Verification and Validation 

of Selected Fire Models for 

Nuclear Power Plant 

Applications 

Volume 3: 

Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation 

(FIVE-Rev1) 

January 2006 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Electric Power Research Institute 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 3412 Hillview Avenue 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Palo Alto, CA 94303 

 

NUREG-1824 EPRI 1011999 

Draft for Comment Preliminary Report

Verification & Validation of Selected 

Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant 

Applications 

Volume 3: Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation 

(FIVE-Rev1) 

NUREG-1824 EPRI 1011999 

January 2006 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) 3412 Hillview Avenue 

Division of Risk Analysis and Applications Palo Alto, CA 94303 

Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852-2738 

U.S. NRC-RES Project Manager EPRI Project Manager 

M. H. Salley R. P. Kassawara 
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES 

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN 

ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH 

INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI NOR ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE 

ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, OR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: 

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 

(I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR 

SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS 

FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR 

INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY’S INTELLECTUAL 

PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER’S 

CIRCUMSTANCE; OR 

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER 

(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE 

HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR 

SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, 

PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT. 

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT: 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

Science Applications International Corporation 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

ORDERING INFORMATION 

Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow 

Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520, (800) 313-3774, press 2 or internally x5379, (925) 609-9169, 

(925) 609-1310 (fax). 

Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power 

Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power 

Research Institute, Inc. 
iii 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT NUREG-1824 REPORT 

This report is being published jointly by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and 

the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Any interested party may submit comments on 

this report for consideration by the NRC and EPRI staffs. Comments may be accompanied by 

additional relevant information or supporting data. Please specify both the report number (Draft 

NUREG-1824) and the volume number in your comments, and send them by March 31, 2006, to 

the following address: 

Chief Rules Review and Directives Branch 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Mail Stop T-6D59 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

For any questions about the material in this report, please contact: 

Mark Henry Salley 

Mail Stop T-10E50 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Phone: (301) 415-2840 

Email: MXS3@nrc.gov

If EPRI members also wish to provide comments to EPRI, they may send them to the following 

address: 

R.P. Kassawara 

Electric Power Research Institute 

3412 Hillview Avenue 

Palo Alto, CA 94304 

Phone: (650) 855-2775 

Email: RKASSAWA@epri.com

v 

CITATIONS 

This report was prepared by 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) 

Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852-2738 

Principal Investigators: 

K. Hill 

J. Dreisbach 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 

3412 Hillview Avenue 

Palo Alto, CA 94303 

Science Applications International Corp (SAIC)

4920 El Camino Real 

Los Altos, CA 94022 

Principal Investigators: 

F. Joglar 

B. Najafi 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Building Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) 

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600 

Principal Investigators: 

K McGrattan 

R. Peacock 

A. Hamins 

Volume 1, Main Report: B. Najafi, M.H. Salley, F. Joglar, J. Dreisbach 

Volume 2, FDTS

: K. Hill, J. Dreisbach 

Volume 3, FIVE-REV. 1: F. Joglar 

Volume 4, CFAST: R. Peacock, J. Dreisbach, P. Reneke (NIST) 

Volume 5, MAGIC: F. Joglar, B. Guatier (EdF), L. Gay (EdF), J. Texeraud (EdF) 

Volume 6, FDS: K. McGrattan, J. Dreisbach 

Volume 7, Experimental Uncertainty: A. Hamins, K. McGrattan 

This report describes research sponsored jointly by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 

of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 

The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner: 

Verification and Validation of Selected Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications, 

Volume 3: Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation (FIVE-Rev1), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), Rockville, MD: 2005 and Electric 

Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA. NUREG-1824 and EPRI 1011999.

vii 

ABSTRACT 

There is a movement to introduce risk- and performance-based analyses into fire protection 

engineering practice, both domestically and worldwide. This movement exists in the general fire 

protection community, as well as the nuclear power plant (NPP) fire protection community. 

In 2002, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) developed NFPA 805, PerformanceBased Standard for Fire Protection for Light-Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants, 2001 

Edition. In July 2004, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) amended its fire 

protection requirements in Title 10, Section 50.48, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 

50.48) to permit existing reactor licensees to voluntarily adopt fire protection requirements contained 

in NFPA 805 as an alternative to the existing deterministic fire protection requirements. In 

addition, the nuclear fire protection community wants to use risk-informed, performance-based 

(RI/PB) approaches and insights to support fire protection decision-making in general. 

One key tool needed to support RI/PB fire protection is the availability of verified and validated 

fire models that can reliably predict the consequences of fires. Section 2.4.1.2 of NFPA 805 

requires that only fire models acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) shall be 

used in fire modeling calculations. Further, Sections 2.4.1.2.2 and 2.4.1.2.3 of NFPA 805 state 

that fire models shall only be applied within the limitations of the given model, and shall be 

verified and validated. 

This report is the first effort to document the verification and validation (V&V) of five fire models 

that are commonly used in NPP applications. The project was performed in accordance with the 

guidelines that the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) set forth in Standard 

E1355, “Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models.” The results of this 

V&V are reported in the form of ranges of accuracies for the fire model predictions. 

ix 

CONTENTS 

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1

2 MODEL DEFINITION..............................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Name and Version of the Model......................................................................................2-1

2.2 Type of Model..................................................................................................................2-1

2.3 Model Developers ...........................................................................................................2-1

2.4 Relevant Publications......................................................................................................2-1

2.5 Governing Equations and Assumptions ..........................................................................2-2

2.6 Input Data Required To Run the Model...........................................................................2-2

2.7 Property Data ..................................................................................................................2-2

2.8 Model Results..................................................................................................................2-3

3 THEORETICAL BASIS FOR FIVE-REV1 ..............................................................................3-1

3.1 Theoretical Basis for FIVE-Rev1.....................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Hand Calculations Dealing with Combustion...........................................................3-2

3.1.1.1 Fire Heat Release Rate ..............................................................................3-2

3.1.1.2 Cable Tray Heat Release Rate...................................................................3-2

3.1.2 Hand Calculations Dealing with Resulting Environmental Conditions.....................3-3

3.1.2.1 Flame Height ...................................................................................................3-3

3.1.2.2 Fire Plumes......................................................................................................3-4

3.1.2.3 Ceiling Jet ........................................................................................................3-6

3.1.2.4 Room Temperatures........................................................................................3-7

3.1.2.5 Plume and Ceiling Jet Temperatures in Hot Gas Layer Environments............3-8

3.1.2.6 Visibility............................................................................................................3-9

3.1.3 Hand Calculations Dealing with Heat Transfer......................................................3-10

3.1.3.1 Point Source Model for Flame Radiation .......................................................3-10

3.1.3.2 Incident Heat Flux in the Fire Plume..............................................................3-10

3.1.3.3 Incident Heat Flux in the Ceiling Jet ..............................................................3-11
x 

3.1.3.4 Surface Temperature at the Target................................................................3-11

3.1.4 Additional Models in the FIVE-Rev1 Library..........................................................3-12

4 MATHEMATICAL AND NUMERICAL ROBUSTNESS..........................................................4-1

5 MODEL SENSITIVITY ............................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Definition of the Base Case Scenario for Sensitivity Analysis.........................................5-1

5.2 Sensitivity Analysis for FIVE-Rev1..................................................................................5-3

5.2.1 Point Source Model for Flame Radiation.................................................................5-3

5.2.2 Heskestad’s Model for Flame Height.......................................................................5-4

5.2.3 Fire Plume Temperature..........................................................................................5-5

5.2.4 Fire Plume Heat Flux...............................................................................................5-8

5.2.5 Room Temperature (MQH Model).........................................................................5-10

5.2.6 Room Temperature (FPA Model) ..........................................................................5-12

5.2.7 Ceiling Jet Temperature ........................................................................................5-14

5.2.8 Ceiling Jet Heat Flux .............................................................................................5-15

5.2.9 Cable Tray Heat Release Rate..............................................................................5-16

6 MODEL VALIDATION ............................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature .............................................................................6-4

6.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature...............................................................................................6-6

6.3 Plume Temperature .....................................................................................................6-8

6.4 Flame Height .............................................................................................................6-10

6.5 Radiation and Total Heat Flux and Target Temperature...............................................6-11

7 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................7-1

A TECHNICAL DETAILS OF FIVE-REV1 VALIDATION STUDY............................................ A-1

A.1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature .......................................................................................... A-2

A.1.1 ICFMP BE #2 ......................................................................................................... A-2

A.1.2 ICFMP BE # 3 ........................................................................................................ A-4

A.1.3 ICFMP BE #4 ......................................................................................................... A-8

A.1.4: ICFMP BE #5 ...................................................................................................... A-10

A.1.5 FM/SNL Test Series............................................................................................. A-11

A.1.6 The NBS Multi-Room Test Series ........................................................................ A-13

A.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature............................................................................................... A-16
xi 

A.2.1 ICFMP BE # 3 ...................................................................................................... A-16

A.2.2 The FM/SNL Test Series...................................................................................... A-20

A.3 Plume Temperature ..................................................................................................... A-22

A.3.1 ICFMP BE # 2 ...................................................................................................... A-22

A.3.2 The FM/SNL Test Series...................................................................................... A-26

A.4 Flame Height ............................................................................................................... A-27

A.4.1 ICFMP BE #2 ....................................................................................................... A-27

A.4.2 ICFMP BE #3 ....................................................................................................... A-30

A.5 Radiant Heat Flux ........................................................................................................ A-33

xiii 

FIGURES 

Figure 5-1: Sensitivity Analysis for the Point Source Radiation Model ......................................5-4

Figure 5-2: Sensitivity Analysis for Heskestad’s Model for Flame Height..................................5-5

Figure 5-3: Sensitivity Analysis for Heskestad’s Plume Temperature Correlation.....................5-7

Figure 5-4: Sensitivity Analysis for McCaffrey’s Plume Temperature Correlation......................5-7

Figure 5-5: Sensitivity Analysis for Alperts’s Plume Temperature Correlation..........................5-8

Figure 5-6: Sensitivity Analysis for the Model Used To Predict .................................................5-9

