A111D2 7fib2DH MBS

PUBLICATIONS

NBSIR 88-3752

An Experimental Data Set for th

Accuracy Assessment of Room

Fire Models

Richard D. Peacock

Sanford Davis

Billy T. Lee

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

April 1988

# 88-3752

1988

c.2

U.S, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Research Information Center

National Bureau of .Standards

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

NBSIR 88-3752 QC

AN EXPERIMENTAL DATA SET FOR THE

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT OF ROOM

FIRE MODELS

Richard D. Peacock

Sanford Davis

Billy T. Lee

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

April 1988

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, C. William Verity, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
'

-

.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF FIGURES . vi

Abstract 1

1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Room Fire Modeling 4

1 . 2 Purpose and Scope of the Report ......... 5

2. THE ACCURACY ASSESSMENT PROCESS 7

2 . 1 Documentation of the Model ..... 7 2.2 Sensitivity Analysis 8 2 . 3 The Experimental Phase 10

2.4 Review and Analysis of the Model and Experimental Data .... 11

3. APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES 14

3.1 Experimental Design 14

3.1.1 Model Parameters to be Examined 15

3.1.2 Tests Conducted and Data Collected 16

3.2 Room Configuration and Construction 17

3.3 Test Procedure 18

3.4 Instrumentation 20

3.4.1 Temperature Based Measurements 21

3.4.2 Pressure Based Measurements 24

3.4.3 Smoke Obscuration Based Measurements 24

3.4.4 Exhaust Hood Measurements 25

3.5 Tests Conducted 26

4. TEST RESULTS 27

5. ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS 31

5.1 Quantities Derived From Room Measurements 31

5.1.1 Quantities Derived From Temperature Based Measurements 31

5.1.2 Quantities Derived From Pressure Based Measurements . . 38

5.1.3 Quantities Derived From Smoke Obscuration Based

Measurements 40

5.2 Quantities Derived From Exhaust Hood Measurements 43

5.3 Mass and Heat Balances 45

5.4 The Two Zone Assumption 46

5.5 Comparison With Model Data, A Sample Use of the Data 48

6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 51

6.1 General 51

6.2 Considerations for Future Test Series 52

iii
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 53

8. REFERENCES 5*4

IV
LIST OF TABLES

page

Table 1. Room Dimensions 97

Table 2. Construction Materials 98

Table 3. Location of Instrumentation 99

Table 4. Initial Conditions for Tests With Gas Burner (Third Room

Closed) 103

Table 5. Initial Conditions for Tests With Gas Burner (Third Room

Open) 104

Table 6. Observed Steady State Smoke Layer Heights .... 105

Table 7. Effect of Second Room Lights and Pilot Flame on Neutral

Plane in Second room exit doorway 106

Table 8. Average Measurements With Error Estimations for Data

Collected During Model Accuracy Assessment Experiments. . . . 107

v
LIST OF FIGURES

page

Figure 1. Experimental layout and instrumentation configuration for

gas burner tests 57

Figure 2. Measured mass flow out through first room doorway estimated

from temperature profiles in first room doorway during

several tests, along with estimated repeatability for SET 4

(lOOkW, open second room exit doorway, open third room) ... 58

Figure 3. Measured height of hot / cold layer interface in second room

during several tests, estimated from temperature profiles in

second room, along with estimated repeatability for SET 4

(lOOkW, open second room exit doorway, open third room) ... 59

Figure 4. Measured average temperature of hot layer in second room

during several tests, along with estimated repeatability for

SET 4 (lOOkW, open second room exit doorway, open third

room) 60

Figure 5. Measured rate of heat release measured by oxygen consumption

calorimetry during several tests, along with estimated

repeatability for SET 4 (lOOkW, open second room exit

doorway, open third room) 61

Figure 6. Mass flow in through first room doorway estimated from

temperature profiles in first room doorway 62

Figure 7. Mass flow out through first room doorway estimated from

temperature profiles in first room doorway . . 63

Figure 8. Mass flow in through second room exit doorway estimated from

temperature profiles in second room exit doorway 64

Figure 9. Mass flow out through second room exit doorway estimated

from temperature profiles in second room exit doorway .... 65

Figure 10. Mass flow in through third room doorway estimated from

temperature profiles in third room doorway 66

Figure 11. Mass flow out through third room doorway estimated from

temperature profiles in third room doorway . . 67

Figure 12. Height of hot / cold layer interface in first room estimated

from temperature profiles in first room ........... 68

Figure 13. Height of hot / cold layer interface in first room doorway

estimated from temperature profiles in first room doorway . . 69

vi
Figure 14. Height of hot / cold layer interface in second room near

first room, estimated from temperature profiles in second

room 70

Figure 15. Height of hot / cold layer interface in second room middle,

estimated from temperature profiles in second room 71

Figure 16. Height of hot / cold layer interface in second room near

second room door, estimated from temperature profiles in

second room 72

Figure 17. Height of hot / cold layer interface in second room exit

doorway, estimated from temperature profiles in second room

exit doorway 73

Figure 18. Height of hot / cold layer interface in third room estimated

from temperature profiles in third room 74

Figure 19. Height of hot / cold layer interface in third room doorway

estimated from temperature profiles in third room doorway . . 75

Figure 20. Average temperature of hot layer in first room ........ 76

Figure 21. Average temperature of cold layer in first room 77

Figure 22. Average temperature of hot layer in second room 78

Figure 23. Average temperature of cold layer in second room ....... 79

Figure 24. Average temperature of hot layer in third room ... 80

Figure 25. Average temperature of cold layer in third room 81

Figure 26. Layer interface position and layer temperatures in the three rooms for one test (SET 4, lOOkW, open second room exit

doorway, open third room) . . . 82

Figure 27. Comparison of mass flow in first room doorway for mass flow

calculations based upon temperature profiles and based upon

pressure profiles in the first room doorway 83

Figure 28. Neutral plane height in first room doorway 84

Figure 29. Neutral plane height in second room exit doorway . . 85

Figure 30. Neutral plane height in third room doorway 86

Figure 31. Comparison of neutral plane height in first room doorway

from calculations based upon temperature profiles and based

upon pressure profiles in the first room doorway 87

vii
88

Figure 32. Height of hot / cold layer interface in second room

estimated from measured smoke obscuration in second room . . .

Figure 33. Comparison of hot / cold interface in second room estimated

from temperature profiles and from measured smoke obscuration in second room 89

Figure 34. Rate of heat release measured by oxygen consumption

calorimetry 90

Figure 35. Temperature profiles in second room along with estimated

height of hot / cold layer interface in second room 91

Figure 36. Average temperature profiles for open and closed door tests

along with layer temperatures estimated with two zone assumption 92

Figure 37. Comparison of predicted and measured mass flows out of the

doorways in the first, second, and third rooms for SET 4

(lOOkW, open second room exit doorway, open third room) ... 93

Figure 38. Comparison of predicted and measured upper gas layer

temperatures in the first, second, and third rooms for SET 4

(lOOkW, open second room exit doorway, open third room) ... 94

Figure 39. Comparison of predicted and measured lower gas layer

temperatures in the first, second, and third rooms for SET 4

(lOOkW, open second room exit doorway, open third room) ... 95

Figure 40. Comparison of predicted and measured layer interface

position in the first, second, and third rooms for SET 4

(lOOkW, open second room exit doorway, open third room) ... 96

viii
An Experimental Data Set for the Accuracy Assessment of Room Fire Models

Richard D. Peacock, Sanford Davis, and Billy T. Lee

Abstract

The development of experimental data for use in computer fire

model accuracy assessment is described. The tests were conducted

in a heavily instrumented structure to provide data on temperatures and mass and heat flows in a simple multi-room configuration. Several series of carefully designed experiments were

carried out changing important physical parameters one at a time

with several replicates of each configuration.

The current state of understanding in computer fire model accuracy

assessment is discussed with the data presented forming an example

of one step of the process.

Key Words: Accuracy assessment; data analysis; experiments; fire tests;

instruments; fire models

1 . INTRODUCTION

The development of analytical models for predicting fire behavior has

been an ongoing process within the fire research community for a number of

years . Individuals have endeavored to describe in mathematical language the

various phenomena which have been observed in fire research. These separate

representations often describe only a small part of a fire experience but,

when combined, create a complex computer code intended to give an estimate of

expected behavior based upon given input parameters. These analytical models

have progressed to the point of providing predictions of fire behavior;

however, it is important to be able to state with confidence how close are the

actual conditions to those predicted by the model.

1
Several systematic test series have been undertaken specifically to

provide data for comparison with model predictions; in other cases, tests in

which fire properties have been systematically varied (for various reasons)

have been modeled using current computer fire simulations. In the first

category are the study of Alpert et al [1]* for a single room connected to a

short, open corridor, and that of Cooper et al [2] for gas burner fires in a

room-corridor-room configuration. The second category is large, but the works

of Quintiere and McCaffrey [3], and Heskestad and Hill [4] are particularly

detailed.

Quintiere and McCaffrey describe a series of experiments designed to

provide a measure of the behavior of cellular plastics in burning conditions

related to real life. They experimentally determined the effects of fire

size, fuel type, and natural ventilation conditions on the resulting room fire

variables, such as temperature, radiant heat flux to room surfaces, burning

rate, and air flow rate. This was accomplished by burning up to four cribs

made of sugar pine or of a rigid polyurethane foam to provide a range of fire

sizes intended to simulate fires representative of small furnishings to chairs

of moderate size. Although few replicates were included in the test series,

fuel type and quantity, and the room door opening width were varied. The data

from these experiments were analyzed in terms of quantities averaged over the

peak burning period to yield the conditions for flashover in terms of fuel

type, amount, and doorway width. The data collected were to serve as a basis

* Numbers in brackets refer to literature references listed in Section 7 at

the end of this report.

2
for assessing the accuracy of a mathematical model of fire growth from burning

cribs

Heskestad and Hill performed a series of 60 fire tests in a room / corridor configuration to establish accuracy assessment data for theoretical fire

models of multi-room fire situations with particular emphasis on health care

facilities. With steady state and growing fires from 56 kW to 2 MW measurements of gas temperatures, ceiling temperatures, smoke optical densities,

concentrations of CO, C02

, and 02 , gas velocities, and pressure differentials

were made. Various combinations of fire size, door opening size, window

opening size, and ventilation were studied. In order to maximize the various

combinations, only a few replicates of several of the individual test configurations were performed.

In 1983, the Center for Fire Research (CFR) initiated a program to

develop the generic methodology for the evaluation and accuracy assessment of

fire models. Our ultimate goal is to define a mechanism by which the model

predictions can be assessed so that a model user can make a judgment as to its

soundness and thus measure the confidence limits associated with the model

predictions. To this end, one specific model was chosen (the FAST model-

Fire and Smoke Transport [5]) which was well advanced in its development and

was fairly well documented by the modeler. A carefully constructed and wellinstrumented large-scale fire test facility was developed in order to provide

experimental data for the evaluation of the FAST and other models. This

report describes one step in the process of the evaluation of fire models by

presenting and documenting a series of experimental large scale fire tests,

3
independent from the fire model development, which may be used for comparison

with fire model predictions.

1 . 1 Room Fire Modeling

Jones [5-7], has developed a model which allows one to predict the

evolution of a fire in a room and the subsequent transport of the smoke and

toxic gases which evolve from this fire. Using the series of tests described

in this report for comparison with the model predictions, the usefulness of

the base of data reported herein can be illustrated.

The primary element of this model is the compartment. As the interest

in these predictive schemes lies in the environment, the model is structured

around fluid transport phenomena. In this context, the predictive equations

for the gas layers in each compartment result from conservation of mass,

momentum, and energy, an equation of state for each compartment, and the

boundary conditions to which each compartment is subject. The actual physical

phenomena which drive the transport (e.g., the fire) are then expressed as

source terms. Such a formulation allows flexibility in adding, modifying, or

deleting terms which are appropriate to the problem at hand.

Each compartment is subdivided into "control volumes." The choice is

based on the premise that the details which occur within such a volume do not

concern us (at present), but their interaction does. Each control volume is

called a zone. The rationale for such a choice arises from the observation

4
that when a fire grows and spreads, the gas layers in the compartments

actually stratify into distinct zones. It is a compromise between a network

model and a finite difference model. The former is computationally fast but

yields no information on the internal structure. The latter is too computationally intensive to be useful for the problems at hand. The present model

(FAST) uses two zones for each compartment. Thus, the model outputs (in the

form of calculated quantities within an assumed homogeneous layer) and the

experimental outputs (in the form of measured or derived quantities averaged

within a similarly defined layer) may be compared for a number of quantities.

In addition to the level of agreement between the compared quantities, an

assessment of the validity of the two zone and other assumptions underlying

the model is critical.

