumed to be constant for all
gases, and is equal to the specific heat of dry air at 293 K, i.e.,
c,, = 1.OO4 kJ/kgK (a reasonable assumption since the specific heat of
nitrogen increases only slightly with temperature, as shown in Section
B.2.2.4, and the upper layer gases consist primarily of nitrogen).
Zukoski's point source plume model is considered to yield acceptable
results in the flaming, intermittent, and plume regions. Entrainment
occurs between the surface of the fuel and the layer interface. Virtual
source corrections are considered negligible and are not included.
Stratification does not occur, i.e., all heat and mass from the plume
reach the hot layer located below the ceiling.
The transport time fiom the fire to the hot layer is negligible, i.e.,
quasi-steady state conditions are assumed. The plume occupies a
negligible fraction of the lower layer.
The heat release rate of the f i e is specified by the user. Compartment
effects and oxygen starvation are ignored.
A constant fkaction, L,, of the heat released by the fire consists of
radiation (the balance is convection). In ASET, the radiative fiaction
is set equal to 35% (L, = 0.35).
The energy losses fiom the flame and plume, and the energy losses
from the compartment through the bounding surfaces are described
simply as a fraction, L , of the total heat release at any given time.
Venting occurs only through a crack-like vent located at floor level.

Due to assumptions 3 and 10, there are only two primary variables, Z and
T,. Furthermore, assumption 9 greatly simplifies the heat transfer
calculations, eliminating the need for any auxiliary variables.
Consequently, the system of ASET model equations only consists of two
conservation equations.
Formulation of the ASET Equations 55

Cooper expressed the equations in a non-dimensional form, to facilitate


a systematic analysis of the development of hazardous conditions in
enclosures with growing fies (e.g., Reference [42]). Here the equations
are derived from the generic model equations presented in Chapter 2. The
variables and parameters are purposely not converted to a non-dimensional
form, so that the reader has a better feel for the magnitude of dimensions,
temperatures, heat release rates, mass flows, etc. as they vary over the
course of the fie.

3.2.1 Layer Interface Height

As described in Section 2.6.2.3, the location of the interface, thus the


hot layer, can be predicted by an equation describing the conservation of
mass for the lower or upper layer. The latter is easier because it does not
require calculating vent flows. The mass conservation for the upper layer
is given by Equation (2.28). Because there are no upper-layer gases leaving
the compartment and fuel flow can be neglected, the upper layer mass
balance can be written as

where

A = area of the floor of the compartment, equal to L X W (m2)

The time derivative of T, on the right hand side can be expressed as a


fimction of the priqary variables, as will be shown in the next section. The
entrainment rate, me,is calculated based on Zukoski's plume model,
Equation (2.12), with K = 0.076. Zukoski expressed plume mass flow as
a function of non-dimensional heat release rate, defined as follows:
56 ASET-QB: A SIMPLE ROOM FIRE MODEL

where

i)* = non-dimensional heat release rate


c, = specific heat of air at temperature Taand constant P (kJ/kgK)

Substitution of Equation (3.3) in Equation (2.12); with p, = 1.2 kg/m3,


c, = 1.004 kJ/kg=K,and Ta = 293 K, leads to the following form of
Zukoski's plume model equation:

This is the form that Cooper et al. used in the derivation of the ASET
model equations [6,371.
Equation (3.2) is valid as long as AZi > 0 (or Zi > Z,). When the
interface drops below the fuel surface, the same equation can still be used
with rir, equal to zero. However, when Zi S 2 , it is likely that the user-
specified heat release rate will be affected by the reduced oxygen that is
entrained into the flame and plume. Therefore, it is recommended to
terminate the calculations when the interface drops below the fuel surface.

3.2.2 Hot-Layer Temperature

Assumption 9 implies that the heat transferred to the upper layer is


given by

*
Therefore, Equation (2.61) for conservation of energy of the upper layer,
with T,= T, = T, and constant specific heat, can be written as
Formulation of the ASET Equations 57

or in the following fmal form

Equation (3.7) is indeterminate at time t = 0. This mathematical problem


can be eliminated by assuming that the layer interface is located slightly
below the ceiling, e.g., Zi = H - 0.0 1 (in m) at t = 0. When the interface
drops below the fbel surface, Equation (3.7) cim still be used with m, equal
to zero. However, the question is again whlether the user-specified heat
release rate will remain unaffected by the reduced oxygen that is entrained
into the flame and plume.

3.2.3 Outnow of Lower Layer Gases

An expression for the outflow of lower layer gases can be derived from
the mass balance Equation (2.25), with T, = ;c:

Combination of Equations (3.2) and (3.7) leads to the following expression


for the time derivative of 2,:

Substitution of Equation (3.9) into (3.8) then leads to


58 ASET-QB: A SIMPLE ROOM FIRE MODEL

3.3 SOLUTION OF THE DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS

To apply the equations shown above, they must be solved at each time
step throughout the simulation. However, the equations cannot be solved
explicitly, i.e., they are not simple algebraic equations. Therefore,
numerical methods for providing solutions to the equations for dZJdt, and
dTJdt, must be used. It was mentioned earlier that the original ASET
model incorporated a fourth-order Runge-Kutta solution to the differential
equations, while ASET-B (and subsequent versions of ASET) used the
improved Euler method.
The Euler method is one of the simplest stepwise methods for solving
differential equations [43]. It is commonly referred to as the tangent line
method. Given an equation, the slope of the tangent line at a given point
can be found. With this, a tangent line can be constructed and used to
estimate the solution to the equation at the next point. The improved Euler
method, as the name implies, is a modified version of the standard Euler
method. The modification, and added accuracy, lies in the method's use of
an averaging scheme between the points of interest. This approach was
used in the ASET-B programs to solve the differential equations at each
time step. The Runge-Kutta method was used in the original ASET
program. The fourth-order Runge-Kutta method is equivalent to a
five-term Taylor formula. This method is the most complex of the three
mentioned, but is also the most accurate. For a detailed discussion of the
numerical solution methods mentioned, the reader is directed towards
Section B.5.2, or any text on the subject (e.g., [43]).
With regard to the ASET-B model, the program was written to
consider the solution to the differential equations reached if the difference
between the predicted and corrected values for Z and T, is less than
0.001 m and 0.3 K respectively. Note that the equations considered by
Walton were the non-dimensional equations derived by Cooper, and that
the corresponding limit for the transformed interface height and upper
layer temperature is equal to 0.001. Also, to avoid possible i n f i t e loops
by the solution subroutine, the program allows 30 iterations for a solution.
If a solution is not reached within the limit, a warning is printed and the
program uses the last corrected value to proceed to the next time step. If
this occurs, the value used is an unconverged value and likely to introduce
an unknown error into the solutions. The user could change the program
source code to allow for greater solution tolerance and iteration limit
values.
The ASET-QB Computer Program 59

In the first edition of this book, Birk simplified the ASET-B model by
using the standard Euler method to solve the ODES. The corresponding
computer program, ASETB-S, gave nearly identical results for three
sample cases. On this basis, Birk recommended the simplified approach
and used it in F'IRM, an extended version of the ASET model that includes
algorithms for calculating the flow through a wall vent.

3.4 THE ASET-QB COMPUTER PROGRAM

A new version of the ASET computer program was written in QBasic


to solve the equations that were derived in Section 3.2. In spite of Birk's
findings and the fact that it is very easy to understand how the standard
Euler method works, a different technique is used to obtain a numerical
solution. The main reason is that textbooks on numerical methods generally
recommend against using the standard Euler method for practical
computing, because it has limited accuracy and is not very stable (e.g., see
Reference [44], page 704). A fourth-order Runge-Kutta method with
adaptive stepsize control was chosen. This method and the QBasic code
that was developed to perform the calculations are described in Appendix
B and D respectively.
The new model program is referred to as ASET-QB. The program
guides the user through a series of questions to obtain the necessary input
data. The results of the calculations are displayed on the screen in tabular
form, and are saved in a disk file. A hardcopy can be obtained if a printer
is attached.
The QBasic source code of ASET-QB is provided on the
accompanying CD-ROM. Installation instruction can be found h
Appendix C. The program should run without problems in the QBasic
environment on any IBM compatible PC with 640 K of conventional
memory. A faster executable version of the program is provided for users
who do not need to modifjr the source code.
It may prove beneficial to the reader to review the ASET-QB source
code before proceeding. A printout of the source code can be obtained
directly from the QBasic environment, or by importing the code as an
ASCII (DOS) text file into any word processing sohare. Comments on
the ASET-QB source code are provided in Appendix D. The input data
required by ASET-QB are discussed in some detail below.
60 ASET-QB: A SIMPLE ROOM FIRE MODEL

3.4.1 Heat Release Rate

ASET models, including ASET-QB, require that the heat release rate
history of the fire be provided as input. The data is entered in two parts: the
heat release rate and the time at which it occurs. ASET-QB, like the other
ASET models, uses a linear interpolation routine to provide heat release
data at times other than those given as input. Since the routine is based on
the equation of a straight line, it is important for the user to provide enough
data sets to adequately describe the heat release history of the fire. An
example of this procedure can be found in Section 3.S.

3.4.2 Geometry of the Fire Compartment

In addition to the heat release rate history of the fire, ASET-QB


requires input describing the geometry of the f ~ compartment,
e in
particular the room floor (or ceiling) area A, the height of the compartment
H, and the height of the fire above the floor 2,

3.4.3 Radiative and Total Heat Loss Fractions

The values that are perhaps the most difficult to determine are those of
the radiative and total heat loss fractions, i.e., L, and L, respectively. The
values for L, and L, vary throughout the course of a fire as the
characteristics of the radiating source (flame) change and the bounding
surfaces of the compartment are heated. However, in the development of
the ASET models, the simplifying assumption was made that L, and L,
remain constant.
Values for L, which generally fall between 0.15 and 0.40, are available
in the literature (e.g., see Reference [lS], pages 3-78 to 3-8 1). A generally
accepted average value was proposed by Cooper [6] such that

Other values can be found in Table 4-3. Based on Equation (3.1 l),
approximately 35 percent of the heat released by a fire is radiated away
fiom the combustion region. Unless the user changes the source code, the
Comparison between ASET-QB and ASET-B 61

radiative loss fiaction is preset in ASET-QB (as in other versions of


ASET) to this value.
The ASET model predictions are more sensitive to the amount of
e remains within the compartment, and more
energy released by the f ~ that
specifically, within the hot layer. Obviously, this is simply the total heat
release rate minus the rate of losses fiom the compartment. Without any
venting, energy can leave the compartment only via conduction through the
bounding walls. Heat (energy) is imparted to the bounding walls via
radiation and convection from the fire and hot layer. In Appendix A of the
original ASET report, Cooper estimated that values for the fiaction of
energy lost through the walls, L, fall within the following range 161:

The derivation of these values will not be repeated here. There are
currently no simple accurate means for estimating the value of Lc, beyond
the simple rules offered by Cooper. A method to estimate L, will be
developed in Section 4.3.

3.5 COMPARISON BETWEEN ASET-QB AND ASET-B

ASET-QB solves the same equations as ASET-B, albeit in a different


form (dimensional vs. non-dimensional) and using a different numerical
technique. In this section, a comparison is presented between the two
model programs for the example provided by Walton in the ASET-B
documentation [3].
The ASET-QB input data for Walton's example are given in Figure
3-2. The reader can substitute his or her own data path andor file names.
If the output data file name exists, the user will be asked to c o d m that
the fde may be overwritten. If the heat release rate data file name exists,
the user will be asked whether he or she wants to use the data from that
file. If not, the heat release rate data in the file will be replaced by new data
that are entered by the user for this m. According to Walton, the example
exercises most of the computer program, and should provide an indication
of the accuracy of the new model.
PATH FOR OUTPUT FILE? c:\FIRM\DATA\
OUTPUT FILE NAME (WITHOUT PATH AND EXTENSION)? CH3-A01
DO YOU WANT TO PRINT THE RESULTS (Y/N)? Y
S.1. ENGINEERING, OR MIXED UNITS (S, E, M) ? M
RUN TITLE? ASET-QB SAMPLE RUN OF WALTON'S ASET-B EXAMPLE
ROOM FLOOR AREA (ftA2)?225
ROOM CEILING HEIGHT (ft)? 9
FIRE BASE HEIGHT (ft)? 1
MAXIMUM TIME (sec)? 180
TOTAL HEAT LOSS FRACTION (DEFAULT=O.SOO)? 0.8
HEAT RELEASE FILE NAME (NO PATH OR EXTENSION)? CH3-A01
DESCRIPTION? -TON'S ASET-B EXAMPLE CASE FIRE
HEAT OF COMBUSTION OF THE FUEL (DEFAULT IS 5159 Btu/lb)?
ENTER HEAT RELEASE RATE (kW) AT TIME O? 0.1
INPUT TIMES AND HEAT RELEASE RATES (-9,-9 to end)
TIME (sec), HEAT RELEASE RATE (kW)? 20'40
TIME (sec), HEAT RELEASE RATE (kW)? 100,200
TIME (sec), HEAT RELEASE RATE (kW)? 180,500
TIME (sec), HEAT RELEASE RATE (kW)? -9,-9

FIGURE 3-2. ASET-QB input data for Walton's sample run of ASET-B [3]

The results of the comparison runs are provided in Table 3-1. The
ASET-QB results were obtained using mixed units for the input data, i.e.,
U.S. engineering units for all input data except heat release rate. The latter
is specified in kW instead of Btds. The small differences between the
upper layer temperature predictions from ASET-QB and ASET-B are
primarily due to the fact that

1 ASET-B uses a different approach to resolve the singularity in (the


equivalent of) Equation (3.7) at t = 0.
2 ASET-QB uses a slightly more accurate numerical technique to solve
the system of ODES. In addition, due to the stepsize control algorithm
in the ODE solver, the time step for this case in ASET-QB is 0.5
seconds (as opposed to 1 second in ASET-B).

Note that the ASET-QB run terminates at 151 seconds, when the layer
interface drops below the fuel surface.
Limitations of ASET-QB 63

Table 3-1. Comparison between ASET-B and ASET-QB


Time ASET-B ASET-QB ASET-B ASET-QB HRR
(S) T" (W T" (OC) 4(m) 4(m) (kW)
10 25 25 2.5 2.5 20.0

3.6 LIMITATIONS OF ASET-QB

This section addresses the limitations of the ASET-QB model. All


models have limitations. However, if the limitations are known and
understood by those using the model, then a simple model can be a very
powerful and helpful tool. Recommendations for users in establishing the
limitations of a fire model for a specific application can be found in
Reference [45].
The limitations of ASET-QB are identical to those of other versions of
ASET, since they are all based on the same general approach. Many of the
limitations regarding other versions of ASET have been reported in the
literature [3,6,35 -391. Limitations in the scope and utility of ASET-QB,
and limitations due to approximations and assumptions in the underlying
theory of ASET-QB are discussed below.
3.6.1 The Plume Model

The plume model was presented in Section 2.6.2.1. The plume model
assumes a point source of heat release from the fuel surface. The model
does not account for virtual origin corrections or varying fuel surface areas.
A possible explanation for the lack of virtual source corrections in ASET
is that virtual source correctionswere just beginning to be studied when the
model was developed. Many of the plume experiments conducted were of
areas and heat release rates that correspond to small virtual origin
corrections, thus the corrections went unnoticed. When ASET-B was
released, it was based on the physics present in the original ASET model,
thus no virtual origin correction was included, although they were by then
available in the literature. According to Heskestad [46], the application of
the virtual origin correction to real fuels, such as upholstered fbmiture, is
untested, because the derivation of the expressions are based on pool-type
fires. Although the ASET models fail to account for virtual origin
corrections, they have been shown to agree with actual fire data in many
situations [37]. However, a virtual source correction may be important
when modeling some fire scenarios, and this is a limitation that should be
considered when applying and validating the models.
Equation (3.4) predicts the mass flow in the plume only, i.e., above the
flaming region. Several models that can be used to predict mass flow rates
in the flaming and intermittent regions are available in the literature [19].
An implicit assumption when using only the plume equation, is that the
model provides acceptable mass flow predictions in the flaming,
intermittent, and plume regions, not just hthe plume region alone. Relying
on a single plume equation, as in the ASET models, will ultimately
introduce some error into the model predictions.
Another assumption implicit in the derivation of the ASET models is
that stratification of the plume gases does not occur; that is, all plume gases
enter the hot layer that forms just below the ceiling. Stratification, which
in the present sense is defined as the layering of fue gases at some distance
below the ceiling due to aidgas density differences, occurs when the
buoyancy of the plume at the layer interface is too weak to penetrate into
the hot layer. Except for very low heat release rates in tall enclosures,
stratification should not be a concern in most compartment fire-modeling
problems. The convective heat release rate that results in stratification at
a height AZ, above the fuel surface, based on an ambient temperature rise
of AT,, over that height is given by (see Reference [l 51, page 4-255):
Limitations of ASET-QB 65

QC = 0.001 ~ ~ A z , Z . ~ A T ~ . ~ (3.13)

where

Q = convective heat release rate (kW)


AZ, = height above he1 surface where stratification occurs (m)
AT, = ambient temperature rise at height AZ, (K)

This equation can be used to determine if stratification is a concern.


The entrainment of air into the plume goes from a maximum just
below the interface to zero at the interface. As such, the model cannot
provide estimates of entrainment within the hot layer.
Finally, it should be pointed out that the mass flow predicted by
Equation (3.4) does not account for any mass contribution from the fuel
source, i.e., the fuel volatiles. However, this limitation does not introduce
observable errors based on Zukoski's experimental verification of the mass
flow model [2 l]. Other data also suggest that the mass contributed by the
burning fuel can be considered negligible for many practical situations. For
a series of upholstered furniture items, Babrauskas reported vent mass flow
rates no less than 12 times greater than the mass contribution rate of the
fire [48]. Similar results can also be found in other test data [49,50,5 l].
Beyler [l91 reported that "The entrainment of air into the flame up to the
flame tip is 10-20 times that required for complete combustion." With the
knowledge that the air-to-he1 mass ratio for fuels is generally much greater
than 1, this M e r suggests that the fuel mass can be neglected in many
cases without suffering unacceptable error.

3.6.2 Hot-Layer Venting

The lack of hot-layer venting capabilities is a utility limitation of the


model; it simply was not developed to handle hot-layer venting. ASET was
designed to provide conservative estimates of the Available Safe Egress
Time (ASET) from an enclosure. Venting from the hot layer would extend
the time allowed for egress. Thus, hot-layer venting was not considered in
the development of ASET. This factor is a major element to be
incorporated into the desired model. The addition of hot-layer venting
capabilities will be provided in Section 4.1.
66 ASET-QB: A SIMPLE ROOM FIRE MODEL

3.6.3 Hot-Layer Species Concentrations

ASET-B was a simplification of the original ASET model that was


capable of calculating hot-layer species concentrations. ASET-B and the
models presented here are not capable of performing these calculations.
The needed equations could be added with moderate difficulty, as
discussed in Section 2.6.2.4.

3.6.4 Burning in the Hot Layer

The ability to calculate combustion within the hot layer is a deficiency


of most models, and this fact was mentioned earlier. Regardless, the ASET
models, except for Cooper's initial version, cannot even calculate fuel gas
concentrations within the hot layer. So, attempting to model burning of
these vapors in the hot layer would be impossible.

3.6.5 Oxygen Starvation

One of the most limiting features of the ASET model is their inability
to account for oxygen starvation. The models assume there is enough
oxygen present within the lower layer to allow fiee-burn conditions at all
times. This is obviously a gross oversimplification. The models use the
heat release given as input and do not consider if the heat release is even
physically possible. The he1 surface can be submerged in the descending
hot layer, but the model will continue to release fiee-bum heat into the
enclosure. This limitation can result in temperature predictions that are
physically impossible.
None of the ASET model programs, including ASET-QB, warn the
user when conditions occur that could result in predictions that are
physically impossible. However, ASET-QB terminates automatically when
the layer interface drops below the fuel surface, because the model
equations are defmitely invalid at that point.
Limitations of ASET-QB 67

3.6.6 Heat Loss Fraction

The limitations introduced by using a simple heat loss fiaction


approach have been previously discussed. The main limitations lie in the
inability to predict values for L, and L, beyond the basic recommendations
provided by Cooper et al. [6,35] and Walton [3]. These values must be
provided by the user, who may not have a sufficient understanding to
select accurate values. The configuration of the enclosure can also affect
the accuracy of the results. This is due to the complexity of the heat loss
fraction in irregularly shaped enclosures. It has been reported that
enclosures with length-to-width ratios greater than 10:l or ratios of
height-to-minimum horizontal dimensions greater than 1 may not result in
accurate calculations. Further discussion is provided in Section 4.3.

3.6.7 Burning Rates

The burning rate, and, more accurately, the heat release rate history of
a fire must be provided as input. The model cannot perform heat release
rate predictions. According to Cooper and Stroup [35], the model is not
considered accurate once the hot-layer temperature reaches approximately
350-440°C. This limit is due to the radiation augmentation of the hot layer
on the fbel-burning behavior. At these temperatures, the radiation emitted
by the hot, smoky layer that is incident on a burning fbel may substantially
alter the fi-ee-burn rates provided as input by the user. The concern of
compartment effects on burning rates will be discussed in greater detail in
Section 4.5.
CHAPTER 4
Modifications to ASET-QB

Five significant and usell modifications to ASET-QB will be


discussed in this chapter. The enhanced model that results fkorn
implementation of these modifications will be referred to as FIRM-QB.
FIRM is an acronym for Fire Investigation and Reconstruction Model.
FIRM-QB is a revised QBasic version of the original FIRM model that was
developed by David Bkk, and that was discussed in the fmt edition of this
book. Further details pertaining to the use, limitations, and predictive
capability of FIRM-QB will be presented in subsequent chapters.

4.1 VENTING OF THE HOT LAYER

4.1.1 Introduction

Through the use of Zukoski's example of pressure rises resulting fkom


hostile fires in enclosures presented in Section 2.6.1, it was shown that
there must be a vent present in all enclosure fues or damaging pressures
would result.
It was also shown that the ASET models include a vent that is simply
a crack-like leak at floor level. The mass flow leaving the enclosure at any
given time was determined by using the mass balance of the lower layer,
Equation (2.251, such that
The ASET models assume that the only vent in the compartment is a
crack-like opening at floor level. Hot-layer venting does not occur in
ASET-QB, because the program terminates when the layer interface drops
below the fuel surface, i.e., before the interface descends to the floor.
An important modification of the ASET-QB model will be the
inclusion of the ability to model buoyant hot-layer venting. This
modification will be based on the equations that were developed in Section
2.6.2.2, because simple vent flow equations developed by other
investigators are not suitable. For example, the so-called slide-rule
estimates for hot-layer venting reported by Lawson and Quintiere [S21 and
the model presented by Nelson in the "FIREFORM" [53]are inappropriate
for many situations, especially when modeling time-varying compartment
conditions. The equation suggested by Lawson and Quintiere can be
modified to present more accurate results for time-varying conditions. The
equation used by Nelson in "FIREFORM" has severe limitations, and can
be written as

where

A, = area of the vent (m2)

It can be noted from inspection of Equation (4.1) that the flow will
approach zero when the layer approaches the midpoint of the vent. Quite
obviously, an expression such as this cannot be used in time-varying
enclosure f r e models.

4.1.2 Basic Theory of Vent Flow Modeling

A gas within an enclosure will move only if forced to. Overall, smoke
will move within buildings due to several forces, such as stack effect,
buoyancy, expansion, wind, and HVAC systems. These are covered in
detail by Klote and Fothergill [16]. Although stack effect is due to
buoyancy, the two are frequently considered separate forces in the
Venting of the Hot Layer 71

literature regarding smoke movement within buildings. Smoke that has


cooled loses its buoyancy but can stiIl move in buildings if caused to by the
stack effect. Buoyancy typically refers to the movement of smoke due to
the decreased density associated with its elevated temperature, thus the
smoke moves by itself. With regard to enclosure fires, there are but two
forces that account for non-forced vent flows. These are pressure (due to
expansion) and gravity (buoyancy). Gravity acts only in the vertical
direction but can cause horizontal vent flows due to pressure differences.
Mathematical vent flow algorithms in zone fire models are based on
hydraulic theory [54]. The equations developed via hydraulic methods are
based on the assumption that the vent can be treated as an orifice. To
simplifl the derivation of the vent flow equations, such effects as fluid
viscosity, non-uniform velocities across the vent, and turbulence are not
explicitly considered. The derivation of vent flow equations was discussed
in detail in Section 2.6.2.2.

4.1.3 Vent Flow Regimes in Compartment Fires

In the development of the Harvard Fire Code, Mitler identified the


following vent flow regimes [55]:

1 Cold outjlow only. This occurs early on, when the expansion of the
gases collecting below the ceiling acts like a piston pushing down and
expelling cool air.
2 Both hot and coldflow out. In this regime, the piston effect is still
present, but hot gases are also vented due to the hot layer dropping
below the vent soffit.
3 Hot gases venting out and coldjlow in.
4 ChokedJlow. This regime is typically associated with post-flashover
compartment fires that are oxygen-starved.

The most important regime, according to Mitler is No. 3 above, that of hot
flow out and cold (ambient) flow in. The f ~ s regime t always occurs,
provided the soffit of the vent is located at some distance below the ceiling.
The duration of the first regime is a firnction of this distance. The second
regime usually passes quickly. The inflow during the fourth regime is
proportional to the ventilation factor, A$H, [24]. The four regimes are
accounted for in FIRM-QB. The flow equations for the first three regimes
72 MODIFICATIONSTO ASET-QB

were developed in Section 2.6.2.2.Implementation of these equations to


enhance ASET-QB will be described in detail in this section. The vent
inflow limit in the fourth regime, and its potential effect on the heat release
, the subject of Section 4.2.1.
rate fiom the f ~ eform

4.1.4 The Neutral Plane and Layer Interface

The neutrl plane is a simple but important variable in the vent flow
modeling process. Basically, the neutral plane height, by definition is the
vertical location within a vent at which the pressure difference across the
vent is zero. Thus, there is no flow at the neutral plane. Above the neutral
plane, hot gases flow out of the compartment, and below, ambient air
flows into the compartment.
The hot-layer interface plane and neutral plane are not the same,
although they may be numerically close. The layer interface height, Zi, is
the vertical elevation within the compartment, away fiom any vents, at
which the discontinuity between the hot and cold layer is located. The
neutral plane height, 2, is the vertical location within the vent at which the
pressure difference across the vent is zero.

4.1.5 The Vent Flow Equations

To simplify the notation in this section, four auxiliary parameters are


defined as follows
Venting of the Hot Layer 73

4.1.5.1 Flow Regime l (Zi r Z&

This flow regime is modeled in ASET-QB. Typical pressure profiles


inside and outside the room during this regime are shown in Figure 4-1(a).
The inflow of ambient air, mayand the outflow of hot upper layer gases,
h,, me equal to zero. The outflow of lower layer gases, m , can be
calculated fiom Equation (3.10).

4.1.5.2 Flow Regime 2 (2,< Zi < Z, and 2, ZJ

Typical pressure profiles inside and outside the room during this
regime are shown in Figure 4-l(b). The inflow of ambient air, ki,is still
zero in this case. Equation (2.16a) indicates that the pressure difference
across the vent is constant at and below the layer interface, and, for
example, equal to the pressure difference at the interface height, AP(4).
Substitution of this constant into Equation (2.19a), and using the auxiliary
parameter defined by Equation (4.2), leads to the following expression for
the lower layer vent flow:

A suitable value for the orifice coefficient, C, is 0.68 [8].


74 MODIFICATIONS TO ASET-QB

(a) Flow regime 1 (b) Flow regime 2

FIGURE 4-1. Pressure profiles for different vent flow regimes

An expression for the upper layer vent flow, m, is obtained by


integrating Equation (2.19b), using the relationship between pressure
difference and height in Equation (2.18). Using the auxiliary parameters
defied by Equations (4.4) and (4.9, Equation (2. Hb), after substitution
of Equation (2.181, can be written as

Integration of Equation (4.7) leads to the following expression for the


upper layer vent flow:

4.1.5.3 Transition between Flow Regimes 2 and 3 (Zi < 2,and Z,, = Zi)

Typical pressure profdes inside and outside the room during this
regime are shown in Figure 4-l(c). In this case, air inflow and lower gas
layer outflow are both equal to zero. An expression for the upper layer
Venting of the Hot Layer 75

outflow can be obtained fiom that derived in the previous section, but with
X, = 0:

4.1.5.4 Flow Regime 3 (2; 2,and 2,> Zi)

Typical pressure profdes inside and outside the room during this
regime are shown in Figure 4-l(d). The integral in Equation (2.22a) has to
be split into two parts, because the expressions for the pressure difference
below and above the interface are different. Equation (2.22a), after
substitution of Equations (2.21a) and (2.21b), and using the auxiliary
parameters defined in Equations (4.2) and (4.3), can be written as

After integration, the following expression is obtained for the lower layer
vent flow:

(c) Transition between regimes 2 and 3 (d) Flow regime 3

FIGURE 4-1 (continued). Pressure profiles for different vent flow regimes
76 MODIFICATIONS TO ASET-QB

The upper layer vent flow follows fiom Equation (2.22b). Using Equation
(2.21a) for the pressure difference, and the auxiliary parameter X,defined
by Equation (4.5), this can be written as

Integration of Equation (4.12) leads to the following expression for the


upper layer vent flow:

4.1.6 Computer Solution of the Vent Flow Equations

The expression for the lower layer vent flow in regime 1 is identical to
that in ASET-QB, i.e., Equation (3.10). This expression is valid as long as
Z,2 G. Both rig and rid are equal to zero. Therefore, as far as the computer
solution is concerned, regime 1 does not present a problem because there
is a simple criterion for this regime (Zi 2 23, and it is clear which
equations must be used to determine the vent flows.
If the layer interface is located below the soffit, the situation is much
more complex There are three possibilities, corresponding to flow regime
2, the transition between regimes 2 and 3, and flow regime 3. The first task
of the vent flow routines is to determine which of the three cases is in
effect. A procedure to accomplish this task is developed below.
Equation (2.29), which is obtained by combining Equations (2.25) and
(2.28) to eliminate dZi/dt, can be written as
Venting of the Hot Layer 77

It is useful to defie the following auxiliary variable:

In flow regime 2, m, is equal to zero and h, is greater than zero. Hence,


it follows fiom Equations (4.14) and (4.15) that 4 is greater than iz,,in
this regime. In flow regime 3, m, is greater than zero and m,is equal to
zero, and, therefore, 4 is smaller than m,. In the transition between flow
regimes 2 and 3, both m, and m,are equal to zero, and m: is (by defmition)
equal to iz,.
Another useful auxiliary variable is defined by

It follows fiom Equations (4.8) and (4.16) that is smaller than m, in


flow regime 2. In flow regime 3, Z, is greater than Zi. Therefore, a
comparison of Equations (4.13) and (4.16) shows that m : exceeds fiU. In
the transition between flow regimes 2 and 3,Zn is equal to Zi, and m : is
(again by definition) equal to mu.
Based on the previous two paragraphs, it is easy to develop a method
to determine which flow regime is in effect. The fust step consists of
calculating and according to Equations (4.15) and (4.16)
respectively. Then, if is larger than rhy ,flow regime 2 is in effect. If 6
is smaller than %*, flow regime 3 is in effect. Finally, if 4 is equal to c,
the transition between flow regimes 2 and 3 is in effect.
After it has been determined which flow regime is in effect, the second
task of the vent flow routines is to calculate the flows. In regime 2, rir, is
equal to zero, and both rir, and riz, are hctions of IAP(ZJ [see Equations
(4.6) and (4.8)]. Consequently, for given values of Z and T,, Equation
(4.14) is a non-linear algebraic equation in (AP(Z>1that, with the aid of
Equation (4.15), can be written as follows:
78 MODIFICATIONS TO ASET-QB

The bisection method is a simple technique to solve this type of


equation. The method is explained in detail in Section B.5.2. To start the
iterative solution procedure, the bisection method requires that an interval
be specified which brackets the root of the equation. The root is found by
repeatedly halving the interval until the function value at the midpoint is
equal to zero, within a specified tolerance. In the case of Equation (4. V),
it is easy to find a lower limit of the interval because IAP(ZJ must be
greater than zero. An upper limit for the interval is not as easy to find, but
can be determined as described below.
Equation (4.17) can be rearranged as follows

Replacing the lower layer vent flow on the left hand side of Equation
(4.19) with the expression on the right hand side of Equation (4.6), and
using the d e f ~ t i o nof X, fiom Equation (4.2), after rearranging, leads to

Finally, it is also important for the bisection method to know whether


the slope of the fimction is positive or negative. At the lower limit,
IAP(ZJ= 0, m, is equal to zero. Therefore,f,(O) = TU(~, - m3 is negative,
and the slope of the function must be positive.
In regime 3, rizl is equal to zero, and both maand m, are functions of
AP(Z9 and Z, [see Equations (4.11) and (4.1311. In addition, according to
Equation (2.2 la), 2,can also be written as a function of AP(ZJ:
Venting of the Hot Layer 79

Therefore, for given values of Zi and T,, Equation (4.14) is again a non-
linear algebraic equation in @(&) that, with the aid of Equation (4.15),
can be written as follows:

This equation can also be solved with the bisection technique. In this
case it is much easier to fmd the limits of an interval that brackets the root.
dP(Z,) = 0 is again a suitable lower limit. An upper limit for the interval
follows fkom Equation (4.21), and the fact that Z, cannot exceed 2,:

The reader can easily verify that the slope of the h c t i o n in this case is
negative, becauseL(0) is positive.
Finally, in the transition between flow regimes 2 and 3, completing the
second task is straightforward because m, = = m:, and both m, and m,
are equal to zero.
A review of the vent flow routine will provide the reader with
additional understanding of the vent flow equations and their solution. This
can be found in the subroutine VentFlows of the QBasic source code of
FIRM-QB on the accompanying CD-ROM.

4.1.7 Limitations of the Vent Flow Subroutine

The vent flow model assumes that the lower layer remains at ambient
temperature, which affects the accuracy of the vent flow modeling
technique. This simplification has been discussed by Steckler et al. [49].
In some cases, the lower layer can reach significant temperatures.
However, the assumption of a f i e d lower layer temperature is acceptable
to predict the growing stage of most fues with reasonable accuracy.
4.2 OXYGEN-LIMITED BURNING

A limitation of ASET-QB is that the model is unable to consider


oxygen-limited burning. The inability of the model to consider the effects
of oxygen starvation can result in the prediction of physically impossible
burning rates and hot-layer temperatures. A simplified approach to
predicting and compensating for oxygen starvation within enclosures will
now be presented. Two conditions that lead to limited supply of air (and
oxygen) must be considered.