Figure 5-7: Sensitivity Analysis for the MQH Model for Room Temperature Assuming 

Concrete Walls.................................................................................................................5-11

Figure 5-8: Sensitivity Analysis for the MQH Model for Room Temperature 

Assuming Steel Walls ......................................................................................................5-12

Figure 5-9: Sensitivity Analysis for the FPA Model for Room Temperature.............................5-13

Figure 5-10: Sensitivity Analysis for Alpert’s Ceiling Jet Temperature Correlation..................5-15

Figure 5-11: Sensitivity Analysis for the Model Used To Predict Incident Heat Flux in the 

Ceiling Jet ........................................................................................................................5-16

Figure 5-12: Sensitivity Analysis for the Model Used To Predict the Heat Release Rate 

from Cable Tray Fires ......................................................................................................5-17

Figure 6-1: Scatter plot of relative differences for hot gas layer temperature for ICFMP 

BE #2, 3, 4, 5, and the selected FM/SNL and NBS Tests..................................................6-5

Figure 6-2. Scatter plot of relative differences for ceiling jet temperatures in ICFMP BE 

#3, and the selected FM/SNL Tests...................................................................................6-7

Figure 6-3: Scatter plot of relative differences for plume temperatures in ICFMP BE #2, 

and the selected FM/SNL Tests.........................................................................................6-9

Figure 6-4. Scatter plot of relative differences for target temperature and heat flux in 

ICFMP BE#4 and 5. .........................................................................................................6-12

Figure A-1: Heat release rate profile for ICFMP BE #2............................................................. A-2

Figure A-2: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #2. ............................ A-3

Figure A-3. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests with 

mechanical ventilation....................................................................................................... A-5

Figure A-4: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) temperature ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. ...................... A-6

Figure A-5: Heat release rate profile for ICFMP BE #4............................................................. A-8

Figure A-6: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #4, Test 1. ................ A-9

Figure A-7: Heat release rate profile for ICFMP BE #5........................................................... A-10

Figure A-8: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4. .............. A-10

Figure A-9: Heat release rate profiles for the selected FM.SNL tests..................................... A-12
xiv 

Figure A-10: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, FM/SNL Series....................... A-12

Figure A-11: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature, NBS Multiroom, Test 100A. ...................... A-15

Figure A-12: Near-ceiling gas (ceiling jet) temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-17

Figure A-13: Near-ceiling gas (ceiling jet) temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests...... A-18

Figure A-14: Near-ceiling gas (ceiling jet) temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1 and 

3. ..................................................................................................................................... A-21

Figure A-15: Fire plumes in ICFMP BE #2. Courtesy Simo Hostikka, VTT Building and 

Transport, Espoo, Finland............................................................................................... A-23

Figure A-16: Near-ceiling gas temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1 and 3 compared 

with Heskestad’s plume temperature correlation. ........................................................... A-24

Figure A-17: Near-ceiling gas temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1 and 3 compared 

with McCaffrey plume temperature correlation. .............................................................. A-25

Figure A-18: Near-plume temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 13..................................... A-27

Figure A-19: Flame heights for ICFMP BE # 2 ....................................................................... A-28

Figure A-20: Photographs of heptane pan fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2. Courtesy, Simo 

Hostikka, VTT Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland................................................... A-29

Figure A-21: Photograph and simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3, as seen through the 2 

m by 2 m doorway. Photo courtesy of Francisco Joglar, SAIC. ..................................... A-30

Figure A-22: Near-ceiling gas temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests...................... A-31

Figure A-23: Flame heights, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests.................................................. A-32

Figure A-24: Radiative heat flux to cable B............................................................................. A-34

Figure A-25: Radiative heat flux to cable B............................................................................. A-35

Figure A-26: Radiative heat flux to cable D ............................................................................ A-36

Figure A-27: Radiative heat flux to cable D ............................................................................ A-37

Figure A-28: Radiative heat flux to cable F............................................................................. A-38

Figure A-29: Radiative heat flux to cable F............................................................................. A-39

Figure A-30: Radiative heat flux to cable G ............................................................................ A-40

Figure A-31: Radiative heat flux to cable G ............................................................................ A-41
xv 

TABLES 

Table 3-1: Summary of Plume Temperature Correlations ........................................................3-4

Table 3-2: Plume Velocity Correlations.....................................................................................3-5

Table 3-3: Plume Entrainment Correlations..............................................................................3-5

Table 5-1: Base Case Heat Release Rate.................................................................................5-3

Table 5-2: Plume Temperature Analysis Using Plume Temperature Correlations ...................5-5

Table 5-3: Plume Heat Flux Results for the Base Case Scenario ............................................5-8

Table 5-4: Hot Gas Layer Results for the Base Case Scenario..............................................5-10

Table 5-5: Room Temperature of the Base Case Scenario Using the FPA Model..................5-12

Table 5-6: Ceiling Jet Temperature Calculations for the Base Case Scenario 

Using Alpert’s Correlation ................................................................................................5-14

Table 5-7: Ceiling Jet Heat Flux Analysis for the Base Case Scenario ..................................5-16

Table A-1: Inputs to MQH model in ICFMA BE # 2.................................................................. A-2

Table A-2: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature in ICFMP BE# 2 ........................ A-3

Table A-3: Inputs to the MQH and FPA model in ICFMP BE #3............................................... A-4

Table A-4: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in ICFMP BE# 3 ...... A-7

Table A-5: Inputs to the MQH model in ICFMP BE #4.............................................................. A-8

Table A-6: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature in ICFMP BE# 4 ........................ A-9

Table A-7: Inputs to the MQH model in ICFMP BE #5............................................................ A-10

Table A-8: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature in ICFMP BE# 5 ...................... A-11

Table A-9: Input parameters for the FPA model in FM/SNL tests........................................... A-11

Table A-10: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in FM/SNL ........... A-13

Table A-11: Input parameters for the MQH model in the NBS tests ....................................... A-14

Table A-12: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in NBS Tests ....... A-15

Table A-13: Target location information for ceiling jet correlation........................................... A-16

Table A-14: Relative differences for ceiling jet temperature in ICFMP BE #3 ........................ A-19

Table A-15: Target location information for ceiling jet correlation........................................... A-20

Table A-16: Relative differences for ceiling jet temperatures in FM/SNL Tests...................... A-22

Table A-17: Target location information for plume correlations .............................................. A-23

Table A-18: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in ICFMP BE 

#2 .................................................................................................................................... A-26

Table A-19: Target location information for plume correlations .............................................. A-26

Table A-20: Relative differences of plume temperature in FM/SNL tests ............................... A-27

Table A-21: Effective horizontal distances from the fire to the rad gauges............................. A-33
xvi 

Table A-22: Relative differences for radiative heat flux .......................................................... A-42
xvii 

REPORT SUMMARY 

This report documents the verification and validation (V&V) of five selected fire models 

commonly used in support of risk-informed and performance-based (RI/PB) fire protection at 

nuclear power plants (NPPs). 

Background 

Over the past decade, there has been a considerable movement in the nuclear power industry to 

transition from prescriptive rules and practices towards the use of risk information to supplement 

decision-making. In the area of fire protection, this movement is evidenced by numerous 

initiatives by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the nuclear community 

worldwide. In 2001, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) completed the 

development of NFPA Standard 805, “Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light 

Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants 2001 Edition.” Effective July, 16, 2004, the NRC 

amended its fire protection requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(c) to permit existing reactor licensees 

to voluntarily adopt fire protection requirements contained in NFPA 805 as an alternative to the 

existing deterministic fire protection requirements. RI/PB fire protection relies on fire modeling 

for determining the consequence of fires. NFPA 805 requires that the “fire models shall be 

verified and validated,” and “only fire models that are acceptable to the Authority Having 

Jurisdiction (AHJ) shall be used in fire modeling calculations.” 

Objectives 

The objective of this project is to examine the predictive capabilities of selected fire models. 

These models may be used to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(c) 

and the referenced NFPA 805, or support other performance-based evaluations in NPP fire 

protection applications. In addition to NFPA 805 requiring that only verified and validated fire 

models acceptable to the AHJ be used, the standard also requires that fire models only be applied 

within their limitations. The V&V of specific models is important in establishing acceptable 

uses and limitations of fire models. Specific objectives of this project are: 

• Perform V&V study of selected fire models using a consistent methodology (ASTM E1355) 

and issue a report to be prepared by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research (RES) and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 

• Investigate the specific fire modeling issues of interest to the NPP fire protection 

applications. 

• Quantify fire model predictive capabilities to the extent that can be supported by comparison 

with selected and available experimental data. 
xviii 

The following fire models were selected for this evaluation: (i) NRC’s NUREG-1805 Fire 

Dynamics Tools (FDTs), (ii) EPRI’s Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation Revision 1 (FIVERev. 1), (iii) National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Consolidated Model of 

Fire Growth and Smoke Transport (CFAST), (iv) Electricite de France’s (EdF) MAGIC, and (v) 

NIST’s Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). 

Approach 

This program is based on the guidelines of the ASTM E1355, “Evaluating the Predictive 

Capability of Deterministic Fire Models,” for verification and validation of the selected fire 

models. The guide provides four areas of evaluation: 

• Defining the model and scenarios for which the evaluation is to be conducted, 

• Assessing the appropriateness of the theoretical basis and assumptions used in the model, 

• Assessing the mathematical and numerical robustness of the model, and 

• Validating a model by quantifying the accuracy of the model results in predicting the course 

of events for specific fire scenarios. 

Traditionally, a V&V study reports the comparison of model results with experimental data, and 

therefore, the V&V of the fire model is for the specific fire scenarios of the test series. While 

V&V studies for the selected fire models exist, it is necessary to ensure that technical issues 

specific to the use of these fire models in NPP applications are investigated. The approach 

below was followed to fulfill this objective. 

1. A set of fire scenarios were developed. These fire scenarios establish the “ranges of 

conditions” for which fire models will be applied in NPPs. 

2. The next step summarizes the same attributes or “range of conditions” of the “fire 

scenarios” in test series available for fire model benchmarking and validation exercises. 

