NISTIR 7120 

Impact of Sprinklers on the Fire Hazard in Dormitories: 

Day Room Fire Experiments 

Daniel Madrzykowski 

David W. Stroup 

William D. Walton 

Sponsored in part by 

Department of Homeland Security

Federal Emergency Management Agency

United States Fire Administration
 

NISTIR 7120 

Impact of Sprinklers on the Fire Hazard in Dormitories: 

Day Room Fire Experiments 

Daniel Madrzykowski 

David W. Stroup 

William D. Walton 

Fire Research Division 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8661 

June 2004 

Department of Homeland Security 

Tom Ridge, Secretary 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary of Emergency 

Preparedness and Response 

United States Fire Administration 

R. David Paulison, Administrator 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Donald L. Evans, Secretary 

Technology Administration 

Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary for Technology 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director
 iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

Page 

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................v

Abstract.....................................................................................................................1

Introduction..............................................................................................................2

Experimental Configuration...................................................................................3

Furnishings ...............................................................................................................4

Instrumentation........................................................................................................4

Experimental Procedure .........................................................................................5

Results .......................................................................................................................6

Experiment Timelines.............................................................................................6

Smoke Alarm and Sprinkler Activation Times.......................................................6

Temperature Data ...................................................................................................6

Heat Flux Data........................................................................................................7

Uncertainty Analysis ..............................................................................................8

Discussion..................................................................................................................8

Conclusions .............................................................................................................10

Acknowledgements.................................................................................................10

References ...............................................................................................................11
 iv

LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

Table 1. Thermocouple Array and Smoke Alarm Location .........................................................12 

Table 2. Timeline for Experiment Number 1................................................................................13 

Table 3. Timeline for Experiment Number 2................................................................................14 

Table 4. Timeline for Experiment Number 3................................................................................15 

Table 5. Day Room Experiment 1, Smoke Alarm Activation and Sprinkler Activation Times...16 

Table 6. Day Room Experiment 2, Smoke Alarm Activation Times ...........................................16 

Table 7. Day Room Experiment 3, Smoke Alarm Activation Times ...........................................16 

Table 8. Estimated Uncertainty in Full Scale Experimental Data ................................................17 
 v

LIST OF FIGURES 

Page 

Figure 1. Photograph of dormitory building, similar to the test structure. ...................................18 

Figure 2. Arrangement of the dormitory building, 1st floor..........................................................19 

Figure 3. Plan view of Day Room with sprinkler locations..........................................................20 

Figure 4. Photograph showing ceiling tile. ...................................................................................21 

Figure 5. Photograph of the type of sofa used for ignition in all of the experiments and used as 

“target” sofas in experiments 2 and 3. ...........................................................................................22 

Figure 6. Photograph showing the fuel arrangement for the day room in experiment 1. .............23 

Figure 7. Diagram of day room showing sofa arrangement. ........................................................24 

Figure 8. Photograph showing dayroom arrangement for experiment 2, with sofas, bulletin board 

and paper........................................................................................................................................25 

Figure 9. Locations of thermocouple arrays in corridor. ..............................................................26 

Figure 10. Diagram with instrumentation locations identified. ....................................................27 

Figure 11. Diagram with instrumentation locations identified in day room area. ........................28 

Figure 12. Photograph of day room after experiment 1................................................................29 

Figure 13. Photograph showing the day room after experiment 2................................................30 

Figure 14. Photograph showing the ignition sofa after experiment 3...........................................31 

Figure 15. Photograph of north sofa after experiment 3...............................................................32 

Figure 16. Photograph of corridor from the west approaching day room on right.......................33 

Figure 17 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 1.........................................................34 

Figure 18 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 2.........................................................35 

Figure 19 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 3.........................................................36 

Figure 20 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 4.........................................................37 

Figure 21 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 5.........................................................38 

Figure 22 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 6.........................................................39 

Figure 23 Experiment 1, dayroom temperatures, west side near ignition, TC array 7. ................40 

Figure 24 Experiment 2, dayroom temperatures, east side, TC array 8........................................41 

Figure 25 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 9.........................................................42 

Figure 26 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 10.......................................................43 

Figure 27 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 11.......................................................44 

Figure 28 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 12.......................................................45 

Figure 29 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 1.........................................................46 

Figure 30 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 2.........................................................47 

Figure 31 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 3.........................................................48 

Figure 32 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 4.........................................................49 

Figure 33 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 5.........................................................50 

Figure 34 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 6.........................................................51 

Figure 35 Experiment 2, day room temperatures, west side near ignition, TC array 7. ...............52 

Figure 36 Experiment 2, dayroom temperature, east side, TC array 8. ........................................53 

Figure 37 Experiment 2, corridor temperature, TC array 9. .........................................................54 

Figure 38 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 10.......................................................55 

Figure 39 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 11.......................................................56 
 vi

Figure 40 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 12.......................................................57 

Figure 41 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 1.........................................................58 

Figure 42 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 2.........................................................59 

Figure 43 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 3.........................................................60 

Figure 44 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 4.........................................................61 

Figure 45 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 5.........................................................62 

Figure 46 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 6.........................................................63 

Figure 47 Experiment 3, dayroom temperatures west side near ignition, TC array 7...............64 

Figure 48 Experiment 3, dayroom temperatures, east side, TC array 8........................................65 

Figure 49 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 9.........................................................66 

Figure 50 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 10.......................................................67 

Figure 51 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 11.......................................................68 

Figure 52 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 12.......................................................69 

Figure 53 Experiment 2, total heat flux measured adjacent to TC array 6. ..................................70 

Figure 54 Experiment 2, total heat flux measured adjacent to TC array 5. ..................................71 

Figure 55 Experiment 2, total heat flux measured adjacent to TC array 4. ..................................72 

Figure 56 Experiment 3, total heat flux measured adjacent to TC array 6. ..................................73 

Figure 57 Experiment 3, total heat flux measured adjacent to TC array 5. ..................................74 

Figure 58 Experiment 3, total heat flux measured adjacent to TC array 4. ..................................75 

Figure 59 Experiment 1, temperatures in West Corridor at .61m below ceiling..........................76 

Figure 60 Experiment 1, temperatures in East Corridor at .61m below ceiling. ..........................77 

Figure 61 Experiment 2, temperatures in West Corridor at .61m below ceiling..........................78 

Figure 62 Experiment 2, temperatures in East Corridor at .61m below ceiling. ..........................79 

Figure 63 Experiment 3, temperatures in West Corridor at .61m below ceiling..........................80 

Figure 64 Experiment 3, temperatures in East Corridor at .61m below ceiling. ..........................81 

Figure 65. Day Room temperature comparison for experiment 1,2, and 3at 0.61 m below the 

ceiling, TC array 7. ........................................................................................................................82 
 1

Impact of Sprinklers on the Fire Hazard in Dormitories: 

Day Room Fire Experiments 

Daniel Madrzykowski, David W. Stroup, and William D. Walton 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Abstract 

As part of a U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) initiative to improve fire safety in college housing, 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted two series of full-scale fire 

experiments in abandoned dormitory buildings. The objective of the study is to compare the 

levels of hazard created by room fires in a dormitory building with and without automatic fire 

sprinklers in the room of fire origin. 