1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Report

The initial accuracy assessment experiments were conceived to allow

comparisons and accuracy assessment of the major predicted quantities in the

FAST model which are driven by energy (heat) . These include the temperatures

of the upper and lower layers (air) , the position of the interface separating

the two layers, and the mass flow through the openings between the compartments. Other major predicted quantities in the model relating to the production and distribution of mass in the form of smoke and chemical species will

be the subject of future work, as these require the use of a more realistic

fire source, carefully defined with respect to smoke and chemical species

production.

5
This report does not provide a full verification of the FAST model.

Rather, it

• documents a series of experiments designed for the accuracy assessment

process for the model, and

• provides a base of data, independent from the model development that can

be used for the accuracy assessment of room fire models.

Derived outputs from individual raw data elements are presented together

with the mathematical treatment used to make the calculations.

Section 2 summarizes a procedure for fire model accuracy assessment and

outlines the necessary steps in the process. Section 3 presents a description

of the instrumentation utilized in the test series together with a discussion

of the techniques of fire test instrumentation. In section 4, the test

results and normalization techniques used to minimize the between- test

variations are presented. Section 5 examines the test data, combining the raw

data collected into several derived quantities to provide a manageable set of

data for analysis of model validity. A comparison of the data to a sample

model output is presented in section 6 to illustrate the use of the data.

While the experiments were designed with one model in mind, they should be

applicable to other similar room fire models.

6
2. THE ACCURACY ASSESSMENT PROCESS

In essence, every experiment is an attempt to verify a model. In the

simplest case, the model is a hypothesis which is based on some observed

phenomenon -- or even a single observation -- and raises the question "why"?

The hypothesis then needs to be tested to determine whether the observation is

repeatable and to help define the boundaries of the hypothesis. In as simple

a case as presented here, a "yes" or "no" answer may suffice in evaluating the

agreement between the model and experiment. For more 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. A quantification of

the degree of agreement between a model and perhaps many experiments is the

subject of the model accuracy assessment process.

2 . 1 Documentation of the Model

For an analytical model designed for predicting fire behavior, the

process of accuracy assessment is similar to the single observation case

above, but perhaps more extensive because of the complexity of the model. The

first step in the process is thorough documentation of the model so that other

modelers can use it and so that its testing can be properly designed. The

basic structure of the model, including the limitations, boundary conditions,

and fundamental assumptions must be clearly described. Additionally, the

functional form of the input parameters must be well-defined to allow any

experiments carried out in the accuracy assessment process to be properly

7
simulated (what are the inputs; what are the appropriate units for each); the

same applies to the model outputs. In this way, the format of the experimental input and output can be defined to match that of the model.

2.2 Sensitivity Analysis

The sensitivity analysis of a model is a quantitative study of how

changes in the model parameters affect the results generated by the model.

The parameters through which the model is studied consist of those variables

which are external to the program, (i.e., input variables), those variables

which are internal to the program, (i.e., encoded in the program), and the

assumptions, logic, structure, and computational procedures of the model. For

this discussion, the model will be considered to be defined by its assumptions, logic, structure, and computational procedures and its sensitivity will

be measured in terms of its external and internal variables. The key

questions of interest to be investigated by the analyst are: 1) what are the

dominant variables? 2) what is the possible range of the result for a given

input that may arise from uncertainties within the model? and 3) for a given

range of an input variable, what is the expected range for the result?

Sensitivity analysis of a model is not a simple task. Fire models

typically have numerous input parameters and generate numerous output

responses which extend over the simulation time. So multiple output variables

must each be examined over numerous points in time. To examine such a model,

many (likely to be more than 100) computer runs of the model must be made and

8
analyzed. Thus, if the model is expensive to run or if time is limited, a

full analysis is not feasible and the set of variables selected for study must

be reduced. When the set of variables to be investigated must be reduced, a

"pre- analysis" for the important variables can be performed or the important

variables can be selected by experienced practitioners.

Classical sensitivity analysis examines the partial derivatives of the

underlying equations behind a model with respect to its variables in some

local region of interest. A complex model may be sensitive to changes in a

variable in one region while insensitive in another region. In addition, it

is most likely to be unfeasible to determine the intervals for each variable

for which a complex model is sensitive. This suggests that stating a single

value as a measure of sensitivity is not always sufficient and, consequently,

some measure of its variability should be determined in order to make a global

statement of how sensitive a model is to a variable.

Several methods for estimating the sensitivity of a model to its variables are available, each with its advantages and disadvantages. The choice

of method is often dependent upon the resources available and the model being

analyzed. It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into the details of any

of these.

9
2 . 3 The Experimental Phase

Once an assessment has been made of the relative importance of the model

parameters, a selection process is carried out to determine which parameters

will be studied in the experimental phase of the accuracy assessment process.

Typically, with a fixed budget for model testing, tradeoffs are made in the

selection of the number and range of variables to be studied, replication of

the experiments, and complexity of the experiments to be performed. Elements

of a well-designed experimental program, discussed below, address these

tradeoffs so that the model assessment can be carried out with the available

resources

.

The number of possible tests, while not being infinite, is quite large.

It is unreasonable to expect all possible tests to be conducted. The need

exists to use reason and some form of experimental design strategy to optimize

the range of results while minimizing the number of tests. While this is not

the forum for a detailed discussion of experimental design, some elaboration

is required. Traditionally, a lat in- square arrangement or full factorial

experimental design is employed to determine the effect of variations in input

conditions on output results. [8] This, as expected, results in the number of

tests increasing with the number of input variables and variations. However,

there exists a reduced factorial experimental plan [9] called fractional

replication. The basic concept behind fractional replication is to choose a

subgroup of experiments from all possible combinations such that the chosen

experiments are representative, amenable to analysis, and provide the maximum

10
amount of information about the model from the number of observations available .

The choice of data to be collected during the experimental phase depends

upon the model under evaluation. A description of the input and output data

of the model provides guidance in the selection of the measurements to be

made. After having reviewed the fire model and accepting it for validation,

the evaluator or test engineer must constrain the range of test conditions to

those which are applicable to the fire model. The test design then selects a

varied and representative set of conditions (i.e., enclosure configuration,

fuel loading, fuel type, ignition mechanism) from this range.

The evaluator develops the instrumentation design by starting with the

model output data and determining suitable algorithms for generating comparable data output from the large-scale tests. This defines the instrumentation requirements, and experience is used to define instrument placement.

2.4 Review and Analysis of the Model and Experimental Data

Large-scale tests are performed according to the experimental plan

designed by the evaluator. The individual data instrumentation, of which

there may be one to two hundred, have to be carefully installed, calibrated,

and documented as to what they measure and where they are located. Since it

is rare to find an individual raw data observation that can be compared to the

11
model output, single data elements are combined to provide derived data which

can be compared to the model. Using data collection techniques appropriate to

the testing needs, the individual data points are collected and typicallyprocessed by computer to provide the desired outputs.

Expected and unexpected variations will define the level of replication

for each set of test conditions [10]. There are many sources that can contribute to expected variation in large-scale fire tests, such as variations in

the materials or assemblies to be tested, environmental conditions, instruments or apparatus, and calibration techniques used in the measuring process.

Because of the non-uniformity of building materials normally encountered and

the variability associated with fire exposures and combustion reactions,

excellent repeatability is not expected. The development of an experimental

plan is, to a large extent, the search for the major factors influencing the

outcome of the measurements and the setting of tolerances for their variations. [11]

Within the constraints of a fixed budget, replication is usually limited

to less than statistically desired to minimize the unexpected variations. The

larger variations that result must be accepted and thus affect the level of

confidence in the resulting model accuracy assessment.

As part of the data analysis of the large-scale tests, potential error

sources must be quantitatively determined. There are recognized uncertainties

in the instrumentation used for each data element as well as random and systematic "noise" in the data acquisition process. The unevenness of burning of a

12
material or the turbulent nature of fluid motion in most fire situations also

introduce "noise" into the data analysis process and erratic burning does so

among replicate tests. Each step in the data reduction process contributes to

the accumulated uncertainties

Data analysis itself requires the development of a series of algorithms

that combine individual data elements to produce the desired output parameter.

Uncertainties within the experimental data arise from two sources: 1) variability in the physical processes and in their measurement, and 2) variability in

initial conditions and experimental procedure. Data normalization, the

process of adjusting the outputs of replicate tests to a common set of

definitions, facilitates the analysis.

For the former, the raw data need to be normalized within a test because

of the sequential nature of the data acquisition process, and replicate tests

need to be normalized to separate errors in data output parameters that

reflect variations in the physical phenomena and variations in experimental

conditions. Time shifting of the data within a test to adjust for transducer

response time is very common, as is time shifting of output data between

replicate tests to assure that a critical phenomenon occurs simultaneously in

all tests. [12] For example, an increase in the energy release rate of a

burner or the occurrence of flashover could be defined as the reference point

or critical phenomena for an analysis of deviations between replicate tests.

The data output from multiple replicate tests may also be synchronized in a

similar manner. For example, data collection may begin at different times in

the replicate tests. Appropriate time shifting can provide a common defini13
tion for the start of all tests. Ignoring these errors will increase the

deviations observed between replicate tests and the calculated confidence

intervals about the data. If the desired information reflects a low frequency

phenomenon and the data contains high frequency "noise", appropriate filtering

schemes can be applied to extract the desired data and thereby perhaps reduce

the deviation error between replicate tests. Error propagation calculations

can be used to determine where experimental precision is most limiting.

For the latter, variations in initial conditions are often accounted for

with separate model runs at the appropriate conditions. Variations in experimental procedure are the most difficult to account for, often requiring

additional testing once the proper technique has been defined.

As can be seen from this short discussion, data analysis of the largescale tests requires a significant effort before comparisons between the model

and the large-scale tests are possible. The size of the data reduction

program can be as large and complex as the model being evaluated.

3 . APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES

3,1 Experimental Design

The experimental design was not completely set at the beginning due to

the exploratory nature of this series of experiments, but was allowed to

14
change as the need arose. While the development of the design formed the

background for much of the discussion in section 2.3, most of the topics

highlighted in that section apply to the design of the experimental plan for

the current test series. Specifically, a discussion of the choice of

parameters to be examined, the tests to be conducted, the data to be collected, and the level of replication is included below as applied to this

s tudy

3.1.1 Model Parameters to be Examined

The parameters to be studied were selected as those major predicted

quantities in multi-room fire models that are driven by energy. This choice

allowed the study to be limited to a manageable set of parameters while

providing insight into many of the predicted quantities in room fire models.

The parameters of interest are temperatures of the upper and lower layers, the

position of the interface separating the two layers, and the mass flow through

the openings in the compartments. With the purpose defined, the experimental

configuration and choice of variables for the experiments became clearer.

Initially, the experience of a number of researchers defined the major experimental variables affecting the parameters of interest:

Layer temperatures: fire size, room size, distance from fire source

Interface position: room door opening size, fire size

Mass flows: fire size, room door opening size, distance from

fire source

15
Later, a simple sensitivity analysis of a one room fire model confirmed much

of this expert opinion. [13] Fire size and room door opening size can be

easily varied. Within a limited budget, room size and distance from the fire

source are not so easily handled. For the present test series, a three room

configuration , with rooms of different sizes provided a workable compromise.

This left three major variables whose chosen values were combined to define

the experiments

• fire size (changed by varying the input to a gas burner)

,

• room door opening size (changed by opening or closing the doorway

to one of the rooms)

,

• number of rooms (to vary the distance from the fire sourcechanged by sealing the opening to one of the rooms)

.

3.1.2 Tests Conducted and Data Collected

In total, nine different sets of experiments were conducted, with

multiple replicates of each. From the variables to be examined:

• Fire sizes of 100, 300, and 500 kW,

* Second room exit doorway open and closed, and

® Third room doorway open and closed,

a total of 45 tests were conducted. With the testing order randomized to

minimize systematic errors, the tests are presented within each group of tests

in the order conducted. For ease of discussion, each test was assigned a

unique sequence number indicated the fire size and position within the test

sequence. Fire size is indicated by a 100, 300, or 500 along with a suffix to

16
distinguish between replicates. For instance, the 100 kW tests were labeled

100A through 100Z to 100AB. Sections 3.2 to 3.5 provide details of the room

construction, test procedure, and tests conducted.

Ideally, tests with all possible combinations of the variables would be

conducted. However, built-in safety devices in the gas burner system

prevented tests with the second room exit doorway closed for the 300 and 500

kW fire sizes. The larger fires reduced the available oxygen below that

required to insure complete combustion of the methane / acetylene gas mixture.

When this occurred, the safety systems automatically shut off the gas flow.

Thus all combinations are available only for the 100 kW fire size.

The choice of model parameters to be examined dictated the data to be

collected. Measurement of air temperature profiles from floor to ceiling

allowed quantification of layer temperatures and interface positions. Smoke

obscuration measurements provided an alternate method to determine interface

position. Mass flows were determined with static pressure measurements along

with temperature profiles in the doorways. Section 3.4 provides details of

the measurements and of the instrumentation used to collect the data.