3. Once the above two pieces of information were available, the validation test series, or 

tests within a series, that represent the “range of conditions” was mapped for the fire 

scenarios developed in Step 1. The range of uncertainties in the output variable of 

interest as predicted by the model for a specific “range of conditions” or “fire scenario” 

are calculated and reported. 

The scope of this V&V study is limited to the capabilities of the selected fire models. There are 

potential fire scenarios in NPP fire modeling applications that do not fall within the capabilities 

of these fire models and therefore are not covered by this V&V study. 

Results 

The results of this study are presented in the form of relative differences between fire model 

predictions and experimental data for fire modeling attributes important to NPP fire modeling 

applications, e.g., plume temperature. The relative differences sometimes show agreement, but 

may also show both under-prediction and over-prediction. These relative differences are 

affected by the capabilities of the models, the availability of accurate applicable experimental 

data, and the experimental uncertainty of this data. The relative differences were used, in 

combination with some engineering judgment as to the appropriateness of the model and the 
xix 

agreement between model and experiment, to produce a graded characterization of the fire 

model’s capability to predict attributes important to NPP fire modeling applications. 

This report does not provide relative differences for all known fire scenarios in NPP applications. 

This incompleteness is due to a combination of model capability and lack of relevant 

experimental data. The first can be addressed by improving the fire models while the second 

needs more applicable fire experiments. 

EPRI Perspective 

The use of fire models to support fire protection decision-making requires that their limitations 

and confidence in their predictive capability is well understood. While this report makes 

considerable progress towards that goal, it also points to ranges of accuracies in the predictive 

capability of these fire models that could limit their use in fire modeling applications. Use of 

these fire models present challenges that should be addressed if the fire protection community is 

to realize the full benefit of fire modeling and performance-based fire protection. This requires 

both short term and long term solutions. In the short term a methodology will be to educate the 

users on how the results of this work may affect known applications of fire modeling. This may 

be accomplished through pilot application of the findings of this report and documentation of the 

insights as they may influence decision-making. Note that the intent is not to describe how a 

decision is to be made, but rather to offer insights as to where and how these results may, or may 

not be used as the technical basis for a decision. In the long term, additional work on improving 

the models and performing additional experiments should be considered. 

Keywords 

Fire Fire Modeling Verification and Validation (V&V) 

Performance-based Risk-informed regulation Fire Hazard Analysis (FHA) 

Fire safety Fire protection Nuclear Power Plant 

Fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Fire Probabilistic Safety Assessment 

 (PSA) 

xxi 

PREFACE 

This report is presented in seven volumes. Volume 1, the Main Report, provides general 

background information, programmatic and technical overviews, and project insights and 

conclusions. Volumes 2 through 6 provide detailed discussions of the verification and validation 

(V&V) of the following five fire models: 

Volume 2 Fire Dynamics Tools (FDTs

) 

Volume 3 Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation, Revision 1 (FIVE-Rev1) 

Volume 4 Consolidated Model of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport (CFAST) 

Volume 5 MAGIC 

Volume 6 Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) 

Finally, Volume 7 quantifies the uncertainty of the experiments used in the V&V study of these 

five fire models. 

xxiii 

FOREWORD 

Fire modeling and fire dynamics calculations are used in a number of fire hazards analysis (FHA) studies and 

documents, including fire risk analysis (FRA) calculations; compliance with, and exemptions to the regulatory 

requirements for fire protection in 10 CFR Part 50; the Significance Determination Process (SDP) used in the 

inspection program conducted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); and, most recently, the 

risk-informed performance-based (RI/PB) voluntary fire protection licensing basis established under 

10 CFR 50.48(c). The RI/PB method is based on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 

805, “Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light-Water Reactor Generating Plants.” 

The seven volumes of this NUREG-series report provide technical documentation concerning the predictive 

capabilities of a specific set of fire dynamics calculation tools and fire models for the analysis of fire hazards in 

nuclear power plant (NPP) scenarios. Under a joint memorandum of understanding (MOU), the NRC Office of 

Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) agreed to develop this 

technical document for NPP application of these fire modeling tools. The objectives of this agreement include 

creating a library of typical NPP fire scenarios and providing information on the ability of specific fire models to 

predict the consequences of those typical NPP fire scenarios. To meet these objectives, RES and EPRI initiated 

this collaborative project to provide an evaluation, in the form of verification and validation (V&V), for a set of five 

commonly available fire modeling tools. 

The road map for this project was derived from NFPA 805 and the American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) Standard E1355-04, “Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models.” These 

industry standards form the methodology and process used to perform this study. Technical review of fire 

models is also necessary to ensure that those using the models can accurately assess the adequacy of the scientific and 

technical bases for the models, select models that are appropriate for a desired use, and understand the levels 

of confidence that can be attributed to the results predicted by the models. This work was performed using 

state-of-the-art fire dynamics calculation methods/models and the most applicable fire test data. Future 

improvements in the fire dynamics calculation methods/models and additional fire test data may impact the results 

presented in the seven volumes of this report. 

This document does not constitute regulatory requirements, and RES participation in this study neither 

constitutes nor implies regulatory approval of applications based on the analysis contained in this text. The 

analyses documented in this report represent the combined efforts of individuals from RES and EPRI, both of 

which provided specialists in the use of fire models and other FHA tools. The results from this combined 

effort do not constitute either a regulatory position or regulatory guidance. Rather, these results are intended 

to provide technical analysis, and they may also help to identify areas where further research and analysis are 

needed. 

 _________________________________

 Carl J. Paperiello, Director 

 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

xxv 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The work documented in this report benefited from contributions and considerable technical support 

from several organizations. 

The verification and validation (V&V) studies for FDTs

 (Volume 2), CFAST (Volume 4), and 

FDS (Volume 6) were conducted in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

(BFRL). Since the inception of this project in 1999, the NRC has collaborated with NIST 

through an interagency memorandum of understanding (MOU) and conducted research to provide 

the necessary technical data and tools to support the use of fire models in nuclear power plant 

fire hazard analysis (FHA). 

We appreciate the efforts of Doug Carpenter and Rob Schmidt of Combustion Science 

Engineers, Inc. for their comments and contribution to Volume 2. 

In addition, we acknowledge and appreciate the extensive contributions of Electricité de France 

(EdF) in preparing Volume 5 for MAGIC. 

We also appreciate the efforts of organizations participating in the International Collaborative 

Fire Model Project (ICFMP) to Evaluate Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications, 

which provided experimental data, problem specifications, and insights and peer comment for 

the international fire model benchmarking and validation exercises, and jointly prepared the 

panel reports used and referred to in this study. We specifically appreciate the efforts of the 

Building Research Establishment (BRE) and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in the United 

Kingdom, which provided leadership for ICFMP Benchmark Exercise (BE) #2, as well as 

Gesellschaft fuer Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) and Institut fuer Baustoffe, Massivbau 

und Brandschutz (iBMB) in Germany, which provided leadership and valuable experimental data 

for ICFMP BE #4 and BE #5. In particular, ICFMP BE #2 was led by Stewart Miles at BRE; 

ICFMP BE #4 was led by Walter Klein-Hessling and Marina Rowekamp at GRS, and R. 

Dobbernack and Olaf Riese at iBMB; and ICFMP BE #5 was led by Olaf Riese and D. Hosser at 

iBMB, and Marina Rowekamp at GRS. We acknowledge and sincerely appreciate all of their 

efforts. 

We greatly appreciate Paula Garrity, Technical Editor for the Office of Nuclear Regulatory 

Research, and Linda Stevenson, agency Publication Specialist, for providing editorial and 

publishing support for this report. We also greatly appreciate Dariusz Szwarc, Nuclear Safety 

Professional Development Program participant, for his assistance finalizing this report. 

xxvii 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

AGA American Gas Association 

AHJ Authority Having Jurisdiction 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

BE Benchmark Exercise 

BFRL Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

BRE Building Research Establishment 

CFAST Consolidated Fire Growth and Smoke Transport Model 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EdF Electricité de France 

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

FDS Fire Dynamics Simulator 

FDTs Fire Dynamics Tools (NUREG-1805) 

FHA Fire Hazard Analysis 

FIVE-Rev1 Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation, Revision 1 

FM-SNL Factory Mutual & Sandia National Laboratories 

FPA Foote, Pagni, and Alvares 

FRA Fire Risk Analysis 

GRS Gesellschaft fuer Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (Germany) 

HRR Heat Release Rate 

IAFSS International Association of Fire Safety Science 

iBMB Institut für Baustoffe, Massivbau und Brandschutz 

ICFMP International Collaborative Fire Model Project 

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

MCC Motor Control Center 

MQH McCaffrey, Quintiere, and Harkleroad 
xxviii 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NBS National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) 

NFPA National Fire Protection Association 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NPP Nuclear Power Plant 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRC) 

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (NRC) 

RI/PB Risk-Informed, Performance-Based 

SDP Significance Determination Process 

SFPE Society of Fire Protection Engineers 

V&V Verification & Validation 
1-1 

1 

INTRODUCTION 

As the use of fire modeling tools increases in support of day-to-day nuclear power plant (NPP) 

applications including fire risk studies, the importance of verification and validation (V&V) 

studies for these tools also increases. V&V studies afford fire modeling analysts confidence 

in the application of analytical tools by quantifying and discussing the performance of the given 

model in predicting the fire conditions measured in a particular experiment. The underlying 

assumptions, capabilities and limitations of the model are discussed and evaluated as part of 

the V&V study. 

In August 2002, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) published for the first time 

the Fire Modeling Guide for Nuclear Power Plant Applications (EPRI TR-1002981) [Ref. 1]. 

This fire modeling guide provides fire protection engineers in the commercial nuclear industry 

a broad overview of fire modeling theory and applications, including representative calculations 

performed with various state-of-the-art fire models. With the guide, EPRI included a library 

of pre-programmed equations in Microsoft® Excel®, which are used to estimate some aspects 

of fire-generated conditions. This collection of hand calculations is referred as Revision 1 

of the Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation model (FIVE-Rev1). 