One series of experiments was conducted with the fires initiated in a dormitory sleeping room. 

These experiments were conducted by NIST in cooperation with the University of Arkansas and 

the Fayetteville Fire Department. The results of these experiments will be provided in a separate 

report. 

This report describes a series of experiments where fires are initiated in a day room area open to 

the corridor of the dormitory. These experiments were conducted by NIST in cooperation with 

the Myrtle Beach Air Force Base Redevelopment Authority, the Myrtle Beach Fire Department, 

and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). 

This paper will provide a description of the experimental conditions including a description of 

the building construction, the fuel load in the day rooms, and the location of the instrumentation 

used to measure temperature and heat flux in the day room and the adjacent corridor. Smoke 

alarm activation and sprinkler activation times are also reported. The results from the 

experiments comparing the sprinklered and non-sprinklered day room are presented. The results 

from these experiments demonstrate the life safety benefits of smoke alarms and automatic fire 

sprinkler systems in college dormitories. 

For further information on the USFA College Campus Fire Safety Program contact: 

www.usfa.fema.gov/publications. 

Key Words: 

corridor tests; dormitories; fire data; heat flux; large scale fire tests; sprinklers; temperature 

measurements 
 2

Introduction 

Each year there are approximately 1,300 documented fires in school and college dormitories in 

the United States [1]. Tragic fatal fires occur in these occupancies every year [2]. Buildings 

with an automatic sprinkler system have had excellent fire safety records. The chances of a fire 

causing or resulting in a fatality are significantly reduced with automatic fire sprinklers installed 

[3]. Yet the majority of the dormitories in this country, where a fire has occurred, did not have 

an automatic sprinkler system installed [3]. 

The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) has made a commitment to increase the level of 

knowledge that campus officials and students have about the importance of sprinklers as part of 

their campus fire safety program. Several fire events in campus housing over the past 10 years 

have provided the motivation for this program. During the period from 1994 to 2000, 27 

students died and 94 students were injured in campus housing fires [2]. The most common area 

of origin is a sleeping room, which accounts for almost 25 % of the fires. Approximately 22 % 

of the fires originate in hallways, corridors and lounge areas [2]. Paper is the leading material 

ignited in dormitory fires, accounting for approximately 32 % [1, 2] of the fires. “One- third of 

the dormitory fires are reported as arson (incendiary/suspicious)” and this is the leading reported 

cause of dormitory fires [1]. 

As part of the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) initiative to improve fire safety in college 

housing, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted two series of fullscale fire experiments in abandoned dormitory buildings. The objective of the study is to 

compare the levels of hazard created by room fires in a dormitory building with and without 

automatic fire sprinklers in the room of fire origin. 

Based on the fire incident data, one series of experiments was designed with the fires starting in a 

dormitory sleeping room. These experiments were conducted by NIST in cooperation with the 

University of Arkansas and the Fayetteville Fire Department. The results of these experiments 

will be provided in a separate report. 

The series of experiments, presented in this report, were designed with the fires starting in a day 

room or lounge area open to the corridor of the dormitory. These experiments were conducted 

by NIST in cooperation with the Myrtle Beach Air Force Base Redevelopment Authority, the 

Myrtle Beach Fire Department, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). 

This paper documents experiments conducted to examine the fire development, the spread of hot 

gases down the corridors, and the effectiveness of an automatic sprinkler system in suppressing 

the fire. Three fire experiments were conducted: 1) sprinklered, 2) un-sprinklered with limited 

ventilation, and 3) un-sprinklered with increased ventilation. The experiments were conducted in 

an abandoned dormitory building in Myrtle Beach, SC. The 3-story, concrete, building was 

configured with a day room centrally located on each floor. 
 3

Experimental Configuration 

The experiments were conducted on the first floor of a three-story building. A photograph of a 

building similar to the building used for the experiments is shown in Figure 1. The building was 

formerly used as a military dormitory. The building construction consisted of poured concrete 

floor and ceiling deck with concrete block walls. The vertical distance between the floor and the 

concrete ceiling was 2.60 m (8 ft 6 in). No floor covering was installed. The building was made 

available to NIST by agreement with the Myrtle Beach Air Force Base Redevelopment 

Authority. 

The test area consisted of a corridor down the center of the first floor and a day room area which 

was located near the center of the building on the south side of the corridor, see Figure 2. The 

corridor was 59.64 m (195 ft 8 in) long, 1.35 m (4 ft 5 in) wide, with a finished ceiling height of 

2.08 m (6 ft 10 in). The corridor had walls constructed from concrete block with 29 doorways 

connecting other rooms on either side of the corridor. Except as noted in the experiment 

descriptions, the doors to the rooms were kept closed. There are 24 sleeping rooms, 12 on the 

west end and 12 on the east end of the building. 

The north side of the day room is open to the adjacent corridor as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The 

east and west walls of the day room were covered with gypsum board. The south wall of the day 

room had consisted of a block wall with windows. The wall and the windows were covered with 

12 mm (0.5 in) gypsum board. A drop ceiling, composed of fire resistant-aspen wood fiber tiles, 

was installed in the day room and corridor areas. Each ceiling tile was approximately 0.61 m (2 

ft) by 1.22 m (4 ft) and 25 mm (1 in) thick (Figure 4). The day room was approximately 7.67 m 

(25 ft 2 in) by 5.26 m (17 ft 3 in) with a finished ceiling height of 2.23 m (7 ft 4 in). 

 

In all three experiments, there was a vent on the west end of the corridor. The vent was 1.35 m 

(4 ft 5 in) wide, the full width of the corridor, with the opening extending from the floor to 0.61 

m (2 ft) above the floor. 

The east end of the corridor was closed with the exception of an open window with dimensions 

0.80 m x 0.29 m or 0.23 m2 of clear area, and a sill height of 1.02 m above the floor. Also in 

experiments 1 and 2, 4 windows of the same dimension were open on the northeast portion of the 

corridor in rooms with the doors closed to the corridor. 