3.2 Room Configuration and Construction

The experimental arrangement is shown in figure 1. It was a three

compartment configuration, with two smaller rooms opening off of a long room

12.4 m long. Table 1 summarizes the dimensions of the three rooms. The first

17
room, where the fire source was located, had 50 mm thick ceramic fiber insulation under a calcium silicate ceiling and over fire brick walls to minimize

thermal losses through these surfaces and to facilitate the calculation of

these thermal losses. The floor of the room was exposed fire brick. The

second room ceiling and walls were constructed of steel studding with unfilled

stud spaces with gypsum board sheathing with a covering of 13 mm calcium

silicate board to assure structural integrity during prolonged exposures to a

possible post- flashover fire plume from the door between the second and first

rooms. The concrete floor in the second room was covered with 13 mm gypsum

board to protect the concrete. The passageway from the second room to the

first and third rooms was a small corridor (approximately 1 m wide x 1 m deep

x 2 m high) constructed with the same materials as the second room. Since

only warm air circulation was anticipated in the third room, the walls and

ceiling were constructed from 13 mm gypsum board over metal studs, without the

calcium silicate covering. The floor was exposed concrete. The construction

materials used in this test series together with their thermophysical

properties are given in table 2. [14-17] All material properties are literature values and should be considered approximate. Actual measurements were

not performed on the materials used in the study.

3.3 Test Procedure

A diffusion flame burner using natural gas, placed snugly against the

middle of the back wall of the first room, served as the fire source. The top

side of the burner had a 0.34 x 0.34 m porous ceramic surface with a perimeter

18
of 13 mm wide steel plate. The porous surface was positioned 0.50 m above the

floor. A 2.8 kW pilot flame was attached to the front of the burner.

Initially, zinc chloride candles served as the smoke source. Their use was

discontinued due to nonuniform time and spatial distributions of the smoke.

Later experiments used a mixture of natural gas and acetylene in a heat

release ratio of 77 kW of natural gas to 23 kW of acetylene (0.31 g of

acetylene per g of natural gas) to achieve a concentration of smoke which

provided a visible separation of the hot and cold layers during a test and

provided constant smoke production throughout a test.

Tests were initially performed with the data recording system turned on

for 300 s prior to the ignition of the burner gas, with the pilot ignited

within this 300 s period. Beginning with tests 50 D, 100 M, 300 D and 500 A,

a 300 s baseline period, followed by a 300 s pilot flame interval prior to

burner ignition were also recorded for each test. This allowed an adequate

time for the second room flow behavior associated with the pilot flame to

reach steady conditions. The burner was allowed to run for 900 s with the

data acquisition terminating after recording approximately 300 s of the

cooling period.

Barometric pressure, ambient temperature, and relative humidity in the

laboratory were recorded prior to each test within the building housing the

test structure. Although no attempt was made to condition the system prior to

each test, the building air conditioning system controlled the indoor air

temperature. Ambient temperatures at the beginning of the tests ranged from

19
20 to 23°C. The air conditioning system was not capable of humidity control,

and the relative humidity ranged from 42 to 74 % for the tests.

Each test combination of fire size and configuration was repeated

several times, over a time period where the ambient conditions were significantly different, to develop a statistically meaningful data base for each

test situation.

3„4 Instrumentation

The locations of all instrumentation initially used in the rooms and

adjacent exhaust collection hood are summarized in table 3. Some of the

instrumentation locations are also shown in figure 1. Data were recorded with

an automatic data logging system at a rate of 24 channels per second.

Part way through the test program, the placement of thermocouples on the

9 thermocouple trees in the first and second rooms were revised to permit

greater resolution of the mass flow exhausting from the rooms. At that time,

thermocouples were also installed on the unexposed back side of the second

room ceiling and North wall to assist in the calculation of the conductive

heat losses through these surfaces. In addition, a weighing platform was

later installed in the first room, necessitating the removal of some

instrumentation to allow for the placement of cables for the platform suspension system. All of these changes are summarized in part IV of table 3.

20
A 15.9 mm diameter orifice flow meter was used for metering the natural

gas flow and a 200 SCFH gas flow meter was used to monitor the acetylene flow.

An ultra-violet flame sensor, facing the flame over the gas burner, was used

in conjunction with a safety shut-off device which activated in case the flame

extinguished

Miscellaneous instrumentation listed under section III in table 3 was

installed in these first tests to provide data for use in other, related projects. Those data are not discussed in this report.

3.4.1 Temperature Based Measurements

Presuming, for the moment, the validity of the two -zone assumption

inherent in current fire growth models, temperature measurements were used to

quantify upper and lower layer temperatures, the position of the interface

between the two layers, mass flows through openings in connecting rooms, and

heat conduction through the bounding surfaces of the rooms. Details of the

instrumentation used to make these measurements is presented below. A discussion of the calculations along with an analysis of the data is in section 5.

For all temperature measurements, the voltage outputs from the data

acquisition system were converted to temperature units with automatic

compensation to adjust the readings for changing ambient temperature. Errors

due to conduction along the thermocouple leads were minimized by placing the

leads in a horizontal (near isothermal) plane. No corrections were made for

21
heat losses from the thermocouple wires for any of the instrumentation.

Steckler, Quintiere, and Rinkinen [18] have studied the error introduced by

neglecting the radiative losses from the thermocouple leads. They define the

radiation error, the difference between the gas temperature of a flowing gas

and the indicated thermocouple temperature as a function of the thermocouple

temperature and the gas velocity. For a series of 55 experiments studying

flow through openings, the errors ranged between -20 and +16 °C for temperatures ranging from 50 to more than 250 °C.

Cooper et al [2] have presented a method for defining the height of the

interface between the relatively hot upper layer and cooler lower layer

induced by a fire as a linear function of a vertical temperature profile

within the room. Since the calculation depends upon a continuous temperature

profile, linear interpolation is used to determine temperatures between

measured points. A spacing of 0.15 m between measurement points was chosen to

insure a resolution in the vertical temperature profile no greater than 5

percent of the room height. Thermocouple trees 1 through 8 were used to

« determine the interface position (one position per tree) . For the first and

third rooms, a single tree in each room was adequate due to the small size of

the rooms. For the second room, however, three trees were placed along the

length of the room to permit examination of the horizontal variation in layer

interface height and layer temperature.

Once the interface position has been determined, it is a simple matter

to ascertain the upper and lower layer temperatures as simply an average of

22
the temperature profile within the respective layers. Again, all eight trees

were used for this calculation.

Steckler, Quintiere, and Rinkinen [18] present a technique to calculate

mass flows through openings based upon the ideal gas law and an integral

function of the temperature profile within the opening. Again, a spacing of

0.15 m between measurement points insured a resolution of the vertical

temperature profile no greater than 5 percent of the room height.

Temperatures on the exposed wall and ceiling surfaces were measured with

chromel-alumel thermocouples fabricated from 0.51 mm diameter wire. The

measurement of temperatures on the material surface or within the material is

less affected by thermal radiation than that of air temperature. Consequently, larger size thermocouples which are less prone to breakage, were used.

Heat transfer to the wall and ceiling surfaces can be estimated from these

measurements using a finite difference method described by Fang and Breese.

[19] Again, with the two zone assumption, an estimate of the temperature of

surfaces in the upper layer and lower layer are required. Surface temperature

measurements near the ceiling and near the floor fulfill this need. Full

vertical or horizontal temperature profiles were unnecessary since the

validity of the two zone assumption can be tested with the air temperature

profiles. Thermocouples were placed on the wall, ceiling and floor surfaces

in room 1 and room 2 adjacent to the thermocouple trees used to measure air

temperature. Since little heat was expected in room 3, no instrumentation was

included in this room to measure surface temperatures.

23
3.4.2 Pressure Based Measurements

Lee [20] describes a method to calculate the mass flow through an

opening as an integral function of the temperature profile in the doorway and

of the pressure drop across the doorway. Measurement of the temperature

profile has been detailed above. Since the pressure drop across an opening

approaches zero and the direction of flow changes, measurement of the pressure

profile in the doorway is particularly difficult. Estimation of the pressure

in the extreme lower resolution of the instrumentation (as the pressure drop

approaches zero) yields an inherently noisy measurement. As such, these

measurements were used only as an alternate method to the temperature method

described above to provide an assessment of the consistency of the data

collected. With the realization of the lesser importance of these measurements combined with dramatically higher instrumentation costs (several orders

of magnitude higher than the temperature measurements) , a less detailed

profile of measurement points was used for the pressure profile. Measurement

c points approximately every 0.3 m apart provided a resolution within about 10

percent of the room height.

3.4.3 Smoke Obscuration Based Measurements

Bukowski [21] provides designs for instrumentation to measure smoke

obscuration in both large and small scale experiments. A collimated light

source and directly opposed photometer receiver provide a measure of the

24
percentage of the light output by the source that reaches the photometer.

Smoke meters designed to Bukowski ' s recommendations were used to measure smoke

obscuration in the second room near the middle thermocouple tree.

Bukowski [22] first suggested a way to use two smoke meters to deduce

the location of the interface in a buoyantly stratified compartment. In his

method, if a two zone model is assumed ( a smoke-filled homogeneous upper zone

and a clear lower zone) , the use of a vertical smoke meter and a horizontal

smoke meter in the upper zone can be used to determine the smoke layer thickness.

3.4.4 Exhaust Hood Measurements

A 3.7 mx4.9 m hood, having an exhaust flow capacity of about 3 m

3 /s,

was situated over the doorway from the second room and collected the exhaust

from the fire tests. Temperatures, velocities, and oxygen and carbon dioxide

concentrations in the exhaust collection hood were monitored with the instrumentation listed in section II of table 3. With these measurements,

Huggett [23] and Parker [24] detail a method to determine the rate of energy

production of the fire based upon oxygen consumption calorimetry.

25
3 „ 5 Tests Conducted

Three sizes of gas fires having heat release rates of 100 kW, 300 kW,

and 500 kW were conducted under the following configurations:

a) Open second room exit doorway, third room doorway closed

b) Closed second room exit doorway, third room doorway closed

c) Open second room exit doorway, third room doorway open

d) Closed second room exit doorway, third room doorway open

All of the tests are described in tables 4 and 5. Tests 50 K, 100 F and 100 K

had experimental difficulties and were excluded from the tables. For tests

50 D, 300 D, and 300 E, the fuel to the burner was cut off prematurely by the

ultraviolet flame sensor.

Auxiliary experiments were also undertaken as part of these mainstream

tests or conducted separately to help elucidate problem areas. One area of

concern involved the determination of the thermal discontinuity in the second

room and of the neutral plane locations in the first room doorway and second

room exit doorway.

In the closed door tests, a doorway having a realistic 20 mm undercut

was used. Unfortunately, measurement or calculation of the flow under the

door was difficult. In test 100 0, the undercut in the door was sealed. An

opening in the floor, near the door, with an orifice having about the same

area as the undercut was used to measure the equivalent flow through the

latter

.

26
4. TEST RESULTS

Due to the sheer volume of data collected, it was impractical to present

all of the data recorded during all of the tests conducted. With judicious

definitions of initial conditions for many of the instruments, the data was be

combined into a smaller and more manageable set of data. Further computer

processing allowed conversion from the voltage outputs of the various transducers to meaningful engineering units and additional calculations on the

recorded data. To facilitate the calculation process, a specially designed

computer program for the reduction of full scale fire test data was utilized. [25] In addition to easing the burden of repetitive and similar

calculations, the program provides a standard set of algorithms for the

analysis of fire test data. It was used throughout the test series for all

tests conducted.

The tests in this first series can be broken down into nine different

e categories as follows:

27
Set Fire

Size

Second Room Third

Exit Doorway Room

Tests

1 100 kW Open No 100 A, 100 B, 100 c, 100 D, 100 E, 100 F,

100 G, 100 H, 100 I,

100 J, 100 K

2 100 kW Closed No 100 L, 100 M, 100 N,

100 0

3 100 kW Closed Yes 100 P, 100 Q, 100 R,

100 s, 100 T

4 100 kW Open Yes 100 U, 100 v, 100 w,

100 X, 100 Y, 100 Z,

100 AA, 100 AB

5 300 kW Open No 300 A, 300 B, 300 c

6 300 kW Closed Yes 300 D, 300 E

7 300 kW Open Yes 300 F, 300 G, 300 H

8 500 kW Open No 500 A, 500 B, 500 c, 500 D, 500 E, 500 F

9 500 kW Open Yes 500 G, 500 H, 500 I

Before the data from the nine groups can be analyzed, however, some

normalization of the test results is necessary. Appropriate techniques for

normalization of fire test data and model calculations is the subject of

ongoing research sponsored by CFR. Although not sophisticated, the approach

detailed below provides one approach to the normalization. As the results of

the ongoing research become available, more sophisticated normalization

techniques could be utilized.