In general, the equations in the library are closed-form analytical expressions that can be solved 

by hand. The capabilities of the various equations in the library include predicting temperature 

and convective heat fluxes in the fire plume or ceiling jet, irradiated heat flux, upper layer 

temperature, time to detection, and target heating, among others. 

The main objective of this study is to document a V&V study for selected models in the FIVERev1 library, in accordance with ASTM E1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive 

Capability of Deterministic Fire Models [Ref. 2]. As such, this report is structured to follow the 

guidance provided in the ASTM standard: 

• Chapter 2 provides qualitative background information about FIVE-Rev1 and the V&V process. 

• Chapter 3 presents a technical description of FIVE-Rev1, which includes the underlying 

physics and chemistry inherent in the model. The description includes assumptions and 

approximations, an assessment of whether the open literature provides sufficient scientific 

evidence to justify the approaches and assumptions used, and an assessment of empirical 

or reference data used for constant or default values in the context of the model. 

• Chapter 4 documents the mathematical and numerical robustness of FIVE-Rev1, which 

involves verifying that the implementation of the model matches the stated documentation. 

• Chapter 5 presents a sensitivity analysis, for which the researchers defined a base case scenario 

and varied selected input parameters in the FIVE-Rev1 equations. 
Introduction 

1-2 

• Chapter 6 presents the results of the V&V study, in the form of accuracies classified 

on the basis of NPP configurations and relevant attributes of enclosure fires in NPPs. 

The calculated accuracies are based on both “blind” and “open” calculations. Blind calculations 

refer to those conducted before the experimental data were available. In contrast, 

open calculations refer to those conducted with the experimental data available. 

• Appendix A lists the calculated accuracies which for the basis for the evaluation results 

discussed in Chapter 6. 
2-1 

2 

MODEL DEFINITION 

This chapter provides qualitative background information about FIVE-Rev1 and the V&V process, 

as required by ASTM E1355. 

2.1 Name and Version of the Model 

This V&V study focused on Revision 1 of the Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation model 

(FIVE-Rev1). The latest version of FIVE-Rev1 was released in August 2002. 

2.2 Type of Model 

In August 2002, EPRI published for the first time the Fire Modeling Guide for Nuclear Power 

Plant Applications (EPRI TR-1002981) [Ref. 1]. This fire modeling guide provides fire protection 

engineers in the commercial nuclear industry a broad overview of fire modeling theory 

and applications, including representative calculations performed with various state-of-the-art 

fire models. With the guide, EPRI included a library of pre-programmed equations in Microsoft®

Excel®, which are used to estimate some aspects of fire-induced conditions. This collection 

of hand calculations is referred as FIVE-Rev1. 

In general, the equations in the library are closed-form analytical expressions that can be solved 

by hand. The capabilities of the various equations in the library include predicting temperature 

and convective heat fluxes in the fire plume or ceiling jet, irradiated heat flux, upper layer 

temperature, time to detection, and target heating, among others. 

NOTE: This study did not address all of the equations in the FIVE-Rev1 library; those subjected 

to the V&V process are identified throughout this report. 

2.3 Model Developers 

The FIVE-Rev1 model was compiled and is maintained by the Electric Power Research Institute, 

EPRI. 

2.4 Relevant Publications 

Technical descriptions of FIVE-Rev1 are provided in EPRI’s Fire Modeling Guide for Nuclear 

Power Plant Applications (EPRI TR-1002981) [Ref. 1] and in Chapter 3 of this report. In 

addition, EPRI’s Methods of Quantitative Fire Hazard Analysis (EPRI TR-100443) [Ref. 3] 

documents the quantitative fire modeling methods used in FIVE. 
Model Definition 

2-2 

2.5 Governing Equations and Assumptions 

As mentioned above, FIVE-Rev1 is a library of equations for use in estimating various aspects 

of fire-induced conditions. Each equation has its own assumptions, as detailed in Chapter 3 

of this report. 

2.6 Input Data Required To Run the Model 

The various equations in the FIVE-Rev1 library require different inputs, as detailed in Chapter 3 

of this report. However, the following data are generally necessary to use the equations 

in the FIVE-Rev1 library: 

(1) The following parameters describe the compartment geometry and ventilation conditions: 

• The compartment (or each compartment in a multi-room scenario) is assumed to have 

a rectangular floor base and flat ceiling. Its compartment geometry is defined by its 

length, width, and height. 

• The material properties of the floor, ceiling, and walls include density, specific heat, 

and thermal conductivity. Depending on the selected material, this information may be 

available in generic fire protection engineering handbooks or similar references. 

• Natural ventilation is determined by the height and width of doors; height, width, and 

elevation of windows; time to open/close doors and windows during a fire simulation; 

and leakage paths. 

• Mechanical ventilation is determined by supply and return rates, vent elevations, and time 

to start/stop the system. 

(2) The following parameters describe the characteristics of the fire: 

• Fuel type and fire heat release rate profile: The heat release rate profile is specified using 

the heat of combustion and the mass loss rate of the fuel. 

• Fire location (elevation, near a wall, near a corner, or center of room) 

• Footprint area of the fire: circular (e.g., pool fires specified by diameter) or rectangular 

(e.g., bounded pool fires, electrical cabinets specified by length and width) 

• Fuel mass, irradiated fraction, and stochiometric fuel-oxygen ratio. 

(3) Two sets of parameters (thermo-physical properties and location) describe targets. 

Thermo-physical properties include the density, specific heat, and thermal conductivity 

of the material. Location refers to where the target is with respect to the fire (expressed in 

tri-dimensional coordinates). 

(4) The inputs for sprinklers and detectors are (a) the device’s location with respect to the fire 

and (b) its response characteristics, including activation temperature and response time index. 

2.7 Property Data 

Some of the equations in the FIVE-Rev1 library require the following property data: 

• For walls, ceiling, and floor: density, thermal conductivity, and specific heat. 

• For targets: damage temperature, density, thermal conductivity, and specific heat. 
Model Definition 

2-3 

• For fuels: heat of combustion, mass loss rate, stochiometric fuel-oxygen ratio, specific area, 

and radiated fraction. 

These properties may be available in fire protection engineering handbooks or similar references. 

However, depending on the application, properties for specific materials may not be readily 

available. 

2.8 Model Results 

Each equation in the FIVE-Rev1 library provides a single numerical output. 

3-1 

3 

THEORETICAL BASIS FOR FIVE-REV1 

This chapter presents a technical description of the FIVE-Rev1, including theoretical background 

and the underlying physics and chemistry inherent in the different models. In so doing, this 

chapter addresses the ASTM E1355 requirement to “verify the appropriateness of the theoretical 

basis and assumptions used in the model.” 

The description provided in this chapter includes assumptions and approximations, an assessment 

of whether the open literature provides sufficient scientific evidence to justify the approaches 

and assumptions used, and an assessment of empirical or reference data used for constant 

or default values in the context of the models. 

The models included in the FIVE-Rev1 library have been developed, reviewed, and documented 

over the past 30 years. In addition, most of the engineering calculations in the FIVE-Rev1 

library are available in the open fire protection engineering literature, particularly in the Society 

of Fire Protection Engineers [SFPE] Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering (3rd Edition) 

[Ref. 4]. As a result, this chapter references previous publications describing assumptions and 

theoretical bases of some of the models included in the V&V process. 

3.1 Theoretical Basis for FIVE-Rev1 

FIVE-Rev 1 is actually a collection of engineering equations (hand calculations) that have been 

developed over the past 30 years, which are pre-programmed and automated in a Microsoft®

Excel® workbook. As FIVE-Rev1 is not actually a model itself, its advantages are not attributed 

to its modeling capabilities. Instead, FIVE-Rev1 provides a collection of models in a single file, 

with a graphical interface that simplifies (as much as possible) the process of manually solving 

mostly algebraic equations 

The modeling capabilities of FIVE-Rev1 are restricted to the individual capabilities and limitations 

of each model in the library. That is, each model was developed based on specific assumptions 

and conditions, which restrict its application. This section provides the mathematical formulation 

of the FIVE-Rev1 models and a summary of the assumptions and limitations related to their use. 

As suggested by Karlsson and Quintierre [Ref. 6], the hand calculations compiled in the FIVE-Rev1 

library can be broadly classified as those that deal with (1) combustion, (2) resulting environmental 

conditions, and (3) heat transfer. The following sections present technical details about each 

of these model classifications. 
Theoretical Basis for FIVE-Rev1 

3-2 

3.1.1 Hand Calculations Dealing with Combustion 

Hand calculations dealing with the combustion process relate specifically to determination of 

the heat release rate, Q& . Two models in the FIVE-Rev1 library serve this purpose. 

3.1.1.1 Fire Heat Release Rate 

In general, the heat release rate of a fire, Qf & , is calculated using the flammability properties of 

the fuel, including the heat of combustion (∆Hc, kJ/kg) and the specific burning rate (m& ′′ , kg/sec-m2

). 

Using these two parameters, together with the burning area, we can estimate the heat release rate 

of the fire using the following equation (model), as described by Drysdale [Ref. 6]: 

Q& f = ∆Hc ⋅ m&′′⋅ A

This approach is easily applied in the case of liquid and some plastic combustibles. Unfortunately, 

mathematical modeling of the physical and chemical transformations of materials as they burn 

is still the subject of research and, therefore, the model presented above cannot calculate the heat output 

of a fire as a function of time for many combustibles under actual configurations and scenario 

conditions. 

3.1.1.2 Cable Tray Heat Release Rate 

The fire protection literature [see for example Ref. 7, and Vol 2 of this report] offers the following 

correlation for estimating the heat release rate generated by burning cable trays, Qct

& : 

Q q A(t) ct bs = ⋅ & ⋅ & 0.45 (kW) 

t

dt

dA A(t) = Ao + (m2

) 

5 10 0.6. 3 ≈ ⋅ − − qbs dt

dA & (m2

) 

where: 

Ao = initial cable tray burning area (m2

) 

T = time (min) 

qbs = experimental bench scale heat release rate value (kW/m2

) 

Notice that the equation for estimating heat release rate is identical to the one discussed above 

at t = 0 min. 