In test 3, 5 sleeping room doors were left open on the east end of the corridor. Moving east from 

the day room, sleeping rooms N4, N3, and N1 on the north side of the corridor and sleeping 

rooms S5 and S2 on the south side. Each of these rooms had windows open to the outside. The 

window openings are be defined by the amount of clear open area. On the north side, room 

three, 0.35 m2

, room four, 0.46 m2, room six, 0.92 m2. On the south side, room two, 0.11 m2, and 

room five, 0.39 m2

. Each open doorway is 0.78 m wide by 2.02 m high. 
 4

Furnishings 

Each experiment utilized three sofas. Each of the sofas used for the site of ignition were similar 

in construction. Each was manufactured with an exposed wood frame and fabric covered 

polyurethane foam cushions (Figure 5). The mass of each sofa was approximately 89 kg 

(195.8 lb). The ends of the sofa were composed of solid wood measuring 0.76 m (30 in) wide, 

0.58 m (23 in) high and 44 mm (1.75 in) thick. The ends of the sofa were attached together with 

front and back solid wood supports. Each sofa has three back cushions and three seat cushions. 

The polyurethane was covered with a thin layer of polyester batting which was covered with a 

textile material. The back cushions were approximately 0.61 m (24 in) wide, 0.38 m (15 in) high 

and 0.18 m (7 in) thick. The seat cushions were approximately 0.61 m (24 in) wide, 0.53 m (21 

in) deep, and 0.20 m (8 in) thick. 

In test 1, the ignition sofa was of similar construction as the sofas used in tests 2 and 3 however 

two different types of upholstered sofas were used as “target” fuels in test 1. The “target” sofas 

were built with a wood frame and had seat cushions filled with polyurethane foam and back 

cushions filled with polyester batting, see Figure 6. In tests 2 and 3, all three sofas used in each 

experiment were similar. 

The sofa used for the ignition site was located on the west wall of the day room, 0.91 m (3 ft) 

from the south wall. The second sofa was located on the south wall, 1.83 m (6 ft) from the west 

wall. The front face of the third sofa was located 3.2 m (10 ft 6 in) north of the south wall and the 

west side of the sofa was positioned 2.6 m (8 ft 6 in) from west wall, see Figure 7. 

 

A bulletin board was located above the sofa on the west wall. The dimensions of the bulletin 

board were 2.44 m (8 ft) wide by 1.22 m (4 ft) high. The bulletin board material was a medium 

density fiberboard. It was 12mm (0.5 in) thick, had a mass of 8.1 kg (17.82 lb) and was attached 

directly to the wall. The bulletin board material was framed with wood molding approximately 

63.5 mm (2.5 in) wide by 12 mm (0.5 in) thick. The wood molding had a mass of 1.6 kg 

(2.86 lb). Two sheets of craft paper were partially pulled down from the bulletin board and 

draped across the sofa (figure 8). Each piece of paper was approximately 2.33 m (7 ft 7.75 in) 

wide by 0.91 m (3 ft) high. The total mass of the two layers of paper used was 0.3 kg (0.66 lb). 

In test 1 the paper was attached directly to the gypsum board wall, no bulletin board was in 

place. 

Instrumentation 

The temperatures were measured with 0.51 mm (0.02 in) nominal diameter bare bead, Type K 

thermocouples. Ten arrays of thermocouples were installed over the length of the corridor as 

shown in Figure 9 and two thermocouple arrays were installed in the day room area. The arrays 

are identified by number in Figures 10 and 11. The locations of the arrays are given in Table 1. 

Each thermocouple array has a thermocouple located 25 mm (1 in), 0.305 m (1 ft), 0.610 m 

(2 ft), 0.910 m (3 ft), 1.22 m (4 ft), 1.52 m (5 ft), and 1.83 m (6 ft) below the ceiling. 

Thermocouple arrays in the corridor are along centerline of corridor. The arrays are spaced on 
 5

7.62 m (25 ft) intervals, with the exception of the arrays near the east and west ends of the 

corridor. 

Three pairs of Gardon type heat flux gauges are installed near TC arrays 4, 5, 6. The heat flux 

gauges that were positioned closest to the day room, adjacent to TC array 6, had a design heat 

flux level of 227 kW/m2

 (20 Btu/ft2 s). The next pair of heat flux gauges positioned to the west, 

adjacent to TC array 5, had a design heat flux level of 114 kW/m2

 (10 Btu/ft2 s). The last pair of 

heat flux gauges, installed adjacent to TC array 4, had a design heat flux level of 57 kW/m2 

(5 Btu/ft2

 s). Each pair of gauges consists of one gauge facing the ceiling and the other gauge is 

facing the day room. The height of the gauges facing the ceiling was approximately 0.91 m (3 ft) 

above the corridor floor or 1.17 m (3 ft 10 in) below the suspended ceiling. The height of the 

gauges positioned horizontally toward the fire were approximately 0.86 m (2 ft 10 in) above the 

corridor floor or 1.22 m (4 ft) below the suspended ceiling. 

Commercially available ionization smoke alarms were used. The alarms were mounted under 

the suspended ceiling at the locations shown in Figures 10 and 11. Each alarm was separately 

connected to the data acquisition system. The voltage change, as measured across the battery 

terminals at its alarm point, served as the data marker for the alarm time. New smoke alarms 

were used for each experiment. 

Experimental Procedure

Prior to ignition in each experiment, a computerized data acquisition system was started to 

collect the temperature, heat flux and smoke detector data. Data were collected from each 

instrument every 4 s. Video cameras recording the experiment were also started at this time. 

After at least 60 s of background data were collected, a matchbook ignition was used to ignite the 

bulletin board paper at a location approximately over the center of the intersection of the left and 

middle sofa seat cushion. In test 1, the ignition was triggered remotely. At the request of ATF, 

the ignition was modified for the remaining experiments. In tests 2 and 3, an ATF engineer, in a 

complete structural fire fighting protective ensemble, ignited the bulletin board paper with a 

single paper match at approximately the same location. 

After ignition, the researcher left the room and exited to the outside of the building via a door in 

the corridor adjacent to the room. The door was closed and remained closed until the start of 

suppression activities. The fire growth was observed via monitors connected to the video 

cameras. 

In test 1 fire suppression would begin automatically with the activation of the sprinkler system. 

Four standard response sprinklers, with activation temperatures of 74 oC (165 oF) were located 

under the drop ceiling of the day room, as shown in Figure 3. With one sprinkler flowing the 

system maintained a pressure of 2.4 bars (35 psi) at the inlet to the building and a flow rate of 

1.7 L/s (27 gpm). The water supply maintained a static pressure of approximately 3.4 bars 
 6

(50 psig). In tests 2 and 3, manual fire suppression activities were planned to start at 

approximately 15 minutes after ignition. 

Tests 2 and 3 are identical with the exception of the corridor ventilation. The differences in vent 

arrangement occur on the portion of the corridor to the east of the fire room as described in the 

test arrangement section. 