28
As detailed in tables 4 and 5, ambient temperatures, barometric pressures, and humidity changed from test to test due simply to seasonable

variations. In addition, the duration of each test was slightly variable

during the pretest period with the pilot light and in the cool down period.

For a few tests , the main burn period was shortened due to an automatic

shutoff in the gas flow line. To insure a self consistent definition across

the test series and to allow comparison with model predictions beginning at a

preset set of conditions, the data from all tests were normalized to minimize

random scatter with a standard definition as follows:

• Time Overall time bases move laterally so that t=0

corresponds to main burner ignition as evidenced

by a distinct rise in temperature of a thermocouple located directly above the main burner.

• Temperature Adjusted so that at t=0 , all temperatures are equal and at an ambient temperature of 20 °C.

For each reading of each temperature channel, a normalization factor was added equal to (20-

Temperaturet=

)

• Pressure Difference Adjusted so that at t=0 , all measured pressure

differences are equal and at an ambient definition equal to the average of the unadjusted

pressures at t=0. For each reading of each

temperature, a normalization factor was subtracted equal to the average of the pressure

readings for the replicate tests at time t=0.

• Smoke Meters Adjusted so that at t=0 , all smoke measurements

are equal at a level of 0 OD/m. For each

reading of each smoke measurement channel, a normalization factor was subtracted equal to

Smoket=0 .

The normalization of the time reading simply provides a consistent definition

for the start of an experiment. Normalization for temperature, pressure, and

smoke measurements allow elimination of the systematic variations introduced

29
by the pilot light and by changes in ambient conditions at the beginning of

the test.

With these definitions , the data from each of the nine groups was

combined to produce a running mean value and standard deviation for each

measurement and calculation, thus reducing the number of data sets to be

examined from more than forty to nine. In addition, an assessment of the

repeatability of the test procedure could be made.

Although it is unreasonable and not particularly useful to present all

of the data collected from every test conducted, figures 2 through 5 show some

of the data from one data set (100 kW, open second room exit doorway, open

third room) and illustrate the data from the individual tests together with

the average and standard deviation of the set of tests (8 in this case) as a

function of time. Plots of mass flow out the first room door, layer height

and upper layer temperature**, and rate of heat release are presented as

samples of the data collected. Details of the calculations performed and of

the average and standard deviation from all the data sets are discussed in the

next section.

For all nine test conditions, table 8 presents the average of measurements

over the period of "steady- state" burning, defined as the region between 300

and 900 seconds after ignition of the main burner. For each measurement, at

time point, all replicate tests were averaged to determine a mean value and a

The uncertainty for the upper layer temperature, shown in figure 4, is due

only to replication. A second source of variability, due to the method of

calculation of the layer temperature, is discussed in section 5.1.1.

30
standard deviation. To determine a "steady- state" value for each measurement,

a weighted mean of these averages was computed acroos time. The weights used

were inversely proportional to the variance at each time point, thereby

placing greater confidence in those readings with a smaller standard deviation .

5 . ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS

5 . 1 Quantities Derived From Room Measurements

5.1.1 Quantities Derived From Temperature Based Measurements

Air temperatures measured by the thermocouple trees 1, 2, and 3 were

used to calculate the mass flow in and out the first room doorway using the

following equations: [18]

M = CW p T

o o

* H r z

. 2g 1 1 dZ'

J N

T

d

(z)

___ <H N

T (z) T (z)

c i dZ (1)

Where

C opening flow coefficient of 0.73 for outflow and 0.68 for inflow

g gravitational acceleration (9.80 m/s 2

) H opening height (m)

M rate of air flow (kg/s)

N height of neutral plane, refer to equation 7 (m)

Tc air temperature outside of room (K)

TQ ambient air temperature (K)

Td air temperature in the room doorway (K)

31
Tj air temperature inside the room (K)

W opening width (m)

Z height above or below neutral plane (m)

p Q ambient air density (kg/m3

)

The above equation is for steady state flow conditions. At early times, there

is also a thermal expansion term resulting from the air in the room being

heated by the fire source over time which must be added to equation (1). This

additional transient mass flow is given for each time by the equation:

A m = V

*£ _

At

Vp T

o o At

1T.l+At

(2)

where: Ti T0 At

V

PPo

temperature of air in upper half of room at time i (K)

ambient temperature (K)

time increment between scans (s)

room volume (m3

) air density (kg/m3

) ambient air density (kg/m3

)

Similarly, air temperatures from trees 5, 7, and 8 were used to ascertain the mass flow through the doorway to the third room and trees 5 and 6

were used to determine flow through the second room exit doorway. Table 8

presents average mass flows through the doorways during the main burn period

(from main burner ignition to main burner extinguishment). Figures 6 through

11 present the data over the entire test period.

During the "steady state" burning period, the inflow to any room should

equal the outflow out of a room. For all three openings, a statistical t-test

32
shows the mean difference between the comparable values for times from 300 to

900 seconds is significant at even the 99 percent confidence level:

Room Mean Difference

( Inflow -Out flow)

Standard Deviation Confidence

Level

(kg/s)

93

1 0.072

0.36

0.76

0.12

0.34

0.29

0.99

0.99

0.99

The reasons for this are at least three-fold. Firstly, measurement problems

with the static pressure probes (used to establish a reference pressure at

floor level) led to less accurate measurements for all but SET 4 and SET 9,

introducing unpredictable but systematic errors in the flow measurements.

Secondly, the technique used, as described by Steckler, et al [18] was

developed for a single room exhausting into an infinite reservoir of ambient

air. Applicability or extension of the technique for flow between rooms is

currently under study. Since the technique depends upon the temperature

gradient across the opening as a function of height, the choice of temperature

conditions "outside" the opening may be important. Finally, the technique

utilizes temperature changes from the neutral plane to the edges of the

opening to calculate the flow. Because the smaller temperature change from

the neutral plane is in the lower, cooler region, a small variation in

temperature should cause more uncertainty in mass flow than in the upper,

hotter region where the temperature gradient is larger. It should be noted

that this is only a valid statement if a constant random error in temperature

measurements is assumed for the two layers

33
As noted above, measurement problems prevented accurate measurement of

the mass flows for many of the data sets. For SET 4 and SET 9 however, the

agreement between inflow and outflow, accounting for the input from the gas

burner and for thermal expansion, is quite good. A more detailed discussion

of the mass balance is included in section 5.3.

As would be expected, flows through the doorway to the first room are

significantly lower in tests where the second room exit doorway was closed

than when the doorway was open. Comparing curves for SET 1 and SET 2, SET 4

and SET 3, or SET 5 and SET 6 confirm this.

The eight thermocouple trees also provided an indication of the thermal

stratification at their respective locations. One of the simplifying assumptions underlying present zone fire models is that the flows within rooms and

between rooms can be modeled from a small number (usually two) of distinct

layers (zones) of gases. One method for defining an interface height for a

two layer zone model, the interface between the smoke -filled upper zone and

the relatively clear lower zone has been proposed by Cooper et al. [2] They

proposed the following equation:

T.

S (3)

where Ts

max

layer interface temperature Ts (K) an empirically determined value of 0.2

the maximum measured air temperature (K)

the air temperature near the floor

34
The equivalent two zone layer height is the height where the measured air

temperature is equal to the temperature Ts as calculated from equation (3).

Table 8 and figures 12 through 19 present the layer height data. From these

figures, it is apparent that the effect of the third room on the layer height

in the second room is small, whereas whether the second room exit doorway was

open or closed makes a big difference. Comparing sets 1 and 4, 2 and 3, 5 and

7 , or 8 and 9 in figure 15 shows a small time delay in the initial filling of

the second room, but with a steady state layer height very similar for the

sets with the second room exit doorway in the same position. This result

follows logically from the added volume of the third room taking some time to

fill, but ultimately allowing the second room to fill to the same depth.

Once the location of the interface has been determined, it is a simple

matter to determine an average temperature of the hot and cold layers within

the rooms as

With a discrete vertical profile of temperatures at a given location,

the integral was evaluated numerically with interpolation between the discrete

measurement points. The average layer temperature (either of the lower layer

or the upper layer) , Tavg , is thus simply an average over the height of the

layer from the lower bound of the layer, z l

, to the upper bound of the layer,

z

u for either the upper or lower layers. Table 8 and figures 20 through 25

present the layer temperature data.

z

(4)

35
Some of the effects of flow through the doorways in the three rooms can

be seen in figure 26 which shows layer interface position and layer temperatures in the three rooms for one of the configurations (SET 4, 100 kW, open

door, open third room). The following observations can be made from the

figure

• Layer height and layer temperatures in the door to room 1 are lower than those in room 1, but closer to the readings in room 1 than to those in room 2.

• Layer height and upper layer temperature at all positions in room

2 and in the door from room to the exhaust hood are almost equal.

Lower layer temperature in the doorway to room 2 is lower than the

lower layer temperature in room 2.

• Layer height and upper layer temperature in the door to room 3 is

about midway between the layer heights and upper layer temperatures in room 3 and room 2

.

With uniform layer temperatures and no mixing in the doorways, layer

temperatures in the doorways should be equal to the temperature of the layer

in the room from which the flow through the doorway is coming. For instance,

upper layer temperature in the door to room 1 should be equal to the temperature of the upper layer in room 1 and lower layer temperature in the door to

room 1 should be equal to the lower layer temperature in room 2. For the

doorways to rooms 2 and 3, this condition is reasonably upheld. For room 1,

however, the upper layer temperature in the doorway is lower than expected and

the lower layer temperature is higher than expected. Since the calculated

layer temperatures are average values of a temperature gradient in the room

and the flow through the doorway comes from the lower portion of the layer, a

somewhat lower temperature in the upper layer in the doorway can be expected.

36
In addition, there may be mixing in the doorway which is in turn a result of

the different layer heights in the two rooms. Jones and Bodart [26] describe

the different possible flow fields in a vent depending upon the relative

densities and interface heights in the two connected rooms. With different

interface heights in the two rooms, multiple flow reversals make doorway

mixing inevitable. The degree of mixing depends upon the flow and the amount

of overlap of the layers in the two rooms.

Temperatures on the exposed wall and ceiling surfaces were measured with

chromel-alumel thermocouples. Heat transfer to the walls and ceiling can be

estimated from these measurements using the following equation. For heat

conduction through a semi - inf ini te solid which is exposed to a net heat flux

q" (kW/m2 ): [19]

q(N)

r— N-l — r iv. r H h

C T

s (0,t) - T.

1 - 2

q <n) [N- (n-l) 9 ] -

[ (N-n) 9

n=l —

(5)

where

k

a

9C

Ti

Ts (0,t)

t

thermal conductivity (kW/m • K)

thermal diffusivity (m2 /s)

duration of time step between each successive data point.

k(7r/a) 1 / 2 initial temperature

surface temperature at time t

time (s)

These measurements will be used, along with heat release rate measurements

detailed later in the report, in an energy balance on the system.

37
5.1.2 Quantities Derived From Pressure Based Measurements

Measurements of the pressure drop across doorways were made through the

interior wall surfaces adjacent to the doorway opening to the second room and

the doorway to the first room. These measurements were used with the following equation as an alternative method for calculating mass flow: [20]

M = C W (2 g p T ) 1/2

o o

* H

AP

T

N D

1/2

dz ( 6 )

where AP (kg/m2

) is the air pressure above ambient and the other terms are

defined as in equation (1). Equation (6) will be used to calculate the

overall mass balance on the system in section 6.3, below.

Figure 27 shows a comparison of the mass flow through the first room

door calculated from temperature measurements, equation (1) and (2), and from

pressure measurements, equation (6), made in the doorway for one of the

configurations (100 kW, open second room exit doorway, open third room).

Comparing the mass flow calculations, it is apparent that the temperaturebased calculations result in a higher mass flow in the doorway and a lower

mass flow out the doorway than for the pressure -based calculations. This is

consistent with the difference in calculated neutral plane height for the two

methods, discussed below.

38
The pressure measurements were also used to determine the neutral plane

height, N, required in equations (1) and (8). The neutral plane is obtained

by solving for N in the equation: [20]

' N Ta + P 0

s 1

- 0

t

Z

1 Dj

dZ = 0 (7)

where AP is the increase in air pressure above ambient at height Z x

. zi Table 8 and figures 28 through 30 present the neutral plane height calculated

from the pressure probe measurements.

Figure 31 shows a comparison of neutral plane height calculated from

pressure profiles, equation (7), and from temperature profiles, equation (3).