Unfortunately, this correlation is based on experimental results only and should be used with caution. 

Moreover, the fire propagation model (second and third equations above) should not be used 

for a single cable tray. It applies only to a stack of trays subjected to a constant heat release rate 

from the ignition source, since the experimental measurements used to develop the correlation 

involve the area of fire involvement in all trays. Specifically, the experiments involved 

two parallel stacks of six horizontal cable trays on a load cell using a pan of heptane as the ignition source 

between the two stacks. The stacks were 15 cm (6 in.) apart. Of the 17 tests, 3 tests used 
Theoretical Basis for FIVE-Rev1 

3-3 

an arrangement of 3 vertical cable trays in addition to the 12 horizontal trays (2 stacks of 6 trays). 

The 96′′ x 10′′ x 3′′ cable trays had a vertical separation of approximately 25 cm (10 in.). The 

experiments measured the mass loss rate from the cable trays, as well as the estimated area of 

fire involvement in the trays at the time of extinguishment. The data collected from these 

experiments was correlated with bench scale heat release rate data. Reference 7 provides further 

technical details on the model and the experiments. 

3.1.2 Hand Calculations Dealing with Resulting Environmental Conditions 

Numerous models are available for use in predicting resulting environmental conditions. 

The FIVE-Rev1 library includes models for predicting fire plume temperature and heat flux, 

ceiling jet temperature and heat flux, room temperature, and flame height. 

3.1.2.1 Flame Height 

According to Heskestad, the flame height marks the level where the combustion reaction is complete 

and the inert plume can be considered to begin [Ref. 8]. The flame height is estimated using the 

following equation: 

L 0.235Qf

5 1.02D

2

= − & (m) 

where: 

Qf = fire heat release rate (kW) 

D = fire diameter (m) 

Based on its formulation, the FIVE-Rev1 model for flame height is not appropriate for estimating 

jet flame lengths or for scenarios where atmospheric conditions deviate significantly from normal. 

Furthermore, the above equation is valid for combustibles in which the heat liberated per unit mass 

of air entering the combustion reaction ranges between 2,900 and 3,200 kJ/kg. That is, the equation 

is not valid for very small heat release rate values where the resulting length is a negative. 

The above equation correlates well data for L/D values up to 20 (note that L/D is a dimensionless term), 

and * QD up to 100 [Ref. 8]. * QD is also a dimensionless term, which is defined as follows: 

2

*

c T gDD

Q Q

p

f

D

∞ ∞

= ρ

&

Beyler [Ref. 9] indicates that a flame height determination based on a circular fuel source with 

an area equal to the real source may overestimate the flame height. The above correlation 

is intended for horizontal pool-type sources, but is likely to work reasonably well for more 

complex sources if the calculated flame height is large relative to the diameter of the source. 
Theoretical Basis for FIVE-Rev1 

3-4 

3.1.2.2 Fire Plumes 

The FIVE-Rev1 library includes three semi-empirical correlations for estimating fire plume temperatures. 

These three correlations have essentially the same underlying assumptions, limitations, and input 

parameters. In general, these correlations predict the average temperature at some predetermined 

height above the fire. In each case, the temperature estimate is derived by applying the principles 

of conservation of mass, momentum and energy in the fire plume, combined with experimental 

observations. Heskestad fundamentally analyzed the problem in terms of the total mass, 

momentum, and energy integrated across the plume cross-section, assuming that the entrainment 

velocity is proportional to the plume velocity, with the constant of proportionality being the 

entrainment constant [Ref. 9]. 

Results from these three semi-empirical correlations are expected to be adequate for unobstructed 

vertical plumes. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the correlations do not consider hot gas 

layer effects, which are discussed in Section 3.1.2.5. The following table lists the plume 

temperature models. 

Table 3-1: Summary of Plume Temperature Correlations 

Heskestad [Ref. 8] McCaffrey [Ref. 5] Alpert [Ref. 10] 

( ) ( )

( ) ( )

5 3 2 5

1

25 ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

− −

− = +

p e o

f f r

pl amb H F z

k Q T T

& χ

zo 0.083Qf 5 1.02D 2= − &

( ) amb

f f

p e

pl T

k Q

H F

g

T

2 1

5

2

2

0.9 2

−

⎟

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ −

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

=

η

κ

&

κ = 1.1, η = -1/3 

( )

( ) ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

− = + 5 3

2 3

16.9

p e

f f

pl amb H F

k Q T T

&

Where: 

Tamb = ambient temperature (°

C) 

kf = fire location factor 

Qf = fire heat release rate (kW) 

Fe = fire elevation (m) 

Hp = target height measured from the floor (m) 

Xr = irradiated fraction of the heat release rate 

(FIVE-Rev1 recommends 0.4 as a conservative estimate) 

D = plume diameter (m) 
Theoretical Basis for FIVE-Rev1 

3-5 

Models for plume velocity were also developed as part of the same set of correlations. 

Table 3-2 lists the associated equations. 

Table 3-2: Plume Velocity Correlations 

Heskestad’s [Ref. 8] McCaffrey [Ref. 5] Alpert [Ref. 10] 

( )

( )

1 3

1

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

− −

− =

p e o

f r

pl H F z

Q V χ

zo 0.083Qf 5 1.02D 2= − &

( ) 5

1

5

2 f

f

p e

pl Q

Q

H F

V &

&

η

κ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ − =

κ = 1.1, η = -1/3 

1 3

0.96 ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

− =

p e

f

pl H F

Q V

&

Heskestad also developed the following model for plume diameter as part of the formulation 

for the plume temperature and velocity models: 

( ) p e o

amb

pl H F z

T

T

D − − ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ =

1 2

0 (m) .12

In addition, three models are available for estimating air entrainment into the fire plume, as listed 

in Table 3-3. Note that the Thomas and Zukoski models are not part of the set of correlations 

previously discussed in this section. 

Table 3-3: Plume Entrainment Correlations 

Heskestad’s [Ref. 8] Zukoski [Ref. 5] Thomas [Ref. 5] 

( ) ( ) ( 1 3

1 0.071

f f r p e o

f

k Q H F z

k

m = ⋅ − χ − − & &

( ( )) f Qf r + ⋅ ⋅ k ⋅ − χ − 1.85 10 1 3 &

zo 0.083Qf 5 1.02D 2= − &

( ) ( ) 0.071 1 3

f f p e

f

p k Q H F

k

m = ⋅ ⋅ − & ( )

3

mp 0.188 P H p − Fe = ⋅ ⋅

p = fire perimeter 
Theoretical Basis for FIVE-Rev1 

3-6 

3.1.2.3 Ceiling Jet 

Alpert developed the ceiling jet temperature correlation [Ref. 10] for unobstructed flat ceilings 

without the effect of a smoke layer. This correlation is an extension of Alpert’s correlation 

for plume temperature. That is, the temperature at the ceiling above a fire source is determined 

using Alpert’s correlation for plume temperature. Thus, the ceiling jet correlation predicts 

gas temperatures as the hot gases spread radially from the plume. The mathematical form 

of the correlation is as follows: 

( )

amb

f f

cj T

h Fe

k Q R

T + −

⋅ =

3

2

5.38 &

 (°C) 

Where: 

Tamb = ambient temperature (°

C) 

kf = fire location factor 

Qf = fire heat release rate (kW) 

h = room height (m) 

Fe = fire elevation (m) 

R = horizontal radial distance from the centerline of the fire 

to where the temperature is reported (m) 

The experimental data collected for developing the correlation consisted of various types 

of solid and liquid fuels with energy release rates ranging from roughly 500 kW to 100 MW 

under ceiling heights ranging from 4.6 to 15.5 m (15.09 ft to 50.85 ft). The correlation has good 

agreement with the data in the range of R/H from 1 to 2 (note that R/H is a dimensionless term) 

and ( ( ) ) 1 3 * ∆Tcj Tamb Q , another dimensionless term, ranging from 1 to 6. 

The following equation resulted from the analysis of ceiling jet flows that produced 

the temperature model shown above. 

( ) ( )

5 6

1 3 1 2 0.195

R

k Q h F

V f f e

cj

⋅ − =

&

 (m/s) 

The above correlations assume that no walls exist to channel the flow of gases or cause 

the formation of a hot gas layer. The presence of walls or a hot gas layer will always increase 

the temperature of the ceiling jet flow [Ref. 10]. 
Theoretical Basis for FIVE-Rev1 

3-7 

Delichatsios [Ref. 10] developed the following model for confined ceiling jets: 

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

− ⋅ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

− − ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ − = ⋅ − 1 3 1 3

0.29 exp 0.20

e

b

b e

e

pl

cj amb

h F

l

h F

R

l

h F

T

T T

 (°C) 

where: 

Tamb = ambient temperature (°

C) 

kf = fire location factor 

Qf = fire heat release rate (kW) 

h = room height (m) 

Fe = fire elevation (m) 

R = horizontal radial distance from the centerline of the fire 

to where the temperature is reported (m) 

lb = corridor half width (m) 

This correlation applies after the ceiling jet has impinged on the corridor walls. The equation 

was developed in cases where the corridor half width, lb, is greater than 20 percent of the ceiling height 

above the fire source. The model assumes that the ceiling jet is confined without spillage, 

such that the flow occurs only in the primary channel. This is an important assumption for cases 

where the ceiling jet is confined by beams that may not fully confine the flows. 

3.1.2.4 Room Temperatures 

The first model in this section, developed by McCaffrey, Quintiere, and Harkleroad [Ref. 5, 11] 

(commonly known as the MQH model), estimates the average room temperature, as follows: 

1 3 2

6.85 ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = + ⋅

o o k T

f

amb A H h A

Q T T

&

 (°

C) 

⎪

⎪

⎩

⎪

⎪

⎨

⎧

≥

< ⋅ ⋅

=

p

p

m p

k

t t

th

k

t t

t

k d c

h 

( )⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

⋅ ⋅

=

m p

p

d c

k

th

t

4

2

where: 

Tamb = ambient temperature (°

C) 

Qf = fire heat release rate (kW) 

Ao = opening area (or sum of opening areas) (m2

) 

Ho = height of opening [m] 

AT = internal surface area of the room (not including opening area) (m2

) 

k = thermal conductivity of wall material (kW/m-°

C) 
Theoretical Basis for FIVE-Rev1 

3-8 

dm = density of wall material (kg/m3

) 

cp = specific heat of wall material (kJ/kg-°

C) 

th = wall thickness (m) 

t = time value (sec) 

The following additional considerations also apply to the use of the MQH model [Ref. 9]: 

• The rise in temperature must be between 20 °

C and 600 °C (68 ̊F and 1112 ̊F). 