4.2.1 Vent-Controlled Burning

The vent flow equations for regime 3 developed in Section 4.1 allow
the interface height to descend to the bottom of the vent. In reality, when
the layer interface drops to a certain height, typically between one half and
one third of the vent height, the inflow of ambient air reaches a maximum
that corresponds to ventilation-controlled burning conditions. Based on
work by Kawagoe [24], Drysdale derived the following expression for the
maximum flow 1571:

where

(mh- = maximum inflow of ambient air (kg/s)

A check is included in subroutine VentFlows of FIRMIQB, so that the


inflow of air in flow regime 3 is not allowed to exceed the maximum value
given by Equation (4.24). If the inflow is equal to the maximum,vent-
controlledburning conditions prevail. The interface height quickly adjusts
until the flow of lower layer gases entrained into the flame and plume is
equal to the same limiting value.
Oxygen-Limited Burning 81

4.2.2 Entrainment-Controlled Burning

It was noted in Section 2.6.2.4 that a nearly constant amount of heat is


released by complete combustion per mass unit of oxygen consumed,
regardless of the type fbel burnt. The constant is equal to the ratio of the
net heat of combustion of the fuel and the stoichiometric oxygen to fuel
ratio, Ahc,dr&.$ch.Based on this observation, the maximum mount of heat
that can be released in a flame that entrains a mass flow of (dry) air equal
to m,, is given by:

Drysdale provided a listing of MC,&, and Ahc,JsStoiCh for various


fuels, which is reproduced in Table 4-1. If the reactive fuels and carbon
monoxide are removed f?om the table, an average of 3,030 (*2%) kJkg
is found for Ahc,le&sa~ch.Thus Equation (4.25) can be written in a general
form (if the specific value of A h C , A i c for
h a fbel is unknown) as

Since i z e is a function of the heat release rate [see Equation (2.12)], an


expression to find the rate of entrainment that corresponds to the maximum
allowable heat release rate according to Equation (4.26), is required.
Recalling Zukoski's plume flow model, and substituting Equation (4.26)
above, results in

Solving for rir, and renaming the variable (li2,)- to indicate it is the
maximum possible entrained air flow, yields
Table 4-1, Heats of Combustionaof Selected Fuels (@2S°C)
&,M &,ueJssbich &,neJrstoich
kJ/g fuel kJ/g air kW! 0 2

Carbon monoxide CO
Methane CH4
Ethane c,&
Ethene
Ethyne c2H2
Propane
n-Butane n-C4Hl0
n-~entane n-C5H12

n-octane n-C8H18

c-Hexane c-C6H,
Benzene C,&
Methanol CH30H
Ethanol C,H,OH
Acetone (CH3)2C0
D-Glucose C6H1206

Cellulose
Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Polystyrene
Polyvinylchloride
Polymethylmethacrylate
Polyacrylonitrile
Polyoxyrnethylene
Polyethyleneterephthalate
Polycarbonate
Nylon 6.6 29.6
" Apart from the solids glucose and the polymeric materials) the initial state of
the fuel and all the products are taken to be gaseous.
Heat Loss Fraction Calculation 83

The maximum possible heat release rate can be estimated fiom Equations
(4.26) and (4.28) such that

The heat release rate to be used for the governing equations is the smallest
value of that specified by the user, and that calculated fiom Equation
(4.29). The subprograms in FIRM-QB that calculate the right hand side of
the conservation equations (Derivatives), and the plume flow (PlumeFlow)
were modified to account for entrainment-controlled burning. The reader
is encouraged to review the source code of these subprograms.

4.3 HEAT LOSS FRACTION CALCULATION

The governing equations in ASET-QB require that an estimate of the


heat loss fraction, L,, be provided by the user as input. Cooper has shown
that L, can be estimated to lie between 0.6 and 0.9, and states

The lower 0.6 value would relate to high aspect ratio spaces with smooth
ceilings, and fires positioned far away from walls. The intermediate values
and the high 0.9 value for L, would relate to low aspect ratio spaces, fire
scenarios where the fire position is within a room height or so from walls
and/or to spaces with highly irregular ceiling surfaces.

The derivation of these values is presented in Appendix A of the original


ASET report [6] and will not be repeated here. It is obvious that the
guidelines are not quantitative and leave the user with little assistance. It
would be very helpful to the novice fue modeler, if the model were to
suggest a value for Lc. The total heat loss could be determined on the
basis of a detailed heat transfer analysis, as described in Section 2.6.3.1.
A more pragmatic approach will be used here to develop an expression
to estimate L,.

4.3.1 A Procedure for Estimating L,

According to Cooper, the heat losses consist primarily of radiation,


and convective losses to the ceiling. Therefore, L, can be written as
84 MODIFICATIONSTO ASET-Q9

'c = Lr + 'ceiling + '0th

where

Lceiling= fiaction of heat losses in the form of ceiling convection


L = fraction of heat losses not included in L, and L,,

To allow for a more precise estimate of the radiative losses, the user
of FIRM-QB will be given the option to choose a value for L, that may be
different from the default value of 0.35. This option was not available in
the original ASET models without changing the source code. Some
values for L, are provided in Table 4-3. More data can be found in the
literature (e.g., see Reference [15], pages 3-78 to 3-81, where
L, = hHrad/AHCh).
Cooper calculated the heat losses to the ceiling on the basis of
experimental ceiling jet data, and plotted the ratio of ceiling heat losses
to convective fraction of the heat release rate as a h c t i o n of the ratio of
radial distance fkom the plume centerline to distance between the ceiling
and the fuel surface. Cooper's data are shown in Figure 4-2 as solid
circles. The following expression provides a good fit to Cooper's data:

where

R = radial distance fiom the plume centerline (m)

The range of Rl(H - 23 values in Cooper's plot extended fkom 0 to 2.


Cooper stated that Lmfid(l - Lr) approaches an asymptotic value of 0.4
for RI(H - ZJ 2 2 [it appears fiom Equation (4.31) that the asymptotic
value is 0.47 instead of 0.41. The lower limit of L, values suggested by
Cooper was obtained from Equation (4.30), with L, = 0.35 and
L,,, = 0.4(1 - L,). Cooper cited f i e experiments with rough ceilings
where heat loss fractions were measured as high as L, = 0.89. Therefore,
Cooper recommended using a value for L, between 0.6 and 0.9,
corresponding to a range of L, fiom 0 (for smooth ceilings and high
aspect ratio rooms) to 0.3 (for rough ceilings or low aspect ratio rooms).
Heat Loss Fraction Calculation

0.4

0.3

0.2

Cooper [6]
0.1

0.0

FIGURE 4-2. Ceiling heat loss fraction as a function of Rl(H - ZJ

The values recommended by Cooper are valid only if the ceiling span
exceeds four times the distance between the ceiling and the fuel surface.
In addition, heat transfer between the ceiling jet, after it hits a vertical
wall and is deflected downward, and the walls of the enclosure is not
accounted for. A new procedure will now be developed to address these
two problems.
Shortly after ignition, andjust before the upper layer starts to develop,
the ceiling jet covers the entire ceiling. R can be estimated as the radius
of a circle with the same area as the ceiling. In this early stage, the
temperature of the ceiling is close to the initial temperature. Cooper's
calculations of were based on the assumption that the ceiling
temperature is equal to ambient, and, therefore, are most accurate in this
stage. As time progresses, the upper layer volume increases, possibly until
86 MODIFICATIONSTO ASET-QB

the layer interface descends to approximately one-third of the vent height


above the sill, corresponding to flow regime 4. During the transition
between these two extremes, the wall area in contact with the deflected
ceilingjet and upper layer gases increases. However, the ceiling and wall
temperatures increase also, which compensates for the effect of the
growing area on the convective heat transfer.
To obtain an estimate for the average convective heat transfer, it is
assumed that the losses to the walls can be included by increasing R in
Equation (4.31) over the value that corresponds to the area of ceiling. In
other words, the walls are treated as an extension of the ceiling for the
purpose of calculating convective heat transfer. Using R with no increase
would probably underestimate the convective losses because the area in
contact with the ceiling jet is larger than the ceiling area for almost the
entire duration of the fire. FIRM-QB terminates when the layer interface
descends down to the fire base height. Consequently, the maximum
possible value of R is given by

One would expect that L, values calculated from Equation (4.3l), with
R = R,, would be excessive. However, the resulting heat loss fractions
actually would turn out to be consistently slightly smaller than the values
recommended by Cooper, and those used by Birk in the first edition of
this book. The lower values are probably more realistic for vented
enclosure fires that last more than a few minutes.
Note that L, is equal to 0.05 for rough ceilings, or 0.10 for very
rough ceilings, as suggested by Birk.

4.3.2 Limitations of the Calculation of L,

It is important the reader understands that the methodology presented


for calculating values for L, is only a f ~ s attempt
t at quantitatively
describing the fiactional heat loss to the surroundings. This approach has
not been extensively tested and is based on minimal data. Several
simulations have been run using the computer-predictedvalue of L, with
favorable results.
Heat Release Rate Predictions 87

The method includes no correction for the heat release of the fie.
Obviously, the magnitude of the ceiling jet is proportional to the heat
release rate of the fire [19]. Thus, high heat release fires in small
compartments are likely to suffer fiom poor estimates.
The primary purpose of introducing the expression for the heat loss
fiaction is to provide novice users with a first guess of what L, should be.
The FIRM-QB model displays the value, and the user may select the
value or enter his~herown. This should not discourage those familiar with
selecting values for L, fiom choosing their own.
L, will have a profound effect on the results of the simulation, and,
therefore, these values must be selected with an understanding of their
importance. A discussion of the effects of L, and L, on the predictions of
the FIRM-QB model is presented in Chapter 7. This discussion reinforces
the need for careful selection of values for the heat loss fractions.

4.4 HEAT RELEASE RATE PREDICTIONS

The use of ASET, ASET-QB and the FIRM-QB model developed in


this book requires that the user provide data describing the heat release
rate history of the f i e being considered. This section will describe some
of the simple methods that can be used to determine heat release rates.
This section w i l also present a calculation procedure to predict heat
l
release histories for upholstered furniture.

4.4.1 The Time-Squared Heat Release Model

Perhaps the simplest mathematical expression that can be used to


predict heat release rate is the time-squared model. This can be written as
88 MODIFICATIONS TO ASET-QB

where

t time past flaming ignition (S)


=
a = a constant for a particular fuel or fuel package (kW/s2)
Q ~ W= maximum heat release rate (kW)
t,, = time to reach maximum heat release rate (S)

This method of predicting heat release rates has been widely reported and
used in the literature to determine spacings of detectors and sprinkler
heads. It is referenced in some of the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) codes and standards that deal with these issues [58,59].
However, this simple approach has significant limitations when used for
f i e hazard assessment. First, it requires that the user have knowledge of
the growth factor, a, which is fuel-specific, and is typically found
through curve fitting of full-scale fire test data of the particular fuel.
Some examples of growth factor values for upholstered fhxiture are
shown in Table 4-2. The expression cannot account for decay because
heat release rate increases with the square of time. Also, the heat release
is based on free-burn conditions. A more detailed discussion of the
limitations of using fires can be found in Appendix A of Reference
[601.
The data in Table 4-2 were obtained by fitting the power law in
Equation (4.33) to the results of 40 furniture calorimeter tests conducted
at NIST 1611. The first column in the table contains the test numbers used
in the original NIST reports. The second column is a brief description of
the item that was tested. In NFPA 72, fires are classified as being either
slow-, medium-, or fast-developing. A slow-developing f i e has a growth
factor of 0.0066 kW/s2or less. A fast-developing fire has a growth factor
greater than 0.0469 kw/s2.A mediumdeveloping fire has a growth factor
greater than 0.0066 kW/s2,but less than or equal to 0.0469 kw/s2. The
virtual time of origin, t,,, is the time at which the f ~ f ebegan to obey the
power-law f i e growth model. Prior to t,, the he1 might have smoldered,
but did not burn vigorously with an open flame. The last two columns
contain the time to reach and the value of the maximum heat release rate.
Table 4-2. Furniture Heat Release Data E581

Test a tv tm,
Q-
No. Item Description class* (kW/s2) (S) (S) (kW)
Metal Wardrobe (4 1.4 kg total) f 0.4220 10 42
Chair F33, Trial Loveseat (39.2 kg)
Chair F21, Initial (28.2 kg)
Chair F21, Later (28.2 kg)
Metal Wardrobe, Initial (40.8 kg total)
Metal Wardrobe, Average (40.8 kg total)
Metal Wardrobe, Later (40.8 kg total)
Chair F24 (28.3 kg)
Chair F23 (3 1.2 kg)
Chair F22 (3l .9 kg)
Chair F26 (19.2 kg)
Chair F27 (29.0 kg)
Chair F29 (14.0 kg)
Chair F28 (29.2 kg)
Chair F25, Later (27.8 kg)
Chair F25, Initial (27.8 kg)
Chair F30 (25.2 kg)
Chair F3 1, Loveseat (39.6 kg)
Chair F3 1, Loveseat (40.4 kg)
Chair F32, Sofa (5 1.5 kg)
W in. Plywood Wardrobe with Fabrics (68.5 kg)
?4in. Plywood Wardrobe with Fabrics (68.3 kg)
'/a in. Plywood Wardrobe with Fabrics (36.0 kg)
1 h in. Plywood Wardrobe with FR Interior Finish, Initial
42 1' 6 in. Plywood Wardrobe with FR Interior Finish, Later -** 1.1722 100 65 5000
Table 4-2 (continued). Furniture Heat Release Data [SS]

Qmaa
Test a tv tmax
No. Item Description class' (kW/s2) (S) (S) (kW)
Repeat of % in. Plywood Wardrobe (67.6 kg)
in. Plywood Wardrobe with F'R Latex Paint (37.3 kg)
Chair F2 1 (28.3 kg)
Chair F2 1 (28.3 kg)
Chair, Adj. Back Metal Frame, Foam Cushions (20.8 kg)
Easy Chair C07 (1 1.5 kg)
Easy Chair F34 (15.7 kg)
Chair, Metal Frame, Minimum Cushion (16.5 kg)
Chair, Molded Fiberglass, No Cushion (5.3 kg)
Molded Plastic Patient Chair ( l l .3 kg)
Chair, Metal Frame with Padded Seat and Back (15.5 kg)
Loveseat Metal Frame with Foam Cushions (27.3 kg)
Chair, Wood Frame and Latex Foam Cushions (1 1.2 kg)
Loveseat, Wood Frame and Foam Cushions (54.6 kg)
Wardrobe, % in. Particleboard (120.3 kg)
Bookcase, Plywood with Aluminurn Frame (30.4 kg)
Easy Chair Molded Flexible Urethane Frame (16.0 kg)
Easy Chair (23.0 kg)
Mattress and Boxspring, Later (62.4 kg)
Mattress and Boxspring, Initial (62.4 kg) S 0.0009 90 667 400
***s = slow, m = medium, f = fast
Fire growth exceeds design data
Reprinted with permission from NFPA 72-1996, National Fire Alarm Code, Copyright Q 1996, National Fire Protection
Association, Quincy, MA 02269. This reprinted material is not the complete and official position of the National Fire
Protection Association on the referenced subject, which is represented only by the standard in its entirety.
Heat Release Rate Predictions 91

4.4.2 The Semi-Universal Fire

When Cooper [6] introduced the original ASET report in 1980, he


included an expression for a semi-universal fire based on the work of
Friedman. The expression provides the heat release for a f i e spreading
throw an imaginary fuel package consisting of a polyurethane mattress
with sheets, fuels similar to wood cribs and polyurethane on pallets, and
commodities in paper cartons stacked on pallets. The expression is
designed to provide a broad range of heat release rates. The heat release
rates plotted against time are shown in Figure 4-3. The expressions for the
heat release rates as a h c t i o n of time are as follows:

Qo=10 k W 4 IMMEDIATELY AFTER IGNITION

I I 1 I I
100 200 300 400 500 600
TIME FROM 110 kW1 FIRE IGNlTlON (sec1

FIGURE 4-3. Free-burn heat release rate of a semi-universal fire 161


l 0 exp [O.O25 t ] 0I t I 147.6
400 exp [0.01 ( t - 147.6)] 147.6S t _c 349 (4.34)
300 exp [O.OO5 ( t - 349)] 349 2 t

4.4.3 Pool Fire Predictions

Mathematical predictions of a pool f ~ heat e release rate have also


been widely reported in the literature [9,15,62,63]. A common expression
for mass loss rates for pool fires has been presented as

where

h'' = mass loss rate per unit area (kg/m2*s)


= mass loss rate per unit area for an infmite pool (kg/m2*s)
k = extinction-absorptioncoefficient of the flame (l/@
p = mean beam length correction for the flame
D = pool diameter (m)

Equation (4.35) is valid for pools with a diameter greater than 0.2
meters that are burning in the open. Pool fires with a diameter greater
than 0.2 meters are characterized by burning that is governed by radiative
heating fkom the optically thick flame. This dependence is seen in the
expression by the presence of the kp parameter.
Equation (4.35) provides only the mass loss rate per unit area. The
heat release rate is obtained fkom:

Unless the user changes the pool diameter with respect to time (or any
other variable), the equation will yield a constant heat release rate.
Values to use in Equations (4.35) and (4.36) are shown in Table 4-3.
The expression can be applied to melting plastics, but data for these
materials are, however, quite limited at the present time.
Table 4-3. Data for Large Pool Burning Rate Estimates [91
Density Ahg Ahqne* tjt: kP
Material (kg/m3) (kJ/kg) J/kg) (kgfm2*s) (m) L,"
Cryogenics
Liquid H2 70 442 120.0 0.017 (fO.001) 6.1 (k0.4) 0.25
LNG (mostly CH,) 415 619 50.0 0.078 (k0.018) 1.1 (h0.8) 0.16-0.23
LPG (mostly c3&) 585 426 46.0 0.099 (f0.009) 1.4 (k0.5) 0.26

Alcohols
b
Methanol (CH,OH) 796 1195 20.0 0,017 (fO.001) 0.17-0.20
b
Ethanol (C2H,0H) 794 891 26.8 0.015 (kO.001) 0.20

Simple Organic Fuels


Butane (c4H10) 573 362 45.7 0.078 (h0.003) 2.7 (h0.4) 0.27-0.30
Benzene (c6b) 874 484 40.1 0.085 (h0.002) 2.7 (k0.4) 0.14-0.38
Hexane (C&H1,) 650 433 44.7 0.074 (*0.005) 1.9 (h0.4) 0.20-0.40
Hepme (c7H16) 675 448 44.6 0.101 (f0.009) 1.1 (h0.4)
Xylenes (C&&O) 870 543 40.8 0.090 (f0.007) 1.4 (-10.4)
Acetone (C3&O) 79 1 668 25.8 0.041 (h0.003) 1.9 (h0.4)
Dioxane (C4H802) 1035 552 26.2 0.018" 5.4"
Diethyl Ether (C,H,,O) 714 382 34.2 0.085 (h0.018) 0.7 (k0.3)
Table 4-3 (continued). Data for Large Pool Burning Rate Estimates [g]
Density Ah, Mcget rit," kP
Material (km3) WJM) (kg/m2*s) (m) L,"
Petroleum Products
Benzene 740 44.7 0.048 (h0.002) 3.6 (h0.4)
Gasoline 740 330 43.7 0.055 (h0.002) 2.1 (k0.3) 0.18
Kerosene 820 670 43.2 0.039 (h0.003) 3.5 (M.8)
JP-4 760 43.5 0.051 (kO.002) 3.6 (kO.1) 0.35
JP-5 810 700 43.0 0.054 (hO.002) 1.6 (h0.3)
Transformer oil 760 46.4 0,039" 0.7"
Heavy fuel oil 940- 1000 39.7 0.035 (hO.001) 1.7 (h0.6)
Crude oil 830-880 42.6 0.022-0.045 2.8 (h0.4) 0.18

Solids
Polymethylmethacrylate 1184 1611 24.9 0.020 (h0.002) 3.3 (k0.8) 0.40
(c5%02)
Polyoxymethylene 1425 2430 15.7 0.15
(CH20)n
Polypropylene (C,&), 905 2030 43.2 0.40
Polystyrene (C8H8), 1050 1720 39.7 0.44

a For diameters ca. 1 m. Decreases for small and for very large diameters
Value independent of diameter in turbulent regime
c Only two data points available
Reprinted with permission from Fire Protection Handbook, 16th Edition, Copyright O 1986. National Fire Protection
Association, Quincy. MA 02269
Heat Release Rate Predictions 95

4.4.4 The Furniture Calorimeter

In 1982, Babrauskas et al. released a report documenting the buming


rates of upholstered fiuniture measured within a furniture calorimeter
[64]. The fixnitwe calorimeter opened a new door for the fire test
community. It allowed researchers to measure the buming and heat
release rates of complex fuel packages such as upholstered furniture.
A schematic diagram of the furniture calorimeter is shown in Figure
4-4. The specimen is located on a platform that rests on a load cell, to
measure mass loss during the test. The products of combustion are
collected in a hood, and extracted through an exhaust duct. Probes are
located in the exhaust duct for measuring flow and gas composition. Heat
release rate is determined fiom these measurements on the basis of the
oxygen consumption technique (see Sections 2.6.Z.4 and 4.2.21, using
equations developed by Parker [65] and Janssens [66]. These equations
are rather complex, and will not be discussed here.
Furnitwe calorimeter test standards have been developed in North
America 1671, and in other countries [68]. Most f i e research and testing
laboratories concerned with fimitwe flammability now have a furniture
calorimeter. Since the initial studies by Babrauskas at MST, a
tremendous amount of research has been done in this area. An extensive
review is provided in Reference [69]. For the purpose of this book, two
important results evolved fiom the fhniture calorimeter research. First,
the test results provide a direct source of heat release data for f r e models,
such as ASET-QB and FIRM-QB. To use these data for model input, the
user simply selects an acceptable data set that describes the heat release
curve of the fuel desired. The user then chooses enough data points (heat
release rate vs. time) to adequately describe the heat release curve. Both
ASET-QB and FIRM-QB allow the user to enter these data. HRR-QB is
a separate QBasic program to create heat release rate data fdes, which are
compatible with the MAKEFIRE fde format of FPETool[41], and can be
read by ASET-QB and FIRM-QB. Second, the research has resulted in
a number of calculation methods to predict the heat release rate of
f'umiture items. The most accurate of these methods are based on
correlations between fbmiture calorimeter data and small-scale heat
release rate data of furniture composites measured in the Cone
calorimeter 1701. These correlations are described in detal in Reference
[69]. In the next section, a less accurate, but more generic calculation
method will be described. This method was developed by Babrauskas on
the basis of test data for residential furniture [71,721.

4.4.4.1 Babrauskas ' Generic Heat Release Rate Model

Babrauskas observed that many upholstered fiuniture items have heat


release rate vs. time graphs that are triangular in shape (see Figures 4-5,
4-6,4-9, and 4-10). He found that the area of the triangular part of the
curve on average accounts for 63% of the total heat released by furniture
items with a combustible fi-ame. This is because the triangular part of the

f c THERMOCOUPLE
EXHAUST

'1 1 r mCi
BLOWER
THERMCA^' '-' - .- .- - - METER
SMOKE -
1 1
' -

GAS SAMPLE CHEMICAL H20 TRAP


PRESSURE
PROBE

U
PRESSURE
PARTICULATE FILTER U Ot ANALYZER
& COLD TRAP
TRANSDUCER

U CO, ANALYZER

U CO ANALYZER

PRESSURE
REGULATOR

fDuMp

LOAD PLATFORM U DATA LOGGER

FIGURE 4-4. Furniture calorimeter schematic


Heat Release Rate Predictions 97

I 1 I I I 1 I

2000 - SPECIMEN F2 1 -
1800 - -

FIGURE 4-5. Example of triangular heat release approximation

curve does not include the "tail,"which is primarily the heat release rate
of the frame. Indeed, Babrauskas also found that the triangular part
accounted on average for 91%of the total heat released by furniture items
with a non-combustible fiame.
Babrauskas developed a simple model to predict peak heat release
rate (top of the triangle) and burning time (triangle base width) on the
basis of generic characteristics of the furniture item.
TIME IsL

FIGURE 4-6. Examples of fuels with triangular-shaped heat release curves

According to the model, peak heat release rate can be estimated fiom

Qm= 210 [ F F ][ P F ][CM] [ S F ][ F C ] (4.37)

where

FF = fabric factor
1.O for thermoplastic fabrics (e.g., polyolefm)
0.4 for cellulosic fabrics (e.g., cotton)
0.25 for PVC or polyurethane film-type coverings
PF = padding factor
1.0 for polyurethane foam, latex foam, or mixed materials
0.4 for cotton batting or neoprene foam
CM = combustible mass (kg)
SF = style factor
1.5 for ornate convoluted shapes
1.2- 1.3 for intermediate shapes
1.0 for plain, primarily rectilinear construction
Heat Release Rate Predictions 99

FC = frame combustibility factor


1.66 for non-combustible frames
0.58 for melting plastic
0.30 for wood
0.18 for charring plastic

The triangle base width (burn time) is estimated by

where

t, burn time (S)


=
FM fkame material factor
=
1.8 for metal or plastic frames
1.3 for wood fimes
Ah,, = effective heat of combustion for the fuel item (kJ/kg)

The values for the different factors required in the equations presented
above were derived in Reference [71]. Babrauskas reported that this
method should not be used when the product of the fabric factor FF and
the padding factor PF is less than 0.225, because values this low are
indicative of extensively low burning rates that will not yield the
triangular-shaped heat release curve.
Table 4-4 provides some descriptive information and data regarding
13 items of fbmiture that have been tested in the furniture calorimeter at
NBS. Predicted [according to Equation (4.3 711 and measured peak heat
release rates for the 13 specimens are given in Table 4-5. The predictions
are within &15%of the measured values, except in two cases (F26 and
F28). However, the predictions in those two cases greatly exceed the
measured peak heat release rates, i.e., the error is on the conservative
side. Table 4-6 provides a comparison between burning times calculated
according to Equation (4.38), and the base width of triangles that were fit
to the heat release rate curves. The Ah,, values are those recommended
by Babrauskas et al. [64]. The calculated times are larger in most cases,
which again indicates that the model is generally consetvative.
100 MODIFICATIONS TO ASET-QB

The selection of Babrauskas' calculation method for estimating heat


release rate of upholstered fiuniture is based on the intended application
of the FIRM-QB model. The model is intended primarily for, but is not
limited to residential-type rooms. The fuels that are typically found in
residential-type rooms are upholstered furniture items, such as beds,
couches, chairs, etc. Thus, the Babrauskas model appeared to offer the
widest utility. Again, this certainly does not preclude the use of more
accurate calculation methods that predict heat release rate on the basis of
bench-scale data measured in the Cone calorimeter.
The Eurniture calorimeter has also been used to test non-funnitwe
items such as television sets, Christmas trees, wardrobes and many other
items (see Reference [15], Chapter 3-1).

4.4.5 The HRR-QB Program

A program was written in QBasic that allows users of ASET-QB and


FIRM-QB to create heat release rate data files. The fie name extension
(*.FIR) and file format are identical to those of the fire fies in FPETool
[4 l]. Therefore, if the user already has a database of FPETool fue files,
there is no need to re-enter the data to conduct simulations with ASET-
QB or FIRM-QB.
The f i e files consist of numerical data in three parallel columns,
followed by two lines of text. The fust column is the time in seconds, the
second column is the heat release rate in kW at the corresponding time in
the first column, and the third column is the mass loss rate in g/s. The
latter is equal to the heat release rate divided by the heat of combustion,
which is supplied by the user. The mass loss rate is not used by ASET-
QB and FIRM-QB, but it is needed for compatibility with FPETool. The
values in the last row of the three columns are equal to -9, to designate
the end of the numerical data. The first line of text contains the name of
the file, and the date it was created. The second line is a description of the
fue file entered by the user.
HRR-QB allows the user to create fire files for fires as described
in Section 4.4.1, a semi-universal fire as described in Section 4.4.2, pool
fires as discussed in Section 4.4.3, and upholstered fiuniture fires based
on Babrauskas' triangle model described in Section 4.4.4.1. The program
also offers the user the option to enter a series of data points on a curve,
which can also be done directly fi-om within ASET-QB and FIRM-QB.
Table 4-4. Descriptive Information and Data for 13 Furniture Calorimeter Tests [72]

Mass CM &m
, Q-
specimen (@) (kg) Style Frame Padding Fabric (gls) (kW)
traditional easy chair wood FR PU olefin
traditional easy chair wood FR cotton cotton
traditional easy chair wood FR cotton olefin
traditional easy chair wood FR PU cotton
traditional easy chair wood PU olefin
thinner easy chair wood FR PU olefin
traditional easy chair wood mixed cotton
traditional easy chair wood mixed cotton
traditional easy chair PP 1 PU olefin
traditional easy chair PU PU olefin
traditional loveseat wood FR PU olefin
traditional sofa wood FR PU olefin
traditional loveseat wood mixed cotton 75.0 940
Table 4-5. Predictions of Peak Heat Release Rate with Triangular Model

CM Predicted omm Actual Qmm


Specimen FF PF (kg) SF FC (kw) (kw)
F2 1 1.o 1.o 28.3 1.o 0.30 1780 1970
F22 0.4 0.4 31.9 1.o 0.30 320 370
F23 1.o 0.4 31.2 1.0 0.30 790 700
F24 0.4 1.o 28.3 1.0 0.30 710 700
F25 1.o 1.o 27.8 1.o 0.30 1950 1990
F26 1.o 1.0 19.2 I .O 0.30 1210 810
F27 0.4 1.o 29.0 1.2 0.30 880 920
F28 0.4 1.o 29.2 1.2 0.30 880 730
F29 1.0 1.o 14.0 1.2 0.58 1820 1950
F30 1.o 1.o 25.2 1.2 0.18 950 1060
F3 1 1.o 1.0 40.0 1 .o 0.30 2520 2890
F32 1.o 1.o 51.1 1.o 0.30 3220 3 120
F33 0.4 1.0 39.2 1.0 0.30 990 940
Table 4-6. Predictions of Burning Time with Triangular Model

CM Ah, Predicted Qma Predicted t,, Actual t,,


Specimen FM (kg) (kJ/kg) (kw) (s) (s)
F2 1 1.3 28.3 18,000 1780 372 240
a
F22 1.3 31.9 14,900 320 1931
F23 1.3 31.2 16,100 790 827 746
F24 1.3 28.3 14,600 710 756 490
F25 1.3 27.8 18,000 1950 334 234
F26 1.3 19.2 18,000 1210 371 388
F27 1.3 29.0 20,300 880 870 820
F28 1.3 29.2 13,900 880 600 600
F29 1.8 14.0 35,100 1820 486 381
a
F30 1.8 25.2 20,900 950 988
F31 1.3 40.0 18,000 2520 371 278
F32 1.3 51.1 18,000 3220 371 359
F33 1.3 39.2 13,900 990 715 637
a Poor fit
4.5 THE PREDICTION OF FLASHOVER

4.5.1 Introduction

Flashover is a term applied to the transition period in which


conditions within an enclosure change fkom localized burning to
full-room involvement of most of the available combustibles. Since the
transition is usually quite rapid, flashover has been termed an event much
like ignition, even though it is more a process than an event [57]. Figure
4-7 depicts the typical regimes associated with compartment fires that
become fully developed. Obviously not all fires become fully developed
nor follow the pattern suggested by the figure.
The ability to predict flashover has enjoyed great attention in the fre
research community. This is primarily due to the dramatic change in
magnitude of the threat of a fire to life and property once flashover
occurs.

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800


Time (S)

FIGURE 4-7. Gas temperature vs. time for a typical compartment fire
The Prediction of Flashover 105

As flashover signifies a transition to full development of the fire, it


can be considered to be the point at which those persons still trapped in
the room are unlikely to survive, and at which time structural damage
starts to occur. Flashover may also result in fire rapidly spreading fi-om
the room of origin to other locations within the building.
To predict flashover by mathematical methods requires a quantitative
description of flashover. In 1982, Peacock and Breese presented a paper
that explored predicting flashover using mathematical computer methods
1731. A review of the various definitions of flashover were offered in that
paper. Numerous researchers do agree that good working definitions can
be stated in terms of measurable physical parameters such as the
following:

1 Upper Layer Gas Temperature 2 600°C.


2 Flux at Floor Level 2 20 kW/m2.

The first defmition (T, 2 600°C) has been widely used as an indication
of the onset of flashover, although many researchers prefer to consider a
change in temperature of 600°C as an indicator of flashover. The present
study will consider the onset of flashover to occur when the average
upper layer gas temperature reaches 600°C.
The FIRM-QB model developed here accounts for only a single fire
plume. Because multiple fires mean multiple plumes, it is clear that this
model is no longer valid once flashover is achieved. As such, the model
has a temperature check that will flag the user if the upper layer gas
temperature reaches 600°C. The user does have the option of continuing
the simulation, because he may be using another definition of flashover.

4.5.2 Compartment Effects on Burning Rates and Flashover

Babrauskas and Walton [71] wrote:

The first and most important application of the heat release data is to predict
room flashover. To make this determination, only the peak value of the heat
release is needed, supplemented by physical data characterizing the fire
room.

Thus, the burning rate has a direct influence on the prediction of


flashover.
A valid and pertinent question is, "Does the enclosure affect the
burning rate of the fuel to a point that ffee-burn data are no longer valid?"
In other words, "Can fkee-burn data be used to predict flashover in
compartments?"
First consider a simple expression for the mass loss of a fuel that is
burned in the open, i.e., subjected to fkee-bum conditions. This
relationship [57] can be written as

where

ml = the mass burning rate per unit area (g/m2*s)


q = heat flux from the flame above the fuel (kw/m2)
q = heat losses fkom the fuel surface (kW/m2)
Ah, = heat required to produce volatiles (kJ/g)

Ahg Is the heat of gasification. For a liquid fuel it is equal to the sum of
the enthalpy to raise the temperature of the he1 to its surface temperature
(slightly below the boiling point) and the latent heat of vaporization.
When a fuel is placed in an enclosure, Equation (4.39) changes to

where q: (in units of kW/m2)is the heat flux incident on the fuel surface
from extemal sources [57]. In enclosures, these sources can be from the
hot layer, heated walls, and other flames. It is clear that external heat
fluxes can affect the burning rate of fuels. Hence, the heat release rate
becomes

where A, is the surface area of the burning fuel in m2.