As can be seen from the figure, the neutral plane height calculated from the

pressure profile measurements is significantly lower than that calculated from

the temperature profile measurements. The difference can be attributed to the

different measurement techniques used to make the measurements. In general,

as discussed above in section 4.3, measurement of flows using commercially

available pressure transducers is difficult due to the extremely low pressures

involved. Compounding the problem for the measurement of the neutral plane

height is the desire to know where the flow is exactly zero. Thus, the most

important measurement points are those with the smallest magnitude, just on

either side of the neutral plane. Since the neutral plane calculation from

pressure measurements searches for the point of zero pressure from the floor

up, the calculated point of zero pressure is consistently low.

39
In addition, the potential for multiple neutral planes within an opening

further complicates the measurement of flow with pressure -based measurements.

Jones and Bodart [26] have described in detail the fluid transport through

vents to incorporate in smoke transport models an improved fluid transport

model with up to three neutral planes within a single opening. With potentially different layer boundaries in the two rooms connected to the opening,

cross flows are shown possible between the layers leading to from one to three

flow reversals depending upon the relative positions of the two layer boundaries .

Temperature based measurements have far less dependency on the low flow

region of the opening, relying on only one pressure measurement near the

bottom (or top) of the opening where the pressure gradient is highest. Thus,

for the determination of neutral plane height, the temperature based measurement technique seems preferable.

5.1.3 Quantities Derived From Smoke Obscuration Based Measurements

Smoke concentration is measured by its attenuation of a light beam in a

smoke meter, and typically expressed in terms of an optical density measurement, OD, as follows:

OD = log

10

(I

o/I) ( 8 )

40
where Io is the initial beam intensity and I is the attenuated intensity. If

the smoke layer is homogeneous, (0D) V / Ly = (0D) H / Lg and the thickness of

the smoke layer Ly can be given as

A

"

lo sio <vv

log

10

(I q/ I H

) hi (9)

where L is the measurement path length (in meters) for the smoke and the

subscripts V and H refer to the vertical and horizontal measurements. Table 8

and figure 32 present the layer height estimates from the smoke meter calculations as suggested by Bukowski . [21]

Figure 33 presents a comparison of the smoke layer thickness calculated

from smoke measurements and from temperature measurements for one of the

series of tests (Set 4, 100 kW, open second room exit doorway, open third

room). For most times, the smoke measurement estimates are higher than the

temperature based calculations. This is consistent with the observations of

others, notably Zukowski and Kubota, [27] who measured temperature profiles in

detail in a scale "room" measuring 0.58 m square with a doorway in one wall

measuring 0.43 m by 0.18 m. A smoke tracer was used to allow visual observation of the smoke layer thickness along with the temperature profile measurements. They conclude that, since the lower boundary layer is not steady and

rather produces distinct waves along the boundary, the smoke measurements

produce a less steep boundary than would be measured from instantaneous

profiles at a given instant of time. Since the smoke measurements in this

41
report are averaged electronically to smooth the noise in the data (with a

time constant of roughly 10 seconds), the thermocouple data can be expected to

produce a sharper and more distinct layer than the smoke measurements.

However, with the typically higher uncertainty of the smoke -based measurements, the significance of any perceived difference between the two different

techniques must be questioned. Within experimental uncertainty, the two

methods may be considered equivalent for all tests but those where the

interface height reaches the floor. In these tests, the temperature based

method falters since it is based upon interpolation between adjacent measurement points. Without extensive instrumentation near the floor, a bottom limit

at the level of the lowest thermocouple is evident in the temperature-based

calculations

.

Manual observations of the steady state smoke layers in the first room

doorway, in the second room and in the second room exit doorway were made and

summarized in table 6. Another concern was the effect of the second room

lighting on the temperature and flow characteristics in the second room and

second room exit doorway. Experiments were performed involving the second

room lighting and small pilot flame sources and the results are given in table

7. The data shows that the neutral plane height did not change over the range

of pilot flame sizes studied and was the same even for natural convection

without the lights or pilot flame. In the latter test without the pilot

flame, the laboratory conditioned inflow air at 22° C was cooled as it passed

by the colder unheated room surfaces and, consequently, exited at a lower

temperature of 21° C. The results further showed that doubling the pilot flame

42
rate to 3.8 kW overshadowed the effects of the lighting on the flow behavior

in the doorway.

5.2 Quantities Derived From Exhaust Hood Measurements

The total rate of heat production from the first room was determined

from: [23,24]

Q = E X

0z m <f> \/Uair ( 10 )

where

Wair

rate of heat released from the fire room (MW)

heat per unit mass of oxygen consumed by the fire (MJ/kg)

oxygen concentration in ambient air (moles 02 / moles air) mass flow rate of air from the fire room (kg/s)

molecular weight of oxygen

molecular weight of air

oxygen depletion of the air

The oxygen depletion, <f>

can be further defined as given by Parker: [24]

x

°2

- [

- x

co2 ]

X

oN> 1 • V

[?

• •“.]

(ID

where measured oxygen concentration

measured concentration of C02

43
Table 8 and figure 34 present the heat release rate data. These data

are only presented for the tests with an open second room exit doorway, since

flow through the second room exit doorway to the collection hood was restricted by the closed door, hindering the measurement in the collection hood

of the heat release rate of the fire.

Comparing the measured rate of heat release to the heat release calculated from the gas flow rate to the burner (assuming complete combustion of

the gas) , the measured rate of heat release is consistently low, averaging

19 percent lower than expected. While usually within the experimental

uncertainty as exemplified by the average standard deviation for the data sets

presented in table 8, the consistently lower readings deserve attention. In

the test configuration, flow through the exhaust collection hood is measured

minimally downstream from bends in the system. For this reason, accurate

measurement of the flow may be suspect. This particular problem is currently

under study and is hoped to be resolved for future test series.

The relative experimental uncertainty for the rate of heat release

measurements was also typically higher than many other readings, with

coefficients of variation ranging from 4 to 52 percent. With an oxygen

depletion for the 100 kW output of only 0.26 percent, the calculation of rate

of heat release suffers the same fate as the calculation of mass flows with

pressure probes described above, with much of the uncertainty in the heat

release calculations attributable to noise in the underlying measurements.

44
5.3 Mass and Heat Balances

One method to check the internal consistency of the calculations

performed on the data is to insure that the fundamental laws of energy and

mass conservation are preserved with the calculated quantities. Since the

technique used to measure the rate of heat release from the fire depended upon

measurements outside the second room, only the open door tests are amenable to

such an analysis.

For the mass balance on the system, the mass flow rate of air in through

the second room exit doorway added to the mass flow rate of gas in through the

burner should equal the mass flow rate out the second room exit, once expansion due to the temperature rise of the gases has been accounted for. Due to

problems in measuring the flows through the second room exit doorway, only two

test series contained the appropriate data, SET 4 (100 kW, open door, open

third room) and SET 9 (500 kW, open door, open third room). For SET 4, the

average mass balance (the difference between inflow and outflow) from 300 to

900 s is 0 ± 0.2 kg/s. For SET 9, the mass balance is 0 ± 0.3 kg/s. Good

agreement is seen for both data sets with an uncertainty near 10 percent of

the higher mass flow rates through the openings in the rooms in both cases.

A similar calculation can be made for the energy balance. The heat

input by the burner (including the pilot light) should equal the heat lost out

the system by conduction through the walls and convection and radiation out

the second room exit. Analogous to the mass balance, the average heat balance

45
for SET 4 (100 kW) is 14 ± 24 kW, and for SET 9 is 0 ± 138 kW. Although the

standard deviations are high, within noise limits, mass and energy are

conserved within the system.

5.4 The Two Zone Assumption

Most of the current room fire growth models assume that the fire

environment within a room can be described as a small number (usually two) of

control volumes or zones. Within a zone, all properties are assumed constant.

Jones, [28] and Emmons [29-30] provide overviews of two-zone room fire models.

Backovsky and Emmons [31] have compared a simple two- layer model of flow of

fire gases for a room with an opening with photographic and thermocouple data

from a series of full-scale fire tests. They report limited agreement with

the two -zone assumption and attribute the disparity to the simplicity of the

model

.

Some of the data from the current test series can be used to compare

data based upon the two-zone assumption with actual vertical and horizontal

profiles of temperature and smoke density. Figure 35 presents a set of

temperature profiles for one of the test series (SET 4, 100 kW, open second

room exit doorway, open third room). The profiles are presented in 200 s

intervals beginning at 100s and overlaid with the calculated layer height at

that time period. While no distinct break between an upper and lower layer

exists, an explicit rise in temperature above the calculated layer interface

46
is evident with a near ambient layer and a warmer layer. The layer temperatures are hardly uniform vertically throughout the assumed layers, however.

Figure 36 shows the average temperature profiles from an open door and a

closed door test (both 100 kW tests with a target room) overlaid with the

upper and lower layer temperature calculated using the two-zone assumption

for the test rooms. The solid line represents the average temperature

profile; the dotted lines describe the results from the two-zone model.

Specifically, the horizontal dotted line shows the height of the layer

interface, while the two vertical dotted lines represent the lower and upper

layer temperatures and extend through the heights appropriate to these layers.

Temperature profiles for room 1, with the burner, are very similar for the

open and closed door tests -- not surprising, since the door to room 2 is

open in both tests. Visually, the two-zone assumption holds better for the

open door test than for the closed door test in the cooler rooms 2 and 3.

Clearly, no distinct layering is evident in rooms 2 or 3 in the closed door

test. With the closed door, the hot gases come far closer to the floor and,

along with mixing as the gases reach the end of room 2, lead to a more closely

linear temperature profile from the floor to the ceiling. In the test with a

closed exit doorway in the second room, mixing occurs at the end of the long

corridor in room 2, heating the lower air and cooling the upper air. Even

with no distinct break between the layers, interface heights defined using the

two -layer assumption show evidence of the mixing with a far more uniform layer

thickness in the test with an open second room exit doorway:

47
Position Interface Position (m)

Closed Door Open Door

Room 2 Near Room 1 Room 2 Center

Room 2 Near Exit Doorway

0.49

0.40

0.31

1.18

1.13

1.14

5.5 Comparison With Model Data, A Sample Use of the Data

As an example of the use of the experimental data described in this

report, let's consider a comparison to the FAST model outlined in section 1.

Predictions were made with the FAST model with the configuration, fire size,

and thermal properties matching that of one of the data sets (SET 4, 100 kW,

open door, open third room).

There are four measurable quantities for which it is reasonable to make

a direct comparison between an experiment and the corresponding theoretical

prediction. These are the upper and lower layer temperature, the layer

interface height, and mass flow through an opening to a compartment. There

are other measurements of interest, but these four will yield an indication of

the match of the model to the experiment.

The results of the comparisons are shown in figures 37 to 40. They show

that the relative error of the prediction of upper and lower layer temperatures, interface position, and mass flow rates compared to the experimental

values range within the following values:

48
Relative Error: (Model-Experiment)/Experiment

(expressed as a percentage)

Quantity

Range Median Mean Standard

Deviation

Mass Flow 1-2 ( 138%, 507%) 202 211 55

Mass Flow 2-1 ( -53%, -47%) -50 -50 1

Mass Flow 2-3 ( -99%, -98%) -98 -98 0

Mass Flow 3-2 ( -67%, -37%) -57 -56 8 Mass Flow 2-4 ( -5%, 15%) 1 2 4

Mass Flow 4-2 ( -25%, 7%) -9 -9 7

Upper Layer Temperature 1 ( 26%, 75%) 36 36 6 Upper Layer Temperature 2 ( 50%, 58%) 52 52 1 Upper Layer Temperature 3 ( 25%, 30%) 27 27 1

Lower Layer Temperature 1 ( -61%, -53%) -59 -59 1 Lower Layer Temperature 2 ( -22%, -17%) -20 -20 1 Lower Layer Temperature 3 ( -9%, -5%) -8 -8 0

Interface Position 1 ( -4%, 19%) 5 6 5 Interface Position 2 ( -1%, 11%) 6 6 3 Interface Position 3 ( -6%, 9%) 1 1 4

Qualitatively, the curves shapes are quite similar after the initial

transient. Quantitatively, the transient response of the model follows the

measured values more closely, resulting in better predictive performance at

earlier times. This is often the critical region for hazard analysis, since

this is when the occupant evacuation process is occurring.

From the above data, the interface heights and layer temperatures are

predicted with better accuracy, on the average, than are mass flows and wall

temperatures. Upper layer temperatures are always over-predicted by the

model. Too hot an upper layer may be caused either by under-prediction of the

heat lost by the layer by radiation, conduction and / or convection, or by

under-prediction of the heat entering the layer from the fire plume. While

the temperature of the lower layer may be important when considering the

49
effect on occupants and equipment, there can not yet be a good correspondence

between measured and predicted layer temperatures due to the assumption within

the model of no radiative heating and no mixing into this zone. Thus, lower

layer temperature is typically under predicted by the model. Since the interface position in rooms 1 and 2 is well predicted, the layer volumes will be

fairly accurate. Jones [7] has identified mass flows through openings and

heat conduction through walls as particular areas for improvement of models

predicting the transport of smoke and toxic gases. Specific improvements have

been implemented in a new predictive model, resulting in better comparisons.