• The model applies to both transient and steady fire growths. 

• The model attributes heat loss to mass flowing out through openings. Therefore, the model 

does not apply to situations where significant time passes before hot gases begin leaving 

the compartment through openings (for example, large enclosures with relatively small fires, 

where it may take the smoke layer some time to reach the opening height). 

• The model assumes that the fire is fuel-controlled. 

Following the basic correlation of the MQH model, Foote, Pagni, and Alvares developed a model 

[Ref. 11] for use in estimating temperatures in mechanically ventilated rooms. The mathematical 

expression for this formulation is as follows: 

0.72 0.36

0.63

−

∞ ∞ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = ∆

g p

k T

g p

g

m c

h A

m c T

Q

T

T

& &

&

where mg is the compartment mass ventilation rate. The following additional considerations also 

apply to the use of the Foote, Pagni, and Alvares model [Ref. 11]: 

• The expression for doorway flow is not considered. 

• The coefficients and exponents are based on data from well-ventilated fire tests. 

• The experimental compartment size is 6 x 4 x 4.5 m3

 (19.7 x 13.1 x 14.7 ft3). 

• Experimental ventilation rates range from 110 to 325 g/s (0.25 to 0.7 lb/sec). 

• Experimental heat release rates range from 150 to 490 kW (142 to 465 Btu/sec). 

3.1.2.5 Plume and Ceiling Jet Temperatures in Hot Gas Layer Environments 

The correlations for plume and ceiling jet temperatures (discussed in Sections 3.1.2.2 and 3.1.2.3) 

were developed using experimental data collected from controlled environments with no hot gas 

layer effects. If such correlations are used to analyze fire scenarios involving a hot gas layer, 

a correction is recommended to account for the thermal effects of the hot gas layer in the plume 

or ceiling jet temperature. In the case of fire plume temperatures, the correlations can be used 

without the correction if the target elevation above the fire source is below the hot gas layer 

interface. By contrast, in the case of ceiling jet temperatures, hot gas layer effects may not be important 

(1) in the early phases of the fire event, when a hot gas layer has not been established, 

and (2) in relatively large rooms with relatively small fires, where the hot gas layer temperature 

is close to ambient. 
Theoretical Basis for FIVE-Rev1 

3-9 

Zone models like MAGIC model the hot gas layer effects in the fire plume temperature using 

the research documented by Cooper [Ref. 12]. This approach is based on the premise that 

above the hot gas layer interface, the fire plume entrains hot gases from the upper layer 

instead of fresh air at ambient temperature. 

In the first version of FIVE [Ref. 3], the hot gas layer effects were included in the analysis 

by adding the calculated temperature rise in the fire plume to the hot gas layer temperature 

using the following equation: 

TP−HGL = THGL + ∆TP = THGL +TP −Tamb

In most cases, this simplification produces conservative estimates of plume temperature 

in the hot gas layer. 

This V&V study used the FIVE model described above to calculate plume temperatures inside 

the hot gas layer. The fire plume temperature data for this study were collected in rooms 

where the hot gas layer effects appeared to be significant. Therefore, the calculated accuracies 

include such effects. 

3.1.2.6 Visibility 

Mulholland documented the model for estimating the visibility distance through smoke [Ref. 13]. 

Toward that end, the FIVE-Rev1 library uses the following equations to calculate the visibility 

distance from a light-reflecting object, assuming that the burned fuel mass is well-mixed 

in the volume of the room: 

K

Dist 3 = (m) 

D

K 2.3 = (m-1) V

D M

D m = (m-1) 

where: 

K = light extinction coefficient (m-1) 

D = optical density per meter (m-1) 

Dm = mass optical density (m2

/g) [Ref. 13 lists Dm values for different materials] 

M = burned fuel mass (g) 

V = enclosure volume (m3

) 
Theoretical Basis for FIVE-Rev1 

3-10 

3.1.3 Hand Calculations Dealing with Heat Transfer 

This section discusses four models that use hand calculations dealing with heat transfer, including 

(1) the point source model for flame radiation, (2) a model for predicting incident heat flux 

in the fire plume, (3) a model for predicting incident heat flux in the ceiling jet, and (4) a model 

for estimating surface temperature at a target. 

3.1.3.1 Point Source Model for Flame Radiation 

As described by Karlsson and Quintiere, the point source model for flame radiation assumes a fire 

as a point source of heat release [Ref. 5]. Therefore, this model is appropriate for remote targets, 

which “see” the fire as a point in space. A distance of twice the diameter of the fire is probably 

appropriate. The critical distance from the target to a burning fuel can then be obtained by solving 

the following equation for R and providing a critical heat flux required for target damage: 

2 4 R

Q

q f r

irr

π

χ &

&′′ = (kW/m2

) 

where: 

Qf = fire heat release rate (kW) 

R = distance from flames (m) 

Xr = irradiated fraction of the heat release rate (FIVE recommends 0.4) 

D = fire diameter (m) 

3.1.3.2 Incident Heat Flux in the Fire Plume 

The incident heat flux to a target in the fire plume equals the sum of the convective flux of hot gases 

and thermal radiation from the flame zone. Within the flame, thermal radiation is the dominant 

heat flux, and the expected radiant heat flux from the flame is approximately 160 kW/m2

. 

However, the contribution from convective heat flux cannot be neglected. That contribution 

is obtained from the following equation, substituting Hp – Fe by the flame height. However, 

if the target is outside the flame zone, but within the plume, the contribution of thermal radiation 

from the flame can be neglected compared to convection. The incident heat flux is then given by 

the following equation [Ref. 14]. 

( ) ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

− ′′ = 2 0.3

p e

f f

pl H F

k Q

q

& & (kW/m2

) 

where: 

Qf = fire heat release rate (kW) 

kf = fire location factor 

Hp = target height measured from the floor (m) 

Fe = fire elevation (m) 
Theoretical Basis for FIVE-Rev1 

3-11 

3.1.3.3 Incident Heat Flux in the Ceiling Jet 

The incident heat flux to a target in the ceiling jet is, for the most part, the convective flux 

of hot gases transferred to the target. The following model estimates the convective heat flux 

in the ceiling jet [Ref. 5]: 

( ) ( ) ( ) 1 3 2

0.04

e e

f

c

R h F h F

Q

q − −

⋅ ′′ =

&

& (kW/m2

) 

where: 

Qf = fire heat release rate (kW) 

R = horizontal radial distance (m) 

h = ceiling height (m) 

Fe = fire elevation (m) 

This correlation models well data with the dimensionless parameter R/h ranging from 0.1 

to around 2.0. 

3.1.3.4 Surface Temperature at the Target 

The following equation estimates the surface temperature for a semi-infinite solid1 subjected to 

a constant heat flux [Ref. 3]: 

( ) m p

amb k d c

t T T q ⋅ ⋅ = + ⋅ ′′ π

2 ( & °C) 

The same equation can be solved for the time to target damage, as follows: 

( )

2

4 ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

′′

− = ⋅ ⋅ qT T

t k d c dam amb

d m p &

π (sec) 

where: 

Tamb = ambient temperature (°

C) 

q′′ = constant incident heat flux (kW/m2

) 

t = time (sec) 

k = thermal conductivity of wall material (kW/m-°

C) 

dm = density of wall material (kg/m3

) 

cp = specific heat of wall material (kJ/kg-°

C) 

 

1

 Semi-infinite solids refer to targets where the temperature remains ambient in the surface opposite the one 

receiving the heat flux. 
Theoretical Basis for FIVE-Rev1 

3-12 

3.1.4 Additional Models in the FIVE-Rev1 Library 

Sections 3.1.1 – 3.1.3 provided a brief summary of the technical basis and reference material 

for several models in the FIVE-Rev1 library. However, this study did not subject all of the 

FIVE-Rev1 models to the V&V process for two main reasons: 

(1) Experience in performing fire modeling studies in commercial nuclear plants suggests that 

the models subjected to the V&V process are the most commonly used in plant applications. 

(2) The experimental evidence available and selected for this study does not support the V&V analysis 

for some models. 

It is important to mention, however, that most of the models in the FIVE-Rev1 library are available 

in the open fire protection engineering literature and are used in other applications, as illustrated 

by the following examples: 

• DETACT is a commonly used model for estimating time to heat detection, and the SFPE 

has published a V&V study for this model [Ref. 15]. 

• ASET is a commonly used model for estimating smoke layer descent. 

• Models for the velocity of plume and ceiling jet gases result from the same formulation 

used to develop the models for gas temperature. In other words, they are part of the same set 

of correlations used to describe the thermo-dynamic conditions in the plume or ceiling jet. 

• The t2

 model for the heat release rate growth profile is a tool for describing a known or assumed 

fire development. Although it does not predict fire conditions, it is a mathematical framework 

for providing the fire intensity input to the model. 
4-1 

4 

MATHEMATICAL AND NUMERICAL ROBUSTNESS 

This chapter documents the mathematical and numerical robustness of FIVE-Rev1, which 

involves verifying that the implementation of the model matches the stated documentation. 

Specifically, ASTM E1355 requires the following analyses to address the mathematical and 

numerical robustness of models: 

• Analytical tests involve testing the correct functioning of the model. In other words, these tests 

use the code to solve a problem with a known mathematical solution. However, there are 

relatively few situations for which analytical solutions are known. 

• Code checking refers to verifying the computer code on a structural basis. This verification 

can be achieved manually or by using a code-checking program to detect irregularities 

and inconsistencies within the computer code. 