All of the fire experiments were conducted in the same space. After each experiment, the day 

room and the adjoining corridor were dried out. Broken or wet ceiling tiles were replaced and 

the wall surfaces were patched or repaired as needed. Furnishings, thermocouple arrays in the 

dayroom and smoke detectors were also replaced before each experiment. 

Each experiment was documented using thermally protected video cameras. As shown in Figure 

11, two video cameras were capturing an east to west and a north to south view of the day room. 

Both cameras were installed close to the floor. A third camera was installed, on the floor, in the 

vent at the west end of the corridor looking east. 

Results 

The results of the experiments include experiment timelines, smoke alarm and sprinkler 

activation times, temperature measurements, heat flux measurements, photographs and videos. 

Experiment Timelines

The timelines are developed from observations made during the experiment, review of the video 

of the experiment, and review of the data. The timelines for experiments 1, 2, and 3 are given in 

Tables 2, 3, and 4 respectively. Post test photographs of the day room are presented in Figures 

12 through 14. 

Smoke Alarm and Sprinkler Activation Times

The smoke alarm activation and sprinkler activation times are given in Table 5 for experiment 1. 

The smoke alarm activation times are given in Table 6 for experiment 2 and Table 7 for 

experiment 3. 

Temperature Data

The temperature measurements are given in Figure 17 through 28 for experiment 1, Figures 29 

through 40 for experiment 2 and in Figures 41 through 52 for experiment 3. The temperature 

measurements have been plotted on scales that optimize the separation of the data points for 

clarity. Certain data will be re-plotted on similar scales for comparison purposes later in the 

paper. Reviewing the times at which the temperatures begin to increase provides some sense of 

how rapidly the smoke is spreading down the corridor. 
 7

In experiment 1, the sprinklered case, temperatures near the ceiling in the day room, 

thermocouple array 7, approach 245 oC (473 oF) just prior to sprinkler activation at 137 s, Figure 

23. In the corridor adjacent to the day room, thermocouple array 6, the temperature near the 

ceiling exceeds 120 o C (248 oF) for approximately 10 s prior to sprinkler activation. At 

approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor in the corridor, the maximum temperature is 

approximately 50 oC (122 oF), Figure 22. The temperatures then decrease rapidly at the corridor 

positions to the east and west of the day room. At the west end of the corridor, the maximum 

temperature increase just below the ceiling is 20 oC (68 oF), Figure 28. At the east end of the 

corridor, the temperature increase is approximately 10 oC (50 oF), Figure17. The thermocouple 

located 1.83 m below the ceiling in TC array 8, was not functioning and therefore is not shown in 

Figure 24. 

The temperature measurements for experiment 2, the first un-sprinklered case are overall 

significantly higher than the temperatures recorded during experiment 1. The peak temperatures 

near the ceiling range from 780 oC (1436 oF) at thermocouple array 7, Figure 35, to 120 oC 

(248 oF), at thermocouple array 1 near the east end of the corridor, Figure 29. The maximum 

temperature at the west end of the corridor is 170 oC (338 oF), Figure 40. Figure 40 also shows 

that the peak temperature at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor is 140 oC (284 oF). 

In experiment 3, the second un-sprinklered experiment, the ventilation to the test area was 

increased. This resulted in increased temperatures relative to experiment 2. The peak 

temperatures near the ceiling range from 900 oC (1652 oF) at thermocouple array 7, Figure 47, to 

240 oC (464 oF), at thermocouple array 1 near the east end of the corridor, Figure 41. The 

maximum temperature at the west end of the corridor is 230 oC (446 oF), Figure 52. Figures 41 

and 52 also show that the peak temperatures at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor exceed 

170 oC (338 oF) at both ends of the corridor remote from the day room. After 400 s, the 

temperatures at TC array 7 decrease in a manner that is inconsistent with TC array 6 and TC 

array 8. During this time, portions of the suspended ceiling in the day room are collapsing which 

displaced the TC array. This coupled with potential burn through on the TC insulation may have 

lead to the inconsistent behavior. It should be noted that the data for experiment 3 ends abruptly 

because the data acquisition system had to be removed from the building due to heavy smoke 

conditions. 

Heat Flux Data

In experiment 1, the heat flux gauge facing the ceiling had a peak reading of 0.9 kW/m2

, prior to 

sprinkler activation. All of the other heat flux readings were less than 0.2 kW/m2, 

indistinguishable from background values. 

The heat flux data from experiment 2 is presented in Figures 52 through 55. The data associated 

with the “V” legend is measured with the gauge aimed at the ceiling. The data associated with 

the “H” legend is measured with the gauge aimed horizontally in the direction of the fire. The 

maximum heat flux adjacent to TC array 6 is approximately 10 kW/m2

 and occurs at 

approximately 375 s. There are a few readings of higher magnitude later in the fire, this may be 

attributed to brief flame contact in the area of the heat flux sensor facing the day room. At the 
 8

heat flux location adjacent to TC array 4, approximately15.24 m (50 ft) west of TC array 6, the 

maximum heat flux was approximately 1.5 kW/m2. 

The heat flux data from experiment 3 is given in Figures 56 through 58. The peak heat flux, 

adjacent to the day room, is in excess of 60 kW/m2

 . The peak heat flux at 7.62 m (25 ft) and 

15.24 m (50 ft) to the west is approximately 20 kW/m2 and 3 kW/m2, respectively. 

Uncertainty Analysis

There are different components of uncertainty in the temperatures and total heat flux reported 

here. Uncertainties are grouped into two categories according to the method used to estimate 

them. Type A uncertainties are evaluated by statistical methods, and Type B are evaluated by 

other means [4]. Type B analysis of systematic uncertainties involves estimating the upper ( + a) 

and lower ( - a) limits for the quantity in question such that the probability that the value would 

be in the interval ( ± a) is essentially 100 percent. After estimating uncertainties by either Type 

A or B analysis, the uncertainties are combined in quadrature to yield the combined standard 

uncertainty. Multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of two, results 

in the total expanded uncertainty that corresponds to an approximate 95 percent confidence 

interval (2σ). 

Components of uncertainty are tabulated in Table 8. Some of these components, such as the zero 

and calibration elements, are derived from instrument specifications. Other components, such as 

soot deposition or radiative cooling/heating include past experience with thermophoretic 

deposition on cool surfaces and thermocouples in high temperature fuel rich environments. 

The uncertainty in the gas temperature measurements includes radiative cooling in the each of 

the tests series, but also includes radiative heating for thermocouple located in the lower layer of 

the full-scale tests. Small diameter thermocouples were used to limit the impact of radiative 

heating and cooling. This resulted in an estimate of ±15 % total expanded uncertainty. 