The Prediction of Flashover 107

TIME ttscl

FIGURE 4-8. Enclosure effects on the burning rate of a slab of PMMA

The question now becomes, ''Do enclosure effects significantly affect


the burning rate?'For slab fbels with optically thin flames, the answer
is certainly yes (see Figure 4-8) [57]. For many complex fuel
configurations such as wood cribs, the answer is no. Wood cribs are
known to burn the same in free-burn and enclosure situations. This is
attributed to the shielding of the interior faces of the sticks by the exterior
sticks, and at the same time, the interior sticks act like effective radiators
that are continually heating each other. Thus enclosure effects for wood
cribs are neghgible in most cases 1571.
The FIRM-QB model was developed to be p r i m d y concerned with
fuels that are found in residential settings. Babrauskas has reported on a
comparison of burning rates for upholstered fi;lmiture in fiee-burn and
room-frre scenarios 1561. Based on the results of this investigation,
Babrauskas stated

The validity of open-burning measurements for determining pre-flashover


burning rates in room fires has been successfully verified for typical
upholstered furniture specimens.
Babrauskas continued by saying that post-flashover rates are not
significantly altered for fires that are fuel limited. It appears, therefore,
that heat release data f?om the fimiture calorimeter c m be used to
estimate flashover in compartment fires involving upholstered furniture.
According to Babrauskas, the explanation lies in the radiative thick
flames masking the fuel fiom much of the exterior fluxes. Figures 4-9
and 4-10 graphically compare heat release rates for free-burn and
room-fke conditions.

1 I 1 I I I I I 1

CHAIR F21
-Furniture calorimeter
-S--- Room fire t e s t no. 5
r Flashover

TIME IN FURNITURE CALORIMETER (5)


I I I I I I I I I 1

200 400 600 800 1000


TIME IN ROOM FIRE TEST NO. 5 (S)

FIGURE 4-9. Free-burn vs. room-fire heat release rates for a chair
CHAIR F31
-F u r n i t u r e calorimeter
-- Room f i r e t e s t no. 1
.-. Room f i r e t e s t no. 2
Room fire t e s t no. 6

h
-.---a

r Flashover

200 400 600 800 1000


TlME IN FURNITURE CALORIMETER ( S )
I I I I I I 1 I I l

200 400 600 800 1000


TlME IN ROOM FIRE TEST NO. 1 (S)

L I I I I L I I I 1

200 400 600 800 1000


TlME IN R O O M FIRE TEST NO. 2 ( S )

TlME IN ROOM FIRE TEST NO. 6 (S)

FIGURE 4-10. Free-burn vs. room-fire heat release rates for a chair
1 10 MODIFICATIONS TO ASET-QB

It is clear from these two graphs that enclosure effects are in fact
negligible, even just after flashover. Complex he1 configurations, such
as wood cribs, can also explain, in part, the negligible difference between
free-burn and compartment-fire burning rates. Some chairs and other
similarly shaped fbmiture items may also have pronounced radiative
exchanges between different surfaces such that they behave like wood
cribs. The ability to use £tee-bum data of other fuels ($001 fires for
example) to predict flashover is unclear. No general guideline can be
offered, except that complex he1 configurations and optically thick
flames tend to reduce enclosure effects. Users of f ~ models e are
cautioned to determine the appropriateness of such data when predicting
flashover.
To summarize this section, it has been shown that an upper layer gas
temperature at or above 600°C can be used to predict the onset of
flashover. It has also been shown that the fiee-burn heat release data for
most upholstered fiuniture items can be used to predict flashover.
CHAPTER 5
The FIRM-Q6 Model

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The ASET-QB model described in Chapter 3 and the modifications


and additions presented in Chapter 4 can now be combined into one fmal
product, the FIRM-QB model. The FIRM-QB model is documented in
detail in this and subsequent Chapters.
The FIRM-QB documentation is structured according to ASTM E
1472, "Standard Guide for Documenting Computer Software for Fire
Models." ASTM E 1472 [74] was developed by Committee E-5 on Fire
Standards, Subcommittee E05.39 on Fire Modeling, and was first
published in 1992. Subcommittee E05.33 on Fire Safety Engineering
currently has the responsibility for maintaining the guide.
ASTM E 1472 provides guidelines for the development of
documentation for computer software for scientific and engineering
computations in fire models and other areas of fxe protection engineering.
According to ASTM E 1472, documentation of fire model s o h a r e shall
consist of the following three parts:

1 Technical Documentation
2 User's Manual
3 Programmer's Guide

The technical documentation describes the theoretical and


mathematical foundations of the model. The technical documentation for
FIRM-QB is presented in this Chapter. ASTM E 1472 recommends that
the technical documentation include an assessment of the uncertainty and
accuracy of the model. For detailed guidelines on how to perform this
important task, reference is made to ASTM E 1355, "Standard Guide for
Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models" [75].
112 THE FIRM-QB MODEL

An evaluation of the predictive capability of FIRM-QB according to


ASTM E 1355 is presented in Chapter 7.
The user's manual provides instructions for installing and operating the
software. Sample runs are included to allow the user to verify correct
operation of the program. The user's manual for FIRM-QB forms the
subject of Chapter 6.
The programmer's guide provides instructions for users who want to
customize the program. Guidelines for QBasic programmers who want to
change the FIRM-QB code are presented in Appendix D. The Visual Basic
version, FIRM-VB, is described in Appendix E.

5.2FIRE PROBLEM MODELED BY FIRM-QB

FIRM-QB predicts the consequences of a user-specified fire in a


compartment with a single vent in a vertical wall. Figure 5-1 depicts the
fire problem that is modeled. The main variables that are calculated as a
function of time are upper layer temperature, layer interface height, and
mass flows through the vent. These variables are pertinent to the f r e
hazard, which is quantified by the time to reach untenable conditions
inside the compartment, or by the time to reach flashover. The fire is
located in the center of the compartment, at a sufficient distance fi-omthe
walls so that air is entrained unifody over the entire perimeter of the
flame and fire plume.

FIGURE 5-1. Fire problem modeled by FIRM-QB


Technical Description of FZRM-QB 113

5.3 TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF FIRM-QB

5.3.1 Theoretical Foundation

5.3.1.1 Assumptions

The assumptions used in the derivation of FIRM-QB are as follows:

Two-zone (layer) approximation is considered acceptable.


The pressure within the compartment is constant and equal to
atmospheric pressure.
Heat transfer from the floor and lower wall sections to the lower gas
layer is neglected, and the temperature of the lower gas layer is
constant and equal to ambient air temperature.
The specific heat at constant pressure is assumed to be constant for all
gases, and is equal to the specific heat of dry air at 293 K, i.e.,
c, = 1.004 kJ/kgK.
Zukoski's point source plume model is considered to yield acceptable
results in the flaming, intermittent, and plume regions. Entrainment
occurs between the surface of the fuel and the layer interface. Virtual
source corrections are considered negligible and are not included.
Stratification does not occur, i.e., all heat and mass from the plume
reach the hot layer located below the ceiling.
The transport time from the fire to the hot layer is negligible, i.e.,
quasi-steady state conditions are assumed. The plume occupies a
negligible fkaction of the lower layer.
The heat release rate of the fire is specified by the user. Compartment
effects are ignored, but oxygen starvation due to vent or entrainment
controlled burning are accounted for.
A constant &action, L,, of the heat released by the f i e consists of
radiation.
The energy losses from the flame and plume, and the energy losses
from the compartment through the bounding surfaces are described
simply as a &action, L, of the total heat release at any given time.
Venting occurs only through a rectangular opening in one of the
vertical walls of tfie comartment.
114 THE FIRM-QB MODEL

Since it was developed fiom ASET-QB, the assumptions in FIRM-QB are


largely identical to those listed in Section 3.2. The main differences are:
FIRM-QB accounts for oxygen starvation due to vent or entrainment
controlled burning (assumption 7), the radiative heat loss fraction is not
fixed at 35% but is specified by the user (assumption g), and FIRM-QB
simulates hot layer venting through a door or window in a vertical wall of
the enclosure (assumption 10). Both models assume that the heat losses
through the compartment boundaries are a constant fraction of the energy
released (assumption 9). FIRM-QB assists the user in the selection of a
proper value by providing an estimate of the heat loss fraction. This feature
is not available in ASET-QB.

5.3.1.2 Governing Equations

The main equations in FIRM-QB express the conservation of energy


in the upper layer, and the conservation of mass in the lower layer. These
equations were obtained by simplifying the generic set of conservation
equationsdeveloped in Chapter 2 on the basis of the assumptions listed in
Section 5.3.1.1.
With a lower layer temperature that is constant and equal to ambient
temperature (assumption 3), a constant specific heat (assumption 4), and
upper layer heat losses equal to a fraction, L,, of the heat release rate fiom
the fire (assumption 9), Equation (2.6 1) can be written as

Equation (5.1) is used in FIRM-QB to calculate the upper layer


temperature, T,, as a function of time. This equation is identical to the
upper layer conservation equation in ASET-QB [see Section 3.2.2,
Equation (3.7)].
Q is supplied by the user, either interactively in the form of a series of
time vs. heat release rate data pairs, or by specifying an existing fire file.
The HRR-QB program is a convenient tool to create fire files that can be
read by FIRM-QB.
TechnicalDescription of FIRM-QB 115

The heat loss fi-action, L , is also specified by the user. However,


FIRM-QB uses an algorithm to estimate L, as a function of the height of
the fuel, the geometry of the compartment, and the location of the vent
soffit. This algorithm was developed in Section 4.3.
The entrainment rate, riz, is calculated on the basis of Zukoski's plume
model (see Sections 2.6.2.1 and 3.2.1). If the air entrained into the flame
and plume is insufficient to support complete combustion of the fuel
volatiles, Q is adjusted to account for the lack of oxygen. This, in turn,
affects the entrainment rate, because me is a a c t i o n of Q. A detailed
discussion of the approach in FIRM-QB to address oxygen starvation is
provided in Section 4.2.
Because the lower layer is assumed to remain at ambient temperature,
Equation (2.25) can be simplified to

Equation (5.2) is the lower layer mass conservation equation in FIRM-QB.


This equation is used to determine the layer interface height, Z,, as a
function of time.
The entrainment rate, rir, is calculated on the basis of Zukoski's plume
model, as mentioned above. The rather complicated procedure to determine
the vent flows, ma and k,,,is discussed in Section 4.1. Note that the two
flows cannot be different from zero at the same time.
If the layer interface is located above the vent soffit, ni, is equal to zero,
and lower layer air is pushed outside the compartment at the following rate:

This equation is identical to that ASET-QB for calculating the flow


through cracks at floor level [see Section 3.2.3, Equation (3.1011.
If the layer interface is located below the vent soffit, Equation (2.29),
which expresses the conservation of mass for the entire compartment, is
used to determine the vent flows. In FIRM-QB, this equation takes the
following form (see Section 4.1.6)
116 THE FIRM-QB MODEL

The three vent flows can be expressed as a function of the static pressure
difference at the layer interface height, AP(Zi). Hence, Equation (5.4) is a
non-linear algebraic equation, which is solved for AP(Zi) at every time
step. Once M(ZJ is known, the corresponding vent flows can be
calculated, and substituted into Equation (5.2). FIRM-QB does not allow
rir, to exceed Kawagoe's choked flow limit (see Section 2.6.2.2). The rate
at which hot layer gases are vented, mu, is also calculated in this process,
although it is not needed for the lower layer mass conservation equation.
A more detailed discussion of the vent flow equations in FIRM-QB can be
found in Section 4.1.

53.2 Mathematical Foundation

The conservation Equations (5.1) and (5.2) form a set of two ordinary
differential equations (ODES). This set is solved at every time step to
predict the upper layer temperature, T, and layer interface height, Zi, at the
next time step. A fourth-order Runge-Kutta method with stepsize control
is used for this purpose. The stepsize control algorithm reduces the time
step so that the estimated error of the solution vector is within certain
tolerances. The maximum errors permitted are 0.3 K and 1 mm for T, and
Zi respectively. These values are comparable to the tolerances used by
Walton in ASET-B [3]. The ODE solver and stepsize control algorithms
are discussed in more detail in Section B.5.3.
Equation (5.4) is a non-linear algebraic equation that is solved with the
bisection technique. First, upper and lower limits are found of an interval
that brackets the root of the equation. The root is then found by repeatedly
halving the interval, until the function value, within a certain tolerance, is
equal to zero. In FIRM-QB, this tolerance is set equal to 0.3, which
corresponds to a mass flow of less than 1 g/s. Further details concerning
the bisection method utilized in FIRM-QB can be found in section B.5.2.
Note that two different approaches are used to implement the
numerical techniques in FIRM-QB. The ODE solver was added to the
FIRM-QB Data Libraries 117

FIRM-QB program in the form of a collection of subprograms, in a similar


way as external software libraries would be linked with a program. The
bisection method was implemented by inserting lines of code directly into
the VentFlows subroutine of FIRM-QB. Both approaches are acceptable.

5.4 FIRM-QB PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The FIRM-QB program is written in QBasic. Instructions for


installation and use of the software can be found in Appendix C. The
QBasic source code must be loaded into the QBasic environment before it
can be run. The executable version of the program can be run directly from
DOS or Windows. The two versions of the software are functionally
identical.
FIRM-QB first goes through an interactive session to obtain
information concerning the case to be simulated. The user is asked to
specify the data path and output file name; the geometry of the
compartment, vent, and fuel; and the heat release rate fiom the fue. After
the necessary input has been provided, the program calculates vent flows
and solves the conservation equations at 1 second intervals (or smaller
intervals if required to obtain the desired accuracy). The results are printed
on the screen, and saved to disk every 5 seconds. A hardcopy of the results
is also generated, if requested by the user. When flashover occurs (defmed
as T, = 600°C), the user is given the option to terminate the run.At the end
of the m, a message is displayed explaining what caused the program to
terminate. The user then has the option to view a plot of the results (T,, 2,
Q, and m3 on the screen.

5.5 FIRM-QB DATA LIBRARIES

No data libraries are needed to run FIRM-QB. However, it is helpll


to have a database of fire files for fuels of interest. Fire fdes that can be
read by FIRM-QB can be easily created with HRR-QB (see Section 4.4.9,
and are compatible with the files used by ASET-QB (see Chapter 3) and
FPETool[4 l].
118 THE FIRM-QB MODEL

5.6 PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY OF FIRM-QB

The predictive capability of FIRM-QB was evaluated according to the


guidelines of ASTM E 1355 [75]. The results of this evaluation will be
discussed in Chapter 7.
CHAPTER 6
FIRM-QB User's Manual

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter contains the user's manual for the Fire Investigation and
Reconstructzon Model FIRM-QB. The information in this chapter is
structured according to the guidelines in ASTM E 1472, "Standard Guide
for Documenting Computer Software for Fire Models" [74f.

6.2 TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION

FIRM-QB is a two-zone computer model that predicts the


consequences of a user-specified f i e in a compartment with a single vent
in a vertical wall. FIRM-QB is based on the assumption that the volume
inside the compartment consists of a uniform layer of hot gases beneath the
ceiling, and a layer of cold air between the floor and the hot layer. The
main variables that are calculated as a function of time are upper layer
temperature, layer interface height, and mass flows through the vent. The
first two variables are estimated at discrete time steps by numerically
solving the conservation equations of upper layer energy and lower layer
mass. The conservation equations are ordinary differential equations
(ODES) that are solved with a fourth-order Runge-Kutta technique with
stepsize control. The vent flows are determined sirnultaneouslyby solving
the compartment-wide mass balance equation. The bisection technique is
used to solve this non-linear algebraic equation. The technical
documentation of FIRM-QB is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
120 FIRM-QB USER'S MANUAL

6.3 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The FIRM-QB program is written in Microsoft QBasic. The source


code of the program is included on the accompanying CD-ROM. The
program is also provided in the form of a stand-alone executable.
Instructions for installing and operating the FIRM-QB software are given
in Appendix C.
FIRM-QB first goes through an interactive session to obtain
information concerning the case to be simulated. After the necessary input
has been provided, the program calculates vent flows and solves the
conservation equations at 1 second intervals (or smaller if required to
obtain the desired accuracy). The results are printed on the screen, and
saved to disk every 5 seconds. A hardcopy of the results is also generated,
if requested by the user. When flashover occurs (defied as Tu= 600°C),
the user is given the option to terminate the run. At the end of the run, a
message is displayed explaining what caused the program to terminate. The
user then has the option to view a plot of the results (T,, &, i),and mJ on
the screen.

6.4 INSTALLING AND OPERATING FIRM-QB

For minimum system requirements and installation instructions, the


reader is referred to Appendix C.

6.5 PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS

FIRM-QB first goes through an interactive sequence of questions, to


obtain the necessary input information for the run. A typical example of
the questions and answers (in bold print) is shown in Figure 6-1. For some
of the questions, the program chooses one of several alternate paths
depending on the user's response. Other questions allow the user to select
certain optional features of the program. The remaining questions ask the
user to supply data that describe the geometry of the compartment and
characterize the intensity of the fne. The first two types of inputs are
discussed in this section. The geometry and fire data form the subject of
the next section.
Program Considerations 121

PATH FOR OUTPUT FILE? C:\FIRM\DATA\


OUTPUT FILE NAME (WITHOUT PATH AND EXTENSION)? DIPTANK
DO YOU WANT TO PRINT THE RESULTS (Y/N)? N
S.I., ENGINEERING, OR MIXED UNITS (S, E, M) ? M
RUN TITLE? ACETONE DIP TANK
ROOM FLOOR AREA (ftA2)?1500
ROOM CEILING HEIGHT (ft)? 15
WIDTH OF THE VENT (ft)? 12
VENT SILL HEIGHT (ft)? 0
VENT SOFFIT HEIGHT (ft)? 10
FIRE BASE HEIGHT (ft)? 4
RADIATIVE HEAT LOSS FRACTION (DEFAULT=0.35)? 0.25
DO YOU WANT TO PREDICT THE HEAT LOSS FRACTION (Y/N)? Y
IS THE CEILING SMOOTH, MODERATE, OR ROUGH (S/M/R)? M
ROOM LENGTH TO WIDTH ASPECT RATIO? 1.67
TOTAL HEAT LOSS FRACTION (DEFAULT=0.606)? 0.55
MAXIMUM TIME (sec)? 900
FIRE FILE NAME (WITHOUT PATH AND EXTENSION)? DIPTANK
DESCRIPTION? ACETONE DIP TANK FIRE
HEAT OF COMBUSTION (DEFAULT IS 5159 Btu/lb)? 11092
ENTER HEAT RELEASE RATE (kW) AT TIME o? 1457.8
INPUT TIMES AND HEAT RELEASE RATES (-9,-9 to end)
TIME (sec), HEAT RELEASE RATE (kW)? 150,1457.8
TIME (sec), HEAT RELEASE RATE (kW)? -9,-9

FIGURE 6-1. Typical sequence of questions and answers for FIRM-QB run

1 Path to the directory where the data andfire files are located. It is
assumed that the two types of files (output and fire are located in
the same directory. After the path has been specified, it remains the
same for all runs in a session. If the user wants to change the path, he
must terminate and restart the program.
2 Output file name, without path and extension. This is a string of
maximum eight characters. The name is not case-sensitive, and can
contain only the letters A-Z, the numbers 0-9, and the special
characters ', -, !, @, #, S, %, ", &, (, ), -,,(, ), and '. The data fle
name is automatically given the extension ".FOF." FIRM-QB checks
whether the f l e already exists, and verifies that the user wants to
overwrite the file if this is the case.
122 FIRM-QB USER'S MANUAL

Option to print results during run. To generate a printout, a printer


must be connected to the computer. A hardcopy of the results can be
generated later by printing the output file.
System of units. The user has the option to specifjr the input data in
S.I., U.S. engineering, or mixed units. If mixed units are selected, all
values are in U.S. engineering units, except energy values, which must
be specified in kW. Note that FIRM-QB internally uses S.I. units. The
data in fire files (.FIR extension) are also in S.I. units.
R m title. This is a text string that describes the run. Although the user
can supply up 256 characters (any characters, except commas), the
string is truncated by FIRM-QB to a maximum of 60 characters.
Fire file name. This is a string of maximum eight characters. The
name is not case-sensitive, and can contain only the letters A-Z, the
numbers 0-9, and the special characters ', -, !, @, #, $, %, ", &, (, ),
-, {, f , and '. The fire file name is automatically given the extension
".FIR." FIRM-QB checks whether the file already exists. If the file
exists, FIRM-QB determines whether the user indeed wants to use that
file. If not, the user can specifl a different name. If the file does not
exist, it is created and the user is asked to specify a heat release rate
curve in the f o m of a set of time and heat release rate data pairs. The
user is also asked to supply an average value for the heat of
combustion of the fuel, so that the program can calculate the
corresponding mass loss rate. FIRM-QB (and ASET-QB) does not use
the mass loss rate column, but it is required for compatibility with
FPETool fire f11es [4 11.
Screen plot menu. At the end of a run, the user has the option to view
screen plots of four output variables: layer interface height, upper layer
temperature, heat release rate, and upper layer vent flow. The heat
release rate curve might be different from that specified by the user, if
the fire was oxygen-starved during part of the run.

6.6INPUT DATA

6.6.1 General Considerations

Since FIRM-QB is intended primarily as a usefid tool in fue


investigation and reconstruction, the geometry of the compartment and the
Input Data 123

vent, and the dimensions of the fuel are usually relatively well known. The
main problem is to characterize the fire itself. This type of information can
be found in handbooks, journals, reports of standard tests, reports of
custom experiments, etc. For example, burning rates for a wide range of
fuels can be found in Chapter 3-1 of Reference [15]. An extensive number
of heat release rate curves are compiled in Reference [76]. The radative
loss fraction, L,, is generally in the range of 25 to 35%, and values for a
wide range of fuels are reported in the literature (e.g., see Reference [15],
pages 3-78 to 3-81, where L, = AHradAHCh). FIRM-QB can assist the user
in estimating the total heat loss fraction, L, (see Section 4.3.1).
All input values, except heat release rate data, are typed on a single line
in the appropriate format (numeric or text) followed by ENTER. Heat
release rate data (except at time zero) are entered in pairs. Each data pair
consists of the time and the corresponding heat release rate, separated by
a comma.
All variables, except the data and fire file path, are reset in between
runs. AU text variables are reset to null strings, except that the default units
are S.I. All numeric variables are reset to 0, except L,, which has a default
value of 0.6.

6.6.2 Specific Considerations for Each Input Variable

The input variables that describe the geometry of the compartment, and
that characterize the intensity of the fire, are listed below.

Floor area, A. It is assumed that floor and ceiling area are identical,
and that the floor plan is rectangular in shape. The model will provide
reasonable predictions for compartments with irregular floor plans, but
the estimate of L, might not be reliable. The units for this variable are
m2(S.I.) and ft2 (U.S. engineering and mixed).
Room height, H. This is the distance fiom the floor to the ceiling. Units
are m (S.I.) or ft (U.S. engineering and mixed).
Vent width, W,. This is the width of the vent. If multiple vents are
present, use the sum of the widths. Units are m (S.I.) and ft (U.S.
engineering and mixed).
Vent sill height, 2,. This is the height of the bottom of the vent. If
multiple vents with different sill heights are present, use the average
height as a starting point, and check the effect of sdl height (within the
124 FIRM-QB USER'S MANUAL

range for the different openings) on the predictions. Units are m (S.I.)
and ft (U.S. engineering and mixed).
Vent sofit height, Zt. This is the height of the top of the vent. If
multiple vents with different soffit heights are present, use the average
height as a starting point, and check the effect of soffit height (within
the range for the different openings) on the predictions. Units are m
(S.I.) and ft (U.S. engineering and mixed).
Fire base height, ZfThis is the height of the base of the flame. It is not
trivial to specify this variable for irregular objects, such as chairs or
sofas. If the height of the fuel surface is not very well defined (or if it
varies with time), it is recommended to repeat the simulations for a
range of he1 height values, and to retain the most conservative results.
Units are m (S.I.) and ft (U.S. engineering and mixed).
Radiative heat lossfiaction, L, This is the fraction of the heat released
by the fire that is lost in the form of thermal radiation. This variable is
dimensionless.
Total heat lossfraction, L,. This is the fraction of the heat released by
the fm that is lost to the room boundaries. FIRM-QB has an algorithm
to estimate the value of L,. The algorithm requires the user to specify
the length to width ratio of the floor, and whether the ceiling is smooth,
moderate, or rough. This variable is dimensionless.
Maximum simulation time, t,,. The simulated time will never exceed
this value. However, the program will terminate earlier if the end of the
fire file is reached, flashover occurs and the user instructs the program
to stop, or the layer interface drops below the fuel surface or the sill.
The unit for this variable is seconds.
Heat release rate, Q. If the user decides not to use an existing fire file,
heat release rate data must be entered. Except at time zero, the heat
release rate data are entered in pairs. Each data pair consists of the time
and the corresponding heat release rate. The unit for time is seconds,
and heat release rate is in kW (S.I. and mixed) or Btu/s (US.
engineering). The user must also specify the heat of combustion of the
fuel, in kJkg (S.L) or Btunb (U.S. engineering and mixed).

6.7 EXTERNAL DATA FILES

FIRM-QB (and ASET-QB) requires the user to specify the heat release
rate of the f i e . Heat release rate information is stored in external ASCII
Output Information 1 25

data files, i.e., f i e files. These files have the extension ".FIR," and consist
of numerical data in three parallel columns, followed by two lines of text.
The first c o l m is the time in seconds, the second column is the heat
release rate in kW at the corresponding time in the first column, and the
third column is the mass loss rate in g/s. The latter is equal to the heat
release rate divided by the heat of combustion, which is supplied by the
user. The mass loss rate is not used by FIRM-QB (and ASET-QB), but it
is needed for compatibility with FPETool. The values in the last row of the
three columns are equal to -9, to designate the end of the numerical data.
The first line of text contains the name of the fde, and the date it was
created. The second line is a description of the fire file entered by the user.
Fire fdes can be created directly fiom FIRM-QB. However, it is
recommended to use HRR-QB, because it was written specifically for
e and offers more options (see Section 4.4.5).
creating f ~ files,

6.8 SYSTEM CONTROL REQUIREMENTS

It is recommended that the user press the CAPS LOCK key before
starting a FIRM-QB session. Thus, all character strings will be in
uppercase letters, resulting in a consistent and uniform output format.
Instructions for running FIRM-QB can be found in Appendix C.

6.9 OUTPUT INFORMATION

The results of a run are displayed on the screen, saved to a file, and, if
requested by the user, sent to the printer. The format is nearly identical for
the three output media. A header is shown at the top of the screen, the start
of the data file, and the top of each printed page. The results are printed in
parallel columns below the header. Figure 6-2 shows the output from a m
with input data in Figure 6-1. The fust nine columns contain time in
seconds, upper layer temperature in "F and "C, layer interface height in ft
and m, heat release rate fiom the fire in Btds and kW, and upper layer
vent flow in lb/s and kg/s. The last two columns indicate which vent flow
regime is in effect (see Section 4. l), and whether the fire is oxygen-starved
(see Section 4.2).
FIRM-QB VERSION 1.00 - JULY 1999
ACETONE DIP TANK
SIMULATION OUTPUT DATA FILE : c:\FIRM\DATA\DIPTANK.FOF
FLOOR AREA : 139.35 m A 2 ( 1500.00 ftA2)
ROOM HEIGHT : 4.57 m (15.00 ft)
WIDTH OF VENT : 3.66m (12.00ft)
VENT SILL HEIGHT : 0.00 m ( 0.00 ft)
VENT SOFFIT HEIGHT : 3.05 m (10.00 ft)
FIRE BASE HEIGHT : 1.22 m ( 4.00 ft)
RADIATIVE FRACTION : 0.250
HEAT LOSS FRACTION : 0.550
MAXIMUM RUN TIME 900 S
HEAT RELEASE RATE DATA FILE : C:\FIRM\DATA\DIPTANK.FIR

END OF INPUT FIRE


FIGURE 6-2. Output from typical FIRM-QB run

l26
Personnel and Program Requirements 127

At the end of a run, the user has the option to view screen plots of
upper layer temperature, layer interface height, heat release rate and upper
layer vent flow vs. time. The plotted variables are in units that depend on
the system of units chosen by the user on input.

6.10 PERSONNEL AND PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Anybody who is somewhat familiar with personal computers should


have no difficulties installing and operating the FIRM-Q software.
It is essential that the user have a background in fire science or fue
protection engineering, so that he fully understands the limitations of the
model, and can determine whether FIRM-QB is suitable to solve a
particular problem. In addition, the user must know how to obtain
appropriate values for the different input parameters, and must be capable
of interpreting the results of a simulation.
Any changes to the source code shall be documented by adding
comment lines. It is helpful to include, in addition to a description of the
purpose of the change, the name of the person who made the change, and
the date when it was made. Any publication of results obtained with a
modified version of the model shall include a description of the changes,
so that others can verifL the technical basis for the changes, and can
reproduce the results.
Execution speed varies greatly depending on the type of machine, and
the version of the program. The time needed to simulate the acetone dip
tank fire described in Section 6.11.3 is given in Table 6- 1 for four different
machines, and the two versions of the FIRM-QB program.

Table 6-1. FIRM-QB Execution Time on Different Personal Computers


Environment
Machine QBasic DOSIWindows
25 MHz 386SW387SX
33 MHz 486
60 MHz Pentium
333 MHz Pentium
128 FIRM-QB USER'S MANUAL

6.11 SAMPLE PROBLEMS

The following examples are intended to provide an indication of the


use of FIRM-QB, both in application and execution. The first example is
a reconstruction of an actual fire. The second example is intended to
demonstrate the use of the model in building design for fire safety. The
third example provides an indication of the use of the model for evaluating
an existing hazard.

6.11.1 Reconstruction of the Westchase Hilton Hotel Fire

On March 6, 1982, a fire occurred in the Westchase Hilton Hotel


located in Houston, Texas [77]. As a result of this fire, twelve people lost
their lives and three others were seriously injured. The fire, which
originated in the early morning hours, was reported to the Houston Fire
Department at 2:25 A.M.
The fire originated in a guest room on the fourth floor of the guest
tower. Although reaching Minvolvement, the fire did not spread fiom the
room of origin with any severity. However, hot gases and smoke traveled
extensively throughout the fourth floor, and to varying degrees throughout
the entire guest tower. As with many fires, the cause of death was
generally due to toxic gas poisoning.
TnQcations of the fire were first reported as early as 2:00 A.M.,when
an odor of smoke was detected on the tenth floor. At 2: 10 A.M. light smoke
was observed on the eighth floor in a room located directly above the fire.
The fire was not actually discovered until 2 2 0 A.M.when one of the two
occupants returned to the room of fire origin. Finding the guest elevators
inoperable, this guest used a service elevator and upon entering the fourth
floor, observed smoke in the corridor. Opening the door to his room, this
guest was met by a heavy smoke concentration and later reported a glow
near the bed closest to the window.
When this guest observed the fire, he attempted to extinguish it by
beating it with what was believed to be a pillow. Being unsuccessful in his
attempts, this guest searched for and found his fiiend between the two
beds, and removed him from the room. The two then traveled to the west
exit stairwell (see Figure 6-3).
Sample Problems 129

VWlCAL EXTERIOR FIRE,EXTENSION HOTEL REAR

AREA OF FIRE DAMAGE


t VICTIM LOCATIONS
E ELEVATORS

FIGURE 63. Westchase Hilton Hotel floorplan of the floor of fire origin (reprinted
with permission fiom NFPA Investigation Report Number LS-7, Westchase Hilton
Hotel Fire, copyright 01982, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA,
00269)

Thinking the rescued occupant's date was still in the room, the second
occupant returned to the room in an attempt to search for the date. (Note,
occupant one is identified as the guest who was in the room of origin at the
time of the fire's inception, and who was subsequentlyrescued. Occupant
two is identified as the guest who returned to the hotel to find the fire and
rescue his roommate.) At this time, occupant two was unaware that his
roommate's date had left the hotel. Regardless, due to the rapidly
deteriorating conditions within the room of origin, guest two could not
reenter the room. The two guests then exited the hotel.
The two guests who occupied the room of origin survived the fire with
minor injuries. At postfire interviews, these guests reported that during the
course of the day, when the door leading to the hallway was open, the door
failed to completely close by itself due to interference by the carpeting in
the room. This corroborates the fire investigator's belief that, after the
rescue of occupant number one, the door was left open during the course
of the fire. Estimates suggest that the door may have been open between
6 and 18 inches.
At approximately 2:31 A.M.,the district fire chief arrived on the fire
scene and observed fire projecting out of the windows fiom the room of
origin, which indicated that room flashover had occurred some time after
2:20 A.M. and before 2:31 A.M. Fire department representatives estimate
first water was applied to the fire at about 2:38 A.M., and resulted in fire
extinguishment at Z:4 1 A.M.
130 FIRM-QB USER'S MANUAL

Summary time lines are commonly used for fire investigations. Time
lines can also prove beneficial for comparing model predictions with
eyewitness accounts and other reference data. Table 6-2 contains the time
line that was constructed ftom the information obtained in the
investigation. It is clear ftom the time line that the fire had smoldered for
over twenty minutes. Based on the rapid deterioration of the conditions
within the room of origin after the returning guest rescued his roommate,
it appears that the f ~ maye have been limited due to the depleted oxygen
within the room, or perhaps the chair was just attaining a flaming state.
After the overcome guest was removed ftom the room, the door was left
partially open, which provided a new source of oxygen for the fire. From
this point on, the fue grew rapidly resulting in flashover. From information
provided by the occupants of the room of origin, it is known that at about
2:20 AM., one guest rescued his roommate, assisted him down the hallway,
and returned to search for a second occupant who was believed to be in the
room. However, when the guest attempted to reenter the room, conditions
had deteriorated to the point where he could no longer enter.
The FIRM-QB model will be used to predict the f i e development
within the room of origin. It will be assumed that the first he1 ignited was
an upholstered chair, as shown in Figure 6-4. This assumption was based
on fire investigators attributing the cause of the fire to be a smoldering
cigarette in the chair. As a result of the fire, the Consumer Products Safety
Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology tested
hrniture removed from the hotel that was similar to the f.umiture located

Table 6-2. Time Line of Important Events for Westchase Hilton Hotel Fire
2:OOA.M. Odor of smoke on 10th floor.
2110 A.M. Light smoke noticed in room 804.
220 A.M. Room 404 (room of fire origin) occupant returns. Smoke in
4th floor corridor. Fire discovered in room 404. Unconscious
guest rescued by roommate.
2:25 A.M. Telephone alarm to Houston Fire Department.
2:27 A.M. Fire apparatus dispatched.
2:31 A.M. District fire chief on scene. Fire showing from 4th floor
window, indicating flashover occurred between 2:20 A.M. and
2:31 A.M.
to ble

ORIGIN

bed

bed

FIGURE 6-4. Floor plan of room of origin showing fuel location


in the room of origin. The data in Table 6-3 describe the measured heat
release rate history of the chair. HRR-QB was used to create a fire file for
the chair. The name of this file is CH6-AO1.FIR. If the chair releases
sufficient energy to cause flashover, then the model can be run using the
heat release rate of the chair. If the chair does not, the cumulative energy
release rate of the chair and boxspring-mattress must be combined. It can
be assumed that ignition of the mattress would occur as the chair heat
release is peaking, especially when considering the rapid rise to peak heat
release once the chair begins to flame.
The room dimensions and f i e specifications are shown in Table 6-4.
Based on these data, the model predicts a heat loss kaction of L, = 0.66
(see Figure 6-5). The default value for L,(L, = 0.35) was selected since this
value is typically used for modeling upholstered h t u r e [78]. It is
assumed that minimal fbel had been consumed during the smoldering
period and that upon opening the door to the room, the smoke in the room
cleared appreciably. This assumption allows for the established (flaming)
burning of the fbel (chair) to begin just after the door is opened. Due to the
rapidity that the conditions within the room deteriorated right after the door
was opened, this assumption appears to be justified. The data input screen
with prompts and responses for this simulation, with the door opening set
at 18 inches, is shown in Figure 6-5 and the FIRM-QB computer model
output is shown in Figure 6-6.