• Numerical tests investigate the magnitude of the residuals from the solution of a numerically 

solved system of equations (as an indicator of numerical accuracy) and the reduction in residuals 

(as an indicator of numerical convergence). 

In general, the series of analyses that ASTM E1355 requires to address the mathematical and 

numerical robustness of models do not apply to the models in the FIVE-Rev1 library within the scope 

of this V&V study, for the following reasons: 

• Analytical tests: The models in the FIVE-Rev1 library do not solve problems with known 

mathematical solutions. Therefore, the model results cannot be compared to assess 

the correct functioning of the models. 

• Code checking: The models in the FIVE-Rev1 library are pre-programmed as user-defined functions 

in a Microsoft® Excel® workbook. Like any typical built-in Excel® function, each of these functions 

requires a set of inputs and returns a single value. In this case, the returned value is the solution 

of the model. (Section 3.1 discusses the models and their required inputs.) The user-defined 

Excel® functions programmed in the FIVE-Rev1 library are relatively brief. The structure 

of each function includes a variable declaration section and the mathematical solution 

of the equation. In addition, all of the models are consistent in their use of input variable names. 

Therefore, no problems are expected with regard to irregularities and inconsistencies 

within the computer code. 

• Numerical tests: These models in the FIVE-Rev1 library are closed-form mathematical 

expressions that are not solved using numerical methods. As a result, there are no numerical 

instabilities or convergence issues associated with the solution of the models. 
Mathematical and Numerical Robustness 

4-2 

The FIVE-Rev1 library passed the EPRI software usability tests, which are intended to ensure 

that the computer program can be installed on and uninstalled from a computer, the user’s guide 

is adequate for a first-time user, error messages are clear and displayed when required, 

and examples in the user’s guide can be reproduced. More details on the EPRI software usability 

tests are available at www.epri.com. 
5-1 

5 

MODEL SENSITIVITY 

This chapter presents a sensitivity analysis, for which the researchers defined a base case scenario 

and varied selected input parameters in the FIVE-Rev1 equations. According to ASTM E1355, 

a sensitivity analysis of a model is a study of how changes in model parameters affect the results. 

In other words, sensitivity refers to the rate of change of the model output with respect to input variations. 

The standard also indicates that model predictions may be sensitive to (1) uncertainties in input data, 

(2) the level of rigor employed in modeling the relevant physics and chemistry, and (3) the accuracy 

of numerical treatments. Thus, the purpose of a sensitivity analysis is to assess the extent to which 

uncertainty in the model inputs is manifested as uncertainty in the model results of interest. 

Conducting a sensitivity analysis involves defining a base case scenario, and varying selected input 

parameters. The resultant variations in the model output are then measured with respect to 

the base case scenario. 

5.1 Definition of the Base Case Scenario for Sensitivity Analysis 

Benchmark Exercise #1 exercised the base case scenario for this study as part of an ongoing 

International Collaborative Fire Modeling Project [Ref. 16]. (Note that only Part 1 of the 

Benchmark Exercise #1 was selected for the base case scenario.) This section summarizes the 

technical description of the base case scenario, which involved a trash can fire in a switchgear room 

affecting elevated cable trays. Three fire locations were selected for this study. The following 

parameters characterize the base case scenario: 

• Room 

- Length: 15.2 m (50 ft) 

- Width: 9.1 m (30 ft) 

- Height: 4.6 m (15 ft) 

- Walls: 0.15 m thick concrete (0.5 ft) 

- Door: 2.4 m x 2.4 m (7.9 x 7.9 ft) 

- Mechanical ventilation: 5 air changes per hour 

- Vent size: 0.5 m2 (5.4 ft2) 

- Vent elevation: 2.4 m (7.9 ft) 

• Target 

- Cable tray A: 0.6 m (2 ft) wide, 0.08 m (0.3 ft) deep 

- Elevation (cable tray A): 2.3 m (7.5 ft), 0.9 m (3 ft) off the right wall of the room 

- Cable tray B: 0.6 m (2 ft) wide, 0.08 m (0.3 ft) deep 

- Elevation (cable tray B): 2.3 m (7.5 ft), along the left wall of the room 
Model Sensitivity 

5-2 

• Material properties for concrete 

- Specific heat: 1,000 J/kg-K 

- Thermal conductivity: 1.5 W/m-K 

- Density: 2,200 kg/m3

- Emissivity: 0.94 

• Material properties for cables (targets) 

- Specific heat: 1,040 J/kg-K 

- Thermal conductivity: 0.092 W/m-K 

- Density: 1,710 kg/m3

- Emissivity: 0.8 

- Heat of combustion: 16 MJ/kg 

- Radiative fraction: 0.48 

• Ambient conditions 

- Temperature: 27 °C (80 oF) 

- Relative humidity: 50% 

- Pressure: 101,300 Pa 

- Elevation: 0 

- Wind speed: 0 

• Fire (Heat release rate) 

- Fire type: transient (trash bag) 

- Location: horizontal distance from cable tray: 0.3 m (1.0 ft), 0.5 m (1.64 ft), 1.5 m (4.9 

ft) 

- Radiative fraction: 0.30 

- Diameter: 0.5 m (1.64 ft) 

- Trash can height: 0.62 m 

- Heat of combustion: 24.1 MJ/kg 

- Heat release rate profile 
Model Sensitivity 

5-3 

-

Table 5-1: Base Case Heat Release Rate 

Time [min] HRR [kW] 

1 200 

2 350 

3 340 

4 200 

5 150 

6 100 

7 100 

8 80 

9 75 

10 100 

Average HRR: 170 

St. Deviation: 103 

Peak HRR: 350 

5.2 Sensitivity Analysis for FIVE-Rev1 

This section describes a sensitivity analysis performed using the models listed in Chapter 3, 

as included in the scope of this V&V study. 

5.2.1 Point Source Model for Flame Radiation 

The distance from the fire to the cable tray in the base case is 0.3 0.5 1.5 1.6 2 2 2 + + = m (5.2 

ft). A peak heat release rate of 350 kW with a 30-percent radiation fraction will result in a 

radiated heat flux of 3.27 kW/m2

. This result is in the lower range of results that can be 

predicted with this model if compared with values plotted in Figure 5-1. Figure 5-1 presents the 

sensitivity analysis for the point source model. Note that heat fluxes of 20 kW/m2

 or higher are 

predicted for distances of 3 m (9.8 ft) with heat release rates up to 8.0 MW. 20 kW/m2

 is 

considered in the fire protection engineering literature as the threshold of flashover [Ref. 5], 

which in practical terms means that any predicted incident heat flux above 20 kW/m2

 is an 

indication of damage for most types of targets. Note that in the context of this discussion the 

value of 20 kW/m2

 does not refer to the damage criteria for any particular type of cable. This 

value only provides a limit to the range of sensitivity analysis performed. 

It can be observed from Figure 5-1 that predicted radiative heat fluxes increase as the fire 

intensity increase and the distance from the flames also increases. For relatively high heat 

release rates, in the order of 8 MW, the heat flux is over 15 kW/m2

 within 3 m (9.8 ft) from the 

flames. In contrast, for fires in the order of 1 MW and lower, the predicted heat flux is relatively 

lower. Damaging heat fluxes generated by these fire intensities may only be observed less than 1 

m away from the fire. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-4 

50

550

105015502050255030503550405045505050555060506550705075508050

0.5

3

5.5

8

Heat Release Rate [kW]

Horizontal 

Distance [m]

Flame Radiation [kW/m2]

Radiation Fraction = 0.3

0.0-5.0 5.0-10.0 10.0-15.0 15.0-20.0

Figure 5-1: Sensitivity Analysis for the Point Source Radiation Model 

Variations in the radiated fraction may significantly impact the estimated heat fluxes since it 

multiplies the heat release rate term in the point source model. Variations of around 10% in the 

resulting heat flux are expected if the fraction is varied from 30% to 40%, which is the range 

typically recommended. 

5.2.2 Heskestad’s Model for Flame Height 

The peak fire intensity in the base case scenario is 350 kW. The fire diameter is 0.5 m (1.6 ft). 

Such fire is expected to generate a flame height of 1.95 m (6.4 ft) based on Heskestad’s flame 

height model. 

The sensitivity analysis presented in Figure 5-2 suggests that the highest flame heights are 

observed with the combination of relatively large heat release rates (above 5 MW) and relatively 

small to medium fire diameters (less than 2 m, 6.6 ft). It is difficult to determine a typical range 

of fire diameters and fire intensities for nuclear power plant applications in order to bound the 

sensitivity analysis for flame height. Such ranges depend on the nature of the ignition source 

(oils spills, electrical cabinets, etc), and the geometric characteristics of the scenario. Notice 

that the flame height in the base case scenario is the lower limit of flame height. Heat release 

rates just larger than the peak 350 kW in the base case scenario will generate flame heights 

above 2 m (6.6 ft). 

Probably the largest flame-heights are associated with high heat release rates and very small 

diameters (4.0 MW fires with diameters of ~ 0.5 m, 1.6 ft), which likely are unrealistic scenarios 

for diffusion flame fires. Note that as the fire diameter increases, higher heat release rates are 

necessary for generating flames above 2 m (6.6 ft) high. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-5 

50

550

1050155020502550305035504050455050505550605065507050

0.5

2.5

4.5

6.5

8.5

10.5

Heat Release Rate [kW]

Fire Diameter [m]

Flame Height [m] 

0.00-2.00 2.00-4.00 4.00-6.00 6.00-8.00

Figure 5-2: Sensitivity Analysis for Heskestad’s Model for Flame Height

5.2.3 Fire Plume Temperature 

Table 5-2 summarizes the relevant input data and results associated with the plume temperature 

calculations for the base case scenario. The temperatures are estimated at the ceiling height of 

4.6 m above the fire. Results indicate that plume temperatures will be in the range of 80 °

C to 110 °C 

(176 to 230 o

F). 