The potential for soot deposition on the face of the water-cooled total heat flux gauges 

contributed significant uncertainty to the heat flux measurements. Calibration of heat flux 

gauges was completed at lower fluxes and then extrapolated to higher values and this resulted in 

a higher uncertainty in the flux measurement. Combining all of component uncertainties for 

total heat flux resulted in a total expanded uncertainty of – 24 % to + 13 % for the flux 

measurements. 

Discussion 

The life safety hazards generated by a fire include; heat, toxic gases, and loss of visibility. In 

these experiments only quantitative measures of heat were made and some qualitative measures 

of visibility were made with the video cameras. 
 9

Heat can be transferred by conduction, convection and radiation. Burn injuries caused by the 

combustion products (smoke), can be caused by convection and/or radiant heat transfer. Here we 

are not considering contact burn injuries due to touching hot surfaces. 

As presented in the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, estimated limits for 

tenability due to convected heat suggest a thermal tolerance of 120 oC (248 oF). Above this limit, 

the onset of pain is rapid and burns can develop within a few minutes or less. The estimated 

tenability limit due to heat flux is 2.5 kW/m2

. At this level, the time to burn unprotected skin is 

20 s or less [5]. 

These limits are not absolute limits since clothing, humidity, skin composition etc, can mitigate 

or exacerbate the impact of the thermal energy for a given heat level and exposure time. These 

values will be used as bench marks for the discussion presented here. It is also important to note 

that as the fire grows, the temperatures in some areas of the day room and corridor increase 

rapidly and quickly bypass the benchmark thresholds making concerns over uncertainty in the 

tenability limits a minor point. 

Since this discussion is focused on tenability, the temperatures at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) 

above the floor are of the most interest. Therefore, the temperature data will be reduced to the 

measurement locations at 0.61 m (2 ft) below the ceiling. This yielded a height above the floor 

of 1.62 m (5.3 ft) in the day room and a height above the floor of 1.47 m, (4.8 ft) in the corridor. 

Two temperature graphs for each experiment have been prepared (see Figures 59 through 64). 

Each graph presents the temperatures starting at TC array 6, the corridor array nearest the day 

room, and incorporates the rest of the corridor TC arrays moving either to the east or the west. 

These graphs show how the temperature time histories, at 0.61 m (2 ft) below the ceiling, change 

as the distance between the fire and the measurement array increases. 

Figures 59 and 60 show the temperatures for experiment 1 in the west and east sides of the 

corridor respectively. At no time during experiment 1, at any of the TC array positions in the 

corridor, does the temperature exceed 120 oC (248 oF) at 0.61m below the ceiling or lower. 

For the un-sprinklered experiments, 2 (Figures 61 and 62) and 3 (Figures 63 and 64), most of the 

temperature histories exceed 120 oC (248 oF). The exception is in experiment 2, the TC arrays 1 

and 2, which are 30.5 m (100 ft) or more west of TC array 6, were over 100 oC (212 oF), but did 

not exceed 120 oC (248 oF). 

In experiment 2 the tenability benchmark is exceeded at approximately 3 minutes after ignition at 

TC array 6. It takes approximately 2 minutes more for the fire to grow to the extent needed to 

generate temperatures in excess of 120 oC (248 oF) at the end of the east corridor. 

In Figures 63 and 64, note that the peak temperatures at TC array 6 were clipped off in order to 

have a y axis with a smaller temperature range so that some separation could be seen at the TC 

arrays to the east and to the west. In experiment 3, the temperature at TC array 6 exceeds 120 oC 

(248 oF) at approximately 31⁄2 minutes. Again it takes approximately 2 additional minutes for 
 10

similar temperature conditions to exist 26.9 m (88 ft) down the east corridor. At approximately 6 

minutes after ignition, temperatures above 120 oC (248 oF) are measured 32.4 m (106 ft) down 

the corridor to the west. 

The temperature comparisons at TC array 7, the closest array to the ignition sofa, are given in 

Figure 65. It shows the temperature for experiment 2 increase the fastest, rising above 120 oC 

(248 oF) in less than 3 minutes after ignition. The fire in experiment 3 developed a little slower, 

requiring another 30 s to reach the same temperature. Again the temperatures in the sprinklered 

experiment, Day Room 1, remain in the tenable range for the duration of the experiment. 

Referring back to Figures 52 through 58, it can be seen that the reduction in measured heat flux 

is significant at positions remote from the day room. For example, in experiment 3, the peak 

heat flux from the hot gas layer exceeds 65 kW/m2 at the position adjacent to TC array 6, then 

decreases to approximately 20 kW/m2

 , 7.62 m (25 ft) to the west, near TC array 5. Looking at 

the data from a position adjacent to TC array 4, which is another 7.62 m (25 ft) to the west, the 

peak heat flux has been reduced to approximately 3 kW/m2 . 

Conclusions 

Three full-scale fire experiments were conducted in an abandoned dormitory to examine the 

impact of sprinklers on reducing the thermal hazards generated by a day room fire. The fire 

scenario was designed to represent a realistic fire hazard, based on school dormitory fire incident 

statistics. The recommended thermal tenability levels from the SFPE Handbook of Fire 

Protection Engineering, 120 oC (248 oF) for temperature and 2.5 kW/m2 for heat flux were used 

to compare the data against. 

In the un-sprinklered experiments, the temperature tenability limits were exceeded in the corridor 

at locations remote from the fire, 22.9 m (75ft) or more. Untenable conditions due to heat flux 

were also generated in the corridor in the un-sprinklered fire experiments. The untenable 

conditions began in the corridor as early as 3 minutes after ignition and spread through the 

corridor within another 3 minutes. 

In the sprinklered experiment at no time did the temperatures in the day room or in the corridor 

exceed 120 oC (248 oF) at the 1.5 m (5 ft) level above the floor or below. No significant 

increases in heat flux above ambient conditions were measured in the corridor. The experiments 

demonstrate the significant improvement to life safety that an automatic sprinkler system can 

provide. 

Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to thank the Myrtle Beach Air Force Base Redevelopment Authority and 

the Myrtle Beach Fire Department for supporting the conduct of the experiments and providing 

logistical and fire fighting support. The authors would also like to acknowledge Gerald Haynes 
 11

of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, for his guidance in the design of the 

experiments and his assistance in the conduct of the experiments. The authors would like to 

recognize, Dr. Glenn Forney, Mr. Laurean DeLauter, Mr. Jack Lee, Mr. Jay McElroy, Mr. Gary 

Roadarmel, Mr. William Twilley, and Mr. Robert Vettori of the Building and Fire Research 

Laboratory at NIST, for the invaluable support that they provided during this series of 

experiments. Finally, the authors express gratitude to the United States Fire Administration and 

Mr. Larry Maruskin for their sponsorship and support of this important research program. 