Table 6-3. Heat Release Rate History of Chair


Time (seconds) Heat Release Rate (kW)
Sample Problems 133

Table 6-4. Room of Fire Origin - Westchase Hilton Hotel 177


Room Floor Area 263.8 ft?
Room Ceiling Height 8.00 R
Door (Vent) Sofit 6.56 ft
Vent Width (Varied) 6-18 in.
Fire Height (Estimated) 3.0 ft

PATH FOR OUTPUT FILE? C:\FIRM\DATA\


OUTPUT FILE NAME (WITHOUT PATH AND EXTENSION)? CH6-A05
DO YOU WANT TO PRINT THE RESULTS (Y/N)? Y
S.I., ENGINEERING, OR MIXED UNITS (S, E, M) ? M
RUN TITLE? WESTCHASE HILTON FIRE RECONSTRUCTION: 1.5 FT DOOR
ROOM FLOOR AREA (ftA2)? 263.8
ROOM CEILING HEIGHT (ft)? 8
WIDTH OF THE VENT (ft)? 1.5
VENT SILL HEIGHT (ft)? 0
VENT SOFFIT HEIGHT (ft)? 6.56
FIRE BASE HEIGHT ( ft) ? 3
MAXIMUM TIME (sec)? 1200
RADIATION HEAT LOSS FRACTION (DEFAULT=0.35)?
DO YOU WANT TO PREDICT THE HEAT LOSS FRACTION (Y/N)? Y
IS THE CEILING SMOOTH, MODERATE, OR ROUGH (S/M/R)? M
ROOM LENGTH TO WIDTH ASPECT RATIO? 1.41
TOTAL HEAT LOSS FRACTION (DEFAULT=0.660)?
HEAT RELEASE FILE NAME (WITHOUT PATH AND EXTENSION)? CH6-A01

FIGURE 6-5. Example of FIRM-QB input for Westchase Hilton fire reconstruction

Figures 6-7 and 6-8 show the predicted location and temperature of the hot
layer in the room, after established burning has commenced, for various vent
widths. The various vent widths reflect the estimated door opening range of
6 to 18 inches based on information documented during the fire investigation.
Additional opening widths are included for comparison purposes. The
simulation for a closed door was performed with ASET-QB, and the
corresponding data file on the accompanying CD-ROM is CH6-AO1.AOF.
FIRM-QB was used for the other simulations,with door widths between 3 and
36 inches. The corresponding data fdes are CH6-A02.FOF to CH6-A07.FOF.
FIRM-QB VERSION 1.00 - JULY 1999
WESTCHASE HILTON FIRE RECONSTRUCTION (1.5 FT DOOR WIDTH)
SIMULATION OUTPUT DATA FILE : C:\FIRM\DATA\CH6-A05.FOF
FLOOR AREA : 24.51 m A 2 ( 263.80 ftA2)
ROOM HEIGHT : 2.44 m ( 8.00 ft)
WIDTH OF VENT : 0.46 m ( 1.50 ft)
VENT SILL HEIGHT : 0.00m (0.00ft)
VENT SOFFIT HEIGHT : 2.00m (6.56ft)
FIRE BASE HEIGHT : 0.91 m ( 3.00 ft)
W I A T I V E FRACTION : 0.350
HEAT LOSS FRACTION : 0.660
MAXIMUM RUN TIME : 1200 S
HEAT RELEASE RATE DATA FILE : C:\FIRM\DATA\CH6-AO1.FIR

FZASHOVER OCCURRED - RUN TERMINATED BY USER.


FIGURE 6-6. Example of FIRM-QB output for Westchase Hilton fue reconstruction
I I I I

closed door
0.25 ft door width
m - - - - - - 0.50 ft door width 1
- - - - - m - 1 .OO ft door width :
.....,....... 1.50 ft door width 1
2.00 ft door width :
3.00 ft door width I

I I I I

Time (S)

FIGURE 6-7. Layer interface height vs. time for various door widths

,.pH- P

closed door
----- 0.25 ft door width
------- 0.50 f t door width
-----. - 1.OO ft door width
............. 1.50 ft door width
2.00 ft door width
v
-.-.-.m
-,.-..-... 3.00 ft door width

Time (S)

FIGURE 6-8. Upper layer temperature vs. time for various door widths
136 FIRM-QB USER'S MANUAL

From the time versus temperature plots (Figure 6-8) it can be noted that
vent widths from 1 to 3 feet result in flashover being achieved in a rather
narrow time frame of 122 seconds (2.03 min) to 142 seconds (2.37 min).
It is interesting to see that the time to flashover decreases from 142 seconds
(2.37 min) to 125 seconds (2.08 min) when the door width is changed
from 1 to 2 ft, and increases back to 140 seconds (2.33 min) for a door
width of 3 ft. This can be explained by the fact that the fire is not oxygen-
starved prior to flashover for door widths of 2 ft or greater. In that case, the
heat losses associated with the upper layer vent flow are greater for larger
widths, resulting in longer flashover times. Below 2 ft, the fire becomes
oxygen-starved prior to flashover, and the resulting heat release rate
reduction compensates for the decreasing vent flow heat losses. The reader
is encouraged to review the data files to verify this.
Flashover, for the minimal reported door opening width of 6 inches
(0.5 feet), occurs at 199 seconds (3.32 min), and at 299 seconds (4.98 min)
for a door opening of only 0.25 feet. Thus, the time to flashover begins to
differ appreciably for door openings greater than approximately 1 foot.
With the door closed, the simulation was terminated before flashover
occurred, i.e., when the layer interface dropped below the fuel height. If it
is assumed that the door was left open at least one foot, then flashover can
be predicted to have occurred approximately at 2-2.5 min past established
burning. As noted, the prediction of the time to flashover is extremely
dependent on the true opening of the door.
The interface prediction (see Figure 6-7) is less affected by the door
opening width. The interface height is between 1.2 and 1.5 m (4 and 5 ft)
when flashover occurs, and decreases with increasing door width.
Based on values presented by Cooper and Stroup, untenability in
enclosure fres is assumed to occur when the hot layer reaches 183°C
(361°F) when the hot layer is above eye level, or when the hot layer
reaches l OO°C (2 12°F) when the hot layer descends below eye level [35].
The selection of 183°C is based on the fact that the radiant flux fiom a
black body (i.e., a perfect radiator, see Section B.3.3.1) at this temperatwe
is 2.5 kw/m2,which is near the threshold of human tenability. The 100°C
(i.e., the boiling point of water) is based on the damages suffered by the
respiratory system due to the inhalation of hot gases and due to irritation
of the skin and eyes. Using 5 feet (1.5 m) as an estimation of eye level, it
can be noted fiom Figures 6-7 and 6-8 that the eye level criterion is not
important since the hot layer drops below that level when the upper layer
temperature is already much higher than 183°C. Between 50 and 55
Sample Problems 137

seconds into the fire, regardless of the door width, the hot layer is above
the 183°C untenability limit. Therefore, there is less than one minute for
occupants to safely exit the hotel room after the onset of flaming
combustion. If it took approximately I minute for the rescuing guest to
assist his roommate to the west exit stairwell and then return to the room
of origin, the conditions within the room would have deteriorated to the
point where reentry to the room was impossible. In another minute and a
half, flashover in the room would occur based on the model predictions.
This would correspond to a real time of about 2:23 A.M. This is about 8
minutes prior to the arrival of the district chief, who reported observing
flames h m the window of the room of origin. Flashover predictions based
on the minimal door openings of one-quarter and one-half of a foot would
also result in flashover times prior to the arrival of the district chief.
The f i e development predicted by the model appears to be reasonable.
In particular, the time to flashover is predicted within the allowable range
based on eyewitness accounts. The time elapsed between flashover and the
time of the district chief S arrival is unknown. Also, the error associated
with the times provided by the eyewitnesses is unknown. Within these
limitations, the true time to flashover cannot be more adequately
quantified As such, an evaluation of the model predictions versus the true
event time line cannot be more specific. However, the predictions do
appear to be acceptable. The results could be used to further study the fue
and to evaluate the effect of varying input data, such as fuel loading, and
first fuel ignited, i.e., bed versus chair. An indication of the effects of
varying door widths has already been provided.
Several limitations must be considered with studies such as the actual
fire reconstruction just provided. The difficulty associated with the
incomplete time lines for comparison has already been mentioned. Also,
the effect and importance of varying the heat loss fractions will be
demonstrated in Chapter 7. This was not included in this study. An
assumption of the study was that when the door was opened to the room
of origin, the smoke present quickly cleared, and the fxe then began as a
small flame on the chair. The effect of varying the input data to account for
varying initial conditions would also be beneficial. Also, it was assumed
that the first fuel ignited (the chair) was the only fuel appreciably
contributing to the fue up to flashover. In the same regard, it is not known
for sure that the fire actually originated in the chair; it could have
originated in the bed near the chair.
138 FIRM-QB USER'S MANUAL

To summarize, fire modeling can be an effective tool for assisting in


the reconstruction of actual fire incidents. However, a great deal of
information is required, and numerous simulations should be run to
account for variations in input data. The uncertainty associated with input
data and the time lines used for comparison must also be evaluated. Once
the model predictions have been tested and accepted, the model input can
be varied to investigate the effect of altering the $re scene on model
predictions. It should be clear that the above example does not reflect a
complete reconstruction using fire modeling. It only demonstrates an
approach, and presents some of the difficulties and limitations associated
with the application of fire modeling to the reconstruction of actual fire
incidents.

6.11.2 The FIRM-QB Model as a Design Tool

Chapter 13 of the 1997 edition of the National Fire Protection


Association document NFPA 101, The Life Safety Code [79], covers
requirements for existing health care facilities. Paragraph 13-3.6.1 states
that corridors must be separated from all other areas by rated partitions and
protected openings. Exception No. 6 of that paragraph states that certain
spaces may be open to the corridors and unlimited in area, provided the
non-separated area is either protected by automatic sprinklers, or "the
furnishings and fiuniture in combination with all other combustibles within
the area are of such a minimum quantity and are arranged so that a fully
developed fire is unlikely to occur." Other requirements must also be met
before this exception may be taken.
A design team may wish to take this exception, but not want to install
sprinklers. Alternatively, they may wish to determine which is the most
functional and cost-effective:providing sprinkler protection or limiting the
combustibles. One possible approach for evaluating the combustibles
permitted in the space would be to use computer fue modeling to evaluate
different he1 scenarios within the space.
For example, consider a hospital waiting area that is located on a
patient wing and opens directly into a corridor. The floor area is 400
square feet, with an 8-foot high ceiling. The entrance into the space is
through a large opening that is 7 feet high and 9 feet wide. The architect's
interior design section has selected two types of sofas, both of which come
in three sizes: full, one-half, and one-quarter. The ody difference between
the two types of sofas is the cover fabric. One has a polyolefm cover, the
other is primarily cotton. The proposed sofas are described in Table 6-5.
The sofa selection, and the number to be used, will be based on the
requirement that the sofas must not be capable of causing flashover in the
waiting area.
The geometric data of the space in question, and the data provided on
the proposed sofas will be used to predict the fire development within the
waiting area. The triangular heat release prediction model will be used to
provide an estimate of the heat release rate history of the sofas. The
approach will be to model the fire development resulting fiom involvement
of a single sofa, to determine if the single piece is capable of causing
flashover. It will be assumed that the single pieces will be placed such that
ignition of a secondary fuel item cannot occur due to heat transferred fiom
the f ~ sfuel
t ignited. Methods to evaluate the required separation can be
found in the literatwe [go].
As a conservative approach, since life safety is the primary concern,
low heat loss fiactions were selected because low values would result in
higher predicted hot-layer temperatures. With L, = 0.30, a moderately
rough ceiling, and a compartment length to width ratio of 1, FIRM-QB
suggests a value of 0.63 for L,. Therefore, an L, value of 0.30 and L, of
0.55 were selected as being reasonable, but below the expected values.
This affords a factor of safety in the analysis.
The sofas with polyolefm-based cover fabrics were evaluated first.
According to the FIRM-QB model, all three sizes would cause flashover
in the waiting area. Therefore, the use of these sofas would be prohibited
(see CH6-B0l .FOF through CH6-B03.FOF on the CD-ROM for the actual
model outputs). The cotton-covered sofas were then evaluated. The full-

Table 6-5. Sofa Selection Data


Frame: Wood
Padding: Polyurethane Foam
Cover Fabric: Polyolefin or Cotton
Total Weight: 5 1.50 kg (M1 size)
26.75 kg (Xsize)
12.86 kg (% size)
Heat of Combustion: 18,000 kJ/kg (Polyolefin)
14,600 kJkg (Cotton)
140 FIRM-QB USER'S MANUAL

size cotton-covered sofa resulted in flashover. The one-half size sofa f i e


approached flashover near the peak heat release, but did not reach it. The
one-quarter size sofas did not cause flashover by a large margin (see
CH6-B04.FOF through CH6-B06.FOF for the actual model outputs). A
sensitivity analysis in Section 7.3.4.3 will show that relatively minor
changes of some critical input variables would result in flashover for the
one-half size sofa fre. Therefore, the smallest size cotton-covered sofa is
the only design that should be safely permitted for use in the waiting area
(without sprinklers). The peak heat release rates, and times to flashover for
the various sofa designs are shown in Table 6-6.
Since the predictions are based on conservative input, the use of
cotton-covered sofas of the one-quarter size appear to be safe for use in the
waiting area. As mentioned above, there still remains the need to safely
locate the fuels (sofas) apart from each other such that flaming or radiative
ignition cannot occur. Obviously, numerous other sofas could be
considered. For example, sofas with cotton batting are not likely to cause
flashover for the situation considered, and may be a candidate for use in
full-size sofas within the waiting area. Figure 6-9 shows the effect of
altering the composition of upholstered furniture on the rate of heat release.

6.113 The Firm-QB Model as a Hazard Analysis Tool

As an example of the evaluation of an existing hazard, a fictitious


facility will be considered. The facility r e f ~ s h e old
s fimiture and uses an
acetone dip tank for stripping old paint and finishes off of the furmture.

Table 6-6. Heat Release Rates and Times to Flashover of Various Sofa Designs
Computed by FIRM-QB
Sofa Peak Heat Release Rate Time to Flashover (S)
Full Polyolefin
%-Polyolefin
%-Polyolefin
Full Cotton
%-Cotton
%-Cotton
Sample Problems 14 1

FURNITURE WIMETER

TME (S)
FIGURE 6-9. Effect of varying fuel composition on heat release rate [72]
The dip tank is a square tank with Cfoot sides, and the top of the acetone
is approximately 4 feet above the floor. The dip tank is located in a large
room that measures 30 by 50 feet, with a 15-foot ceiling. On each end of
the room are 10-foot high by 6-foot wide openings, where the fiuniture
passes through. Since the model allows for a single vent only, it will be
assumed that a single vent, tvvice the width of the two equal-area vents,
will result in vent flows equivalent to that of the two single vents. Thus, the
vent will be modeled as being 10 feet high by 12 feet wide.
The authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) is concerned that the
unprotected acetone tank poses an unacceptable hazard to the life safety of
the workers, due to the threat of spreading fire caused by flashover.
Predictive modeling can be used to evaluate the threat posed by the acetone
tank. For the present analysis, the primary concerns will be, "Can the
acetone tank cause flashover?'and "How much time is available for safe
egress?"
From measurements of the facility, the geometric data required for
input is available. Based on the information on page 3-78 of Reference
[H], the radiative heat loss fiaction for acetone can be estimated to be
27%. With L, = 0.27, LIW = 1.67, and a moderately rough ceiling,
FIRM-QB suggests a value of 0.62 for L,. Again, since life safety is a
primary concern, low heat loss fractions will be used to afford a factor of
safety, i.e., L, = 0.25, and L, = 0.55. An estimation of the rate of heat
release fiom the burning acetone tank is required. The acetone tank can be
adequately modeled as a pool fire. From Equations (4.35) and (4.36), and
Table 4-3, the heat release rate can be predicted by

where, from Table 4-3

"zil 0.041 kg/m2*s


kp =1.91/m
Ah,, = 25,800 kJ/kg

The heat release rate, which is considered to be a constant until the fuel is
consumed, is found to be 1457.8 kW. Note that the diameter of the pool,
D, must be specified in meters. A data input screen similar to that for the
acetone dip tank example is shown in Figure 6-1. For this example,
different names were used for the data and fire files, i.e., CH6-Col.*
instead of DIPTANK.", and a maximum simulation time of 900 seconds
was specified. The results for the first 150 seconds of the simulation are
identical to those in Figure 6-2. To review the complete results of the
simulation, the reader can browse through the data file, CH6-CO1.FOF.
Figures 6-10 and 6- 11 show the predicted layer interface height and
hot-layer temperature as a function of time for the acetone fire. Based on
a hot-layer temperature of 600°C, the FIRM-QB model shows that
flashover does not occur (see Figure 6-11). The available safe egress time
can be determined on the basis of untenability criteria, such as the ones
proposed by Cooper and Stroup (see Section 6.1 1.1). Using 5 feet (1.5 m)
as an estimation of eye level, it can be noted fiom Figure 6-10 that the
interface never drops below eye level, since the hot layer becomes steady
at 8.5 fi (2.6 m) above floor level. However, at 35 seconds into the fire, the
hot layer temperature is equal to 183OC. Therefore, there is less than one
1 ' " ' I " "

ceiling

soffit

0 300 600 900


Time (S)

FIGURE 6-10. Layer interface height for acetone dip tank hazard analysis

0 300 600 900


Time (S)

FIGURE 6-11. Hot layer temperature for acetone dip tank hazard analysis
144 FIRM-QB USER'S MANUAL

minute for all occupants to safely exit the room containing the acetone dip
tank. If someone is injured and requires assistance, the time available for
safe egress may be insufficient. If occupants delay egress, for whatever
reason, they could be subjected to untenable conditions. Furthermore, since
acetone has a boiling point of only 56S°C, ignition of other acetone tanks,
if present, is quite likely. Based on this analysis, the AHJ may have
sufficient cause to require some form of suppression system protecting the
dip tank (if not already required), or may prevent the continuation of
dipping operations. In other situations, the analysis may suggest that a
variance in the code requirements is permissible, although this would
require a more extensive analysis to verify the effect of uncertainties in the
input data on the results of the predictions.

6.12 RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

FIRM-QB will run on virtually any IMB compatible PC. The source
code can be loaded and executed fiom the QBasic environment. The
QBasic interpreter is included with DOS (version 5.0 and higher) and
Windows 95. The executable can be run directly fiom DOS or Windows.
Therefore, there are no significant hardware or software restrictions.
FIRM-QB predicts the consequences of a user-specified fire in a
compartment with a single vent in one of the vertical walls of the
compartment. Therefore, the application of FIRM-QB is limited to certain
types of problems. The predctive capability of FIRM-QB has been verified
for compartments with a floor area of 100 m2 (or 1000 fl?) or less and a
height of the order of 3 m (or 10 ft), and fires of a few Megawatts (see
Chapter 7). If FIRM-QB is used to simulate a much bigger fire and/or a
fue in a much larger compartment, it is strongly recommended that the user
evaluate the predictive capability of the model according to the guidelines
in ASTM E 1355.

6.13 ERROR MESSAGES

FIRM-QB has limited error-handling capabilities. When executed fi-om


the QBasic environment or fiom DOS, the program will prompt the user
if a disk error (disk Ml, disk not ready, etc.) or a printer problem (out of
paper, printer off-line, etc.) occurs. A message is displayed explaining the
Error Messages 145

problem, and requesting corrective action. When executed from Windows,


the operating system provides this type of error-handling.
The program does not check whether input parameter values are
physically possible. For example, if the soffit height exceeds the room
height, the program will not detect the error and will crash. In other cases,
input data errors may lead to unexpected or unphysical results. It is the
user's responsibility to check the input data for this type of errors. The
FIRM-QB source code can be easily expanded to include tests to verifl
that input data are within a valid range.
CHAPTER 7
Evaluation of the Predictive
Capability of FIRM-QB

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Once a model has been developed, it must be rigorously tested to


assure the model yields acceptable results, regardless of its simplicity or
complexity. This "testingy7of the model is commonly referred to as
"evaluation of the predictive capability of a model." Without this
evaluation, the results of a model will be suspect.
The subject of this chapter is the evaluation of the predictive capability
of FIRM-QB. This evaluation is performed following the guidelines in
ASTM E 1355, "Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability
of Deterministic Fire Models" [75]. The evaluation process, according to
ASTM E 1355, consists of the following four steps:

1 Defme the scenarios for which the evaluation is to be conducted.


2 Validate the theoretical basis and assumptions used in the model.
3 Verify the mathematical and numerical robustness of the model.
4 Evaluate the mode, i.e., quantify its uncertainty and accuracy.

Step 4 is usually based on a comparison between model output and


experimental data, and provides an indirect method for validation (step 2)
and verification (step 3) of a model for the scenarios of interest (step 1). It
is generally assumed that the model equations are solved correctly, and the
terms validation and evaluation are therefore often used interchangeably.
Khoudja stated that model validation/evaluation "is the process of
determining how appropriate a model is for possible use" [81]. Davies
reported that "Model validation is essentially a reviewing or auditing
function with a bias towards the user's viewpoint" [82]. Bukowski
148 EVALUATION OF THE PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY OF FIRM-QB

described validation~evaluationas "establishing the statistical accuracy of


the predicted quantities" [83]. Peacock et al. refer to the
validation/evaluationactivity as "the accuracy assessment process" where,
"for complex models, the question to be answered is not does the model
agree with experiment, but rather how close does the model come to the
experiment" [5 l]. Interestingly, Watts has stated that "no model can be
validated in an absolute sense; i.e., a model can never be proved correct,
it can only be proved wrong. . . . Thus, in practice, validating a fire model
is really a problem of invalidation" [84].

7.2 PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY OF FIRE MODELS

The four steps in the model evaluation process as described in ASTM


E 1355 are discussed in some detail below.

7.2.1 Documentation

The f i s t step of the process consists of a review of the model


documentation, and a description of the fire scenarios for which the
evaluation is to be conducted. Sufficient documentation is necessary to
determine whether the model is suitable for the intended use, i.e., the
simulation of frre scenarios of interest. ASTM E 176, "Standard
Terminology of Fire Standards" [85], defiesfie scenario as "a detailed
description of conditions, including environmental, of one or more stages
from before ignition to the completion of combustion in an actual fire, or
in a full scale simulation." Model documentation prepared according to
the guidelines in ASTM E 1472 [74] contains all the elements needed for
a proper evaluation.

7.2.2 Validation

Ideally, a model should be validated by an independent expert who has


not been associated with the development of the model. In practice, often
only the model developer has enough incentive to conduct such a tedious
and time consuming task. The validation process consists of a detailed
review of the theoretical basis of the model, and an assessment of the
Predictive Capability of Fire Models 149

correctness of the assumptions that are made and the approaches that are
used.

7.2.3 Verification

A model is verified by assessing its mathematical and numerical


robustness. Verification can be performed by comparing model output to
analflcal solutions of simple problems for which such solutions exist (e.g.,
steady problems), by checking the computer source code for irregularities
and inconsistencies, andlor by investigating the accuracy and convergence
of the numerical solutions of the model equations.

7.2.4 Evaluation

A model is evaluated on the basis of a comparison between its output


and experimental data for the scenarios of interest.

7.2.4.1 Types of Evaluations

A distinction can be made between 3 types of evaluations:

Blind Evaluation. The person performing the evaluation is provided


with a basic description of the problem, and must develop appropriate
inputs &om the limited information that is provided. A blind evaluation
does not only assess the model, but also tests the ability of a user to
develop appropriate input data.
SpeczJed Evaluation. The person performing the evaluation is
provided with a detailed description of all model inputs. A specified
calculation is primarily an evaluation of the underlying physics of the
model.
Open Evaluation. The person performing the evaluation is provided
with the most complete information, including experimental data and
the results of blind and specified calculations.

least one of the three types of evaluations should be performed to


compare different models, and to determine which model is most suitable
150 EVALUATION OF THE PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY OF FIRM-QB

for simulating a particular scenario. Working Commission 14 of the


Conseil International du Biitiment (CIB W 14) conducted a major program
that involved the three types of evaluations to compare more than two
dozen models in their ability to simulate a series of single compartment fire
tests that were conducted at the Technical Research Center of Finland
(VTT) [86].

7.2.4.2 Sources of Eqerimental Data for Model Evaluation

There are 4 major sources of experimental data for model evaluation:

1 Standard tests. Standard test data are useful for the evaluation of
models that predict how a material or assembly performs in the test.
Only a few standard test procedures involve a room, and most standard
test data are therefore not applicable for the evaluation of compartment
fire models. ASTM E 603, "Standard Guide for Room Fire Tests" [87]
provides general guidelines for conducting full-scale fire experiments,
and is perhaps the most useful standard test procedure in terms of
generating data suitable for compartment fire model validation.
2 Tests conducted speclJicallyfor thispurpose. Due to the high cost, it
is very unusual that full-scale tests are conducted specifically to
provide data for evaluation of a particular model. If experiments are
conducted, they should be designed judiciously to assure the data
produced by the tests affords the best data for comparison. For
example, a model that does not calculate layer species concentrations
certainly would not require any experiments where these data are
measured.
3 Test data in the literature. For obvious reasons, the open literature is
by far the most common source of data for model evaluation.
4 Fire experience. Fire risk assessment involves a very large number of
deterministic computer fire model runs, and can be used to evaluate the
model by comparing the results of the risk assessment to fire statistics.
Compartment fire models are usefd tools in the reconstruction of fires,
and can be evaluated by checking whether model predictions are
consistent with the time line and other pieces of information in the fire
investigation report (e.g., see Section 6.11.1).
Predictive Capability of Fire Models 151

7.2.4.3 Accuracy and Uncertainty of Fire Models

Two factors contribute toward the uncertainty and accuracy of fire


models when quantified, by comparing model predictions with
experimental data:

l Model Uncertainty. This is primarily due to the uncertainty of model


inputs. Sensitivity analyses are used to identify the critical input
parameters, i.e., parameters for which small deviations result in large
changes in model output. The critical input parameters must be
specified with much greater care than the parameters to which the
model is relatively insensitive. A sensitivity analysis of a complex
model might involve a very large number of runs to assess the effect
of all input parameters individually, and of possible interactions
between different parameters. Peacock and Breese reported that a
study involving the systematic variation of the input parameters of the
Harvard Fire Code would require up to 3 192 computer runs [88]. This
is clearly an effectively impossible requirement. Fortunately, special
mathematical techniques, such as Latin Hypercube Sampling [89], can
be used to drastically reduce the number of computer model runs
without losing much information.
2 Experimental Uncertainty. Full-scale fire test data are generally
accepted without question. However, such data are subject to
uncertainties. Therefore, discrepancies between model predictions and
experimental data might be, at least partly, due to measurement errors.
There are procedures to determine the precision of standard test
methods on the basis of interlaboratory trials or round robins [90,91].
Custom non-standard full-scale fire experiments are usually not
repeated for cost reasons. However, the uncertainty of custom test data
must be comparable to that of standard full-scale f i e tests. Round
robins of standard .111-scale fire test methods have shown that the
uncertainty of some measurements may be as high as %30%[92].

7.2.4.4 Comparing Model Ou@ut to Experimental Data

There are many problems in comparing the results from fire model
simulations to data fiom full-scale fire experiments. Some of the problems
are due to the differences between the form of the recorded experimental
data and the form needed for comparison with model predictions. For zone
models, the compartment is divided into two distinct zones, a lower cool
layer and a hot upper layer. In reality, there is no such clear and sharp
change distinguishing the lower and upper layers. A typical temperature
profile inside a f i e compartment is shown in Figure 7-1. Also shown in
Figure 7-1 is the corresponding idealized temperature distribution for a
two-zone situation. The difference between actual and ideal is obvious. To
use experimental data for comparison with zone model results requires that
the experimental data be cast into an idealized form, i.e., isothermal upper
and lower layers separated by a sharp interface. This is commonly
accomplished by identifying the ideal interface level, and then simply
averaging the temperatures within the hot layer based on thermocouple
data. Thus the problem is one of identifying the ideal interface level. A
common procedure to determine the location of the layer interface on the
basis of vertical temperature profile measurements was developed by
Cooper et al., and is referred to as the NO/o rule [93]. According to this rule,
the interface is located at a height at which the gas temperature rise above
ambient is some percent of the temperature rise (10, 15, or 20 percent, for
example) of the top-most thermocouple in the test room. The dependence
on the selection of the interface on the data used for comparison is evident.
A lower value for the interface will likely lead to a lower hot-layer

l ' l - l ~ l - l ~ l - i

Two-loyer profile
2.0 - P Measured profile - 2.0

-
C
0
- U-
-
1.5- /--U- 1.5
E 0
W -0'
3
N
3
- 1 .o
...........................................................
.-
0,
0,
C*
0
t
Neutral plane height a

I
0.5 -
P
0 - 0.5
0

0.0 I . I . I . I . I . I .
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperature (OC)

FIGURE 7-1. Typical two-layer and measured room temperature profiles


Predictive Capability of FIRM-QB 153

temperature due to averaging in the relatively cooler temperatures of the


lower portions of the hot layer. Intuitively, the opposite is true for the
selection of a higher (evaluation) interface level. This effect must be
considered when comparing experimental and model results. A more
detailed discussion on the subject of transforming room fire test data so
that they are suitable for comparison with results fiom zone model
shulations can be found in Reference [94].
Perhaps the most common method for comparing experimental data
and model results is through graphical methods. Two variables are plotted
against each other for both the experimental data and model predictions.
Graphs of layer temperatures, interface location, and vent flows as a
function of time are the most widely used. Since it is difficult to quantify
the agreement between two curves, evaluations based on this type of
comparison are usually subjective.
For graphs plotting values against time, a common technique is that of
time shifting. Time shifting refers to the sliding of data along the time axis
to get key events to match, thus providing a reference point for comparing
the entire graph. For example, an experimental procedure that utilizes a
cigarette as a smoldering ignition source may not result in flaming ignition
for extended time periods [72]. The period of smoldering can be ignored
and the comparison between model and experiment can be initiated at a
reference heat release rate, i.e., one indicative of flaming ignition of the
fuel being modeled. Examples of data that have been time-shifted for
comparison between data sets are provided by Figures 4-9 and 4-10 in
Section 4.5.2.

7.3 PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY OF FIRM-QB

7.3.1 Documentation

The fire scenario simulated by FIRM-QB is that of a single item


burning in a compartment with a vent in a vertical wall. The fire is
specified by the user in the form of a heat release rate vs. time curve.
FIRM-QB predicts the consequences of the fire in t e r n of the average
upper layer temperature, layer interface height, and mass flows through the
vent. The documentation for FIRM-QB was developed according to the
154 EVALUATION OF THE PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY OF FIRM-QB

guidelines of ASTM E 1472 1741, and can be found in Chapters 5 and 6,


and in Appendices C and D.

7.3.2 Validation

Validation of FIRM-QB by an independent expert is not provided. The


reader is encouraged to validate the model by assessing the completeness
of the documentation, by reviewing the scientific basis for the model
equations, and by checking constants and default values that are used by
the model.

7.3.3 Verification

The numerical algorithms that are used to solve the non-linear algebraic
and ordinary differential equations are discussed and verified in
Appendices B and D.

7.3.4 Evaluation

7.3.4.1 Type of Evaluation

Since the evaluation of the predictive capability of FIRM-QB in this


book is provided by the developer of the model, it is by definition a
speclJied evaluation.

7.3.4.2 Eqerimental Data for Evaluation of FIRM-QB

Unfortunately, funds for full-scale experiments to evaluate FIRM-QB


were not in the author's or publisher's budget for the production of this
book. Suitable well-documented compartment fne test data were obtained
fiom the literature to evaluate the predictive capability of FIRM-QB.
Predictive Capability of FIRM-QB 155

7.3.4.3 Accuracy and Uncertainty of FIRM-QB

A limited sensitivity analysis was conducted to illustrate the


uncertainty of the FIRM-QB model. The example in Section 6.11.2 of a
one-half size cotton-covered sofa in a hospital waiting area was selected
as the base case for this analysis. This case was chosen because flashover
was approached, but not reached. A slight change in the right direction of
a critical parameter is expected to tip the scale and result in flashover,
while changes in other parameters will hardly affect the predictions. FIRM-
QB simulations were performed with one input parameter increased or
decreased by 20% from the base case value, and the remaining values
unchanged from the base case. Table 7-1 shows the effect of the changes
on the occurrence of flashover. The reader is encouraged to review the
complete results of the simulations. The output file names (without the
.FOF extension) for the different runs are given in Table 7-1. These fdes
are copied to the data directory (or folder) during the installation process
(see Appendix C).
The model seems to be insensitive to changes in room area and he1
height. Reductions of 20% in room height, soffit height, vent width, or
total heat loss fraction all result in flashover. Increased radiative heat
losses, or a higher heat release rate also result in flashover.