[32] Although mass flows are predicted with less accuracy, not all of the

discrepancy must be attributed to the model. Repeatability of the mass flow

measurements in the experiments is poorer than other measurements, resulting

in more uncertainty in the mass flow measurements.

In addition, while the predicted temperatures in the second compartment

were good, small errors in the door flows (particularly entrainment in the

door jet) are multiplicative in a multi - compartment model which may be called

upon to predict conditions away from the fire. Thus, experiments with

multiple compartments in series will be required to study these parameters

more closely.

50
6. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6 . 1 General

CFR has been working to develop the generic methodology for model

evaluation. This report has presented a documentation of the experimental

phase of the accuracy assessment process for one particular model. Derived

outputs from individual raw data elements were presented together with the

mathematical treatment used to make the calculations. An example of a

comparison of the experimental data set with model predictions were presented.

Three size gas fires having heat release rates of 100 kW, 300 kW, and 500 kW

were conducted under the following room-burner configurations:

a) Open second room, third room closed

b) Closed second room, third room closed

c) Open second room, third room open

d) Closed second room, third room open

Before the data could be analyzed, however, normalization of the test results

was required. Ambient temperatures, barometric pressures, and humidity

changed from test to test due simply to seasonable variations. In addition,

the duration of each test was variable, both during the pretest period, the

main burn, and the cool down period. To insure a self-consistent definition

across the test series and to allow comparison with model predictions beginning at a preset set of conditions, the data from all tests were normalized to

a standard definition.

51
Once normalized, the repeatability of a given measurement ranged from excellent to poor. For temperature based measurements and calculations, the

repeatability, as evidenced by the average standard deviation during steady

state burning, was good -- typically less than ten percent of the measured or

calculated values. For pressure -based measurements, the repeatability was not

nearly as good, at times approaching 70 percent of the values. Much of the

disparity between individual tests can be traced to experimental technique,

which was refined as the testing progressed.

The precision of some of the calculations suffer from the propagation of

large errors in the individual factors. The rate of heat release or mass flow

measurements could be improved by multiple measurements of the same quantity

with instruments of different resolution thus allowing more precise determination of the quantity in the range of interest. For the mass and heat balance

calculations, however, such an approach would provide less improvement.

Alternate techniques for such determinations should be explored which do not

depend as strongly on propagated errors.

6.2 Considerations for Future Test Series

The test configuration has , and can continue to provide data useful in

guiding further refinement of FAST and other multi-room fire models. FAST

assumes uniform filling of any space subject to the fire environment or to

adjacent spaces which are exposed to the heated smoke and other combustion

52
products. For example, in a real fire situation, the movement of smoke along

a corridor would take a finite and measurable time to reach the end of , the

corridor away from the room of fire origin, particularly during the early

stages of a fire. A series of model calculations to compare with a detailed

series of experiments in which the corridor was divided into a series of

rooms, each with doors connecting to the next, would help to refine this

aspect of the model and experiment comparison. Additional instrumentation at

various locations along the corridor would also allow measurement of the

progress of the layer movement along the corridor.

The experimental work described in this report is based on idealized

fires using a gas diffusion burner; the use of "real" fuels, such as wood

cribs or upholstered furniture, would provide an opportunity for testing the

model under actual fire conditions. Some of these data are available for

other room configurations. [4,33-34] An analysis similar to the one presented

in this report is planned for some of these and other test series and will be

the subject of future reports.

7 . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

S. Steel, R. Zile, M. Womble, R. Me Lane , G. Roadarmel , and J. Shields

provided experimental support in the conduct of the tests described in this

report. N. Breese and P. Martin furnished computer expertise in the analysis

of the data. The support of all those involved in the conduct and analysis of

the data is gratefully acknowledged. Finally, the authors are especially

53
indebted to S. Schiller of the Center for Applied Mathematics at NBS for her

in-depth review and critique of the report and for her guidance in the proper

statistical treatment of the data.

8

.

REFERENCES

1. Alpert, R. L. , et al , Influence of Enclosures on Fire Growth: Volume I: Test Data, FMRC No. 0A0R2.BU-1 through 7, Factory Mutual Research,

Norwood, MA (1977)

.

2. Cooper, L. Y. , Harkleroad, M. , Quintiere, J. G., and Rinkinen, W. J., An

Experimental Study of Upper Hot Layer Stratification in Full-Scale

Multiroom Fire Scenarios, J. Heat Trans., Vol. 104, 741-749 (November

1982)

.

3. Quintiere, J. G., and McCaffrey, B.J., The Burning of Wood and Plastic

Cribs, Nat. Bur. Stand., (U. S.), NBSIR 80-2054, Volumes I and II

(November 1980)

.

4. Heskestad, G., and Hill, J. P., Experimental Fires in Multiroom / Corridor Enclosures, contract to the Nat. Bur. Stand., (U. S.), NBSGCR 86-

502 CIB W14/85/10 (USA) (January 1986).

5. Jones, W. W. , A Model for the Transport of Fire, Smoke, and Toxic Gases,

Nat. Bur. Stand., (U. S.), NBSIR 84-2937 (September 1984).

6. Jones, W. W. , A Review of Compartment Fire Models, Nat. Bur. Stand.,

(U. S.), NBSIR 83-2684 (April 1983).

7. Jones, W. W.,. Future Directions for Modeling the Spread of Fire, Smoke,

and Toxic Gases, Fire Safety: Science and Engineering, ASTM STP 882,

T. Z. Harmathy, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 70-96 (1985).

8. Freund, J. E., Livermore, P. E., and Miller, I., Manual of Experimental

Statistics, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1960).

9. Zelen, M. , Introductory Lectures on the Statistical Design of Experiments, U. S. Army Mathematics Research Center, NTIS, AD707613 (November

1981)

.

10. Davies, A. D,, "Some Tools for Fire Model Validation," Fire Technology,

Vol. 23, No. 2, May, 1987 pp 95-114.

54
11 . Fang, J. B., Repeatability of Large-scale Room Fire Tests, Fire Technology, 17: 1,5-15 (February 1981).

12. Yeager, R. W., Uncertainty Analysis of Energy Rate Measurements of Room

Fires, presented at U. S. Nat. Bur. Stand., February 11, 1986, Owens /

Corning Fiberglas Fire Testing Laboratory (1986).

13. Khoudja, N., Procedures for Quantitative Sensitivity and Performance

Validation Studies of a Deterministic Fire Safety Model, Doctoral

Thesis, Texas A & M University (May 1987), published by Nat. Bur.

Stand., (U. S.), NBSGCR 88-544 (March 1988).

14. Wilkes, Gordon B., Heat Insulation, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1950).

15. Johns -Manville Refractory Products, Johns -Manville Corporation, Denver,

Colorado (February 1981)

16. Babcock & Wilcox Ceramic Fiber Products, The Babcock & Wilcox Company

(May 1980)

17. Transactions of the American Society of Heating and Ventilating Engineers, Volume 53 (January 1947).

18. Steckler, K. D., Quintiere, J. G., and Rinkinen, W. J., Flow Induced By

Fire In A Compartment, Nat. Bur. Stand., (U. S.), NBSIR 82-2520 (September 1982).

19. Fang, J. B., and Breese, J. N., Fire Development in Residential Basement

Rooms, Nat. Bur. Stand., (U. S.), NBSIR 80-2120 (October 1980).

20. Lee, B. T., Effect of Ventilation on the Rates of Heat, Smoke, and

Carbon Monoxide Production in A Typical Jail Cell Fire, Nat. Bur.

Stand., (U. S.), NBSIR 82-2469 (March 1982).

21. Bukowski, R. W. , Smoke Measurement in Large and Small Scale Fire

Testing, Nat. Bur. Stand., (U. S.), NBSIR 78-1502 (October 1978).

22. Bukowski, R. W. , Quantitative Determination of Smoke Toxicity

Hazard - - A Practical Approach for Current Use, Fire Safety Science,

Proceedings of the First International Symposium, pp 1089-1100 (1986).

23. Huggett, C., Estimation of Rate of Heat Release by Means of Oxygen

Consumption Measurements, Fire and Materials; Vol. 4 (1980).

24. Parker, W. J., Calculations of the Heat Release Rate by Oxygen Consumption for Various Applications, Nat. Bur. Stand., (U. S.),

NBSIR 81-2427-1 (March 1982).

25. Breese, J. N. , and Peacock, R. D., A Users Guide for RAPID, Reduction

Algorithms for the Presentation of Incremental Fire Data, Nat. Bur.

Stand., (U. S.), NBS Special Publication 722 (March 1986).

55
26 . Jones, W. W. , and Bodart, X., Buoyancy Driven Flow As the Forcing

Function of Smoke Transport Models, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U. S.), NBSIR 86-

3329 (May 1986)

.

27. Zukowski, E. E., and Kubota, T., An Experimental Investigation of the

Heat Transfer from a Buoyant Gas Plume to a Horizontal Ceiling - Part 2.

Effects of Ceiling Layer, contract to Nat. Bur. Stand. (U. S.), NBS GCR

77-98 (September 1975).

28. Jones, W. W. , A Review of Compartment Fire Models, Nat. Bur. Stand., (U.

S.), NBSIR 84-2684 (April 1983).

29. Emmons, H. W. , The Two Layer Fire Model, Home Fire Technical Report No.

50, Division of Applied Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

(February 1982).

30. Emmons, H. W. , The Home Fire Viewed as a Scientific System, Society of

Fire Protection Engineers, SFPE Technology Report No. 77-5, Boston

(May 1977)

.

31. Backovsky, J., and Emmons, H. W. , Layering of Fire Gases, Home Fire

Proiect Technical Report No. 17, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

(Summer 1975).

32. Jones, W. W. , and Peacock, R. D., Refinement and Experimental Verification of a Model for Fire Growth- and Smoke Transport, paper to be

presented at the Second Annual Symposium on Fire Safety Science, Tokyo,

Japan (June 1988)

.

33. O'Neill, J. G. and Hayes, W. D., Full-Scale Fire Tests With Automatic

Sprinklers in a Patient Room, Nat. Bur. Stand., (U. S.), NBSIR 79-1749

(June 1979)

.

34. O'Neill, J. G., Hayes, W. D., and Zile, R. H., Full-Scale Fire Tests

With Automatic Sprinklers in a Patient Room. Phase II, Nat. Bur.

Stand., (U. S.), NBSIR 80-2097 (July 1980).

56
®-

©

>puq

Q

J i d

©

ai

©

.O *©E E D « O © aO o

5puq© j i 

11k

ss 11 k_ «=>

(0coN

©©©

CL3OooEi_©

JZH 01co

==»

© 2

OJ OOdo 3

V)

tn ^2 © -Q

Q.O O 5

t; o «2E O wco

©>co©

l—3o©

-Qo©

JX. oE

CO ©5 S©S2 5

CO> u

cuc

Lj3

-3t

3

00

Vjo333

00

•H

4-JCOaco

'H3

01e3

•u

CO3

rH33333O33

<3B

•H

<Va.Xw

a)L43

00

57
(s/6>|) MO|j 1U8A

58

Figure

2.

Measured

mass

flow

out

through

first

room

doorway

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

in

first

room

doorway

during

several

tests,

along

with

estimated

repeatability

for

SET

4

(100

kW,

open

second

room

exit

doorway,

open

third

room)
CNOOCO^CN’-COCO ^ ^ ^ ^ do

(LU) }L|6]0f-| 0ODJJ0}U

|

59

Figure

3.

Measured

height

of

hot /

cold

layer

interface

in

second

room

during

several

tests,

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

in

second

room,

along

with

estimated

repeatability

for

SET

4

(100

kW,

open

second

room

exit

doorway,

open

third

room)
100 oooooooooo ojoor^tDiO'vrocN^—

CD|

i—

(q.) 0jnpjadLU3_L J0Ad~| jaddf)

60

Figure

4.

Measured

average

temperature

of

hot

layer

in

second

room

during

several

tests,

along

with

estimated

repeatability

for

SET

4

(100

kW,

open

second

room

exit

doorway,

open

third

room)
150

oc c c o

‘H O ^ a) 3 cn •a

(M>0 ssDspy pan J-0 spy

61

Figure

5.

Measured

rate

of

heat

release

measured

by

oxygen

consumption

calorimetry

i

several

tests,

along

with

estimated

repeatability

for

SET

4

(100

kW,

open

room

exit

doorway,

open

third

room)
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

o

odd o’ dodo

o

o

(S/6>|) MO |J ^U8A

62

Figure

6.

Mass

flow

in

through

first

room

doorway

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

in

first

room

doorway
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

o

ddddddddd

o

o

(S/6>|) M0|j ^U9A

63

Figure

7.