References 

[1] Dormitory Fires, U.S. Fire Administration Topical Fire Research Series, Vol.1, Issue 14. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Fire Administration, National 

Fire Data Center, Emmitsburg, MD, March 2001. 

[2] Rohr, Kimberly, D., School, College, and University Dormitories, and Fraternity and 

Sorority House Fires in the United States, 1994-1998 Annual Averages. National Fire 

Protection Association, Quincy, MA, June 2001. 

[3] Rohr, Kimberly, D., U.S. Experience with Sprinklers. National Fire Protection 

Association, Quincy, MA, September 2003. 

[4] Taylor, B.N. and Kuyatt, C.E., “Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the 

Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results,” NIST TN 1297, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, January 1994. 

[5] Purser, D.A., Toxicity Assessment of Combustion Products. SFPE Handbook of Fire 

Protection Engineering, 3rd ed.. DiNenno, P.J., et. al. (eds). NFPA Quincy, MA, 2002. 
 12

Table 1. Thermocouple Array (TC) and Smoke Alarm (SA) Locations 

Thermocouple Array (TC) Location from west end of corridor 

1 0.15 m (6 in) from west end of corridor 

2 2.11 m (6 ft 11in) from west end of corridor 

3 9.73 m (31 ft 11) from west end of corridor 

4 17.35 m (56 ft 11 in) from west end of corridor 

5 (SA 4, 0.93 m (1 ft 9 in) to the west) 24.96 m (81 ft 11 in) from west end of corridor 

6 (SA 1) 32.59 m (106 ft 11 in) from west end of corridor 

7 (SA 3) 2.89 m (9 ft 6 in) from west day room wall, 

1.83 m (6 ft) from south wall 

8 (SA 2) 5.38 m (17 ft 8 in) from west day room wall, 

1.83 m (6 ft) from south wall 

9 (SA 5, 8 ft to the east) 40.21 m (131 ft 11 in) from west end of corridor 

10 47.83 m(156 ft 11 in) from west end of corridor 

11 55.45 m (181 ft 11 in) from west end of corridor 

12 59.49 m (195 ft 2 in) from west end of corridor 
 13

Table 2. Timeline for Experiment Number 1 

Time Observation

 0 s Ignition 

15 s Flames spreading up the paper to the point attached to the wall 

20 s Day room, west side, smoke alarm (SA3) activated 

25 s Flames involving most of the paper, flames near ceiling 

25 s East Corridor, SA5 activated 

35 s Paper burning and falling, fire decreasing 

45 s West Corridor, SA4 activated 

60 s Fire on sofa cushion, small flames on paper still attached to wall, paper burning 

on floor 

60 s Day room corridor SA1 activated 

90 s Smoke plume from center of sofa has gotten darker, more visible, fire increasing 

in size, most of center cushion involved in fire 

105 s Visible smoke layer across day room ceiling 

120 s Flames to ceiling, smoke layer getting thicker 

137 s SW sprinkler activated 

150 s Small flames visible on sofa 

165 s Flames no longer visible, appear to be out 

180 s Smoke visible, one end of north sofa visible 

210 s Visibility continues to decrease 

265 s Sprinkler turned off 

350 s Fire fighters enter building 

360 s Visibility improving 

380 s Turned off light in fire area 

Post-Test Fire damage limited to ignition sofa and the wall behind the sofa. Soot marks on 

ceiling tile. Other sofas were not involved in fire. 
 14

Table 3. Timeline for Experiment Number 2 

Time Observation

 0 s Ignition 

12 s West day room SA3 activated 

28 s East day room SA2 activated 

30 s Paper fully involved 

32 s Day room corridor SA1 activated 

44 s East corridor SA5 activated 

56 s West corridor SA4 activated 

60 s Fire decreasing in size, small flames on bulletin board, small fire on sofa 

120 s Flames from sofa and bulletin board to ceiling 

150 s Flames reaching across west wall near ceiling 

185 s Sofa on south wall starts pyrolizing 

200 s Ignition sofa fully involved 

220 s Sofa centered in room begins to pyrolize 

245 s Smoke is filling the day room, fire “darkening down” 

285 s Visibility from cameras is lost 

930 s Fire fighters enter building 

Post Test Most of the foam on the ignition sofa is burned away. A small amount of burning 

occurred on the target sofas, most of the foam cushions remain. Fire damage on 

upper portions of walls adjacent to ignition sofa. Ceiling damage limited to area 

close to ignition sofa. 
 15

Table 4. Timeline for Experiment Number 3 

Time Observation

 0 s Ignition 

40 s East day room SA2 activated 

40 s West day room SA3 activated 

44 s Dayroom Corridor SA1 activated 

45 s Paper fully involved, flames to ceiling 

56 s East corridor SA5 activated 

60 s Fire decreased in size, small flames on bulletin board, small fire on sofa 

165 s Flames from sofa and bulletin board extend to ceiling 

180 s Flames spread across west wall near ceiling 

225 s Ignition sofa fully involved 

235 s Sofa on south wall started pyrolizing 

275 s Sofa centered in room began to pyrolize 

325 s Sofa on south wall ignited 

350 s Sofa centered in room ignited 

920 s Firefighters entered building 

960 s Fire is extinguished 

Post Test All of the ceiling tile is burned or down on the floor with the exception of a row 

of tiles on the east end of the day room. All of the foam cushions have burned away completely. 

Significant burn damage to walls. Burn line in day room on east and south walls stops 

approximately 0.5 m above the floor. Fire damage (evidence of burning) in corridor limited to 

area across from day room with some extension to the east and west. 
 16

Table 5. Day Room Experiment 1, Smoke Alarm Activation and Sprinkler Activation Times 

Smoke Alarm Location Time (s) 

1 Dayroom Corridor 60 

2 Dayroom, east side * 

3 Dayroom, west side (ign) 20 

4 West Corridor 45 

5 East Corridor 25 

Sprinkler Activation 

1 Dayroom SW 137 

2 Dayroom NW Did not activate 

3 Dayroom NE Did not activate 

4 Dayroom SE Did not activate 

* The device activation time was not recorded due to an instrumentation malfunction. 

Table 6. Day Room Experiment 2, Smoke Alarm Activation Times 

Smoke Alarm Location Time (s) 

1 Dayroom Corridor 32 

2 Dayroom, east side 28 

3 Dayroom, west side (ign) 12 

4 West Corridor 56 

5 East Corridor 44 

Table 7. Day Room Experiment 3, Smoke Alarm Activation Times 

Smoke Alarm Location Time (s) 

1 Dayroom Corridor 44 

2 Dayroom, east side 40 

3 Dayroom, west side (ign) 40 

4 West Corridor * 

5 East Corridor 56 

* Device activation time was not recorded due to an instrumentation malfunction. 
 17

Table 8. Estimated Uncertainty in Full Scale Experimental Data. 