Table 7-1. Effect of Input Parameter Changes on the Prediction of Flashover


Parameter -20% t,," FileName +20% t,, FileName

" time to flashover (S)


flashover did not occur
156 EVALUATION OF THE PREDICTIVE CAPABILIlY OF FIRM-Q9

FIRM-QB appears to be most sensitive to the soffit height, because a


20% decrease of 2,results in the shortest time to flashover (254 S). A lower
soffit height, with the remaining input parameters unchanged, results in a
more rapid descent of the neutral plane and layer interface, and, therefore,
reduced entrainment and a higher hot layer temperature. A 20% increase
of 2, has a similar effect, and leads to a slightly delayed flashover.
As expected, FIRM-QB is also very sensitive to a reduction of the total
heat loss fkaction, and to an increase in the heat release rate. These changes
have a similar effect, and result in a higher rate of energy transfer to the hot
layer.
A smaller vent width results in a slight reduction of the vent flows and
a corresponding increase of the hot layer temperature. The latter is
relatively small, but sufficient to create flashover conditions when the heat
release rate of the fire is near its peak. A lower ceiling height has a very
similar effect. Because the distance between the soffit and the ceiling is
very small, the duration of flow regimes 1 and 2 is very short. This
accelerates the descent of the layer interface, and the corresponding
reduction of entrainment and hot layer temperature rise.
It is perhaps surprising that a 20% increase of L, results in flashover.
Increased radiative heat losses, with the remaining input parameters
unchanged, result in reduced entrainment into the fie, and a higher hot
layer temperature. In practice, radiative heat losses and total heat losses are
coupled. Higher radiative losses result in higher total losses, and,
consequently, lower temperatures.

7.3.5 Comparison of FIRM-QB Predictions with Experimental Data

In this section, a comparison is presented between FIRM-QB


predictions and experimental data tiom two series of room tests that were
carefdly conducted at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST, previously the National Bureau of Standards or M S ) .

7.3.5.1 Single Room with Furniture

The first data set was reported in a paper by Peacock et al. in the
Journal of Research of the National Institute of Stamkwds and Technology
[95].This paper provides an extensive discussion on the subject of room
Predictive Capability of FIRM-QB 157

fire testing and accuracy assessment of room fire models. Five sets of
experimental data, which can be used to evaluate the predictive capability
of zone-based fire models, are described in detail. The data are available
fiom MST on a CD-ROM as "Fire Data Management System" (FDMS)
ASCII data files [96]. The first set, referred to as "Single Room with
Furniture" was chosen to evaluate FIRM-QB, primarily because the test
scenario is identical to that simulated by the model, i.e., a single furniture
item in a room of fixed size but with varying vent sizes and shapes. The
upholstered furniture items were tested previously in the furnitwe
calorimeter. The description of the tests in the following paragraphs is
largely taken fiom the aforementioned journal article.

Test Room. An experimental room, 2.26 X 3.94 X 2.3 l-m, with a window
opening in a narrow wall was constructed inside the large-scale fire test
facility. The dimensions of the window openings for the various tests are
given in Table 7-2. The sofit depth of the window opening was the same
in all cases. For tests 1 and 2, the opening height (and therefore the
ventilation parameter AV=) only was varied. For test 6, the same A ~ J H ,
was retained as in test 2, but the shape of the opening was changed. Test
5 resembled test 6, except that the fuel was an armchair instead of a
loveseat. Thus, for specimen type, ventilation factor, and opening aspect
ratio, a pair of tests each was provided where these variables were singly
varied, the other two being held constant. The walls and ceiling materials
in the room were 16 mm thick Type X gypsum wallboard, fiured out on
steel studs and joists. Floor construction was normal weight concrete. The
test room was conditioned before testing by gas burner fires, where the
paper facing was burned off the gypsum wallboard, and the surface
moisture driven off The room was allowed to cool overnight and between
tests. The room was equipped with an instrumented exhaust collection
system outside the window opening that can handle fires up to 7 MW size.

Table 7-2. Chairs and Vent Sizes for NIST Single Room Tests with Furniture
Test # Chair 5 (m) Zt (m) Hv(m) W , (m) AVJH(mm)

5 armchair (F21) 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.29 3.65


158 EVALUATION OF THE PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY OF FIRM-QB

Instrumentation. Two mays of thermocouples, each consisting of 15


vertically spaced thermocouples, were installed in the room. The top and
bottom thermocouples were at the ceiling and on the floor, respectively. In
addition, a load cell for mass loss and a Gardon heat flux meter for
measuring radiation to the floor were installed on the centerline of the
room. Fifteen closely spaced velocity probes, with companion
thermocouples, were located evenly spaced along the vertical centerline to
facilitate accurate measurements of mass and heat flow through the vent.
Initial calibrations with gas burner flows showed adequate agreement, to
within 10 to 15 percent, of window inflows and outflows, after an initial
transient period of about 30 S. Similarly, during the final, smoldering
stages of the furniture fires, a reasonable mass balance was obtained.
During peak burning periods in the upholstered furniture tests, such
agreement, however, was not obtained. Two gas samphg probes were also
located along the upper part of the opening centerline. The exhaust system
had an array of velocity probes and thermocouples, together with 0,, CO,,
and CO measurements to permit heat release to be determined according
to the oxygen consumption technique [65,66].

Experimental Conditions. The test furniture for four of the six tests is
listed in Table 7-2, and included a 28.3 kg armchair (F21) and a similar
40.0 kg loveseat (F3 1). A description of these items is provided in Table
4-4. A single piece of test furniture and the igniting wastebasket were the
only combustibles in the test room. The furniture items were tested
previously in the furniture calorimeter (see Section 4.4.4). The tests in the
furniture calorimeter [64] made use of a gas burner simulating a
wastebasket fire as the ignition source. Because of practical difficulties in
installing that burner in the test room, actual wastebasket ignition was
used. This involved a small polyethylene wastebasket filled with 12
polyethylene-coated paper milk cartons. Six cartons were placed upright
in the wastebasket, while six were tom into six pieces and dropped inside.
The total mass of the wastebasket was 285 g, while the 12 cartons together
weighed 390 g, for a total mass of 675 g. The gross heat of combustion
was measured to be 46,320 kT/kg for the wastebasket and 20,260 W/kg for
the cartons, representing 2 1.1 MJ in all. Using an estimated correction, this
gives a heat content of 19.7 MJ, based on the net heat of combustion. To
characterize this ignition source, a constant mass loss rate of 1.8 g/s
(equivalent to 52.5 kW) was assumed for the fxst 200 S.The mass loss rate
of the ignition source was considered negligible thereafter.
Predictive Capability of FIRM-QB 159

Comparison with FIRMQB Predictions. Two sets of FIRM-QB


simulations were performed. The first set used the heat release rate curves
that were measured in the room fire tests. The second set used the
triangular approximations described in Section 4.4.4.1. However, the
triangular heat release rate approximations were shifted in time so that the
peak of the triangle occurs at the same time as the maximum heat release
rate in the tests. The default value of 35% was used for the radiative heat
loss fraction. The simulations were performed with L, = 0.606, as
calculated by FIRM-QB for a moderately rough ceiling. The names of the
fue files and output data files for the different runs are given in Table 7-3.
Figures 7-2, 7-6, 7-10, and 7-14 provide a comparison between the
measured and predicted hot layer temperatures. The measured temperatures
are based on an average of the readings of the thermocouples in one of the
vertical arrays that are located between the layer interface and the ceiling.
The NO! rule by Cooper et al. was used to define the location of the layer
interface [93]. The predicted maximum temperatures are higher than the
measured peaks. This can be explained by the fact that during the peak
burning period flames emerged through the vent, and part of the heat was
released outside the compartment. The measurements in the exhaust duct
account for all the heat that is released, including that from combustion
outside the compartment. FIRM-QB assumes that the heat release rate
specified by the user is generated inside the compartment, and only applies
a reduction to account for oxygen starvation. Thus, FIRM-QB will
overpredict the hot layer temperature if part of the heat is released outside
the compartment. Figures 7-3,7-7,7-11, and 7-15 show a comparison of
predicted and measured layer interface heights. The predictions agree quite

Table 7-3. Fire and Output Files for Single Room with Furniture Tests
Measured Heat Release Rate
--
Triangular Heat Release Rate
Test # Fire Filea Outnut Fileb Fire File" Output Fileb

B CH7-B04 CH7-B04 CH7-B04T CH7-B04T


" Fire file names have extension .FR
Output files have extension .FOF
Single Room with Furniture: Test # l (CH7-BO1)
1 ' " ' I " " I " "

-----
............. FIRM-Q (Triangle HRR)

0 300 600 900 1200


Time (S)

FIGURE 7-2. Upper layer temperature measurements and predictions for test 1

Single Room with Furniture: Test # l (CH7-€301)

----- FIRM-Q (Measured HRR)


............. FIRM-Q (Triangle HRR)

FIGURE 7-3. Layer interface height measurements and predictions for test 1
Single Room with Furniture: Test #l(CH7-BO1)

FIGURE 7-4. Heat release rate curves for test 1

Single Room with Furniture: Test # l (CH7-BO1)

0 300 600 900 1200


Time (S)

FIGURE 7-5, Upper layer vent flow measurements and predictions for test 1
Single Room with Furniture: Test #2 (CH~-B02)

1- 11
Experiment
----- FIRM-Q (Measured HRR)
.........
.,,.
FIRM-Q (Triangle HRR)

0 300 600 900 1200


Time (S)

FIGURE 7-6. Upper layer temperature measurements and predictions for test 2

Single Room with Furniture: Test #2 (CH~-B02)

0 300 600 900 1200


Time (S)

FIGURE 7-7. Layer interface height measurements and predictions for test 2

162
Single Room w i t h Furniture: Test #2 (CH7-602)

0 300 600 900 1200


Time (S)

FIGURE 7-8. Heat release rate curves for test 2

Single Room w i t h Furniture: Test #2 (CH7-B02)

0 300 600 900 1200


Time (S)

FIGURE 7-9. Upper layer vent flow measurements and predictions for test 2

163
Single Room with Furniture: Test #5 (CH7-B03)

0 300 600 900 1200


Time (S)

F'IGtTRE 7-10. Upper layer temperature measurements and predictions for test 5

0 300 600 900 1200


Time (S)

FIGURE 7-11. Layer interface height measurements and predictions for test 5
Single Room with Furniture: Test #5 (CH7-€303)

Time (S)

FIGURE 7-12. Heat release rate curves for test 5

Single Room with Furniture: Test #5 (CH7-B03)

300 600 900 1200


Time (S)

FIGURE 7-13. Upper layer vent flow measurements and predictions for test 5
Single Room with Furniture: Test #6 (CH7-004)

0 300 600 900 1200


Time (S)

FIGURE 7-14. Upper layer temperature measurements and predictions for test 6

Single Room with Furniture: Test #6 (Ci47-804)

Experiment
FIRM-Q (Measured HRR)
,,,.......... FIRM-Q (Triangle HRR)

FIGURE 7-15. Layer interface height measurements and predictions for test 6
Single Room with Furniture: Test #6 (CH7-B04)

FIGURE 7-16. Heat release rate curves for test 6

Single Room with Furniture: Test #6 (CH7-B04)


1.2 - . - . l . . . - , . . - - , . - . .

1.0 -

0.8 - /,?%L
......-11 %+.,
\'..
. I \
\ ...
"

*\-L..
:..-.-..---
: I
i l

0.6 - i l 1.
i #
:
l
I ::
: I -
.-
-d
.-
c
.
i I --C--_

: l L.-
i lI
*.-
0.4 M : 1
i lI
I
Y

- :i
C:

0.2 I :

I
I
:i
II II

0.0 - . . . ;. i ' - = . . . ' . . - . ' . . . m '


0 300 600 900 1200
Time (S)

FIGURE 7-17. Upper layer vent flow measurements and predictions for test 6
well with the measurements, except during the peak burning period, when
the measured interface height drops down temporarily to 0.5 m (or less)
from the floor. Figures 7-4, 7-8, 7-12, and 7-16 provide a comparison
between the measured heat release rates, and those used by the model.
There is a slight reduction of the heat release rate due to oxygen starvation
around the peak burning rate in tests 2 and 6. The triangular approximation
is quite good in test 1, but appears to be rather crude for the remaining
tests. However, the model does not seem to be very sensitive to the exact
shape of the heat release rate curve, and the triangular model seems to be
adequate for engineering analyses. The calculated upper layer vent flows
are shown in Figures 7-5,7-9,7- 13, and 7- 17. The measured flows are not
shown because Peacock et al. concluded on the basis of the tests' data that
the arrangement of velocity probes spaced along the centerline of the
window opening leads to serious errors in computed mass flows.

7.3.5.2 Steady Vent Flow Experiments.

The second data set is from a NIST report detailing a study of


fre-induced vent flows measured during m-scale experiments. The report
is titled "Fire Induced Flows through Room Openings- Flow Coefficients"
[49]. The data presented in this report allow for a twofold comparison of
model versus experiment. Firstly, measurements of the temperature and
location of the hot layer during the experiments can be compared to the
results presented by the model simulation. Secondly, the report provided
detailed data regarding the vent flows recorded during the steady-state
regime of the experiments. These data will be compared to the predictions
of FIRM-QB.

Test Room. The experiments were conducted in the test room depicted in
Figure 7- 18. The dimensions of the test room were 2.8 X 2.8 X 2.13-m. The
vent (opening) configurations that were used for the various tests are
shown in Figure 7-19. The ceiling and walls of the test room were lined
with ceramic fiber insulation. The thickness of the linings were not
provided in the report documenting the experiments, nor was a description
of the floor material included.
Predictive Capability of FIRM-QB 169

MOVABLE B I
m c
T I
oNA 1
,VUOCRY
PROBES AND THERMOCOUPLES

ASPIRATED THERMOCOUPLE

FIGURE 7-18. Set-up for steady vent flow experiments

Instrumentation.An array of aspirated thermocouples was located in one


of the front corners to measure the vertical gas temperature profile inside
the room. A vertical array of thermocouples and bi-directional probes was
positioned in the centerline of the vent to determine temperatures and
velocities of gas flows into and out from the compartment.

Experimental Conditions. A large number of experiments were conducted


to evaluate the effect of f i e size, fre location, and opening configuration
on fie-induced vent flows. The fire was a circular (0.3 m diameter) gas
burner, with methane supplied at a constant rate. The porous burner
surface in most of the experiments was flush with the floor. A few
experiments were conducted with the burner surface raised 0.3 m above
the floor. Heat release rates were either 3 1.6 kW, 62.9 kW, 105.3 kW, or
158.0 kW, based on the fbel consumed. The majority of the experiments
were conducted with the burner in the center of the room, but some tests
were repeated with the burner in a different location. Because the room
was very well insulated, steady conditions were reached in a few minutes
after the start of a test. The test duration was 10 minutes.
6/6 7/6 8/6

DOOR OPENINGS

WINDOW OPENINGS
FIGURE 7-19. Vent configurations for steady vent flow experiments

170
Predictive Capability of FIRM-QB 171

Comparisonwith FIRM-QB Predictions. The FIRM-QB model was used


to simulate the experiments with the bumer in the center of the room, and
the burner surface flush with the floor. The output and frre file names and
some information about the test conditions are given in Table 7-4. A value
of 0.25 was used for L, since methane has a characteristically low
radiative heat loss fraction. Since the walls and ceiling of the compartment
were very well insulated to obtain steady conditions as quickly as possible,

Table 7-4. Data Files and Test Conditions for Steady Vent Flow Tests
Q
Test P Output Fileb Fire Filec Vent Configuration (kW)
216 Door
316 Door
416 Door
416 Door
516 Door
616 Door
616 Door
616 Door
616 Door
7/6 Door
816 Door
Full Window
213 Window
213 Window
113 Window
616 Door
616 Door
616 Door
" Numbers are for reference purposes, and are not in original report
Fire file names have extension .FIR
Output files have extension .FOF
it was expected that the total heat losses were very low. Therefore, instead
of using a generic value, L, was estimated for each test on the basis of the
steady-state energy conservation equation for the compartment (Equation
7-l),and measured gas temperatures and vent flows reported in Reference
[49]. The data and resulting total heat loss fractions are given in Table
7-5.The steady-state energy conservation equation is as follows

Table 7-5. Selected Test Data and Calculated L, values


Predictive Capability of FIRM-QB 173

where c, is 1.004 kT/kg-K. Table 7-6 provides a comparison between the


measured and calculated steady-statevalues of interface height, upper layer
temperature rise over ambient, and upper layer vent flow. The simulation
of test 15 was terminated at 11 seconds, when the layer interface dropped
below the sill of the vent. Table 7-6 reveals that the predicted interface
height is close to the upper limit of the measured range. Predicted upper
layer temperatures are significantly higher than the measured temperatures
(up to 99OC or 50%), while the calculated vent flows are consistently lower
than the measured flows (up to 0.26 kg/s or 40%).

Table 7-6. Comparison of Vent Flow Test Data and FIRM-QB Predictions
Measurements FIRM-QB Predictions
Test # & (m) T,- T,('C) m,,(Ws) Zi (m) T,- T, ('C) % (k@)
174 EVALUATION OF THE PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY OF FIRM-QB

Steckler et al. observed that the flame was pushed over by the flow of
air entering the room through the lower part of the vent. This phenomenon
was discussed in more detail by Quintiere et al. in Reference [97]. In this
paper, average flame angle measurements based on video recordings are
presented for some of the tests conducted by Steckler et al. Quintiere et al.
suggested increasing the vertical distance between the fuel surface and the
layer interface in Zukoski's equation to bring the calculated entrainment
rates in better agreement with the vent flow measurements.
The PlumeFlow subprogrm in FIRM-QB was modified to account for
the flame and plume angle. The modified source code is shown in Figure
7-20. The distance between the kel surface and the layer interface is
simply divided by the sine of the flame angle. If the centerline of the tilted
flame hits a wall before it reaches the layer interface, the increased
entrainment height is set equal to the distance between the fuel surface and
the w d . The variable Theta is the flame angle, which was added to the list
of global variables that are shared between the main program and all
subprograms through a COMMON SHARED statement in the main
program. A few lines were added to the InputData subprogram to allow the
user to input the flame angle fiom the keyboard.
The measured flame angles reported in Reference [97], the flame angle
values used for the calculations with the modified FIRM-QB program, and
the results of the calculations are given in Table 7-7. The layer interface
quickly dropped below the sill in tests 13, 14, and 15, leading to
termination of the modified FIRM-QB program. A comparison of the
calculated results in Table 7-7 and the measurements in Table 7-6 shows
that the inclusion of the flame angle effect greatly improved agreement
between FIRM-QB predictions and the experimental data. Figures 7-2 1,
7-22, and 7-23 provide the same comparison in graphical form.

7.4 CONCLUSIONS

The comparisons between FIRM-QB simulations and experimental


room fire test data presented in this and the previous chapter should give
the reader a good feel for the predictive capability of the model. Whether
FIRM-QB is suitable for a particular use, and whether its accuracy is
suficient for a certain application still must be determined by the user.
I FUNCTION PlumeFlow (Q, Z i )
Calculates plume mass flow based on Zukoskils equation

Parameter values passed to function


Q : heat release rate of the fire (kW)
Zi : interface height (m)

Value returned by function


PlumeFlow : plume flow (kg/s)

Global variables used in function


Lr : radiative fraction of heat losses ( - )
Theta : flame angle (rad)
Zf : height of the base of the flame (m)

Global constants used in function


K : constant in Zukoskils plume flow equation

Change to FIRM-QB: the following four lines were added

DeltaZi = (Zi - Zf) / SIN(Theta)


I E COS(Theta) * DeltaZi > S Q R ( A ) / 2 THEN
DehtaZi = S Q R ( A / 4 + (Zi Zf) - 2) A

END I F

I Zukoski's plume flow equation (Equation 2.12)

l IFme
ELSE
' ( ( 1 - Lr)
Zi= KZf* THEN * Q * DeltaZi A 5) A (1 / 3 )

me = 0
END IF

l' Entrainment-controlled burning (Equation 4.28)

IF me > 55 * K A 1.5 * (1 - Lr) A .5 * DeltaZi A 2.5 THEN


me = 55 * K 1.5 * ( 1 - L r )A .5 * DeltaZi A 2.5
END IF

I PlumeFlow
END FUNCTION
= me

FIGURE 7-20. Modified version of Zukoski's plume flow model for a tilted plume
One of the limitations of FIRM-QB is due to the fact that the lower
layer is assumed to be at ambient temperature. However, this results in
higher, and therefore conservative predictions of the hot layer temperature.
A major strength of FIRM-QB is that the source code is provided and can
easily be modified to address a particular circumstance or problem, as was
illustrated in Section 7.3.5.2.

Table 7-7. FIRM-QB Predictions with Tilted Flames


Measured 0 Used 0 Z 2'"-T, m,
Test # Data File' (") (") (m) (OC) (Ws)

" Output files have extension .FOF


Averoge meosured Zi (m)

FIGURE 7-21. Calculated vs. measured Zi for steady vent flow tests

250.. ;---. - I . I . . I v,....

............ Line of perfect ogreement


0

h
200 - 0 .,. . .
.."a
P
W 8 O ..:'

o&00 ,,$..,'
'
l-
3
150
8 . ,./

-U 8-
Q, &.....a
. '

ZI
100- m,.
:..'
-
0 0 ,......"
0 ....."'
0
50 -
0 Without flame angle correction -
With flame angle correction
O ; . . ~ . ; . . . l s . . . l . . . l m . m m l . , ~ m
0 50 100 150 200 250
Meosured T,,-To ("C)

FIGURE 7-22. Calculated vs. measured T, - T,for steady vent flow tests
............. Line of perfect agreement
- ;.m"
.a
,.""

,..."' 0,

.. "'
.aa. m
* "'
0

.. .'i 0
@
0 ,go
0
,,. 0'
...' 0 -

0 Without flame angle correction -


With flame angle correction
I I I I I I I

Measured mu (kg/s)

FIGURE 7-23. Calculated vs. measured m, for steady vent flow tests
CHAPTER 8
Conclusion

Congratulations! If you made it to this chapter (without too much


cheating), you should have a fairly detailed understanding of the inner
workings of compartment zone fue models. You are now ready to apply
your newly acquired knowledge in your professional activities.
The tools provided in this book will be usell in the solution of many
practical problems that face fze scientists and f r e protection engineers.
However, chances are that you will soon need a more sophisticated set of
fire modeling tools to address increasingly complex problems. One option
is to customize FIRM-QB by adding new features so that the resulting
enhanced model is capable of simulating the scenario and fire phenomena
of interest. The flame angle correction discussed in Section 7.3.S .2
provides an example of this approach. It must be stressed that any changes
must be clearly documented by adding clarifying comment statements to
the source code, and by providing an extensive discussion of the changes
in any report or publication of the model calculations. This discussion must
be detailed enough so that others can reproduce the results. It is important
that significant changes to the model be validated and verified, and that the
predictive capability of the enhanced model be re-evaluated. Chapter 7
illustrates how the evaluation should be conducted.
A second option is to switch to a more sophisticated model. In this
case, the model user takes advantage of existing knowledge and avoids
duplication of effort, but gives up control over the approach that is used.
Often this second option is preferred, because it is more cost-effective and
less time-consuming. Readers who want to pursue this option are strongly
advised to obtain NIST Special Publication 921, "A User's Guide for
FAST: Engineering Tools for Estimating Fire Spread and Smoke
Transport'' fiom the Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg,
MD. This publication includes a CD-ROM with the latest versions of the
180 CONCLUSION

FAST and FASTLITE programs, and older fire modeling software such as
FIRST, FPETool, and LAVENT Alternatively, the same programs (as well
as data, publications, and other bits of information that may be of interest
to the fire modeler) can also be downloaded fiom the MST BFRL web site
OJRL: http ://fiie.nist.gov/).
NIST also developed a CFD model to predict smoke and air flow
movement caused by fire, wind, ventilation systems, etc. This model is
referred to as the FIRE DYNAMICS SIMULATOR (FDS). A separate
program, called SMOKEVIEW, visualizes the predictions generated by
FDS. These programs (as well as a user's guide and example data files)
can be downloaded fiom the aforementioned MST BFRL web site.
SMARTFIRE is another popular CFD-based fire model. The
SMARTFIRE program was developed by the Fire Safety Engineering
Group at the University of Greenwich in the UK. SMARTFIRE is user
friendly, and appears to be an excellent educational tool for the novice
CFD fire modeler. It is continuously being improved and expanded. For the
latest information on SMARTFIRE, it is recommended the reader consult
the FSEG web site OJRL: http://fseg.gre.ac.uk/).
It is hoped that the reader, who might have avoided using models in the
past because of the potentially intimidating mathematical equations and
computer programs, will start to appreciate and enjoy mathematical fire
modeling as a result of this book.
APPENDIX A
Conversion Factors and Constants

Table A-l. Conversion Factors


Acceleration
1 ft/s2= 0.3048 m/$
1 d s 2= 3.2808 ft/s2
Area
1 ff = 0.09290 m2
1 m2= 10.764 ff
Density
1 l b / e = 16.019 kg/m3
1 kg/m3= 0.06243 l b / e
Dzflusivity (heat dzflwzvity and kinematic viscosity)
1 ffls = 0.09290 m2/s
1 m2/s= 10.764 ft2h
Energy
1 Btu = 1.OS0 kJ = 1.O%O kNm
1 kJ = 0.9478 Btu
Heat flux
1 Btu/s*ft2= 11.353kW/m2
1 kw/m2= 0.08808 Btu/s*ff
Heat of combustion
1 Btullb = 2.3259 kJ/kg
l kJAg = 0.4299 Btuflb
Heat transfer coeflcient
1 Btu~h-fl?*~F = 5.6781 W/m2K
1 W/m2*K= 0.176 1 Btu/h.fI?*OF
Length
1 A = 0.3048 m
1 m = 3.2808 R
Mass
1 lb = 0.4536 kg
1 kg = 2.2046 lb
Mass ftwc
1 lb/ft% = 4.8825 kg/m2*s
1 kg/m2.s = 0.2048 lblft2.s
l81
Table A-l. Conversion Factors (Continued)
Pressure
1 in. H20= 249 Pa
1 psi = 6894.8 Pa = 6894.8 N/m2
1 bar = 105Pa = 14.504 psi
1 atm = 1.013bar = 14.692 psi
Power
1 Btu/h = 0.293 1 W = 0.2931 J/s
1 W = 1 J/s = 3.4122 Btu/h
Specrfic heat
1 Btu/lb*"F= 4.1867 kJ/kgK
1 kJ/kg*K= 0.2389 Btu/lb."F
Temperature
T (OF) = 32 + 1.8 X I'("C)
T ("R) = 460 + T (OF)
T ("C) = [T ("F) - 32]/1.8
T (K) = 273.15 + T("C)
Temperature dzflerence
AT(OF)= 1.8 X AT(OC)= 1.8 X AT@)
AT ("C) = AT (K) = AT ("F)/1.8
T h e m 1 conductivity
1 Btu/h.fk°F = 1.7303 W/mK
1 W1rn.K = 0.5779 Btu/h.fk°F
Velocity
1 ft/s = 0.3048 m/s
1 m/s = 3.2808 ft/s
Viscosity
1 1bIft.s= 1.4882 Pass = 14.882 P
1 kPa.s = 10 P = 0.6720 lb/R-S
Volume
1 ft3 = 0.02832 m3
1 m3 = 35.315 ft3

Table A-2. Constants


Avogadro 'S number
n = 6.0222-1023molecules per mole
Acceleration of gravity
g = 32.174 Ws2= 9.8066 m/s2
Boltzmann constant
a = 0. 1714*104~ t u I h . f f - =
" ~5.6697-1
~ 0-8w / ~ ~ * K ~
Speed of light in vacuum
c, = 9.8357.108ftjs = 2.9979*108m/s
Universal gas constant
R = 8314.4 J h o 1 . K
APPENDIX B
Review of Fundamentals of
Engineering for Fire Modeling

B.l FLUID MECHANICS

Fluid mechanics is the branch of physical science dealing with the


behavior of fluids under the action of force. A fluid is either a liquid or a
gas, and can be distinguished from a solid because of a fluid's inability to
resist shear forces. The shear force on a body is the component of the total
force tangential to the surface of the body. The subject of fluid mechanics
consists of two parts: fluid statics, and fluid dynamics. The former is
concerned with the equilibrium of fluids at rest. The latter involves the
study of fluids in motion, and the forces that produce this motion.

B.1.1 Properties at a Point

The following properties describe the state of a fluid, and may vary
from point to point.

Density, p. The density of a fluid at a point is equal to the mass per


unit volume at that point. Density is expressed in kilograms per cubic
meter or kg/m3(S.I. unit), and in pounds per cubic foot or lb/ft' (U.S.
engineering unit).
Pressure, P. The pressure at a point is equal to the normal force at that
point divided by the area upon which it acts. The pressure at a point in
static equilibrium is the same in all directions. Pressure is expressed in
Pascals or Pa (S.I. unit), and in pounds per square inch or psi (U.S.
engineering unit). One Pascal is equal to 1 Newton per square meter,
or 1 Pa= 1 ~ / r n ~ .
Temperature, T. The temperature at a point characterizes the thermal
state of the fluid at that point. Absolute temperature is proportional to
183
184 APPENDIX B

the mean kinetic energy of the translational motion of the fluid


molecules, and is expressed in Kelvin or K (S.I. unit), and in degrees
Rankine or "R (US. engineering unit). Practical variants of the
absolute temperature scales are the Centigrade ("C) and Fahrenheit ("F)
scales. Equations to convert temperature values between the different
scales are given in Table A-l of Appendix A.

Density, pressure, and temperature are related by the equation of state.


For all practical purposes, liquids can be considered incompressible, i.e.,
density and temperature are related but independent of pressure. The
equation of state for an ideal gas takes the following form

where

R = universal gas constant (83 14.4 Jkmol-K)


M = molecular mass of the gas (kgh.101)

An ideal gas is a hypothetical gaseous substance for which the


intermolecular forces and the volume occupied by the molecules are
negligible. Fortunately, Equation (B.l) is also valid for real gases at low to
moderate pressures, provided the absolute temperature is at least twice the
critical temperature. As will be demonstrated in Section B.2.1, deviations
from the ideal gas law are minor for gases at pressures and temperatures
in the range that the f i e modeler is concerned with.
Density, pressure, and temperature describe the state of a fluid at a
point. Additional properties are needed to describe the flow of a fluid in
motion. These flow properties are the components of the velocity vector.
In a steady flow field, fluid and flow properties vary as a fimction of
location only. If the flow is unsteady, properties vary with time as well.

B.1.2 Fluid Statics

As mentioned before, the pressure at a point is identical in all


directions. This is referred to as Pascal 'S law,and is a consequence of the
Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 185

absence of shear stresses. In a fluid at rest under gravity, the pressure is


uniform over any horizontal cross section. The pressure difference between
two points, respectively at heights Z, and Z , is equal to the weight of a
fluid column with unit cross-sectional area and a height Z,- 2,.

where

AP = pressure difference (Pa)


P(2)= pressure at height Z (Pa)
Z = height (m)
p = density (kg/m3)
g = acceleration of gravity (9.8066 m/s2)

This is referred to as the hydrostatic pressure difference. The difference


of hydrostatic pressures inside and outside the f i e room dnves the flow of
gases through a vertical vent (see Section 2.6.2.2).
An object that is submerged in a fluid with a different density, is
subjected to a force due to hydrostatic pressure differences. If the density
of the object is greater than that of the fluid, the object will sink; if the
fluid density is higher, the object will rise. This phenomenon is referred to
as buoyancy. Buoyant forces cause hot fue gases to rise.

B.1.3 Fluid Dynamics

To determine how the fluid and flow properties change as a function


of position and time in a given region, a set of equations must be solved
that express the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy. The
equation that results from applying the fundamental physical law of mass
conservation is called the continuity equation. The conservation equations
of momentum are derived from Newton's second law of motion. The
energy conservation equation is based on the first law of thermodynamics,
and will be discussed in more detail in Section B.2.2.
There are five conservation equations for a three-dimensional flow
field: one for mass, three for momentum (X, y, and z direction), and one for
energy. Because there are six variables (density, pressure, temperature, and
the three velocity vector components), an additional relationship between
the fluid and/or flow properties is needed to close the system of equations.
This relationship is provided by the equation of state.
A useful concept in the description of a fluid in motion is the
streamline. It is defined as a line that is tangent to the velocity vector at
each of its points.

Although a fluid at rest is unable to sustain shear forces, this is not the
case with a fluid in motion. Furthermore, it has been observed
experimentally that a moving fluid is at rest immediately adjacent to a
stationary solid boundary. Therefore, there must be a region close to the
solid boundary where the velocity changes from zero to the main stream
value. Figure B-l shows a typical velocity profile in this transition region,
which is referred to as the boundary layer.
The shear stress at a point for most fluids of practical interest is
proportional to the rate of deformation due to shear forces at that point:

I Velocity v /
-I Free S t r e a m

Layer

Solid Boundary

FIGURE B-l. Boundary layer flow


Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 187

where

'G = shear stress (Pa)


p = viscosity (Pa-S)
v = velocity (mls)
y = distance from the solid boundary (m)

Fluids for which Equation (B.3) is valid are called Newtonian. The
viscosity, p, is a physical property of the fluid. It is related to the transverse
transfer of flow momentum due to molecular motion. Viscosity is therefore
a function of temperature, composition, and pressure of the fluid. The ratio
of viscosity to density occurs often in engineering problems. This ratio,
pip, is referred to as the kinematic viscosity, v. To distinguish p from v,
the former is called the dynamic viscosity. The units of p are Pa-S(S.I.
unit) and lb/ft=s(U.S. engineering unit). The kinematic viscosity, v, is
expressed in m2/s(S.1. unit) and ft2/s (U.S. engineering unit).