Mass

flow

out

through

first

room

doorway

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

in

first

room

doorway
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

O

o

(S/6>|) M0|j }U8A

64

Figure

8.

Mass

flow

in

through

second

room

exit

doorway

estimated

from

temperature

profiles
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

65

Figure

9.

Mass

flow

out

through

second

room

exit

doorway

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

in

second

room

exit

doorway
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

o

o

(S/6>1) M0|j }U8A

66

Figure

10.

Mass

flow

in

through

third

room

doorway

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

in

third

room

doorway
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

o

67

Figure

11.

Hass

flow

out

through

third

room

doorway

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

in

third

room

doorway
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

o

o

o

(lu) }l|6!8H 93DjJ0}U|

68

Figure

12.

Height

of

hot /

cold

layer

interface

in

first

room

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

in

first

room
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

o

o

o

o

o o o o

(ill) ;il6l8(-| 30DJJ8}U|

69

Figure

13.

Height

of

hot /

cold

layer

interface

in

first

room

doorway

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

in

first

room

doorway
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

o

o

(uu) }l|6j8|-| 8ODJJ0}U|

70

Figure

14.

Height

of

hot /

cold

layer

interface

in

second

room

near

first

room,

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

in

second

room
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

O

(LU) }l|6l0|-| 0ODJJ0}U|

71

Figure

15.

Height

of

hot /

cold

layer

interface

in

second

room

middle,

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

in

second

room
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

X

0)&o

ou

XJc

oo

0)

CO

S

oou

u

R3 ’

O

c

oo

S a> O CO o

o

(lU) }l|6i8H 80D±J8}U|

72

Figure

16.

Height

of

hot /

col

layer

interface

in

second

r<

doorway,

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

in
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

o

o

o o o o

o

(LU) 0ODJJ9}U|

73

Figure

17.

Height

of

hot /

cold

layer

interface

in

second

room

exit

doorway,

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

in

second

room

exit

doorway
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

O

o

(LU) }l|6|8|-| 8OD±J0}U|

74

Figure

18.

Height

of

hot /

cold

layer

interface

in

third

room,

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

in

third

room
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

o

o

o

(iu) ;i|6i8H soDjja^ui

75

Figure

19.

Height

of

hot /

cold

layer

interface

in

third

room

doorway,

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

in

third

room

doorway
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

CO in KH CM o

(Q.) 9Jn}DJ0dLU3J_ JsXd-

!

76

Figure

20.

Average

temperature

of

hot

layer

in

first

room
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

+00t

1

400-1

1

400 o o o o o o O o in o in o in o in

fO CM CM r— T—

O

o

o

o- o

00o

oCOoo

o- • o

CM

o o o o O o o o

in o in o in o in

fO CM CM T— »- (Q.) 8Jn}DJ0dlU9J_ JSXd-

!

co0

E

i—

77

Figure

21.

Average

temperature

of

cold

layer

in

first

room
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

o

o

(Q.) 9Jn}DJ0dUJ9]_ J9Xd"1

78

Figure

22.

Average

temperature

of

hot

layer

in

second

room
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

o

(q.) 3jn}DJ8duj0j_ j9Xdi

79

Figure

23.

Average

temperature

of

cold

layer

in

second

room
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

(q.) 0jnpj0dLU9j_ j0/fo~j

80

Figure

24.

Average

temperature

of

hot

layer

in

third

room
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

(Q,) 9Jn}DJ9dlU0J_ J9Ad~|

w

CDE

i—

81

Figure

25.

Average

temperature

of

cold

layer

in

third

room
82

Figure

26.

Layer

interface

position

and

layer

temperatures

in

the

three

rooms

for

one

test

series

(SET

4,

100

kW,

open

second

room

exit

doorway,

open

third

room)
Mass

Flow

In

Mass

Flow

Out

o

(S/6 >0 MOI j ;U8A

83

Figure

27.

Comparison

of

mass

flow

in

first

room

doorway

for

mass

flow

calculations

based

upon

temperature

profiles

and

based

upon

pressure

profiles

in

the

first

room

doorway

for

one

test

series

(SET

4,

100

kW,

open

second

room

exit

doorway,

open

third

room)
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

o

(lu) }1]6ish 8UD|d |DJ}n8N

84

Figure

28.

Neutral

plane

height

in

first

room

doorway
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

O

CN O

(lu) ^l|6|0h suDjd |Dj;n0[\|

85

Figure

29.

Neutral

plane

height

in

second

room

exit

doorway
100

kW

300

kw

500

kW

o

(LU) }L|6l9|-| SLJDjd |DJ}n8|\J

86

Figure

30.

Neutral

plane

height

in

third

room

doorway
05d E ®

pJc: is

-o°- P 3 E M

(0

-t-' 0) CO c

LjJO, c

Q)Wi_U

(0O

Q)

E2

e°-

u-®

-o3 « g O Q) •I E

CO

V

LlI 5—

co in CN

(lu) ^Lj6j0|-| auDid |DJ^naf\j ooo 4-J tO co 5

5-4 54

CO •H

O 3 <4-4 O o TO

•H a) U 43 4-4 tO 4-1 •H i—I 3 3 <U a 'H i—i E

(0 CO

O

a a; o i—

54

B •H O <4-4 TO

54

O 3

<4-4 5-1 o

(Xa

CU

to ai CO £ 5-1 3 3 O CO ai o co ex TO <u o

5-i

B IX o S o 3 4xi

5-i oa o

•U 3 o

CO rH

5-1 TO

•H a;

<4-1 co <r

to 3 43

H

•H

W

TO C/0

4-1

C

N

' 43 to bO CO •H CO CU 0) ai *H

4= rH 54 •H CU ai <4-4 CO 3 O m 5-4 4-1 i—

cx CO cx <u

Cl) 4-1 i—

5-4 tO 3 0)

5-4

u 3

4J tO

O 3 54

CU CU 54 3 a, O E <4-4 <4-1 <u o 4-1 3 c c & o o 54

CO CX

O

H 3 O

5-4 TO

tO TO

a. <U E B CO o o cO o

cj 43 5-4 EOo

54 TJ

54 °H

rC

•u3

0)ao

o-i

<U

543

bO

•r4

5*4

87
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

o

o

o

(uu) }1|6|0|-| 0ODJJ0}U|

88

Figure

32.

Height

of

hot /

cold

layer

interface

in

second

room

estimated

from

measured

smoke

obscuration

in

second

room
o

(LU) }l|6l0H 90DjJ0}U|

89

Figure

33.

Comparison

of

hot /

cold

layer

interface

in

second

room

estimated

from

temperature

profiles

and

from

measured

smoke

obscuration

in

second

room

for

one

test

series

(SET

4,

100

kW,

open

second

room

exit

doorway,

open

third
100

kW

300

kW

500

kW

o

o

o

o o o o o o o O o o o

o in o in o in o in o in in n fO cs Csl r- T— o

in ^ m ro cm cm o

(M>1) spa asD8|8y pan

90

Figure

34.

Rate

of

heat

release

measured

by

oxygen

consumption

calorimetry
in CM

in in

T3

91

Figure

35.

Temperature

profiles

in

second

room

along

with

estimated

height

of

hot /

cold

layer

interface

in

second

room

for

one

test

series

(SET

4,

100

kW,

open

secon^

room

exit

doorway,

open

third

room)
Second

Room

Exit

Doorway

Open

(lu) }L|6i9hl jaXoi

S-i QJ>>

CCJ

-C

•U

00C

O

r—t«J

CO 4J

co0)

6 <u

CD M

W 3

4-1 CD (0 00 U

CCJ CD

>-i ex

a) s > CD < 4-1

vOcn

0)M

3

00

“H

(uj) }L|6ja|-| jaXD“i

92

Second

Room

Exit

Doorway

Closed
Room

1

Room

2

Room

o

o o o o o

o

o d d d d

o

in r*j cm t- o

d d d d d

(S/6>1) MO|j ;uaA

93

Figure

37.

Comparison

of

predicted

and

measured

mass

flows

out

of

the

doorways

in

the

first,

second,

and

third

room

for

SET

4

(100

kW,

open

second

room

exit

doorway,

open

third

room).

Heavy

line

shows

model

prediction;

dotted

lines

present

95%

confidence

limits

for

experimental

data
Room

1

Room

2

Room

O

o

(3.) 8jnpj0duj9_L J0Ad“|

0 0 0 0 0 0

m 0 m 0 m 0

m CM CM

94

Figure

38.

Comparison

of

predicted

and

measured

upper

gas

layer

temperatures

in

the

first,

second,

and

third

rooms

for

SET

4

(100

kW,

open

second

room

exit

doorway,

open

third

room)

.

Heavy

line

shoes

model

prediction;

dotted

lines

present

95%
Room

1

Room

2

Room

o

o

o

o

(q.) ojnpj0dLU8j_ jsAd-

!

95

Figure

39.

Comparison

of

predicted

and

measured

lower

gas

layer

temperatures

in

first,

second,

and

third

rooms

for

SET

4

(100

kW,

open

second

room

exit

doorway,

open

third

room)

.

Heavy

line

shows

model

prediction;

dotted

lines

present

95%

confidence

limits)
Room

1

Room

2

Room

ro

o

CO

CDE

o

m cn in i- in o

(N O

O

(LU) ;Lj6l8H 90DJJ8}U|

0

E

i—

96

Figure

40.

Comparison

of

predicted

and

measured

layer

interface

position

in

the

first,

second,

and

third

rooms

for

SET

4

(100

kW,

open

second

room

exit

doorway,

open

third

room)

.

Heavy

line

shoes

model

prediction;

dotted

lines

present

95%
Table 1. Room Dimensions

Location Dimensions (m)

First room

First room stub corridor

First room doorway

2.34 W x 2.34 L x 2.16 H

1.02 W x 1.03 L x 2.00 H

0.81 W x 1.60 H

Second room 2,,44 W x 12,,19 L x 2.44 H

Second room exit doorway 0 ..76 W x 2,.03 H

Third room 2.24 W X 2.22 L x 2.43

Third room stub corridor 0.79 w X 0.94 L x 2.04

Third room doorway 0.79 w X 2.04 H

97
Table

2.

Construction

Materials

0 B 0

U U U

o o o

o o o

in n id

u u u

o o o o o o

co cd cd

COBu

©

XI

Eh

0 £ 1 s

oo

P P P

<0 <0 (0 id co m

CD CD 4- o o o

P P P

<0 CO CO cd i''. m

O H CN o o o

u u u

o o o

o o o

CVJ CO CD p p p

<0 (0 CO

o

CN H CN

s—I tH «H o o o

o o

>> P -

4-)CO0u

»T>

0P

COMP

CD uaD

u)

DUO

o o o

o o o

CN CD CD P P P

0 0 0

C 00 0 SH Q ^

W (0 0 0 om

10

CO

coCN 0

CO

o o o o

CO CN 00 CO

o> r-v cn cd

CN

o o

CO CO CD CN

CN

I I

I I 0 Si

98

Interior

finish

Gypsum

board

over

studs
Table 3. Location of Instrumentation

I . Instrumentation in the Three Rooms

A. Thermocouple Trees. Gas Temperatures

Tree 1 in first room, Northwest quadrant - 9 thermocouples at 0.15,

0.36, 0.66, 0.97, 1.27, 1.57, 1.88, 2.03, and 2.15 m from floor.

Tree 2 in first room doorway - 6 thermocouples at 0.15, 0.30, 0.61,

0.91, 1.22, and 1.52 m from floor.

Tree 3 in second room, 1.37 m from East end - 10 thermocouples at

0.15, 0.30, 0.61, 0.91, 1.22, 1.52, 1.83, 2.13, 2.29, and 2.44 m

(ceiling) from floor.

Tree 4 in second room, 5.49 m from East end - 10 thermocouples at

0.15, 0.30, 0.61, 0.91, 1.22, 1.52, 1.83, 2.13, 2.29, and 2.44

(ceiling) from floor and 1 thermocouple embedded in ceiling at 6. mm above exposed surface

Tree 5 in second room, 11.73 m from East end -10 thermocouples at

0.15, 0.30, 0.61, 0.91, 1.22, 1.52, 1.83, 2.13, 2.29, and 2.44 m

(ceiling) from floor.

Tree 6 in second room exit doorway - 8 thermocouples at 0.15, 0.30,

0.61, 0.91, 1.22, 1.52, 1.83, 2.13 m from floor.

Tree 7 in third room doorway - 8 thermocouples at 0.15, 0.61, 0.91,

1.07, 1.22, 1.52, 1.83 and 1.93 m from floor.

Tree 8 in third room, Northeast quadrant - 10 thermocouples at

0.15, 0.61, 0.91, 1.07, 1.22, 1.52, 1.83, 2.13, 2.29 and 2.43 m

(ceiling) from floor.