Component 

Standard 

Uncertainty 

Combined 

Standard 

Uncertainty 

Total 

Expanded 

Uncertainty 

Gas Temperature 

 Calibration 

 Radiative Cooling 

 Radiative Heating 

 Repeatability 1

 Random 1

± 1 % 

- 5 % to + 0 % 

- 0 % to + 5 % 

± 5 % 

± 3 % 

- 8 % to + 8 % - 15 % to + 15 % 

Total Heat Flux 

 Calibration 

 Zero 

 Soot Deposition 

 Repeatability 1

 Random 1

± 3 % 

- 2 % to + 2 % 

- 10% to + 0 % 

± 5 % 

± 3 % 

- 12 % to + 7 % - 24 % to + 13 % 

Notes: 1. Random and repeatability evaluated as Type A, other components as Type B. 
 18

Figure 1. Photograph of dormitory building, similar to the test structure. 
 19

North

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6

Day Room

Corridor

64.01m

12.62m

Smoke Alarm

Thermocouple Array

Figure 2. Arrangement of the dormitory building, 1st floor. 
 20

3.81m

Automatic Sprinkler

5.26m

Sofa

Corridor

Sofa

Sofa

7.67m

Bulletin Board

North

0.70m

Day Room

1.35m

3.43m

2.49m

1.35m

Column

Figure 3. Plan view of Day Room with sprinkler locations. 
 21

Figure 4. Photograph showing ceiling tile 
 22

Figure 5. Photograph of the type of sofa used for ignition in all of the experiments and used as 

“target” sofas in experiments 2 and 3. 
 23

Figure 6. Photograph showing the fuel arrangement for the day room in experiment 1. 
 24

Sofa

Corridor

Sofa

Sofa

Bulletin Board

North

2.59m

Day Room

3.20m

1.83m

7.67m

5.26m

0.91m

Column

3.43m

Ceiling height 2.24 m

Ceiling height 2.08 m

Figure 7. Diagram of day room showing sofa arrangement. 
 25

Figure 8. Photograph showing dayroom arrangement for experiment 2, with sofas, bulletin board 

and paper. 
 26

7.62m 7.62m 7.62m 7.62m 7.62m 7.62m 1.96m

10.06m 8.23m

7.62m

North

63.40m

4.04m

1.35m

Figure 9. Locations of thermocouple arrays in corridor. 
 27

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

Figure 10. Diagram with instrumentation locations identified 
 28

2.49m

5.26m

2.29m

0.81m 0.58m

2.86m

TC 6

Sofa

Corridor

Sofa

Sofa

7.67m

Bulletin Board

North

0.70m

video

video

Day Room

3.43m

1.83m

1.35m

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 3

Smoke Alarm 1 - Heat Flux

Column

Figure 11. Diagram with instrumentation locations identified in day room area. 
 29

Figure 12. Photograph of day room after experiment 1. 
 30

Figure 13. Photograph showing the day room after experiment 2. 
 31

Figure 14. Photograph showing the ignition sofa after experiment 3. 
 32

Figure 15. Photograph of north sofa after experiment 3. 
 33

Figure 16. Photograph of corridor from the west approaching day room on right, after 

experiment 3. 
34

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

20

25

30

35

40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

TC1-0.03m

TC1-0.30m

TC1-0.61m

TC1-0.91m

TC1-1.22m

TC1-1.52m

TC1-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 17 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 1 
35

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

20

25

30

35

40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

TC2-0.03m

TC2-0.30m

TC2-0.61m

TC2-0.91m

TC2-1.22m

TC2-1.52m

TC2-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 18 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 2 
36

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

TC3-0.03m

TC3-0.30m

TC3-0.61m

TC3-0.91m

TC3-1.22m

TC3-1.52m

TC3-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 19 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 3 
37

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

TC4-0.03m

TC4-0.30m

TC4-0.61m

TC4-0.91m

TC4-1.22m

TC4-1.52m

TC4-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 20 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 4 
38

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

TC5-0.03m

TC50.30m

TC5-0.61m

TC5-0.91m

TC5-1.22m

TC5-1.52m

TC5-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 21 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 5 
39

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

TC6-0.03m

TC6-0.30m

TC6-0.61m

TC6-0.91m

TC6-1.22m

TC6-1.52m

TC6-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 22 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 6 
40

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

TC7-0.03m

TC7-0.30m

TC7-0.61m

TC7-0.91m

TC7-1.22m

TC7-1.52m

TC7-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 23 Experiment 1, dayroom temperatures, west side near ignition, TC array 7 
41

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

50

100

150

200

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

TC8-0.03m

TC8-0.30m

TC8-0.61m

TC8-0.91m

TC8-1.22m

TC8-1.52m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 24 Experiment 1, dayroom temperatures, east side, TC array 8 
42

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

TC9-0.30m

TC9-0.61m

TC9-1.52m

TC9-1.22m

TC9-0.91m

TC9-1.83m

TC9-0.03m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 25 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 9 
43

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

TC10-0.03m

TC10-0.30m

TC10-0.61m

TC10-0.91m

TC10-1.22m

TC10-1.52m

TC10-1.83m

Tenperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 26 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 10 
44

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

TC11-0.03m

TC11-0.30m

TC11-0.61m

TC11-0.91m

TC11-1.22m

TC11-1.52m

TC11-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 27 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 11 
45

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

TC12-0.03m

TC12-0.30m

TC12-0.61m

TC12-0.91m

TC12-1.22m

TC12-1.52m

TC12-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 28 Experiment 1, corridor temperatures, TC array 12 
46

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TC1-0.03m

TC1-0.30m

TC1-0.61m

TC1-0.91m

TC1-1.22m

TC1-1.52m

TC1-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 29 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 1 
47

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TC2-0.03m

TC2-0.30m

TC2-0.61m

TC2-0.91m

TC2-1.22m

TC2-1.52m

TC2-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 30 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 2 
48

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TC3-0.03m

TC3-0.30m

TC3-0.61m

TC3-0.91m

TC3-1.22m

TC3-1.52m

TC3-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 31 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 3 
49

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

50

100

150

200

250

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TC4-0.03m

TC4-0.30m

TC4-0.61m

TC4-0.91m

TC4-1.22m

TC4-1.52m

TC4-1.83m

Tenperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 32 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 4 
50

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TC5-0.03m

TC5-0.30m

TC5-0.61m

TC5-0.91m

TC5-1.22m

TC5-1.52m

TC5-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 33 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 5 
51