B.1.3.2 Laminar and Turbulent Flow

It has been observed experimentally that there are two very different
types of fluid motion. Under certain conditions, the flow will be regular or
laminar. Equation p . 3 ) is valid for this type of flow. Under other
conditions, however, the flow appears to be irregular with transverse
eddies. When this type of flow prevails, Equation (E3.3) has to be modified
to account for the transverse transfer of momentum due to eddy movement.
The modified equation can be written as follows

where his the turbulent viscosity, associated with the momentum transfer
due to eddy movement, which is usually much greater than the molecular
viscosity, p. Unfortunately, p, is not a physical property of the fluid, but a
function of the flow itself. Therefore, in order to characterize a turbulent
flow field, the conservation equations need to be complemented by one or
more additional equations that describe the dissipation of turbulent energy.
With a few exceptions (very small fires), the flows associated with
enclosure fires are turbulent.

B.l.3.3 Conservation of Mass

Consider a control volume that consists of a bundle of streamlines, as


shown in Figure B-2. A control volume is a region in space through which
fluid flows. Application of the fundamental law of conservation of mass
to the control volume leads to an equation that describes the continuity of
the flow. If the flow is steady, the law of mass conservation requires that
the mass flow of fluid entering the control volume through surface 1 is
equal to the mass flow leaving the control volume through surface 2. The
continuity equation can therefore be written as

For unsteady flows, this equation has to be modified to account for


changes in the total amount of fluid accumulated inside the control volume.

B.l.3.4 Conservation of Momentum

Application of Newton's law of motion to a control volume in a steady


flow expresses that the net sum of forces acting on the volume is equal to
the net efflux of momentum fiom the control volume. If the flow is
unsteady, the equation has to be modified to account for the rate of
accumulation of momentum inside the control volume.

FIGURE B-2. Conservation of mass


Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 189

The set of differential equations that express Newton's second law of


motion for a compressible Newtonian fluid are referred to as the Navier-
Stokes equations.The derivation of these complex equations is beyond the
scope of this review. The reader is referred to a textbook on fluid
mechanics for a more detailed treatment. Euler's equations are a simplified
fom of the Navier-Stokes equations for an inviscid fluid (p is negligible).
Integration of Euler's equations along a streamline lead to the following
expression, known as Bernouilli 'S equation

1
P + -pv2 + pgh = constant (B4
2

where h is the height above a fuced datum level (m). Bernouilli's equation
can be used to describe the flow through a sharp-edged orifice plate,
commonly used to measure fluid flow through a pipe (see Figure B3).The
stream emerges fiom the orifice as a jet. The jet converges to a vena
contracta just downstream of the orifice plate, and then breaks up into a
turbulent flow region. Application of the continuity equation between
sections 1 and 2, assuming the fluid is incompressible, leads to

FIGURE B-3. Orifice flow meter


Note that A, is slightly smaller than the area of the orifice plate opening.
Bernouilli's equation can be written as follows

Combination of Equations (B.7) and (B.8) leads to

This equation is used in Section 2.6.2.2 to determine the mass flow through
a vent in a vertical wall of an enclosure that contains a fie.

B.1.3.5 Dimensional Analysis

To enable analysis of complex fluid flow problems, and to allow a


systematic interpretation of the results, it is necessary to minimize the
number of variables. This is accomplished by grouping variables into a
number of dimensionless parameters. This procedure is called dimensional
analysis. The following dimensionless groups are commonly used in
formulating and presenting the results of (fire-related) fluid dynamics
problems.

1 The Reynolds number, Re

where

l = characteristic length of the geometry under consideration (m)


Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 191

v = kinematic viscosity (m2/s)

The Reynolds number is the ratio of inertial to viscous forces. The


transition between laminar and turbulent flow is often characterized by
a critical Reynolds number. The characteristic length varies with the
geometrical configuration of the problem. For example, in the case of
forced flow through a duct, the characteristic length is usually the
diameter of the pipe.

2 The Froude number, Fr

The Froude number is the ratio of inertial to gravity forces. Fr is, for
example, used to correlate experimental data fiom gas burner jet fires.

8.2THERMODYNAMICS

Thermodynamics is the science of the relation between heat, work, and


the properties of systems. A system is hereby defined as any prescribed and
identifiable collection of matter.

B.2.1 Equation of State

The density, pressure, and temperature of an ideal gas are related by the
equation of state, (B.l), which can also be written as

where

c = compressibility factor
APPENDIX B

Temperature ("C)
FIGURE B-4. Compressibility factor of some gases

This equation is also applicable to real gases at temperatures and pressures


observed in fires. This is illustrated by Figure B-4, which shows C of some
important gases at atmospheric pressure (or saturation pressure for water
vapor below 100°C), and temperatures between 0 and 1200°C. The C
values for water vapor were determined fi-omthe steam tables, while those
for the other gases were calculated with the truncated virial equation (see
Reference [98], p.50). It can be observed in Figure B-4 that the largest
deviation of from unity is 1.5% (for water vapor at 100°C). However,
agreement is generally much better, in particular at higher temperatures,
which are of greater interest to the fire modeler.
In f ~ e sas
, in many other areas of thermal engineering, we are usually
dealing with mixtures of gases, e.g., air, products of combustion, etc. Each
gas in a mixture behaves as if it alone occupied the entire volume
containing the mixture. The pressure exerted by a component in the
mixture is the partial pressure of that component. According to Dalton's
law, the pressure of the mixture is equal to the sum of the partial pressures
of its N components.
Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 193

The composition of a mixture is usually specified in terms of mass


fractions, denoted by the symbol Y, or in the form of mole (or volume)
fractions, denoted by the symbol X. By defmition, the sum of the mass or
mole fractions in a gas mixture is equal to one.

(B.l4b)

Under the conditions of pressure and temperature that are normally


encountered in fues, the equation of state is also valid for each component
in a mixture.

where

R, = gas constant of species i (Jkg-K)

Unlike the universal gas constant R, which is expressed on a molar basis


and is the same for any type of gas or gas mixture, R, is expressed on a
mass basis and varies fi-om one gas species to another. 4 is equal to R
divided by the molecular mass of species i. Summation of Equation (B.15)
over all components in the mixture, and in combination with Equation
(B.13), leads to
194 APPENDIX B

(B.16)

Equation (B. 16) shows that the equation of state can also be applied to a
mixture of gases, whereby the gas constant of the mixture is related to the
gas constants of its components by the following expression

B.2.2 First Law of Thermodynamics

B.2.2.1 Work

Consider the piston-cylinder mechanism shown in Figure B-5.The gas


mixture inside the cylinder forms a thermodynamic system. When the
system is in equilibrium, the force exerted on the piston due to the gas
pressure is equal in magnitude, and opposite in direction to the external
force F exerted on the piston. The former is equal to the gas pressure, P,
times the area of the piston, A. Suppose now that the external force is
suddenly increased. As a result, the gas inside the cylinder will be
compressed and the volume of the system will decrease until the internal
and external forces are again in equilibrium. If the fi-iction of the piston is
negligible, the work done by the system during this process is given by
Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 195

FIGURE B-5. Piston-cylinder mechanism

Subscript 1 refers to the original state (prior to the increase of F), and
subscript 2 refers to the fmal state after compression to the new
equilibrium. The value of W,, is a h c t i o n of the process, i.e., the path of
successive states passed through between the initial and fmal states. For
example, if the cylinder is water-cooled to keep its temperature constant,
the work done by the system can be calculated fiom

Wl, = i PdV =
im~mix'
v
1 1

Note that W,, is negative for a compression process (V, is smaller than V,),
and positive for an expansion process.
The type of work described in this section is referred to as
displacement work. Many other types of work are important in engineering
thermodynamics, for example, work associated with fluid friction, stirring,
electrical effects, etc.

B.2.2.2 Heat

Consider two systems at different temperatures. Provided there is a


mechanism for it (in other words, provided the two systems are not
thermally isolated fiom each other), heat will be transferred fiom the
system at higher temperature to the system at lower temperature. Heat can
be transferred via conduction through matter, convection of fluids, and
thermal radiation. The three modes of heat transfer are discussed in more
detail in Section B.3. A system that is perfectly isolated to eliminate any
heat transfer through the system boundaries is called an adiabatic system.
A thermodynamic process that does not involve heat transfer is referred to
as an adiabaticprocess.

B.2.2.3 Internal Energy

The internal energy of a thermodynamic system, U, is the kinetic


energy associated with molecular motion and interaction of the molecules
comprising the system. It is very common to use the specific internal
energy, U,i.e., the internal energy expressed per unit mass of the system.
Since there is no molecular interaction in an ideal gas, its internal energy
is a function of temperature only. Consequently, the change of internal
energy of an ideal gas due to a particular process depends only on the
initial and final states of the system. It can be demonstrated that this is also
valid for systems of real gases.
Suppose the volume of a system is kept constant, and heat is
transferred to the system to raise its temperature. This also increases the
internal energy of the system by an amount that is proportional to the
temperature rise. The relationship between increase of internal energy and
temperature rise can be written as

where c,, is the specific heat at constant volume of the gas, which is a
material property that varies with temperature. The specific heat at constant
volume of a gas mixture can be calculated ffom the specific heat of its
components using the following relationship.

B.2.2.4 Enth a@y

The enthalpy, H, of a system is defmed as follows


Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 197

Enthalpy is also most commonly used on a per-mass-unit basis. Since both


U and P V are a function of temperature, H varies with temperature also.
The change of the specific enthalpy of a system is also proportional to the
system's temperature change, and is given by

where c, is the specific heat at constant pressure of the gas (the reason for
this name will be explained in Section B.2.2.6). As with c,, the specific
heat at constant pressure is a material property that varies with temperature.
Equation (B.23) is valid only for very small temperature changes. To
calculate the enthalpy change for a large temperature difference, the
temperature-dependency of c, must be accounted for. Denoting the
temperature difference by AT = T2 - Tl, the corresponding specific
enthalpy change follows fiom

where 5 is the average specific heat between Tl and T2. The average
specific heat of most gases does not vary strongly with temperature, and a
cubic temperature function fits the data quite well:

The polynomial constants for gases that are of primary interest to the fire
modeler are provided in Table B- l. These constants are for T in "C, with
0°C as the reference temperature (Tl = O°C). The resulting equations are
valid for temperatures between 0 and 3000°C.
Table RI. Polynomial Constants to Calculate c,(T) of Some Gases
M A B C D
Species (kglkmol) (kJ/kg°C) (kJ/kg.oC2) (kJ/kg°C3) (kJ/kg°C4)
Ar 39.95 0.5207 0 0 0

Air 28.96 1.0009 8.454~10-~ 4.941-10-9 -3.242-10-l2

The average specific heat between two arbitrary temperatures, T, and


T, can be calculated from

where the subscripts and superscripts are the lower and upper limits
respectively, of the temperature interval over which the average specific
heat is calculated.
The specific heat at constant pressure of a gas mixture is equal to the
mass-weighted average of the specific heats of the components.

For example, dry air consists of 1.28% Ar by mass, 0.05% CO,, 75.53%
NZ,and 23.14% 0,. The reader can verify that the constants in Table B-l
are identical to the mass-weighted averages of the component constants.
Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 199

B.2.2.5 First Law for Closed Systems

The frst law of thermodynamics expresses the conservation of energy.


The heat transferred to a closed system during a process, g,,, minus the
work done by the system, W,, is equal to the increase of its internal energy,
U, - U,.The corresponding equation is as follows

B.2.2.6 First Law for Open Systems

In an open system, matter flows through the system boundaries. If the


inflow is equal to the outflow, and the kinetic and potential energy are
negligible, the first law can be expressed as follows: the heat transferred to
the system in a process, g,,, minus the work done by the system, W,,, is
equal to net the outflow of enthalpy, or

In the case of an open system, the subscript 1 refers to the state of the fluid
when it enters the system, and 2 refers to the state of the fluid when it
leaves the system. Since an open system control volume is (usually) fued,
work is not associated with a change in volume, but with a change in
pressure. If the process is isobaric, i.e., the pressure in the open system is
constant and P, = P,, no work is performed on or by the system. In this
case, Equation (B.29) indicates that the heat transferred to the system is
equal to the enthalpy rise of the fluid flowing through the system. This is
the reason why c,, as defmed by Equation (B.23), is referred to as the
specific heat at constant pressure.

B.3 HEAT TRANSFER

Heat is transferred by conduction, convection, and radiation. These


three modes of heat transfer are discussed in some detail below.
200 APPENDIX B

B.3.1 Conduction

Energy is transferred in the form of heat from molecules that have a


higher kinetic energy to adjacent molecules with a lower kinetic energy.
This type of heat transfer, called heat conduction, occurs when a
temperature gradient exists in a solid, liquid, or gas. Another mechanism
for heat conduction is associated with the flow of free electrons through
metals. Therefore, good electrical conductors are also good thermal
conductors. The rate of heat transferred by conduction in a particular
direction is proportional to the temperature gradient in that direction, and
the area through which heat is transferred. This is commonly known as
Fourier 's Law, and can be expressed as follows

where q" is the rate of heat transfer per unit area in the X direction. There
is a minus sign on the right hand side of the equation, because heat is
transferred fiom a point at higher temperature to a point at lower
temperature, i.e., in the opposite direction of the temperature gradient. The
proportionality constant is called the thermal conductivity, and is a material
property. Insulating solids have a thermal conductivity of the order of 0.1
WImK, while metals have a thermal conductivity that is 100 to 1000 times
greater. Thermal conductivity generally increases as a function of
temperature.
If conduction is the only mode of heat transfer, as, for example, in an
opaque solid, the conservation of energy leads to the following general heat
conduction equation

where p is the density (in kg/m3),and c, is the specific heat (in Jkg-K), T
is temperature (in 'C or K), t is time (in S), and k is the thermal
conductivity (in W/mK). In a Cartesian coordinate system, Equation
(B.31) has the following form
Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 201

The left hand side of this equation is equal to the amount of energy that is
stored in the solid, per unit time and volume. The right hand side is a
summation of the gradients of conduction heat flux in the three directions,
X , y, and z. If the thermal conductivity is constant, i.e., does not vary with
temperature (and, therefore, with location), Equation (B.32) simplifies to

where a is the thermal diffusivity of the solid (m2/s). To determine the


temperature distribution in a spatial region, the heat conduction equation
must be solved in conjunction with a set of algebraic equations that specify
the conditions at the boundaries of the region. The boundary conditions
must prescribe either temperature, heat flux, or a combination. These are
referred to as boundary conditions of the fist, second, and third kind
respectively.

B.3.2 Convection

When a fluid flows over a solid surface, heat will be transferred


between the fluid and the solid, provided they have a different temperature.
This mode of heat transfer is referred to as convection. If the flow is driven
by external forces, as, for example, in the case of ceiling jet flow, the
convection is calledforced. If the flow is driven by the heat transfer itself,
the mechanism is referred to asfree, or natural convection. An example of
free convection is that of a cold fluid in contact with a vertical hot wall
surface. The fluid adjacent to the wall will be heated by the wall, and will
rise due to buoyancy.
202 APPENDIX B

B.3.2.1 Newton's Law of Cooling

To simplify convective heat transfer calculations for engineering


applications, a heat transfer coefficient h, is defmed by the following
equation

where q" is the rate of heat transfer per unit area fiom the solid to the fluid,
T, is the solid surface temperature, and Tf is the fluid's fiee stream or bulk
temperature. If T, is higher than Tf, heat is transferred from the solid to the
liquid and Q" is positive (by convention). If T, is higher than T,, q" is
negative. Equation (B.34) is referred to as Newton 'S Law of Cooling.

B.3.2.2 Dimensional Analysis

As in the case of pure fluid flow without heat transfer, the systematic
analysis of convection problems is greatly facilitated by the use of
dimensionless parameters.

1 The P r d t l number, Pr. The boundary layer concept was discussed in


Section B. 1.3.1. There is also a thermal boundary layer, i.e., a region
in the fluid close to the solid boundary where the temperature gradually
changes fiom the solid surfsce temperature, T,, to the free stream fluid
temperature, Tp There is a similarity between the equations that
describe conservation of momentum and energy in the boundary layers.
The characteristic dimensionless parameter that describes this
similarity is the Prandtl number, which is defined as

where

v = kinematic viscosity of the fluid (m2/s)


a = thermal diffusivity of the fluid (m2/s)
Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 203

The fluid properties in Equation (B.35) have to be evaluated at the


mean film temperature T,, i.e., the average of the surface and fluid
free stream temperatures. The Prandtl number is equal to the ratio of
velocity and temperature boundary layer thicknesses. For gases, Pr is
close to unity.

2 The Nusselt number, Nu. The Nusselt number is a dimensionless form


of the convection coefficient, and has the form

where

l = a characteristic length (m)


k = thermal conductivity of the fluid at T, (W/mK)

3 The Grashof number, Gr. Forced flow is characterized by its velocity,


or in dimensionless form the Reynolds number (see Equation B. 10). If
the flow is natural, the Grashof number is used instead. It represents
the ratio of the buoyancy forces to the viscous forces on the fluid, and
is defined as

where p is the volumetric coefficient of thermal expansion of the fluid,


i.e, the relative change of the fluid density due to a temperature
increase of one Kelvin. For ideal gases, P is equal to the reciprocal of
the absolute temperature of the gas. For liquids P cm be calculated
from the density vs. temperature relationship.

Empirical correlations have been developed between the Nusselt


number and combinations of other dimensionless parameters for a large
number of geometries and flow conditions (forced and natural convection,
204 APPENDIX B

laminar and turbulent flow). For example, the Nusselt number for natural
convection over a vertical flat plate at constant temperature is given by [29]

Nu = { 0.59(Gr*pr)lA for lo4 S Gr-PT<109


O . ~ O ( G ~ * P ~ ) ' "f o r 1 0 ~ ~ G r = P r < l 0 ' ~(B-38)

The characteristic length, I, in this case is the height of the plate. Once the
Nusselt number is known for the geometry and flow conditions at hand, the
heat transfer coefficient (Equation B.36), and rate of convective heat
transfer pquation (l3.34)] can be calculated.

B.3.3 Thermal Radiation

Thermal radiation is the transmission of energy by electromagnetic


waves. Electromagnetic waves are characterized by their wavelength, h, or
frequency, v. The relationship between h and v is given by

where c is the speed of propagation of the wave. Matter is not required for
radiant heat transfer, and c in a vacuum is equal to the speed of light
(approximately 300,000 kmh). A body at a temperature greater than
absolute zero emits thermal radiation over a range of wavelengths fiom 0.1
to 100 pm. This includes the visible region, which extends from 0.38 to
0.76 pm. Thermal radiation at longer wavelengths than the upper limit of
the visible range is called infared. In ffires, radiation heat transfer occurs
primarily at wavelengths in the hfkared region.
Thermal radiation that falls upon a body is partly absorbed, partly
reflected, and partly transmitted through the body, or in equation form

where
Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 205

p = reflectivity, or fiaction of incident radiation that is reflected


a = absorptivity, or fiaction of incident radiation that is absorbed
z = transmissivity, or fraction of incident radiation that is transmitted

Most solid materials absorb all radiation within a very thin surface
layer. These materials are called opaque, and have a transmissivity equal
to zero ('G = 0). In fire modeling applications, solid surfaces can generally
be considered diffuse, i.e., they reflect and emit radiation uniformly in all
directions. Gases do not reflect (p = O), but absorb andor transmit thermal
radiation.

B.3.3.1 Blackbody Radiation

A blackbody is defined as an object that absorbs all incident radiation,


fiom all directions, and at all wavelengths, i.e., a = 1 and p = z = 0. It can
be demonstrated on the basis of thermodynamic principles that a blackbody
emits the maximum possible amount of radiation as a function of its
temperature. An expression for the monochromatic emissive power of a
blackbody, as a fimction of blackbody temperature T (in K) and
wavelength h (in m), was derived by Planck. The monochromatic emissive
power, EM,is the rate at which energy is radiated from a unit area of the
surface at a single wavelength to the hemisphere of space above it.
Planck's equation, with E, in w/m3, can be written as follows

where

C, = a constant (3.7401 0-19W-m2)


C, = a constant (1.439.1O5 m=K)

Figure B-6 shows the monochromatic emissive power of a blackbody at


different temperatures. Planck's equation indicates that the wavelength at
which maximum radiation is emitted is proportional to the inverse of
absolute temperature. This is known as Wien's displacement law:
206 APPENDIX B

0 1 2 3 4 5
Wavelength, h (pm)
FIGURE B-6. Blackbody monochromatic emissive power

where

C, = a constant (2.940-' mK)

Wien's displacement law explains why the color of a hot metal surface
changes to bright red as its temperature increases above 600°C.
The total ernissive power (in w/m2) fiom a blackbody, 4,at a given
temperature is equal to the area under the spectral distribution at that
temperature, and is given by the following remarkably simple relationship

where
o = Boltzmann constant (5.67010-*w/m2K4)

B.3.3.2 Grey Surfaces

A real body generally does not absorb all incident radiation, i.e., part
of the incident radiation is reflected at the surface. A real surface also emits
less radiation than a blackbody at the same temperature. The ratio of the
monochromatic emissive power of a real body to that of a blackbody at the
same temperature is referred to as the emissivity, E*. The emisivity of a real
body varies with wavelength. For engineering purposes, it is often assumed
that the emissivity is independent of wavelength. A surface with this
property is referred to as a grey surface. The emissive power of a grey
surface is related to its temperature by

where E is the total (all wavelengths) hemispherical (all directions)


emissivity. It can be shown that the emissivity and absorptivity of a grey
surface are identical.

B.3.3.3 Radiative Heat Transfer between Grey Surfaces

The fraction of radiation emitted by a grey surface S, at uniform


temperature T,, that strikes another grey surface S, at uniform temperature
T, is only a function of the geometry. This fiaction is commonly referred
to as the geometricalfactor or view factor, Fiji,. Methods for calculating
view factors are mathematically involved, and view factor equations for
common geometries can be found in textbooks on heat transfer and thermal
radiation (see for example References [27] and [29]). View factors obey
the following reciprocity relation

where A, and A, are the surface areas of surfaces S, and S, respectively.


Furthermore, for an enclosure consisting of N isothermal surfaces, the sum
of the view factors between one swface and all surfaces in the enclosure
(including its own surface) is equal to one, or

These simple algebraic relationships, in conjunction with Equations (B.40)


and (B.44) can be used to derive a set of radiation transfer equations,
which describe the relationship between the temperatures of and radiative
heat fluxes to all surfaces in an enclosure. The use of these transfer
equations in zone models to calculate radiative heat transfer in enclosure
fires is discussed in Section 2.6.3.1. The equations presented in Section
2.6.3.1 also account for the effect of absorbing/emitting gases (partially)
filling the enclosure. The subject of gas radiation is briefly discussed
below.

B.3.3.4 Radiation Heat Transfer through Gases

AU gases, except those with diatomic molecules, absorb (and also emit)
thermal radiation. However, they do not absorb radiation at all
wavelengths, but only over specific bands. A graph of the absorptivity of
a gas as a function of wavelength is referred to as its absorption spectrum.
The absorption spectrum of a gas mixture is equal to the sum of the
absorption spectra of its components (each weighed on the basis of the
component's concentration in the mixture), except at wavelengths where
component spectra overlap. Rather complex corrections are necessary to
determine total absorptivity at overlapping wavelengths. Smoke from fres
nearly always contains significant amounts of soot particles. The
absorption spectrum of a soot cloud is continuous, and must be combined
with the discrete spectrum of the carrying gas mixture to determine the
radiation characteristics of the smoke. Despite the fact that the resulting
spectrum has discrete peaks at wavelengths where one or several gas
components absorb, an approximate grey gas assumption is often used for
engineering calculations of radiation heat transfer through smoky fire
gases. The absorptivity of a grey gas volume is a fhction of the length of
the path that a beam has to travel to cross the volume. If the path length is
denoted as L, the absorptivity is given by
Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 209

where k is the extinction coefficient in llm. The extinction coefficient is


a function of the temperature and concentration of absorbing gas species
and soot in the mixture (a method for calculating k of smoke is presented
in Reference [28]). The absorptivity of a grey gas is different for each
beam, because of the varying path length. Consequently, the presence of
an absorbing gas greatly complicates radiation heat transfer calculations in
an enclosure, even if the gas and surfaces are assumed to be grey. This
problem can be alleviated by the assumption that all beams travel the same
distance. This distance is referred to as the mean beam length, L,, and is
purely a function of the geometry. Equations to determine L, for common
geometries can be found in the aforementioned textbooks. For a gas
volume V with an enveloping area A, L, can be estimated from

B.4 COMBUSTION

B.4.1 Combustion Chemistry

B.4.l .l Elements, Compounds, and Mixtures

Elements are the basic materials of matter, which cannot be subdivided


into any other substances. Hydrogen and oxygen are examples of elements.
Compounds are substances that are made from elements. For example,
water is a compound made fiom hydrogen and oxygen.
A mixture is created when elements andor compounds are mixed
together without the formation of a new substance. Moist air is a mixture
of gases: primarily oxygen, nitrogen, and water vapor. Note that a vapor,
as opposed to a gas, is the giiseous form of a substance that under normal
conditions of pressure and temperature occurs as a liquid.
210 APPENDIXB

B.4.1.2 Atoms and Molecules

Matter is made up of very small particles of elements, called atoms.


Atoms of different elements have a different mass. To identifl thls
difference, a relative scale of atomic mass was created. The lightest of all
elements is hydrogen. Its relative atomic mass is slightly greater than one.
The relative atomic mass of some important elements involved in
combustion and fire phenomena are listed in Table B-2. The common
symbols for these elements are also listed.
Compounds also consist of small particles. These particles contain
more than one atom, and are called molecules. The chemical formula of a
compound consist of a combination of the symbols of all elements
represented in the compound, each followed by a subscript denoting the
number of atoms of the element in the molecule. For example, a water
molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom. The
corresponding chemical formula is H,O. Since a molecule consists of
atoms, its mass can be expressed on the same scale as the relative atomic
mass. The molecular mass of water, for example, is equal to 2 X 1.O1 +
16.00 = 18.02.
A convenient quantity used in combustion calculations is the mole
(abbreviated as mol). One mole of a compound is equal to the number of
grams of the compound equal to its molecular mass. One kilomole (kmol)
of a compound is equal to 1,000 moles. For example, one mole of water is
equal to 18.02 grams of water, and one kilomole is 18.02 kilograms. Based
on Avogadro's hypothesis, the volume of one mole of an ideal gas
(mixture) at a given pressure and temperature is constant, and independent
of the type of gas (or composition of the mixture). At atmospheric pressure
(1.Ol3 bar) and O°C, this volume is equal to 0.02241 m3.

Table B-2. Relative Atomic Mass of Some Elements


Element Symbol Atomic Mass
Hydrogen H 1.01
Carbon C 12.01
Nitrogen N 14.01
Oxygen 0 16.00
Argon Ar 39.95
Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 21 1

B.4.1.3 Chemical Reactions and Stoickiornetry

A chemical reaction between two or more substances mixed together


results in the formation of one or more different substances. The starting
substances are called reactants. The substances that are formed are referred
to as products. In a chemical reaction, the molecules of the reactants are
broken apart, and the resulting atoms (or groups of atoms) are rearranged
into the molecular structure of the products. The number of atoms of each
element involved in the reaction is conserved. Chemical reactions are either
exothermic (generating heat) or endotherrnic (absorbing heat). Combustion
is an exothermic reaction that generally involves oxygen as one of the
reactants.
A chemical reaction is described by an equation, which consists of a
summation of the reactant symbols on the leR side and a summation of the
product symbols on the right side, separated by an arrow pointing from left
to right. The symbols of reactants and products are each preceded by a
number (usually an integer) that indicates, on a relative basis, how many
molecules of the compound are involved in the reaction. Equation (13.49)
describes the complete combustion of methane in oxygen.

CH, + 20, - CO, + 2 H 2 0

One molecule of methane reacts with two molecules of oxygen to form one
molecule of carbon dioxide, and two molecules of water. The total number
of carbon (l), hydrogen (4), and oxygen (4) atoms is the same on both
sides of the equation.
Most combustion reactions take place in air, instead of pure oxygen.
The mole (or volume) fi-action of oxygen in dry air is 20.95%. The balance
consists of nitrogen (78.09%) and small amounts of other non-reacting
gases, primarily argon (0.93%) and carbon dioxide (0.03%). For
engineering calculations, dry air is assumed to consist of 2 1% by volume
oxygen, and 79% by volume nitrogen. Hence, complete combustion of
methane in air is described by the following equation, which can be
derived from Equation (B.49)

CH, + 20, + 7.52N2 - CO, + 2 H 2 0 + 7.52N2 (l3.50)


The nitrogen term is the same on both sides of the equation, indicating that
nitrogen does not participate in the combustion reactions and only acts as
an inert diluent. Equation (B.50) is also referred to as the stoichiometric
equation for methane combustion in air. To have enough oxygen available
for complete combustion of all methane, air and methane must be mixed
in proportions that correspond to the right hand side of the stoichiometric
equation. Such a stoichiometric mixture consists of 141 + 2 + 7.52) =
9.5 1% by volume methane, and 90.49% air. The molecular mass of this
mixture is equal to 0.0951 X 16.05 + 0.9049 X 28.96 = 27.73. Hence, the
composition of the mixture by mass is 9.51 X 16.05127.73 = 5.50%
methane, and 90.49 X 28.96127.73 = 94.50% air. If the concentration of
fuel in a fuellair mixture exceeds the stoichometric concentration (5SO%
for methane), the mixtwe is called rich (in fuel). I f there is more air present
than needed to burn the fuel, the mixture is lean (in fuel). The composition
of a fuellair mixture is often expressed in terms of its equivalence ratio, Q,.
The equivalence ratio is defied as follows

where the numerator is the ratio of the mass fraction of air to the mass
fraction of fuel in a stoichiometric mixture, and the denominator is the
same ratio for the actual mixture. Q, of a fuel-rich mixture is greater than
one. is less than one when the mixture is fuel-lean. A stoichiometric
fuellair mixture, by d e f ~ t i o nhas
, an equivalence ratio equal to one.

B.4.1.4 Reaction Rate and Equilibrium

Suppose reactants a .mixed in a container, and a chemical reaction is


initiated. The reaction will continue until an equilibrium condition is
reached. Equilibrium is defined on the basis of a constant, K, which is
unique for a given reaction, and varies with temperature. Consider the
following generic reaction equation
Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 213

This equation states that a molecules of substance A react with b molecules


of substance B, to form c molecules of substance C and d molecules of
substance D. Equilibrium is reached when the following expression is valid

where square brackets are used to denote concentrations. Equation (l3.53)


is referred to as the Z
m of mass action. In the case of methane combustion,
the equilibrium condition can be written as follows

The equilibrium constant for combustion reactions is much greater than


one. This implies that the residual amount of unreacted fuel will be
neghgible if the initial reactant mixture is fuel-lean (Q < l), and that nearly
all oxygen will be consumed if the initial mixture is fuel-rich (Q,> 1).
The fact that a chemical reaction has a large equilibrium constant does
not ensure that it will occur. For example, consider a fuel-lean mixture of
propane (C,H,) and air, with an equivalence ratio iP = 0.8. The mixture is
stored inside a vessel at ambient temperature and pressure. Under these
conditions, the mixture will not react. However, a glowing wire or an
electric spark introduced into the vessel will initiate the reaction due to the
local temperature increase. The heat generated by the reaction will cause
a temperature increase at adjacent locations in the vessel, resulting in
propagation of combustion through the entire mixture.
The Swedish scientist Arrhenius discovered that the rate of a chemical
reaction is proportional to exp(- EJRT), where E, is the reaction activation
energy (in kJ/kmol), R is the universal gas constant (8.3144 W/kmolK),
and T is the absolute temperature (in K). The reaction rate is also a futlction
of the concentration of the reactants. Westbrook et al. reported the
following expression for the reaction rate of propane [99]
where the concentrations are expressed in kmoVm3.The reader can verify
that the concentrations of propane and oxygen in the aforementioned
propane mixture are approximately given by [C3H8]= 0.00151 kmoVm3,
and [O,] = 0.00906 kmoVm3. The reaction rate calculated from Equation
(B.55) at T = 300 K is equal to 1S*10-l6kmoVm3.s. At this rate, it would
take more than three thousand centuries to convert all propane in the
mixture. Although the calculated rate is probably not accurate because it
is obtained by extending Equation (B.55) outside its valid temperature
range, it can still be concluded that the reaction rate at ambient temperature
is indeed negligible. At a glowing wire temperature of 1,000 K, the
reaction rate increases to 0.3 kmoVm3-S.At this rate it would take 5
d s e c o n d s to consume all propane. In reality it will take longer, because
the reaction will slow down as the reactants are being consumed. At an
electric spark temperature of 2,000 K, the reaction rate increases by another
three orders of magnitude to 267 kmoVm3-S,reducing the time to less than
three microseconds.