99

E
B. First room ceiling and wall thermocouples

Walls, 0.55 m and 1.64 m high - 4 thermocouples at surface.

Ceiling, Southeast quadrant.

Floor, Southeast quadrant.

C. Second room wall thermocouples

North wall, 1.37 m from East end - thermocouples at 0.61 and 1.83 m heights on surface.

North wall, 5.79 m from East end - thermocouples at 0.61 and 1.83 m heights on surface.

North wall, 10.67 m from East end - thermocouples at 0.61 and

1.83 m heights on surface.

D. Third room wall and ceiling thermocouples

None

E. Static pressure probes

First room, North wall - 5 probes at 25 mm, 0.30 m, 0.61 m, 1.22 m,

and 1.52 m from the floor.

Second room, West wall - 5 probes at 76 mm, 0.61 m, 1.22 m, 1.52 m, and 1.83 m from the floor.

Third room, North wall - 1 probe at 0.08 m from the floor.

F. Smoke indicators

$ Second room, 5.49 m from East end - 6 horizontal smoke meters at

0.61, 0.91, 1.22, 1.52, 1.83, and 2.29 m from floor.

Second room, 5.03 m from East end - 1 vertical smoke meter.

100
II. Exhaust Hood

1 smoke meter.

1 probe for sampling carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and

oxygen.

9 pitot static probes.

9 thermocouples.

III. Miscellaneous

t

First room, over burner 1 thermocouple 0.91 m above burner, 0.15 m from

back wall. 1 thermocouple 0.20 m above burner,

0.15 m from back wall.

First room ceiling 1.17 m from East wall - 2 thermocouples on surface at 1.17 m and 0.61 m from North wall.

First room ceiling

First room

Second room

Northwest quadrant - 1 velocity probe, 1 brass

disc with attached thermocouple, and one adjacent

thermocouple

1.17 m from East wall - 3 thermocouples on North

wall surface at 0, 0.71, and 1.45 m below

ceiling.

0.38 m from East wall - 2 thermocouples on ceiling surface at 0.61 and 1.22 m from North

wall. 3 thermocouples on North wall surface at

0, 0.81, and 1.63 m below ceiling.

101
IV. Instrumentation Changes

Beginning with tests 100 H, 300 C, and 500 C, the following changes were made

Tree 1 1 thermocouple installed at 1.12 m from floor. 1 thermocouple at

0.36 m moved to 1.42 m from floor.

Tree 2 1 thermocouple installed at 1.07 m from floor. 1 thermocouple at

0.30 m moved to 1.37 m from floor.

Tree 3 1 thermocouple at 0.30 m moved to tree 1.

Tree 4 1 thermocouple at 0.30 m moved to tree 2.

Tree 5 1 thermocouple at 0.30 m moved to 1.07 m from floor.

Tree 6 1 thermocouple at 0.30 moved to 1.07 m from floor.

One surface thermocouple installed on unexposed back side at each of the six

wall locations under section I C.

One surface thermocouple installed on unexposed back side at each ceiling

location over trees 3, 4, and 5 under section I A.

9

102
Table

4.

Initial

Conditions

for

Tests

With

Gas

Burner

(Third

Room

Closed)

1=o

o w

0$ 4->

pu

Ow

T3 CJ H ~

Q

§ §

in m

<o S

E-C^

•O' ~

e

o 5

o M

C* O

O

T3 Q

ooooooooo

(D h o) o o m

m m id id id in

i s n n r-* i r-*

C£

u

(X,

[X, Z

O O 00

«—i m m

-a- sr

cm -a- ID h

CM CM CM CM

rH CJ) m o

uo <r -<r <r rx

(A, tlH Z Ch Pn O O O

Ct! fjM Ca, Ca, P-, pL, Z tA| [At O O 00 o o o

m m i co i

i (D (D

I CM CM cm

r>. i n

c Z w z z rH o p w CO w w (0 o -H Ph o Pw IX, CJ

<D X o -3 o o C/J w L> < CQ cj Q w O 33 HH *-) XI s z o < CQ cj < CQ CJ Q w Ca, C/3 p

(M o O O O o cf o O o o O o O o o o o O o o o o

0

X)

(0

<D o O O o o o o O o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o H rH H rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH CO CO CO m m m in m n z

,Q O T3 ® VI DO

103

Ambient

outside

temperature

at

the

start

of

the

test

Relative

humidity

in

test

facility

at

the

start

of

the

test

Uncertain
Table

5.

Initial

Conditions

for

Tests

With

Gas

Burner

(Third

Room

Open)

(0 2

•cTB

o 5

i 00 oo 60

Xi rC

00 I l 00 00

Cn

lu = O

ou

E-* w

tO CO CO rH

tHrv<rcvjtH^csj<r (D>T'4-»nmvnmir) O) O) CO O)

•<3- -<r *3- rv r*v r^» rv

M U

8 3

co in <<<<<<<< < < < < < < < < <

"O Q

cO 4-5 O -H ® X

co w 3

: : :

a

w

co3

:

n > 3 X >H K

I

oooooooo3 §

aoi w

o o o o

o o o o

(0^3 (j TO <D <4-1 00^3

104
Table

6.

Observed

Steady

State

Smoke

Layer

Heights

^ T3 B <5 G

o 2 o quo wo®O CO

TJ Q

G

(0

6 M

O <0 q T3 W G

"OG ®

O CO

O to ^

T3 G ® o-

+3m

®

Eh

PQO

o

•n

105
CO > C0

(0 3

>» P

CO co s >> O *3 P P

(DMDP

CO CO >% M

«0

® £ § O 0) O E-< Q

O, P O O H O

pciWP

'a ,c C oo O P O _1 ©

00 00

<N CO

p 0 N (0 3P E T3 ® o c > O CO M , M a CO O P Q. M C ^ P pP ©

>»

M

<o H5

M £ 5

-C * P p O CO C 0 O % p H g « %

(/) ^ 2 73

© 3 o w 5 2 ® « ^ £ M

6-1 CDQ. «/) I 3 . "1 o S

<B 5 0 CD P W ^ ® ® j3 P P TJ P <D © P TJ T3 O P <D H o w > o P P o o © 3 P © > O (0 M

1/1 ©po2

JQ

106

Position

where

lowest

velocity

recorded.
Table

8.

Average

Measurements

With

Error

Estimations

for

Data

Collected

During

Model

Accuracy

Assessment

Experiments.

TJP

•H

.c

tH

ao ©5POOQ

TJP

•H

E-h 6o5 £ O O O -H

TJ© P „

-H o a tj o O TJ W fS 2

(S £ (S

+1 -H

cnj cm

+1 -H

r-H CD

CO CM 3 SI

+1 +1 CD O)

CD CM

H -H CM CO

co

m

CM

+1 co *h -H +1 CM

CD +| vn cm

-H «n

r* -H <T CO

CM CD 3

-P

<0 1= © £oo Oa

CJ

©©

O >> w <a co

«-i -}

©©©

n

a ^ 3 P. O 3 ©

-P 44

*0

© P 2 ^ P P

CJ

©© o ^ >> — co co hJ -J

10 P P © © © P ft ^ 3 ft O P D P (0 v ^ P©

107

Neutral

Plane

Height

(m)-

,38±.09 -

,11±.78
Table

8,

Average

Measurements

With

Error

Estimations

for

Data

Collected

During

Model

Accuracy

Assessment

Experiments,

continued.

U E M

E -P u

O -H o

Q X ° K W D

E T

3

O 73

<3 £

iu (S

E 2 o o

P

v) S

P O

+1 +1

CNJ rH

CM O

H -H

-a- m

co m

C p ~ O D ® p -P ~ 2 :£ E ®

® O P E-* 6

3: in

oo E _

-h o E

® m o

33 Cn M w [i, ® w

o

<0 -4

+1 +1 CO CD CO CO

CMH H

-H -H m co rv co

H -H io CD

CO CO

-H co

co -H m co

£ 3

L) ® ®

o >s >> W (0 <0

® ® ®

M Q* £

D P« O p n> -j

H -H CM <rm

- 2 S

6 9? P H

o: _ co E

+1 +1 CD CM

cm

H -H CD CO

rv cm

+1 -H m co

co cm

-H «h

CD -H CM l cm rv

O ® ®

o >% — <0 <0 J -J

Q< 5 a o

3) _)

108

Neutral

Plane

Height

(m)

-

.38+.06

-

1.12±.86

-

,89±.75
Measurement

First

First

Second

Second

Second

Second

Third

Third

Room

Room

Room

Near

Room

Room

Near

Room

Room

Room

Doorway

First

Middle

Second

Room

Exit

Doorway

Room

Exit

Doorway

Doorway

*H * «H -H <r cvj

• CD

-H fH o -H co m

+1 +1 CO co

CO CD

-H *H

CO +| O

+1 fH UD -H co

r-! <

C 4J

I-H 3 ~ o 4-3 P w

s ©

ao S

CO CO J kJ

-P.C

ao

C

H4 3 — O

e © w

i

1

, ©

-P E-H rG _

I ao G

M O

Cn M W PL4

^ U M

CJ © ©

o >% ^ w <0 ©

hJ -J

in m p

© © © M ft J

3 Q* O

40ao

©

-J ©

©

-J ©

109
Table

8.

Average

Measurements

With

Error

Estimations

for

Data

Collected

During

Model

Accuracy

Assessment

Experiments,

continued.

T3U

•H

43

E-h

©5 m <ro 04o

+1 +1 co 04 +l t—i co

ct>

04

H CO

+1 +1 O'-

«-H

O

CD CO

T3

tI43

E-*

ao

04O

CD t—I

-H -H co in

Ov 04

T3GOo

0) cd £ a p m O *H o Qxo G M Q

iH CO

«-i o

04OHm

04

-H -»

CO -H

CD

cn «n o o o> i K OO

T5Q

GO P O O O *H o

0vo

CD

-H 04 co -H

T3GOO©

CD

O T3 S 2

CO rH O O

•H «-* CD -H 04 CO

04

0*- r—( o• *H H O

H CO m -H 00 CT)

M

T3GOo©

CD

©Z P a

00

rH <T

04oa

O)

O'

+1 CO

04

p©M

Ok

>%© e l O O

tS

Q P

V)M

•H

Cn So(§

pG©§3

ui©£ O -T O)

«H

OOH

CO EO ©G P *-* 3 w o 5oo

co

pvE

00 4*§o

•—I

ip©

OT £

CD04H

CO

O)

43

oo

a

•H

O

©u©p£©

CDaoM

IP

M©*©P

+1 H

04O

rv

CD 3

L)

© • >> w <0 P M©©PM©20P p

43

oo

©©

h a: M©©p o

'S- H

'T04©P©

P3©w©©

©

00©©MP3©Z ©

0$p©©

DC ~ l\

oo

a o u

u

©©

W (0 (0 p p

OT MM© ©

CU 5

o« o n p

no

Neutral

Plane

Height

(m)- .

41±.03 -

1.17±.08
+1 «H

<3- +1 CM CD

T3m e

•H O

-c o

Eh &

CM

+1 CO

CD +1

+1

r~i +| CD CD «H CM

-H CM m -h oo m

(§ ft (§

H -H CO CD

cd m

w 6

M O

ft (S 2 3 60

^£S M

C -M — o

6 ffl SHE® Q X CO

oo S _

•H o 6

<D M O

EC ft M

© w

O

'-'MM

L) ® ©

o ^ ^ W © ©

m4 hJ W M M

P, 5

ft O

ED -4

m cd co

+! «H <N

CD -H • CD CM -H

o o

.. c c

© to (0 4-> ft ft © © ©

0$ CQ CQ

©

ft

S (§ (§

111
FORM NBS-1 14A (REV. 1 1-84)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

REPORT NO.

SHEET (See instructions) NBSIR 88-3752 APRIL 1988

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

An Experimental Data Set for the Accuracy Assessment of Room Fire

Models

5. AUTHOR(S)

Richard D. Peacock, Sanford Davis, and Billy T. Lee

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than N BS, see instructions) 7„ Contract/Grant No.

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 8. Type of Report & Period Covered

GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899

9.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State , ZIP)

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

| | Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FlPS Software Summary, is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200-vrord or less factual summary of most significant information . / f document includes a si gnificant

bi bliography or literature survey, mention it here)

The development of experimental data for use in computer fire model accuracy

assessment is described. The tests were conducted in a heavily instrumented

structure to provide data on temperatures and mass and heat flows in a simple

multi-room configuration. Several series of carefully designed experiments

were carried out changing important physical parameters one at a time with

several replicates of each configuration.

The current state of understanding in computer fire model accuracy assessment

is discussed with the data presented forming an example of one step of the

process

.

12.

KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

Accuracy assessment; data analysis; experiments; fire tests; fire models,

instruments

13.

AVAILABILITY

| j(| Unlimited

| | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

| | Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402.

( X| Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

120

15. Price

$18,95
\

.