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

100

200

300

400

500

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TC6-0.03m

TC6-0.30m

TC6-0.61m

TC6-0.91m

TC6-1.22m

TC6-1.52m

TC6-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Figure 34 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 6 
52

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TC7-0.03m

TC7-0.30m

TC7-0.61m

TC7-0.91m

TC7-1.22m

TC7-1.52m

TC7-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 35 Experiment 2, day room temperatures, west side near ignition, TC array 7 
53

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TC8-0.03m

TC8-0.30m

TC8-0.61m

TC8-0.91m

TC8-1.22m

TC8-1.52m

TC8-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 36 Experiment 2, dayroom temperature, east side, TC array 8 
54

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TC9-0.03m

TC9-0.30m

TC9-0.61m

TC9-0.91m

TC9-1.22m

TC9-1.52m

TC9-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 37 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 9 
55

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TC10-0.03m

TC10-0.30m

TC10-0.61m

TC10-0.91m

TC10-1.22m

TC10-1.52m

TC10-1.83m

Temperatrue (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 38 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 10 
56

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

50

100

150

200

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TC11-0.03m

TC11-0.30m

TC11-0.61m

TC11-0.91m

TC11-1.22m

TC11-1.52m

TC11-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 39 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 11 
57

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TC12-0.03m

TC12-0.30m

TC12-0.61m

TC12-0.91m

TC12-1.22m

TC12-1.52m

TC12-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 40 Experiment 2, corridor temperatures, TC array 12 
58

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

50

100

150

200

250

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TC1-0.03m

TC1-0.30m

TC1-0.61m

TC1-0.91m

TC1-1.22m

TC1-1.52m

TC1-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 41 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 1 
59

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

50

100

150

200

250

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TC2-0.03m

TC2-0.30m

TC2-0.61m

TC2-0.91m

TC2-1.22m

TC2-1.52m

TC2-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 42 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 2 
60

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TC3-0.03m

TC3-0.30m

TC3-0.61m

TC3-0.91m

TC3-1.22m

TC3-1.52m

TC3-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 43 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 3 
61

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TC4-0.03m

TC4-0.30m

TC4-0.61m

TC4-0.91m

TC4-1.22m

TC4-1.52m

TC4-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 44 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 4 
62

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TC5-0.03m

TC5-0.30m

TC5-0.61m

TC5-0.91m

TC5-1.22m

TC5-1.52m

TC5-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 45 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 5 
63

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TC6-0.03m

TC6-0.30m

TC6-0.61m

TC6-0.91m

TC6-1.22m

TC6-1.52m

TC6-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 46 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 6 
64

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

200

400

600

800

1000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TC7-0.03m

TC7-0.30m

TC7-0.61m

TC7-0.91m

TC7-1.22m

TC7-1.52m

TC7-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 47 Experiment 3, dayroom temperatures, west side near ignition, TC array 7 
65

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TC8-0.03m

TC8-0.30m

TC8-0.61m

TC8-0.91m

TC8-1.22m

TC8-1.52m

TC8-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 48 Experiment 3, dayroom temperatures, east side, TC array 8 
66

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TC9-0.03m

TC9-0.30m

TC9-0.61m

TC9-0.91m

TC9-1.22m

TC9-1.52m

TC9-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 49 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 9 
67

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TC10-0.03m

TC10-0.30m

TC10-0.61m

TC10-0.91m

TC10-1.22m

TC10-1.52m

TC10-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 50 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 10 
68

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TC11-0.03m

TC11-0.30m

TC11-0.61m

TC11-0.91m

TC11-1.22m

TC11-1.52m

TC11-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 51 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 11 
69

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

50

100

150

200

250

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TC12-0.03m

TC12-0.30m

TC12-0.61m

TC12-0.91m

TC12-1.22m

TC12-1.52m

TC12-1.83m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 52 Experiment 3, corridor temperatures, TC array 12 
70

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Rad20H

Rad20V

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

Time (s)

Figure 53 Experiment 2, total heat flux measured adjacent to TC array 6 
71

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Rad10H

Rad10V

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

Time (s)

Figure 54 Experiment 2, total heat flux measured adjacent to TC array 5 
72

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Rad5V

Rad5H

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

Time (s)

Figure 55 Experiment 2, total heat flux measured adjacent to TC array 4 
73

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Rad20H

Rad20V

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

Time (s)

Figure 56 Experiment 3, total heat flux measured adjacent to TC array 6 
74

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Rad10H

Rad10V

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

Time (s)

Figure 57 Experiment 3, total heat flux measured adjacent to TC array 5 
75

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Rad5V

Rad5H

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

Time (s)

Figure 58 Experiment 3, total heat flux measured adjacent to TC array 4 
76

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

50

100

150

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

TC6-0.61m

TC5-0.61m

TC4-0.61m

TC3-0.61m

TC2-0.61m

TC1-0.61m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

120 oC

Figure 59 Experiment 1, temperatures in west corridor at 0.61m below ceiling 
77

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

50

100

150

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

TC6-0.61m

TC10-0.61m

TC9-0.61m

TC11-0.61m

TC12-0.61m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

120 oC

Figure 60 Experiment 1, temperatures in east corridor at 0.61 m below ceiling 
78

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TC6-0.61m

TC5-0.61m

TC4-0.61m

TC3-0.61m

TC2-0.61m

TC1-0.61m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

120 oC

Figure 61 Experiment 2, temperatures in west corridor at 0.61 m below ceiling 
79

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TC6-0.61m

TC10-0.61m

TC9-0.61m

TC11-0.61m

TC12-0.61m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

120 oC

Figure 62 Experiment 2, temperatures in east corridor at 0.61 m below ceiling 
80

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TC6-0.61m

TC5-0.61m

TC4-0.61m

TC3-0.61m

TC2-0.61m

TC1-0.61m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

120 oC

Figure 63 Experiment 3, temperatures in west corridor at 0.61 m below ceiling 
81

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TC6-0.61m

TC9-0.61m

TC10-0.61m

TC11-0.61m

TC12-0.61m

Temperature (oC)

Time (s)

120 oC

Figure 64 Experiment 3, temperatures in east corridor at 0.61 m below ceiling 
82

TC 1

North

TC 12 TC 11 TC 10 TC 9 TC 6 TC 5 TC 3 TC 2

Heat Flux

TC 4

Heat Flux

Smoke Alarm 2

TC 8

Smoke Alarm 3

TC 7

Smoke Alarm 5 Smoke Alarm 4

Smoke Alarm 1

Heat Flux

0

200

400

600

800

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Temperature (0C)

Time (s)

120 oC

Day Room 3

Day Room 2

Day Room 1

Figure 65 Day room temperature comparisons for experiments 1, 2, and 3 at 0.61 m below 

ceiling, TC array 7.