B.4.1.5 The Simple Chemically Reacting System (SCRS)

A chemical reaction is much more complex than reactants breaking


apart into atoms, which then recombine into products. The combustion of
methane, for example, has been demonstrated to consist of as many as 149
transition reactions in which numerous intermediate species (such as H, H,
HCHO, HCO, CH,, CO, 0, and OH) are formed and destroyed [loo]. The
overall reaction rate is a fizllction of the rate at which the transition
reactions take place. However, the transition species are unstable and short-
lived, and never obtain concentrations of the same order as the reactants
(initially) and products (when equilibrium has been reached).
For many engineering applications, including zone fire modeling, the
intermediate steps and reactions are of little interest, and only the "big
picture" needs to be considered. To describe the main features of a
combustion system, Spalding introduced the concept of a Simple
Chemically Reacting System (SCRS) [loll. "The SCRS involves a
Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 215

reaction between two reactants (fuel and oxidant) in fixed proportions by


mass, to produce a unique product." An SCRS can be described as follows

1 kg fuel + r kg 0, - ( 1 + r) kg product @.W

1 kg fuel + s kg air - ( 1 +S) kg product (33.57)

In the case of stoichiometric combustion of methane in oxygen, Equation


p.49) indicates that r is approximately equal to (2 X 32)/16 = 4 kg r,,,
Equation (B.50) shows that s is equal to (2 X 32 + 7.52 X 28)/16 = 17.2 kg
sstoich.The ratio between s and r is equal to the mass fiaction of oxygen
in air, i.e., 0.232. Hence, s is 4.3 times greater than r. Often excess air is
supplied, so that s (and r) are larger than the stoichiometric values sdoi,
(and rstoich).
Theoretically, at 0 = 1 there is enough oxygen for complete
combustion of the fuel. In reality, an equivalence ratio smaller than 1 is
needed for complete combustion. This is because at 0 = 1 it is unlikely that
each fuel molecule will f i d the oxygen gas molecules it needs to react
with. Results fi-omgas burner experiments reported in the SFPE Handbook
(see Reference [15], p. 2-68) show that the combustion reactions of a
stoichiometric mixture of propane and air (Q = 1) can be approximated by

In this case, the reactants consist of propane and air, mixed in


stoichiometric proportion of s = sstoich
= 15.6 kg air per kg propane. The
product consists of a mixture of CO2 (approximately 14% by mass), CO
(1% by mass), H,O (approximately 10% by mass), 0, ( approximately 3%
by mass), and N2 (approximately 72% by mass).
B.4.2 Heat of Combustion and Adiabatic Flame Temperature

Consider the steady combustion process shown in Figure B-7.Fuel at


temperature T, is supplied to an open combustion chamber at a rate m, Air
at temperature T, is supplied at a rate m, exceeding the stoichiometric rate,
so that combustion is complete. Fuel and air mix inside the chamber, and
react to form combustion products that are removed at a rate rir, = m, + m,.
Heat is extracted fkom the combustion chamber at a rate Q, so that the
products of combustion exit the chamber at a temperature Tp.
Application of the first law of thermodynamics to this system leads to
the following equation

This energy balance can be expressed on a fuel mass basis by dividing each
side of the equation by m, Denoting the ratio of the rate of heat extracted
to the rate of fuel supplied as q, this leads to

If fuel and air were supplied at a reference temperature, To, and if heat
were extracted at the exact rate to cool the products down to the same
temperature, Equation (E3.60)would take the following form

CHAMBER

FIGURE B-7. Steady combustion process


Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 217

Ah, is equal to the amount of heat generated by the combustion


reactions per mass unit of fuel burnt, and is called the gross heat of
combustion of the fuel. This quantity is independent of the air to fuel ratio
(provided the air supply rate is high enough so that combustion is
complete), because the enthalpy of the excess air at temperature Toappears
in the second and third term on the right hand side of Equation (B.61), but
with a different sign. However, Ahc,mssis a function of the reference
temperature. Since Tois typically 20 or 25"C, the reference enthalpy of the
products of combustion includes that of water in the liquid state. The net
heat of combustion, &,,(To) is also defined by Equation (B.61), except
that all products of combustion are assumed to be in the gaseous state.
Ahc,netis lower than Ahc,~oss,the difference being the product of the latent
heat of vaporization of water (2.44 MJ/kg at 25°C) and the amount of
water formed per mass unit of fuel burnt. For example, MC,,, (25°C) of
propane is 50.4 MJ/kg. Since 1.65 kg of water is formed per kg of propane
burnt (this can be determined fkom the stoichiometry of the combustion
reactions), Ah,, (25°C) of propane is equal to 50.4 - 1.65 X 2.44 = 46.4
MJ/kg. The net heat of combustion is more u s e l l and practical in
combustion calculations. Ah,, (25OC) values of different fuels can be
found in Table 4- 1.
Equation (B.60) can now be rewritten by subtracting the modified
version of Equation @.61), and using Equation (13.26) to express enthalpy
differences as a function of temperature. This leads to

The combustion products attain their maximum temperature when the


process is adiabatic, i.e., when there are no heat losses fkom the
combustion chamber (q = 0). In this case, the entire energy generated by
the combustion reactions is used to raise the sensible enthalpy, and
therefore the temperature, of the combustion products. This maximum is
referred to as the adiabaticflame temperature. If fuel and air are supplied
at the reference temperature, the adiabatic flame temperature is given by
APPENDIX B

2600
1

Equivalence Ratio, @

FIGURE B-8. Adiabatic flame temperature of methane and propane

This is in fact a non-linear equation, because c;, is a (weak) function of


temperature. The higher the S, the lower the adiabatic flame temperature,
because excess air acts as a diluent, which increases the total mass of
combustion products that must be heated. Figure B-8 shows the adiabatic
flame temperature of methane and propane as a h c t i o n of the equivalence
ratio. The lower limit of the @-axis range (Q, = 0.5) approximately
corresponds to the lower flammability limit (LFL) of the two gases. For
methane in air, the LFL (at 25OC and 1.0l 3 bar) is 5% by volume (see
Reference [15], p. 2-150), which is equivalent to Q, = 0.48. The LFL for
propane is 2.1%, corresponding to = 0.52. If the fuel concentration is
below the LFL, there is not enough fuel to sustain combustion.
Actual flame temperatures are lower than adiabatic temperature,
primarily due to radiative heat losses from the flame. Incomplete
combustion, in particular if Q! is close to or greater than 1 and partial
dissociation of CO, (into CO and 0,) and H,O (into H, and 0,) also reduce
the flame temperature. Dissociation reactions are endotherrnic, and are
significant at temperatures exceeding 1800 K. Flame temperatures in fires
are typically lower, so that dissociation can be ignored.
Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 219

B.4.3 Diffusion Flames

In flaming fires, combustion occurs predominantly in the gas phase.


Liquid and solid fbels are heated by their own flame and/or heat transfer
fi-om external sources (hot gas volumes, high temperature surfaces, etc.)
Combustible volatiles are generated by evaporation of liquid hels, and
pyrolysis of solids. The volatiles mix with air that is entrained into the
flame, and react with its oxygen. Because the air is not premixed with the
h e 1 but is supplied by mass transfer processes, the resulting reaction zone
is referred to as a dzflusionflame.
Diffusion flames have been studied extensively. For example, many
different correlations have been developed to estimate the height of a
diffusion flame as a hction of its heat release rate and the geometry of the
fuel. The following convenient expression was developed by Heskestad
(see Reference [ lS ] , p. 2- 10)

where

H, mean flame height (m)


=
0 heat release rate of the fire (kW)
=
D = effective diameter of the fire (m)

This expression, in conjunction with Zukoski's plume flow correlation


Rquation 2.1O), can be used to calculate the amount of air that is entrained
over the entire flame height of a free-burning fire. Use of the virtual origin
correction specified in Equation (2.13), and the fact that the amount of heat
released by stoichiometric combustion per kg of air supplied is
approximately constant and equal to 3030 kJ (see Section 4.2.2), leads to
the following remarkable result
220 APPENDIX B

This indicates that if a free-burning f i e loses 25% of its heat output by


radiation, air is entrained in the flame at nine times the stoichiometric rate.
For a flame that loses half of its heat output by radiation, the entrainment
drops slightly below eight times the stoichiometric rate.

B.5 NUMERICAL METHODS

Even the simplest fire models (such as the ones presented in this book),
consist of a collection of relatively complex equations, which cannot be
solved analytically. Numerical methods must be used to obtain approximate
solutions. Two such methods are discussed in this section. First, however,
it is important to provide some discussion concerning computer accuracy.

B.5.1 Computer Accuracy

Computers store numbers in the form of binary digits, or bits. A bit can
have a value of 0 or 1.Bits are combined into groups of eight, called bytes.
Numbers are represented using a binary, or base 2, numbering system. An
integer can be represented exacly, as long as its value does not exceed the
range that can be represented. The highest number that can be represented
is a function of the number of bits (or bytes) that are used. For example,
the maximum value that can be represented in one byte is 1111 1 111 in
binary. The corresponding decimal number is given by

Negative integers can be represented by using the first bit as a sign bit (0
for positive numbers, 1 for negative numbers). In this case, numbers
between - 128 and 127 can be represented in one byte.
More sophisticated methods are needed to represent real (or floating-
point) numbers. A single precision representation of real numbers consists
of a group of four bytes, divided into portions. The first portion, the
mantissa, holds the base value of the number. The second portion, the
exponent, indicates to what power the mantissa must be raised to obtain the
final value of the number. As with integers, as sign bit is used to
distinguish between positive and negative numbers. The most common
Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 221

format is that promulgated by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics


Engineers (JEEE). The IEEE format consists of a sign bit in the most
significant position, followed by eight exponent bits, and 23 bits for the
mantissa. The real numbers that can be represented this way range fiom
approximately - 3.4010"' to 3.4-1Ot3'.. More importantly, a maximum of
only seven significant digits can be represented in lEEE format.
Consequently, the representation of a number that has more than seven
significant digits is not exact. For example, the number 0.123456789 is
rounded to 0.1234568. The diff~encebetween the actual number, and that
corresponding to its representation in the computer is called the roundoff
error. The relative roundoff error is the smallest floating-point number that
added to 1.0, results in a number different from 1.0 [44]. It is a
characteristic of the computer hardware, and is commonly referred to as the
machine accuracy, E,. The single precision floating-point machine
accuracy of B M compatible PCs is 1.19-10-' (see Reference [44], p. 883).
Arithmetic operations result in an accumulation of roundoff errors. The
cumulative roundoff error after N operations is typically between dN and
N times E,. This means that after one million operations, the fractional
roundoff error can exceed l%! Roundoff errors cannot be eliminated.
However, good numerical methods minimize the cumulative error by
optimizing (reducing) the number of operations, and by avoiding the use
of unstable algorithms, which unnecessarily amplify roundoff errors.
Even if a perfect machine were available (i.e., machines without
roundoff error), numerical methods would still produce approximate
solutions. The difference between the true and calculated solutions is
referred to as the truncation error. This type of error is generally due to
truncation of an infinite series (which yields the true solution) to a finite
number of most significant terms (so that the result can be calculated in a
f i t e time). Unlike roundoff errors, truncation errors can be controlled by
the programmer. A good numerical method provides an estimate of the
truncation error, and includes measures to reduce it to a tolerable level
(e.g., by increasing the number of terms in a truncated series).

B.5.2 Solution of Algebraic Equations

The bisection method is a simple, but powerful method to solve


algebraic equations. Truncation errors are not an issue. The method is used
222 APPENDIX B

in FIRM-QB (and FIRM-VB) to solve the vent flow equations (see Section
4.1.6).
An equation can always be written in the following form

The problem is to fmd a root, i.e., a value X, of x that fiilfills Equation


(B.67). Assume we know that the root we are seeking falls between two X-
values, denoted as X, and X., Furthermore, assume that there is only one
root, and that f is continuous between X,, and X-. With these
assumptions,f ( X - )andf ( x a must have opposite signs. Now, let X, be
halfway between X,, and xma.If the sign off(xmg) is the same as that of
f ( X - ) ,then we know that the root lies between X, and X-. If the sign of
f (xmJ is the same as that off ( x a , then the root must be between X, and
X., In either case, we reduced the interval that brackets the root to one half
of its original width. We can repeat this process, reducing the interval to
114, 118, ... of its original width, until we have bracketed the root to
whatever accuracy required.
The bisection method is computationally not very efficient, but it will
always find the root (provided the assumptions concerning the bracketing
interval limits, uniqueness of the root, and function continuity are valid).
Moreover, the number of iterations can be a priori determined, and is equal
to the smallest integer n that WfAs the following criterion

X,,-X mm
.
S accuracy @.W
2"

It is surprising, however, how quickly this algorithm leads to the solution.


For example consider a temperature function that is known to have a single
root between 0 and l,OOO°C. If the desired accuracy is k0.0l0C, it will take
only 17 function evaluations to fmd the root!
For relatively simple problems consisting of one, or only a few
algebraic equations, the "slow" bisection method is perfectly acceptable.
In more complex cases involving large sets of equations, and requiring
many iterations, the speed of the bisection method (or lack thereof) might
become a problem. The use of a more efficient method, such as the
Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 223

Newton-Raphson method, would alleviate this. The Newton-Raphson


method is more complex, but also much faster than the bisection method.

B.53 Solution of Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs)

The subject of this section is the numerical solution of an ordinary


differential equation (ODE). The Runge-Kutta method presented here can
easily be extended to solve sets of ODEs, and is used in ASET-QB and
FIRM-QB (and their Visual Basic counterparts) for the solution of a set of
two equations to determine the layer interface height and upper layer
temperature as a function of time. The ODE problem can be described as
follows

(B.69a)

where y is the dependent variable, x is the independent variable, andf is a


function of x and y. The problem is referred to as an initial value problem,
because x is usually time. Equation (B.69b) is called an initial condition,
because X, is equal to the time at the start of the period for which a solution
is to be obtained. The solution consists of finding a h c t i o n y(x) that meets
the initial condition, and that fulfills Equation (B.69a) for the range of x
values of interest. This range is referred to as the solution domain.

-
To obtain a numerical solution, the solution domain is first subdivided
into N steps. The step size is denoted as h, and the upper limit of each
interval is given by xi X, + i h, with i = 1 ... N. Instead of a continuous
solution, a numerical method frnds a discrete solution in the form of
estimates of y at X,,X,, ..., X,.
The simplest approach to numerically solve an initial value problem is
the Euler or tangent method. Since X, and y, are known, the slope of the
tangent line to the solution at x = X, can be calculated fiom the differential
Equation (B.69a). If h is small, the slope can be used to obtain a reasonable
estimate of y, as illustrated in Figure B-9. This process can be repeated at
the estimated (X,, y,) to obtain an estimate of y,, subsequently at (X,,y,) to
224 APPENDIX B

FIGURE B-9. Euler method for the solution of an ODE

obtain an estimate of y,, etc. The general Euler formula is as follows

If we denote the exact solution of the initial value problem as @(X), then,
a Taylor series expansion to express @(xi+ h) as a function of @(xi)leads
to

Comparison of Equations (B.70) and (B.72) leads to the conclusion that the
local truncation error of the Euler method, i.e., the error of the numerical
solution when advancing one step h in the solution domain, is proportional
to h2. It can be shown that the cumulative error over the entire solution
domain is proportional to h. Therefore, to reduce the cumulative truncation
error by a factor of 2, h must be halved. However, besides doubling the
computation time, this also increases the cumulative roundoff error, often
to a point that it defeats the purpose of using a smaller stepsize. Because
Review of Fundamentals of Engineering for Fire Modeling 225

its accuracy is limited by the roundoff error, the Euler method is generally
not recommended for the numerical solution of initial value problems.
Around the turn of the 19th century, the German mathematicians
Runge and (later) Kutta developed some improvements to the Euler
method. The basic idea was to estimate the slope at an intermediate point
inside the step interval, instead of using the slope at the start of the interval
to advance the solution to the end of the interval. The most frequently used
Runge-Kutta method is the fourth-order method described below.
Derivation of these equations is beyond the scope of this book, and can be
found in many textbooks on numerical analysis (see, for example, Chapter
8 in Reference [102]).

where

The local truncation error is proportional to h5,while the cumulative error


is proportional to h4 (reason why it is called a fourth order method). It is
obvious that, compared to the Euler method, truncation error improvements
by stepsize reduction are much less likely to be offset by increased
roundoff errors.
The local truncation error can be controlled by comparing two solutions
for y,,. The first solution is obtained by using the Runge-Kutta equations
two times, each time with a stepsize equal to h. The first time, yi+, is
estimated fiom xi and y,. The second time, yi+, is obtained from and yi+l.
If the local truncation error is denoted as E, the cumulative truncation error
ofy,+,obtained as explained above is 2 ~ ,The . second approach consists of
solving the Runge-Kutta equations with a stepsize equal to 2h, to estimate
yi+, from xi and y, in one step. Since the local truncation error is
proportional to the stepsize raised to the fifth power, the truncation error
of yi+, estimated directly fkom xi and yi is equal to 326,. Therefore, the
difference of the two estimates of yi, is equal to approximately 30 times
E,, or, conversely, E, is one thirtieth of the difference. If the error estimate
is within the user-specified tolerance, the estimates of yi+,and yi+,based on
the h t solution are acceptable, and we can proceed to the next step. If the
error exceeds the tolerance, a smaller stepsize must be used. The stepsize
that is needed to bring the local truncation error within the desired bounds
can be estimated fiom

The stepsize control algorithm described above is implemented in the


ASET and FIRM programs presented in this book.
APPENDIX C
Installing and Running the Software

C.1 INTRODUCTION

The accompanying CD-ROM contains the three QBasic programs


discussed in the main text: HRR-QB, ASET-QB, and FIRM-QB. This
appendix provides instructions for installing and running these programs,
and their Visual Basic counterparts. All fire and output files that were
created during the sample calculations presented in the book are also on the
CD-ROM, and are copied to the reader's hard disk during installation of
the QBasic programs. The Visual Basic programs use the same data files.
Even if the reader does not intend to use the QBasic programs, it is
recommended that they be installed, so that the data files will be available.

C.2 QBASIC SOFTWARE

C.2.1 System Requirements

The system requirements for the QBasic programs are minimal by


today's standards. Any IBM compatible PC with at least 640 K of
conventional RAM should work. A VGA display adapter is needed to view
the screen plots of the output variables, but this is optional. A printer must
be connected to the computer to obtain a printout of the results.

C.2.2 Installation of the QBasic Software

The QBasic program and data files on the CD-ROM are not
compressed. The software is therefore installed by copying all fdes to the
227
hard disk. It is recommended that the program files be copied to C:\FIRM\,
and the data fdes be kept in C:WIRMUIATA\. The latter is the default
directory where the Visual Basic programs expect to fmd all fire and
output files. In Windows 95/98, the installation can be performed as
follows:

1 Place the CD-ROM in the drive.


2 Click the Start button, then choose Programs and Windows Explorer.
3 Click the CD-ROM drive icon in the left side of the Explorer window.
4 Click the FlRM folder in the right side of the Explorer window.
5 Select Copy from the Edit menu in the Explorer window.
6 Click the C: drive icon in the left side of the Explorer window.
7 Select Paste from the Edit menu.

If the reader intends to customize the QBasic programs, it is


recommended to copy QBASKEXE and QBAS1C.W to C:V;IRM\ as
well. These two files can be found on the Windows 95 CD-ROM in the
\OTHER\ODDMSDOS directory, or can be downloaded from the Internet
(e.g., from http://neozones.quickbasic.com,see Section D.3).

C.2.3 Running the QBasic Software

QBasic executables can be started fiom the DOS prompt by first


changing to the directory where the programs reside, and then entering the
program name (HRR-QB, ASET-QB, or FIRM-QB) on the DOS
command line. To display the DOS command prompt from within
Windows 95/98, click the Start button, then choose Programs and
MS-DOS prompt. This starts a windowed DOS session. To switch to a
full-screen DOS session, press Alt + Enter. At the end of a session, enter
EXIT on the command line to return to Windows. Alternatively, to start a
DOS program from within Windows 95/98, follow these steps:

1 Double-click the My Computer icon on the Windows 95/98 desktop.


2 Locate the program file.
3 Double-click the program file, i.e., HRR-QB.EXE, ASET-QB.EXE,
or FIRM-QB.EXE..
Installing and Running the Software 229

There are several other ways to run DOS programs from within Windows.
The reader is referred to the Windows user's guide for more details.
To run the source programs, the QBasic interpreter must first be
loaded. Follow the aforementioned instructions for starting a DOS program
to run the interpreter. In the QBasic environment, choose the Open
command from the File menu. Then switch to the directory where HRR-
QB.BAS, ASET-QB-BAS, and FIRM-QB reside, and double-click on the
desired program name. Alternatively, scroll down until the name is
highhghted, and press Enter or click OK. The source code is loaded in the
QBasic environment, and can be edited and executed fi-om this
environment.

C.3VISUAL BASIC SOFTWARE

C.3.1 System Requirements

To run the Visual Basic programs, the reader must have a system that
meets the following requirements:

IBM PC or 100% compatible computer


486166 or higher processor (Pentium or higher recommended)
Windows 95/98
16MBofRAM
2 MB of available hard disk space
CD-ROMdrive
VGA or higher-resolution monitor (Super VGA recommended)

C.3.2 Installing the Visual Basic Software

The setup routine on the CD-ROM must be used to install the Visual
Basic software. The installation can be performed as follows:

l Place the CD-ROM in the drive.


2 Double-click the My Computer icon on the Windows 95198 desktop.
3 Double-click the icon for the CD-ROM drive.
4 Double-click SETUP.EXE, and follow the instructions on the screen.
230 APPENDIX C

The setup routine decompresses the files on the CD-ROM, creates the
necessary directories on the user's hard drive (if needed), copies the
programs and Windows DLL files fiom the CD-ROM, updates the
Windows registry, and creates a FIRM-VB program group.
If the reader intends to customize the Visual Basic programs, it is
recommended that the source code be copied fkom the \FIRM\ directory on
the CD-ROM to the hard disk. This is not necessary if the QBasic software
already has been installed (see Section C.2.2).

C3.3 Running the Visual Basic Programs

There are two ways to run the Visual Basic software. The fust way
consists of running the compiled Visual Basic programs. Click the Start
button, then choose Programs and FIRM-VB, and click on the desired
program name, i.e., HRR-VB, ASET-W, or FIRM-W. The QBasic
executables can also be started from the FIRM-VB program group. A
special icon was created for each of the three Visual Basic programs. It is
recommended that the same icons be associated with fire files (*.FIR
extension), ASET output files (*.AOF extension), and FIRM output files
(*.FOF extension) respectively. This can be done by clicking the Start
button, then choosing Settings and Folder Options, and selecting the File
Types tab. After pressing the New Type button, the user can specify an
extension and select the corresponding icon. Select HRR-VB.EXE,
ASET-W.EXE, or FIRM-VB.EXE as the source file for the icon.
The second way must be used if the reader wants to modify the Visual
Basic source code. In this case, the program (*.WP extension) must be
loaded into the Visual Basic programming environment. There are several
books on the market that come with a working model of Visual Basic 6.0
(e.g., Perry, G. and S. Hettihewa, 1998. Teach Yourself Visual Basic 6 in
24 Hours, Sams, Indianapolis, IN), which provides the reader with an
inexpensive way for exploring the source programs (retail prices are as low
as $20). Working models do not allow the creation of stand-alone compiled
programs. Readers who wish to compile and perhaps distribute their
modified programs should consider the Visual Basic 6.0 Deluxe Learning
Edition, published by Microsoft Press. With a list price of $130, the
Deluxe Learning Edition is much more expensive than any of the working
models. However, it comes with two books, and a multimedia tutorial on
CD-ROM. If the reader requires more advanced capabilities, he may need
to obtain the Professional or Enterprise Edition of Visual Basic 6.0.
APPENDIX D
QBASIC Programmer's Notes

D.l INTRODUCTION

The computer software presented in this book, i.e., the HRR-QB.BAS,


ASET-QB.BAS, and FIRM-QB.BAS programs, are written in QBasic, a
powerfbl BASIC interpreter fist released in 1991 by Microsofi as part of
MS-DOS 5.0. This appendix provides some useful information for QBasic
programmers who want to customize the programs to suit their particular
needs. The reader is encouraged to do this, because it will allow him to get
the most benefit fiom this book.
The next two sections provide some general information on the history
and use of QBasic. Programmer's notes for HRR-QB, ASET-QB, and
FIRM-QB are presented in the remaining three sections. The reader should
generate a printout of the source code of the programs before reviewing the
notes. The source code of the three programs is provided on the
accompanying CD-ROM, and is copied to the user's hard drive during the
installation process (see Appendix C). The source programs are plain text
files that can be imported by any word processing program. It is best
before printing to set the page orientation to landscape, the font to 10 point
Courier, and the left and right margins to 0.5 inch so that statements fit on
a single line. It is much harder to read the source code when long
statements wrap around to another line, because this disturbs the
indentation scheme used to identify blocks of code that form a logical
entity. Between the programmer's notes in this appendix and the extensive
number of comments in the source code, the reader should have more than
enough information to understand how the programs work.
D.2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF QBASIC

The BASIC programming language was developed by John Kemeny


and Thomas Kurtz at Dartmouth College in the mid-1960s, as a learning
tool for beginning programmers. BASIC is an acronym for Beginner 'S All-
purpose Symbolic Instruction Code. It is a high-level language, i.e., it uses
common English words to instruct the computer to perform certain tasks,
as opposed to machine language which does not have any meaning to
humans (except machine or assembly language programmers).
In the 1970s, when rnicrocomputers first became available, a BASIC
interpreter was supplied with each microcomputer. (An interpreter
translates the source code to machine language, and executes the resulting
instructions statement by statement.) In 1981, IBM introduced the
Personal Computer (PC). The operating system of the IBM PC was
developed by Microsoft, and included a BASIC interpreter, called
BASICA. On clones of the IBM PC it was called GW-BASIC. The
programs developed in the fust edition of this book were written in
GW-BASIC.
In 1982, Microsoft released its frst BASIC compiler for the IBM PC,
called BASCOM 1.0. (A compiler translates the entire source code to
machine language prior to execution. A compiled BASIC program runs
much faster than a BASIC interpreter.) In subsequent years, Microsoft
continuously improved its BASIC compiler. The next version of Microsoft
BASIC compilers was named QuickBasic 2.0. It was a major
breakthrough, because it included an integrated editing environment that
greatly facilitated program development. Early in 1990, Microsoft released
its most powerful BASIC compiler for MS-DOS computers: the
Professional Development System (or PDS) version 7.1. It was an
extended version of the popular QuickBasic 4.5 compiler released in 1988.
A major reason for the success of QuickBasic 4.5 was its price (less than
$loo), which put the compiler within anybody's reach.
In 1991, Microsoft started shipping a completely revised BASIC
interpreter, called QBasic, with version 5 of its MS-DOS operating system.
QBasic has essentially not changed since its fust release (the most current
version is 1.1). QBasic has a user interface similar to QuickBasic 4.5, and
has many of the same features. However, QBasic has some important
limitations compared to QuickBasic 4.5. For example, QBasic is not
capable of generating an executable program (it is an interpreter, and not
a compiler), and supports only one module. QuickBasic 4.5 can handle
QBASIC Programmer 'S Notes 233

programs consisting of multiple modules, each stored in a separate file.


Despite its limitations, and the fact that it is a DOS program (and therefore
somewhat obsolete), QBasic still has an extensive following. Some of the
reasons are that it is easy to learn, allows structured programming at a
rock-bottom price (it's free!), is suitable for relatively complex
calculations, and an e*ensive number of programs are available in the
public domain (which can be used as is, or can serve as a basis for new
programs). The author believes that the reader can gain much more from
this book by actually modifying the programs that are provided. Based on
its capabilities and price, QBasic appears to be the ideal programming tool
to facilitate this process.

D.3 USING QBASIC

The reader is referred to the numerous excellent books on QBasic for


detailed information concerning its use. The author recommends the
following two references:

l Feldman, P., and T. Rug, 1993. Using Basic (2nd Edition), Que
Corporation, Cannel, IN.
2 Dyakonov, V., V. Munerman, E. Yemelchenkov, and T. Sarnoylova,
1996. The Revolutionary Guide to QBasic, Wrox Press, Birmingham,
m.
The first book is a tutorial and reference for beginning to intermediate
QBasic programmers. The second book addresses more advanced topics
and discusses the development of professional QBasic applications.
A quick search through the world wide web shows that there still is an
extensive following of die-hard QBasic afficionados, despite the fact that
QBasic is a somewhat obsolete DOS-based programming tool. The
following two web sites are among the most frequently visited:

1 http://neozones.quickbasic.com
2 http://www.qbasic.com

Both sites offer book reviews, tutorials, tons of sample programs, links to
other QBasic web sites, and much more.
The QBasic interpreter is needed if the reader wants to modify the
source code provided with this book. It can be copied from the
\OTHER\OLDMSDOS folder on the Windows 95 CD, or can be
downloaded fiom the neozones web site.
A compatible compiler is much harder to find. The executable QBasic
programs on the accompanying CD-ROM were generated with Microsoft
PDS 7.1. However, Microsoft discontinued its support of the Professional
Development System, and legal copies of QuickBasic 4.5 are no longer
available either. There are a few BASIC compilers that can be downloaded
from the neozones web site, but none of these compilers are fdly
compatible with QBasic. The efforts to convert the source code are
probably not worth the trouble, since execution in the QBasic environment
is quite fast (in particular on Pentium class PCs, which are very common
nowadays, see Section 6.1O), and the interpreter can handle much more
complex programs than the ones presented in this book.

D.4 HRR-QB

HRR-QB allows the user to create fire files that are read by ASET-QB
and FIRM-QB. The f i e name extension (*.FIR) and file format are
identical to those of the fire files in FPETool3.2 [4 l]. Therefore, if the
user already has a database of FPETool fire fdes, there is no need to re-
enter the data to conduct simulations with ASET-QB or FIRM-QB.
The fire files consist of numerical data in three parallel columns,
followed by two lines of text. The first column is the time in seconds, the
second column is the heat release rate in kW at the corresponding time in
the first column, and the third column is the mass loss rate in g/s. The latter
is equal to the heat release rate divided by the heat of combustion, which
is supplied by the user. The mass loss rate is not used by ASET-QB and
FIRM-QB, but it is needed for compatibility with FPETool. The values in
the last row of the three columns are equal to -9, to designate the end of
the numerical data. The first line of text contains the name of the fde, and
the date it was created. The second line is a description of the fire file
entered by the user.
HRR-QB allows the user to create fire fdes for 3 fires as described in
Section 4.4.1, a semi-universal fire as described in Section 4.4.2, pool fires
as discussed in Section 4.4.3, and upholstered firrnitwre fires based on
Babrauskas' triangle model described in Section 4.4.4.1. The program
QBASIC Programmer's Notes 235

offers the user the option to enter a series of (t, 0 )data points on a curve,
which can also be done directly fkom within ASET-QB and FIRM-QB.
The main program code starts with a declaration section where
functions, subroutines, and global variables are declared; constants are
defied; and dimensions of m y s are specified. Next, an error trapping
routine is enabled to handle disk and file errors. This is followed by the
screen display of the main menu, which gives the user six choices:
1. create a ? fire fie, 2. create a semi-universal f i e file, 3. create a pool
fire me, 4. create a fiuniture f i e fie, 5. create a custom fire file, or 6. exit.
If the user selects the last option, the program terminates. If the user selects
any of the fist five choices, he is prompted to do the following:

Speczfi the jirejile name and path.


Select the units. This only pertains to the input parameters or data
subsequently specified by the user. Fire f i e data are always in S.I.
units.
Enter a description. This will be the last line of the fire file.
Enter the heat of combustion ofthefuel. The default is 12,000 W/kg
i.e., the effective heat of combustion of wood.
Enter the ignition delay time.
Provide the parameters or &a points for the type offrre selected. For
example, for a P fire the user must specify the growth factor a, the
time to maximum heat release rate t,, and the duration of the fire ten&
Each type of fire is associated with a different block of code. The user
is prompted for the required fire parameters (e.g., a,t,, and tend.for
a fire), or data (for a custom fire), and data points are calculated and
stored on disk. A Select Case ... End Select structure is used to activate
the block of code corresponding to the main menu selection.

The subroutine XYPlot is called to display a graph of the heat release rate
curve on the screen. XYPlot in turn calls the DrawAxes and LinePZot
subroutines. DrawAxes draws the x-axis and y-axis on the screen; with tick
marks,labels, and titles. The description of the f i e is printed at the top of
the graph. The Side Write subroutine writes the title of the y-axis vertically.
The range for each of the axes is determined by a call to the MaxValue
function, which finds the highest value in a one-dimensional array (also
called a vector). Lineplot finally draws a line on the screen that connects
all the data points. When the user is done viewing the graph, he is taken
back to the main menu.
236 APPENDIX D

D.5 ASET-QB

ASET-QB is a QBasic version of the ASET model. The physical basis


and limitations of the model, and the use of the program are discussed in
Chapter 3. Here, some additional information is provided for QBasic
programmers who want to customize the code.
ASET-QB is more structured than HRR-QB. The main program is
much shorter, and the major tasks are performed by subroutine or function
calls. The program flow of ASET-QB is shown schematically on the chart
in Figure D-l. The main program code again starts with a declaration
section where functions, subroutines, and global variables are declared;
constants are defined; and dimensions of arrays are specified. Next, an
error trapping routine is enabled to handle printer errors, as well as disk
and f i e enors. This is followed by a call to the InputData subroutine.
InputData takes the user through a series of prompts to obtain the path for
data files, the names of the output file (default extension *.AOF, which
stands for ASET Output File) and fire (*.FIR) file, and the input data for
the m (a brief description, and the values of A, H, 2, L, and Q). The heat
release rate data can be read fiom a fire file, or can be specified by the user
in the form of a series of (t, Q) data points (the same way as a custom fire
file is created in HRR-QB). M e r initialization of all variables, headers and
initial values are written to disk, displayed on the screen, and sent to the
printer (the latter only if a hardcopy was requested). All data output is
handled by the OupzitData subroutine. When the output of headers and
initial values is completed, the program loops through a set of instructions
to obtain the solution of the model equations at one second intervals.
The subroutine ODESolve is called to advance the solution of the
ODEs (3.2) and (3.7) by one time step. The time step used in ASET-QB
is initially set at one second, but may be reduced by the ODE solver.
ODESoZve performs the stepsize control described in Section B.5.3, and,
if necessary, the stepsize is reduced according to Equation (B.74) to obtain
the desired accuracy. The tolerances for the layer interface height and the
upper layer temperature are set at kO.OO 1 m and kO.3"C respectively. They
are identical to the rather high tolerances specified by Walton in ASET-B
[3]. The basic Runge-Kutta equations are actually coded in a separate
subroutine, called RungeKuttn. The values of the functions on the right
hand side of the ODEs are calculated in subroutine Derivatives. This
Declare functions, subroutines, global variables;
Define constants; Specify dimensions of arrays

l ~ n a b l eerror trapping 1
e et input data (lnputData subroutine)/

6 Initialize variables

Print headers and initial values


(OutputData subroutine)

t
l solve ODES ( O ~ ~ S o l vsubroutine)
e /

Update screen/file/printer

+
Z E n d of s i m u l a t i o n ' ? ?

Close files

FIGURE D-l. Flow chart of ASET-QB


subroutine is called by ODESoZve to determine the function values at
(xi,yi),where x is the time, and y is the upper layer temperature or the layer
interface height. RmgeKutta calls Derivatives to obtain the values at
(xi + 0.5h,yi + OSk,), (xi + 0.5h,yi + 0.5k2), and (xi + h, yi + k,), where h
is the stepsize, and k,, 4, and k; are defined in Equation p.73). The reader
is referred to Section B.5.3 for a discussion of the fourth-order Runge-
Kutta method. Derivatives in turn calls the QDod and PlumeFZow functions
to determine the heat release rate at a given time (by interpolation of fire
file data), and the rate of entrainment into the flame and fire plume
(according to Zukoski's correlation) respectively. Every five seconds,
OutputData is called to update the disk fde, screen display, and printer
output. OutputData calls the VentFlows subroutine to obtain the outflow
of air from the compartment. The sequence outlined in this paragraph is
repeated until the specified end of simulation or the end of the fire file is
reached, or until an event occurs that invalidates the model assumptions
(for example, the upper layer drops below the fuel surface).
At the end of the run, the user has the option to perform another
simulation, in which case the program returns back to the line where
InputData is called, to obtain a new set of input data.

D.6 FIRM-QB

FIRM-QB is a QBasic version of the FIRM model developed in this


book. The physical basis of FIRM-QB, the use of the program, and the
predictive capability of the model are discussed in Chapters 5, 6, and 7
respectively. Here, some additional information is provided for QBasic
programmers who want to customize the code.
The structure of FIRM-QB is very similar to that of ASET-QB. In fact,
FIRM-QB was created fiom ASET-QB, by changing or adding statements
to include the additional features of FIRM-QB. The "document compare"
feature in word processors, such as Wordperfect and Word, can be used
to quickly determine what the differences are between the two programs.
The declaration section of FIRM-QB is longer due to the additional
futlctions, subroutines, global variables, constants, and arrays. Output data
files generated by FIRM-QB have the extension *.FOF, which stands for
FIRM Output File. The function HeatLossFraction was added to estimate
the heat loss fiaction as described in Section 4.3.1. The user has the option
to accept the estimated heat loss fraction, or to specify a different value.
QBASIC Programmer's Notes 239

The Derivatives subroutine in FIRM-QB calls the VentFlows


subroutine, because the vent flows are needed to calculate the function
values on the right hand side of the ODEs. The VentFlows subroutine is
much more complex in FIRM-QB, because the calculation of vent flows
requires the solution of a non-linear algebraic equation (see Section 4.1.6).
The bisection method is used to solve this equation. The code that performs
these calculations is embedded into the VentFlows subroutine, instead of
in a separate stand-alone subroutine (as for numerical solution of the
ODEs). This approach has the advantage that it is easier to program, and
the drawback that it is more difficult to reuse the code for the solution of
the same type of problem in another application.
XYPlot is called at the end of the main FIRM-QB program, allowing
the user to view graphs of the upper layer temperature, layer interface
height, heat release rate, and vent flow (outflow) versus time. XYPlot and
the subroutines and functions that are called fiom XYPlot (DrawAxes,
Lineplot, and indirectly SideWrite and MaxValue) are identical to those in
HRR-QB, except for a menu that was added in XYPlot so that the user can
select the variable to be plotted. When the user is done viewing the graphs,
he can terminate the program, or start a new simulation.
--- --
APPENDIX E
--

Visual Basic Programs


p

E.l INTRODUCTION

In 1991, Microsoft released a new graphics-oriented, event-driven


BASIC compiler for Windows, called Visual Basic. The objective was to
provide a programming tool that is largely compatible with BASIC, has
much of the simplicity of BASIC, but is powerful enough so that it can be
used to develop Windows applications. Shortly after the release of the
Windows version, Microsoft introduced Visual Basic for MS-DOS. The
DOS version operated in a similar way as the Windows version, but with
windows (calledforms in Visual Basic) in text mode instead of graphics
mode. Support for the DOS version of Visual Basic was quickly dropped,
as Windows became the opcrating system of choice for IBM and
compatible PCs.
There are major fundamental differences between QBasic and Visual
Basic. In a QBasic program, the sequence of events is a priori determined
by the programmer. For example, a QBasic program that first gets some
input values from the user, will always go through the same sequence of
input variable prompts. It is not possible at any point during the sequence
to change a variable that was specified earlier in the sequence. The only
option is to restart the program. In Visual Basic, the user would be
presented with a window (form) that has various input data entry fields,
and be allowed to enter the data in any order. This is obviously much more
user-fi-iendly. Rather than going through a sequence of instructions, Visual
Basic programs respond to events, such as entering data in a text box,
pressing a button, etc. The user dictates the sequence of events, not the
programmer.
The three QBasic programs presented in this book were rewritten in
Visual Basic 6.0 (the current version at the time of this writing). The
source code and compiled programs are installed on the user's hard drive
during the setup process discussed in Section C.3.2. The following three
sections provide a brief tutorial of the compiled Visual Basic programs
HRR-VB, ASET-VB, and FIRM-VB. The final section provides some
useful information to readers who wish to customize the Visual Basic
source code to meet specific needs.

E.2 RUNNING HRR-VB

In this section the reader will be shown how to use HRR-VB to create
a fire file. Walton's ASET-B example case f r e (see Section 3-5) will be
used. To start HRR-VB, follow the instructions in Section C.3.3. A
welcome screen is displayed with the graphic image, the name of the
program (KRR-VB), the version number, and some copyright information.
This is commonly referred to as a splash screen (see Figure E-l). If the
user clicks on the Quit button, the program terminates. Clicking on the
Continue button (or pressing Enter) leads to the main data input screen.
Figure E-2 shows the input screen, with the description field already
completed. Because HRR-VB is not a very complex program, there is no
extensive help feature. Some assistance is provided in the form of
ToolTips, i.e., informative text boxes that pop up when the user points at

FIGURE E-l. HRR-VB splash screen


Visual Basic Programs 243

FIGURE E-2. HRR-VB main input data screen

a control on the screen. Figure E-2 shows the ToolTip that appears when
the user points at the U.S. Engineering Units option button. The U.S.
engineering units for length, area, mass, temperature, and energy are
displayed in the text box.
When the user clicks on, or moves the cursor to the Fire File Name
Field, a dialog box pops up that allows the user to select a file name (see
Figure E-3). A separate dialog box minimizes the risk that an existing file
name is specified and overwritten by mistake, because the user can verify
whether the fde already exists and will be asked to confm overwriting any
existing file. Figure E-3 shows that the specified file, APPE-A0 1, does not
exist. This will not be the case if the user copied the data files fiom the
CD-ROM as specified in Section C.2.2. The extension .FIR is
automatically appended to the file name. Note that C:\FIRMU>ATA\is the
default directory for fire files. To go back to the main input data menu,
click on the Save button.
Since we will enter heat release rates in kW, there is no need to change
the units. The Heat of Combustion field can also be left unchanged,
because it is only needed to calculate mass loss rates, and does not affect
the fire data that are used by ASET-VB and FIRM-VB. The user can enter
a delay time in the text box in the lower left corner of the main data input
screen. This may be useful toaccount for delayed ignition of the fuel. For
example, for the furniture fire simulations discussed in Section 7.3S.1, an
ignition delay was added to synchronize the triangular heat release curves
244 APPENDIX E

FIGURE E-3. Dialog box to specifl the fire file name

based on Babrauskas' model with the experimental data. We are now ready
to enter the heat release rate curve, so click on the Custom Fire command
button (or press the Tab key several times until the Custom Fire button is
highlighted and press Enter, or press Alt + C). The program verifies that
the delay time is indeed zero, and returns to the main data input screen if
a delay time has to be specified. If no delay time is needed, the program
displays the custom fue parameter screen. Figure E-4 shows the screen
after the data points of Walton's ASET-B example case fue curve have
been entered. If there are more than 10 data points on the curve, the user
can click the Next 10 Points command button when the first screen is
completed. A second blank screen is then presented. This process can be
repeated until 1800 data pairs have been entered. In our case we only have
four data pairs, so we can click the OK button.
The next screen is a graph of the heat release curve (see Figure E-5).
If the user is satisfied with the curve, he can click the Save button to write
the data to disk. A File Save dialog box is displayed to give the user a fmal
opportunity to change the fde name, and avoid possible data loss by
overwriting an existing file. After the data are saved, the program returns
to the graph screen. The Save button is disabled to indicate that the data
were indeed saved. Clicking the Close button takes the user back to the
main input data screen. If the Close button is clicked before the Save
button, the user is asked to confirm that he does not want to save the data.
FIGURE E-4.HRR-VB custom fire parameter screen

FIGURE E-5. Graph of Walton's ASET-B example case fire curve

245
246 APPENDIX E

While HRR-VB is running, it is recommended that the reader create


a fire fde for the acetone dip tank example described in Sections 6.5,6.9,
and 6.11.3. The main data input and pool fue parameter screens are shown
in Figures E-6 and E-7.

FIGURE E-6.Main HRR-VB input data screen for acetone dip tank fire

FIGURE E-7.Pool fire parameters for acetone tank


Visual Basic Programs 247

E.3 RUNNING ASET-VB

To start ASET-VB, follow the instructions in Section C.3.3. A


welcome screen is displayed that is identical to the HRR-VB splash screen,
except for the program name (ASET-VB in this case). Clicking the
Continue button leads to the main input data screen, fkom where all input
variables are specified. This can be done in two ways. The fust way is by
moving through the input fields and entering the necessary information in
each field. The second approach consists of retrieving the variables fkom
an existing output file, and modifying the input fields as needed. The
second approach can save the user a lot of time, in particular if a sensitivity
study needs to be conducted (see Section 7.3.4.3). To illustrate this
approach, perform the following steps to prepare ASET-VB for Walton's
ASET-B example case. It is assumed that the reader installed the QBasic
program and data fdes to the default directories on the hard disk, as
specified in Section C.2.2.

Choose Open fkom the File menu.


Select CH3-A0 l .AOF fkom the Open File dialog box.
Change the description to "ASET-VB SAMPLE RUN OF
WALTON'S ASET-B EXAMPLE CASE," i.e., change ASET-QB to
ASET-W.
Change the output data file name to APPE-A01 .AOF.
Change to U.S. engineering units, and correct the geometric data.
(ASET-QB and ASET-VB work internally in S.I. units, and
conversions back and forth between the two unit systems result in
slight roundoff errors). The correct values for A, H, and 2, are 225 ft2,
9 ft, and 1 A respectively.
Change the fue file name to APPE-A0 1.FIR.

The completed input data screen is shown in Figure E-8. Clicking Run
initiates the calculations. An output data screen is displayed, as shown in
Figure E-9. Only seven lines of results fit inside the window, and the
vertical scroll bar allows the user to go through and inspect the entire data
set. The results on this screen are identical to the ASET-QB data presented
in Table 3- 1, and those stored in CH3-A0 1.AOF.
FIGURE E-8. Completed ASET-VB input data screen

FIGURE E-9. Sample output data screen generated by ASET-VB

248
Visual Basic Programs 249

E.4 RUNNING FIRM-VB

Running FIRM-VB is similar to naming ASET-VB and HRR-W. The


main input screen has more controls, and allows the user to specifl all
input variables (see Sections 6.5 and 6.6.2 for a list of the variables, and
a brief description). Figure E-10 shows the completed input data screen for
the acetone dip tank example described in Sections 6.5, 6.9, and 6.11.3.
Provided the geometric data have been entered, the user can request that
the program estimate the total heat loss coefficient, L,, by clicking the
command button below the L, field. Figure E-l l shows the FIRM-VB
output screen for the acetone dip tank example. The results on this screen
are identical to the FIRM-QB data presented in Figure 6-2, and stored in
CH6-CO1.FOF. Clicking the Graph button on the output screen leads to a
new screen that allows the user to view graphs of the upper layer
temperature, layer interface height, heat release rate, and vent flow as a
b c t i o n of time.

FIGURE E-10. FIRM-VB input data screen for acetone dip tank example
250 APPENDIX E

FIGURE E-11. FIRM-VB output data screen for acetone dip tank example

E.5 CUSTOMIZING THE VISUAL BASIC PROGRAMS

If the reader wants to modifi the Visual Basic source code, he will
need to load the source program (*.VBP extension) into the Visual Basic
programmitlg environment. As a minitnum, the reader will need a working
model of Visual Basic 6.0 to run the programs. There are several books on
the market that come with a working model of Visual Basic 6.0 (see
Section C.3.3). If the reader wants to compile his programs, he will need
more than a working model. Microsoft released different versions of
Visual Basic 6.0, to suit the needs of any programmer, ranging fiom the
novice to the professional.
All changes to the Visual Basic programs must be clearly documented
by adding clarifying comment statements to the source code, and by
providing an extensive discussion of the changes in any report or
publication of the model calculations. This discussion must be detailed
enough so that others can reproduce the results. If the changes are
extensive, the predictive capability of the modified model may have to be
re-evaluated (see Chapter 7).
REFERENCES

1. Mitler, H. E. 1987. "User's Guide to FIRST, A Comprehensive Single-Room


Fire Model," NBSIR 87-3595, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.
2. Peacock, R. D., G. P. Forney, P. Reneke, R. Portier, and W. W. Jones. 1993.
"CFAST, the Consolidated Model of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport," NIST
Technical Note 1299, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD.
3. Walton, W. D. 1985. "ASET-B: A Room Fire Program for Personal Computers,"
NBSlR 85-3144-1, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.
4. Kanury, A. M. 1987. "On the Craft of Modeling in Engineering and Science,"
Fire Safety Journal, 1265-74.
5. Friedman, R. 1992. "An International Survey of Computer Models for Fire and
Smoke," Journal of Fire Protetction Engineering, 4:8 1- 92.
6. Cooper, L. Y. 1980. "Estimating Safe Available Egress Time from Fires,"
NBSIR 80-2172, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.
7. Steckler, K. D., H. R. Baum, and J. G. Quintiere. 1986. "Salt Water Modeling
of Fire Induced Flows in Multi-Compartment Enclosures," NBSIR 86-3326,
National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.
8. Prahl, J. and H. W. Emmons. 1975. "Fire Induced Flow through an Opening,"
Combustion and Flame, 25:369-385.
9. 1992. Fire Protection Handbook. 17th Edition. National Fire Protection
Association: Quincy, MA.
10. Fitzgerald, R. W. 1982. The Anatomy of Building Firesafety. Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA.
11. Berlin, G. N. 1982. "A Simulation Model for Assessing Building Fire Safety,"
Fire Technology, 18.
12. Galea, E. 1988. "On the Field Modeling Approach to the Simulation of
Enclosure Fires," Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 1:11-22.
13. Emmons, H. W. 1983. "The Calculation of a Fire in a Large Building," Journal
of Heat Transfer, 105:151- 158.
14. Zukoski, E. E. 1978. "Development of a Stratified Ceiling Layer in the Early
Stages of a Closed-Room Fire," Journal of Fire and Materials, 7:54-62.
15. DiNenno, P. J., ed 1995. The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering.
Second Edition. Boston, MA: Society of Fire Protection Engmeers.
252 References

16. Klote, J. H., and J. W. Fothergill. 1983. "Design of Smoke Control Systems for
Buildings," NBS Handbook 141, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,
DC.
17. Butcher, E. G. and A. C. Parnell. 1979. Smoke Control in Fire Safety Design.
London: E. & F. N. Spon Ltd.
18. 1986. "Measured Air Leakage in Buildings," STP 904, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA.
19. Beyler, C. L. 1986. "Fire Plumes and Ceiling Jets," Fire Safety Journal,
11:53-75.
20. Forney, G. P. 1994. "Analyzing and Exploiting Numerical Characteristics of
Zone Fire Models," Fire Science & Technology, 14:49-60.
2 1. Zukoski, E. E., T. Kubota, and H. Cetegen. l98OA98 1. "Entrainment in Fire
Plumes," Fire Safety Journal, 3: 107- 121.
22. Morton, B. R., G. F. Taylor, and J. S. Turner. 1956. "Turbulent Gravitational
Convection from Maintained and Instantaneous Sources," in Proceedings of the
Royal Society, A234: 1- 23.
23. Yokoi, S. 1960. Building Research Report No. 34, Ministry of Construction,
Tokyo, Japan.
24. Kawagoe, K. 1958. "Fire Behavior in Rooms," Report No. 27, Building
Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, Tokyo, Japan.
25. Thornton, W. 1917. "The Relation of Oxygen to the Heat of Combustion of
Organic Compounds," Philosophical Magazine and J. of Science, 33.
26. Huggett, C. 1980. "Estimation of the Rate of Heat Release by Means of Oxygen
Consumption," J. of Fire and Flammability, l2:6 1- 65.
27. Siegel, R. and J. Howell. 1981. Xhermal Radiation Heat Transfer.New York,
NY: Hemisphere Publishing Company.
28. Modak, A. T. 1979. "Mation from Products of Combustion," Fire Research,
1:339-361.
29. Oziqk, M. N. 1985. Heat Transfer.A Basic Approach. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill Book Company.
30. Cooper, L. Y. 1993. "Fire-Plume-Generated Ceiling Jet Characteristics and
Convective Heat Transfer to Ceiling and Wall Surfaces in a Two-Layer Fire
Environment: Uniform Temperature Walls and Ceiling," Fire Science &
Technology, 13:1- 17.
31. Beller, D. K. 1987. "Alternate Computer Models of Fire Convection Phenomena
for the Harvard Computer Fire Code," M.S. Thesis, Worcester Polytechruc
Institute, Worcester, MA.
32. Satterfield, D; B. and J. R. Barnett. 1990. "User's Guide for WPUFire Version
2 Compartment Fire Model," Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA.
33. Sarnarskii, A. A., and P. N. Vabishchevich. 1995. Computational Heat Transfer
(2 Volumes).Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
34. Petzold, L. R. 1982. "A Description of DASSL: A DifferentiaVAlgebraic System
Solver," Technical Report 8637, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque,
NM.
References 253

35. Cooper, L. Y., and D. W. Stroup. 1982. "Calculating Safe Egress Time (ASET)
- A Computer Program and User's Guide," NBSIR 82-2578, National Bureau
of Standards, Washington, DC.
36. Cooper, L. Y. 1983. "A Concept for Estimating Available Safe Egress Time in
Fires," Fire Safely Journal, 5:135- 144.
37. Cooper, L. Y. 1982. "A Mathematical Model for Estimating Available Sale
Egress Time in Fires," Fire and Materials, 6:135- 144.
38. Cooper, L. Y. and D. W. Stroup. 1985. "ASET - A Computer Program for
Calculating Safe Egress Time," Fire Safety Journal, 9:29- 45.
39. DiNenno, P. J. 1985. "ASET-B: A Room Fire Program for Personal Computers,"
Software Review, Fire Technology, 2 1:322- 323.
40. Walton, W. D. 1985. 'ASET-B: A Room Fire Program for Personal Computers,"
Fire Technology, 2 11293-309.
41. Deal, S. 1995. "Technical Reference Guide for FPETool Version 3.2,"NISTIR
5486-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
42. Cooper, L. Y. 1983. "The Development of Hazardous Conditions in Enclosures
with Growing Fires," Combustion, Science and Technology, 33:279-297.
43. Boyce, W. E. and R. C. DiPrima. 1977. Elementary D~flerentialEquations and
Boundary Value Problems. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
44. Press, W. H., S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery. 1992.
Numerical Recipes in Fortran - The Art of Scientrfic Computing. Second
Edition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Universty Press.
45. 1997. "Standard Guide for Use and Limitations of Deterministic Fire Models,"
ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
46. Birk, D. Personal Communication with G. Heskestad.
47. Milke, J. A. 1989. "Smoke Management Design Considerations for Covered
Malls and Atria," International Fire Protection Engineering Institute, Ottawa
Ontario, Canada.
48. Babrauskas, V. 1983. "Upholstered Furniture Heat Release Rates:
Measurements and Estimations," Journal of Fire Sciences, 1 :9-32.
49. Steckler, K. D., H. R. Baurn and J. G. Quintiere. 1984. "Fire Induced Flows
through Room Openings - Flow Coefficients," NBSIR 83-2801. National
Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.
50. Nakaya, I., T. Tanaka, M. Yoshida, and K. Steckler. 1986. "Doorway Flow
Induced by a Propane Burner," Fire Safety Journal, 10:185- 195.
5 1. Peacock, R. D., S. Davis, and B. T. Lee. 1988. "An Experimental Data Set for
the Accuracy Assessment of Room Fire Models," NBSIR 88-3752. National
Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.
52. Lawson, J. R. and J. G. Quintiere. 1985/1986. "Slide Rule Estimates of Fire
Growth," Fire Technology, 2 1 :267-292, and 22:45- 53.
53. Nelson, H. E. 1986. "FIREFORM- A Computerized Collection of Convenient
Fire Saftety Computations," NBSIR 86-3388, National Bureau of Standards,
Washington, DC.
54. Rockett, J. A. 1976. "Fire Induced Flow in an Enclosure." Combustion Science
and Technology, 12:l65 - 175.
254 References

55. Mitler, H. E. 1978. "The Physical Basis for the Harvard Computer Fire Code,"
Home Fire Project Technical Report No. 34, Harvard University, Cambridge,
MA.
56. Babrauskas, V. 1984. "Upholstered Furniture Room Fire Measurements.
Comparison with Furniture Calorimeter Data and Flashover Predictions,"
Journal of Fire Sciences, 2:2- 19.
57. Drysdale, D. 1985. An Introduction to Fire Dynamics. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.
58. 1996. "National Fire Alarm Code," NFPA 72, National Fire Protection
Association, Quincy, MA.
59. 1998. "Guide for Smoke and Heat Venting," NFPA 204, National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, MA.
60. Babrauskas, V. 1996. "Fire Modeling Tools for FSE: Are They Good Enough?"
Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 8:97-96.
61. Schifiliti, R. P. 1986. "Alternate Computer Models of Fire Convection
Phenomena for the Harvard Computer Fire Code," M.S. Thesis, Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA.
62. Babrauskas, V. 1986. "Free Burning Fires," Fire Safety Journal, 11.
63. Babrauskas, V. 1983. "Estimating Large Pool Fire Burning Rates," Fire
Technology, 19:251- 26 1.
64. Babrauskas, V., J. R. Lawson, W. D. Walton, and W. H. Twilley. 1982.
"Upholstered Furniture Burning Rates as Measured with a Furniture
Calorimeter," NBSIR 82-2604, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.
65. Parker, W. J. 1982. "Calculations of the Heat Release Rate by Oxygen
Consumption for Various Applications," NBSIR 8 1-2427, National Bureau of
Standards, Washington, DC.
66. Janssens, M. L. 1991. "Measuring Rate of Heat Release by Oxygen
Consumption," Fire Technology, 27:234-249.
67. 1996. "Standard Test Method for Fire Testing of Real Scale Upholstered
Furniture Items," ASTM E 1537, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
68. 1987. "Upholstered Furniture Fire Behavior - Full-scale Test," NORDTEST
NT Fire 032, NORDTEST, Helsinki, Finland.
69. Krasny, J. F., V. Babrauskas, and W. J. Parker. 1998. "Fire Behavior of
Upholstered Furniture Items," in press.
70. 1997. "Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for
Materials and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter," ASTM E
1354, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
71. Babrauskas, V. and W. D. Walton. 1986. "A Simplified Characterization of
Upholstered Furniture Heat Release Rates," Fire Safety Journal, 11:18 1- 192.
72. Babrauskas, V. and J. Krasny. 1985. "Fire Behavior of Upholstered Furniture,"
NBS Monograph 173, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.
73. Peacock, R. B. and J. N. Breese. 1982. "Computer Fire Modeling for the
Prediction of Flashover," NBSIR 82-2516, National Bureau of Standards,
Washington, DC.
74. 1992. "Standard Guide for Documenting Computer Software for Fire Models,"
ASTM E 1472, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
References 255

75. 1997. "Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic
Fire Models," ASTM E 1355, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
76. Siirdqvist, S. 1993. "Initial Fires: HRR, Smoke and CO Generation from Single
Items and Room Fire Tests," LUTVDGtTVBB-3070-SE, Lund University,
Department of Fire Technology, Lund, Sweden.
77. Bell, J. R., T. J. Klem, and A. W Willey. 1982. "Investigation Report -
Westchase Hilton Hotel Fire," NFPA No. LS-7, National Fire Protection
Association, Quincy, MA.
78. Mitler, H. E. and H. W. Ernrnons. l98 1. "Documentation for CFC V, The Fifth
Harvard Computer Fire Code," NBS-GCR-81-244, National Bureau of
Standards, Washington, DC.
79. 1997. "Code for Safety to Life from Fire in Buildings and Structures," NFPA
101, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA.
80. Babrauskas, V. 198111982. "Will the Second Item Ignite?" Fire Safety Journal,
4:281-292.
81. Khoudja, N. 1988. "Procedures for Quantitative Sensitivity and Performance
Validation Studies of a Deterministic Fire Safety Model," NBS-GCR-88-544,
National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.
82. Davies, A. D. 1985. "Applied Model Validation," NBSIR 85-3154-1, National
Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC.
83. Bukowski, R. W. 1985. "The Application of Models to the Assessment of Fire
Hazards from Consumer Products," NBSIR 85-3219, National Bureau of
Standards, Washington, DC.
84. Watts, J. M., Jr. 1987. "Validating Fire Models," Fire Technology, 23:93-94.
85. 1999. "Standard Terminology of Fire Standards," ASTM E 176, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA.
86. Keski-Rahkonenen, 0 . 1996. "CIB W l 4 Round Robin of Code Assessment: A
Comparison of Fire Simulation Tools," in Proceedings of the Conference on
Fire Safety Design of Buildings and Fire Safety Engineering, Oslo, Norway,
August 19-20,l- 14.
87. 1999. "Standard Guide for Room Fire Experiments," ASTM E 603, ASTM,
West Conshohocken, PA.
88. Peacock, R. B. and J. N. Breese. 1982. "Computer Fire Modeling for the
Prediction of Flashover," NBSIR 82-25 16, National Bureau of Standards,
Washington, DC.
89. Iman, R. L. and Shortencarier. 1984. "A FORTRAN 77 Program and User's
Guide for the Generation of Latin Hypercube and Random Samples for Use with
Computer Models," NUREGICR-3624, SAND83-2365, Sandia National
Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
90. 1997. "Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine
the Precision of a Test Method," ASTM E691, ASTM Standards on Precision
and Biasfor Various Applications, 5" Edition, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
91. 1986. "Precision of Test Methods - Determination of Repeatability and
Reproducibility for a Standard Test Method by Inter-Laboratory Tests," IS0
5725, International Origanization for Standardization,Geneva, Switzerland.
256 References

92. Beitel, J. J. 1994."International Fire Standards Project Report, Interlaboratory


Test Program, Proposed ASTM Standard Method for Room Fire Test of Wall
and Ceiling Materials and Assemblies," PCN 33-000012-31, ASTM Institute for
Standards Research, Philadelphia, PA.
93. Cooper, L. Y., M. Harkleroad, J. G. Quintiere, and W. Rinkinen. 1982."An
Experimental Study of Upper Hot Layer Stratification in Full-scale Multiroom
Fire Scenarios," Journal of Heat Transfer, 104:741 - 749.
94. Janssens, M. L. and H. Tran. 1992."Data Reduction of Room Tests for Zone
Model Validation," .L of Fire Sciences, 1O:528-555.
95. Peacock, R. D., S. Davis, and V. Babrauskas. 1991."Data for Room Fire Model
Comparisons," Jo2nrzal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, 96:41 1 -462.
96. Babrauskas, V., Peacock, R. D., Janssens, M. L., and Batho, N. 1991.
"Standardization of Formats and Presentation of Fire Data: The FDMS,"Journal
of Fire and Materials, 15:85-92.
97. Quintiere, J. G., W. J. Rinkinen, and W. W. Jones. 1981. "The Effect of Room
Openings on Fire Plume Entrainment," Combustion Science and 7'echnology,
26:193-201.
98. Reid, R. C., J. M. Prausnitz, and B. E. Poling. 1987.The Properties of Gases
and Liquids. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
99. Westbrook, C. K.,and F. L. Dryer. 1981."Simplified Reaction Mechanisms for
the Oxidation of Hydrocarbon Fuels in Flames," Combustion Science and
Technology, 27:31 -43.
100. Frenklach, M., H.Wong, and M. J. Rabinowitz. 1992. "Optimization and
Analysis of Large Chemical Kinetic Mechanisms Using the Solution Mapping
Method," Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 18:K-73.
101. Spalding, D. B. 1979.Combustion and Mass Transfer. Oxford, UK: Pergamon
Press.
102. Dorn, W. S. and D. D. MacCracken. 1972.Numerical Methods with Fortran IV
Case Studies. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
INDEX

Absorption coefficient, 92 Ceiling jet, 2,42,84-87,201


Absorptivity, 204 CFAST fire model, ix, 8,12
Adiabatic flame temperature, 2 16-218 Closed system, l99
Air Compartment fire, 1-4
Composition, l98,2 11 Computer language, 8
Density, 27 BASIC, see BASIC
Equivalence ratio, 2 15 FORTRAN, see FORTRAN
Hydrostatic pressure, 15 QBASIC, see QBASIC
Specific heat, 54,198 Visual Basic, see Visual Basic
ASET fire model Conduction, 42-43,200-201
Assumptions, 54 Conservation equation
Derivation of equations, 54- 57 Energy, 37-48,199
Limitations, 63- 67 Mass, 20- 34, 188
Model runs, 61-63,133 Momentum, 188- 190
Numerical solutions, 58- 59 Species, 34-37
Programmer's notes, 236- 238,250 Continuity equation, see Conservation
Running the software, 228-230 equation of mass
Software installation, 227-230 Control volume, 13, 188, 199
Atom, 2 10 Convection, 4 1-42,2O 1- 204
Available safe egress time, 8,5 1,65,
142 Density, 183
Avogadro's hypothesis, 2 10 Deterministic fire model, 7,9
Diffusion flame, 2 19
BASIC, 8-9,232-234,250 Dimensional analysis, 190,202
Bernouilli's equation, 24, 189 Dynamic viscosity, 187
Bisection method, 78, 116- 117,
22 l-223,239 Emissivity, 38-40,207
Blackbody radiation, 205 Enthalpy, 196- 197
Boltzmann constant, 182,207 Entrainment, 20- 24,174- 175
Boundary layer, 186,202- 203 Euler method, 58- 59,224-225
Buoyancy, l85,2O 1,203 Extinction coefficient, 39- 40,209
Burning rate
Pool fire, 92- 94 FAST fire model, 179- 180
Upholstered furniture, 95- 102 FASTLITE fire model, 179- 180
258 Index

FIRE DYNAMICS SIMULATOR, 180 Heat loss fraction


Fire model Estimate, 6 1
Field, 7, 180 Limitations, 67
Stochastic, 4 Prediction, 83- 87
Zone, 7- 8 Sensitivity analysis, 155- l56
Fire plume, 51, 105, 112,238 Heat of combustion, 82,93- 94, 103,
FIRM fire model 216-217
Assumptions, 113 Heat release rate predictions, 87- 103
Derivation of equations, 114- 116 Heat transfer
Documentation, 154 Conductive, see Conduction
Evaluation of predictive capability, Convective, see Convection
154- 156 Radiative, see Thermal radiation
Limitations, 144 Heat transfer coefficient, 181,202,204
Model runs, 128- 144,155- 178 Hotel fire, 128-130
Numerical solutions, 116- 117 Hot-layer, 2-6,56,65-66,70
Programmer's notes, 238-239,250 Hydrostatic pressure, 15,24,25, 185
Running the software, 228-230
Software installation, 227- 230 Ideal gas, 184
Validation, 154 Ignition delay, 159
Verification, 154 Incomplete combustion, 4 2 18
FIRST fire model, xi, 8, 12- 13,40,42, Interior finish, 89
l80 Internal energy, l96
Flame height, 2 19 Isobaric, 199
Flame temperature, 2 16-218 Isothermal, 41, 152,207
Flammable liquid, see Pool fire
Flashover, 2, 104- 110, 129- 137, Kinematic viscosity, 181, 187, 191,
139- 142,155- 1S6 202
Fluid, 183
Fluid dynamics, 185- 191 LAVENT fire model, 180
Fluid statics, 184- 185 Layer interface height, 19
FORTRAN, 8,5 1- 52 Life safety code, 138
Fourier's law, 200 Lower flammability limit, 2 18
FPETool fire model, 53,95, 100, 117,
122,125,180,234 Mass action, 2 13
Free convection, 20 1 Mass loss rate, 13,20,34,92,100,
Free-burning fire, 2 19-220 122,125,158,234
Froude number, 191 Mathematical fire modeling, 7, l l, 4,
Furniture calorimeter, 95-96 53,180
Mean beam length, 39,40,92,209
Grashof number, 203 Methane, 82, 169, 171,211-215,218
Grey surface, 207 Mole, 182, 193,210-21 1
Molecular mass, 184,193,2 10,212
HARVARD fire model, 8,71, 15 1 Molecule, 210-21 1,215
Health care facilities, l38 Momentum, 7- 8,42,185,187- 188,
Heat conduction, 200- 20 1 202
Heat flux, 39,41-42,49, 106,201
Index 259

Natural convection. 41,201,203,204 Thermal diffusivity, 20 1,202


Navier-Stokes equations, 189 Thermal radiation, 38- 4 1,204- 209
Neutral plane, 20,25-27,30,72, 156 Thermodynamics, 191- 199
Newton-Raphson method, 223 Time shifting, 153
Newton's law, 188,202 Transmissivity, 40,205
Numerical solution techniques, 52 Truncation error, 22 1,224-226
Nusselt number, 4 1,203-204 Turbulent flow, 187,189,19 1,204
Turbulent viscosity, l87
Orifice flow, l89
Oxygen starvation, 54,66, 113-115, Universal gas constant, 182, 184, 193,
159,168 2l 3
Untenability, 136, 137, 142
Partial pressure, 192 Upholstered fiuniture, 95- 103
Pascal's law, 184
Planck's equation, 205 Validation of fire models, 147- 148,
Plume, l-3,20-24 150,154
Pool fire, 92, 142,235,246 Vena contracts, 189
Pressure, 183 Vent flow, 24- 32,69- 79
Products, 2 11 Vent flow regimes, 7 1- 72
Propane, 82,213-215,217,218 Verification of fire models, 147, 149,
Pyrolysis, 2 19 154
View factor, 207
Viscosity, 186- 187
Visual Basic, 230,240-241
Radiation, see Thermal radiation
Radiative fraction, 54, 126, 134, 175 Westchase Hilton hotel fire, 128-130
Reactants, 2 11-215 Wien' s displacement law, 205- 206
Reflectivity, 205 Work, 194- 195
Reynolds number, 190- 191,203
Runge-Kutta method, 59, 116,223,
225

Sensitivity analysis, 140, 151, 155


Shear stress, 186, 187
Simple Chemically Reacting System,
35,214
SMARTFlRE fire model, 180
Species conservation, 34,48
Specific heat, 197- 198
Stack effect, 70,7 1
Stoichiometry, 36,37,2 11,2 17
Stratification, 54,64,65, 113
Streamline, 186,189
System, 191

fire, 88, 100,234

You might also like