Table 5-2: Plume Temperature Analysis Using Plume Temperature Correlations 

EPRI’s FIVE-Rev1 Analysis EPRI’s FIVE-Rev1 Analysis EPRI’s FIVE-Rev1 Analysis 

Heskestad’s Plume Temp Correlation McCaffrey’s Plume Temp Correlation Alpert’s Plume Temp Correlation 

 

Inputs Inputs Inputs 

Ambient temperature [°C] 20 Ambient temperature [°C] 20 Ambient temperature [°C] 20 

Fire location factor 1 Fire location factor 1 Fire location factor 1 

HRR [kW] 350 HRR [kW] 350 HRR [kW] 350 

Fire elevation [m] 0 Fire elevation [m] 0 Fire elevation [m] 0 

Target Elevation [m] 4.6 Target Elevation [m] 4.6 Target Elevation [m] 4.6 

Radiation Fraction 0.3 

Fire Diameter [m] 0.5 

 

Results Results Results

Plume Temp [°C] 106 Plume Temp [°C] 104 Plume Temp [°C] 84

The researchers conducted a sensitivity analysis for the three plume temperature correlations 

identified above. For practical applications, the three correlations yield very similar results, 

as shown in Figures 5-3 through 5-5. However, Figure 5-4 demonstrates a distinct feature 

of the McCaffrey temperature correlation, which predicts lower temperatures near the flames 
Model Sensitivity 

5-6 

(the combusting region of the plume). That is expected because the correlation actually consists 

of three equations, including one for each distinct region of the fire plume. 

The sensitivity analysis also demonstrated the relatively high level of hazard for targets located 

in fire plumes. Notice that temperatures up to 250 °

C (482 oF) are calculated around 7 m (23 ft) 

above the fire. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-7 

100300500700900

15004000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

HRR [kW]

Target elevation [m]

Plume Temperatures, Heskestad Correlation

0-250 250-500 500-750 750-1000 1000-1250

Figure 5-3: Sensitivity Analysis for Heskestad’s Plume Temperature Correlation 100 300 500 700 900 1500 4000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

HRR [kW]

Target elevation [m]

Plume Temperatures, McCaffrey Correlation

0-250 250-500 500-750 750-1000

Figure 5-4: Sensitivity Analysis for McCaffrey’s Plume Temperature Correlation 
Model Sensitivity 

5-8 

100300500700900

15004000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

HRR [kW]

Target elevation [m]

Plume Temperatures, Alpert's Correlation

0-250 250-500 500-750 750-1000 1000-1250

Figure 5-5: Sensitivity Analysis for Alperts’s Plume Temperature Correlation 

5.2.4 Fire Plume Heat Flux 

The following table summarizes the estimated plume heat fluxes at various heights above the fire 

using base case scenario conditions: 

Table 5-3: Plume Heat Flux Results for the Base Case Scenario 

EPRI’s FIVE-Rev1 Analysis 

Convective heat flux in the fire plume 

Inputs 

Fire heat release rate [kW] 350 

Location factor 1 

Fire elevation [m] 0 

Target elevation [m] Heat flux [kW/m2]

1 105.0 

2 26.3 

3 11.7 

4 6.6 

4.6 5.0 

Note that at low elevations above the fire, the model suggests heat fluxes that are comparable 

to those generated inside the flames. It is interesting to note that at 2 m (6.6 ft) above the fire, the 

heat flux significantly decreases, consistent with the flame height estimate (in Section 5.2.2) of 

just under 2 m (6.6 ft). 
Model Sensitivity 

5-9 

The model for estimating incident heat flux inside the fire plume has a mathematical form 

similar to the point source model for estimating flame radiation. That is, 30 percent of the total 

heat release rate contributes to the incident heat flux. Such heat flux decreases as the square 

of the distance between the fire and the target increases. The sensitivity analysis illustrated in 

Figure 5-6 suggests that at relatively small elevations above the fire source, the model predicts 

heat fluxes associated with flame heating (above 80 kW/m2

). Another important insight is the fact 

that a wide range of combinations of elevations above the target and heat release rates would generate 

heat fluxes that can be associated with damage to typical targets in commercial nuclear power plant 

fire scenarios. As a result, scenarios involving targets located inside the fire plume deserve 

particular attention from fire modeling analysts because such targets can be subjected to 

damaging heat flux in a wide range of conditions. 50 550 1050 1550 2050 2550 3050

3550405045505050

0.5

2

3.5

5

6.5

8

Heat Release Rate [kW]

Horizontal Distance [m]

Plume Heat Flux [kW/m2]

0.00-20.00 20.00-40.00 40.00-60.00 60.00-80.00 80.00-100.00

Figure 5-6: Sensitivity Analysis for the Model Used To Predict 
Model Sensitivity 

5-10 

5.2.5 Room Temperature (MQH Model) 

Table 5-4 summarizes the hot gas layer temperature estimated using the MQH model. 

Table 5-4: Hot Gas Layer Results for the Base Case Scenario 

EPRI’s FIVE-Rev1 Analysis 

MQH Temperature Correlation 

Inputs 

Ambient temperature [°C] 27 

Duration [sec] 600 

Opening area [m2] 5.76 

Height of opening [m] 2.4 

Room length [m] 15.2 

Room width [m] 9.1 

Room height [m] 4.6 

Thermal conductivity [kW/mK] 0.00175 

Density [kg/m3] 2200 

Specific heat [kJ/kg] 1 

Wall thickness [m] 0.15 

HRR [kW] 350 

 

Results 

Room Temp [°C] 74 

Notice that the base case scenario is in the lower end of the sensitivity analysis conducted. 

The sensitivity analysis presented in Figure 5-7 is based on the room geometry described 

for the base case scenario in Section 5.1. Only heat release rate and fire duration variables 

were considered for this sensitivity analysis. Heat release rates were varied from 100 to 6,000 kW, 

while fire durations were varied from 100 to 3,600 seconds. 

The MQH model has some specific assumptions that limit its use. In particular, (1) a hot gas layer 

is formed, and (2) heat is carried out of the enclosure by hot gases moving through openings. 

These assumptions may limit the use of this correlation in nuclear power plant applications 

because typical rooms of interest are closed and have no openings other than the access door. 

However, if used correctly, the MQH model is very useful in determining the level of fire exposure 

affecting targets. 

This particular sensitivity analysis indicates that for the selected room size and ventilation conditions, 

only a small range of relatively high heat release rates combined with relatively long fire durations 

may result in flashover conditions (room temperatures above 500 °

C, 930 oF). 

Typical cable damage temperatures used in nuclear power plant fire scenarios are in the range 

of 220 °

C to 330 °C (425 to 625 oF)[Ref. 17]. In this particular analysis, such temperatures would 

be achieved with heat release rates in the order of 1.6 MW or higher for the selected range of fire 

durations. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-11 

The average gas temperature in the enclosure in post-flashover conditions is often very high 

(in the range of 700 to 1200 °

C, above 1300 oF) [Ref. 9]. Therefore, MQH model results 

exceeding these limiting temperatures indicate that the model is not being used within its limits 

of applicability. 

100600

1100160021002600310036004100460051005600

100

600

1100

1600

2100

2600

3100

3600

Heat Release Rate [kW]

Fire Duration [sec] [m]

Room Temperature [C]

0-100 100-200 200-300 300-400 400-500

Figure 5-7: Sensitivity Analysis for the MQH Model for Room Temperature Assuming 

Concrete Walls 

The researchers also conducted an analysis identical to that illustrated in Figure 5-7 (above), 

with the assumption that this analysis assumed steel walls instead of concrete. (The assumed 

steel properties are Cp = 0.46 kJ/kg-k, ρ = 7850 kg/m3

, and k = 0.046 kW/m-K.) The purpose 

of this modified analysis was to explore how sensitive the MQH model might be to changes 

in the boundary properties. Figure 5-8 illustrates the results of this modified analysis. 

Notice that changing only the boundary materials decreased the temperatures by a factor of 2. 

Notice also that in the analysis with concrete walls, the boundaries did not reach uniform temperatures 

in a fire duration up to 1 hour (3,600 sec). In fact, the thermal penetration time (the variable tp

in Section 3.1.2.4) is estimated to be 118 minutes. By contrast, the sharp vertical lines separating 

temperature regions in Figure 5-8 indicate that steel boundaries reached uniform temperature 

in a fire duration of less than 10 minutes (600 sec). In this case, the thermal penetration time (tp) 

is only 7.4 minutes. This is expected, given the high thermal conductivity of thin metal walls. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-12 

100600

1100160021002600310036004100460051005600

100

600

1100

1600

2100

2600

3100

3600

Heat Release Rate [kW]

Fire Duration [sec] [m]

Room Temperature [C]

0-50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-250

Figure 5-8: Sensitivity Analysis for the MQH Model for Room Temperature 

Assuming Steel Walls 

5.2.6 Room Temperature (FPA Model) 

Table 5-5 summarizes the input parameters and results of the calculation using the FPA model, 

assuming no openings and a ventilation rate of 5 ACPH (375 cfm), in which the base case scenario 

results in a room temperature of 125 °

C (257 oF). This temperature is 50 °C (122 oF) higher than 

the temperature estimated using the MQH model, which assumes an open door. This result is 

consistent with the conceptual development of the FPA model, which does not assume heat losses 

through openings, and replaces the natural ventilation term with mechanical ventilation. 

Table 5-5: Room Temperature of the Base Case Scenario Using the FPA Model 

EPRI's FIVE-Rev1 Analysis 

FPA Temperature Correlation 

Inputs 

Ambient temperature [°C] 27 

Duration [sec] 600 

Ventilation rate [cfm] 375 

Room length [m] 15.2 

Room width [m] 9.1 

Room height [m] 4.6 

Thermal conductivity [kW/mK] 0.00175 

Density [kg/m3] 2200 

Specific heat [kJ/kg] 1 

Wall thickness [m] 0.15 

HRR [kW] 350 

 

Room Temp [°C] 125 
Model Sensitivity 

5-13 

The FPA model follows the basic correlations of the MQH model, but adds data for forced-ventilation 

fires [Ref. 11]. Figure 5-9 describes the results of the sensitivity analysis for the base case 

geometric conditions. Notice that the sensitivity analysis considers heat release rate values 

that are well above those used to collect experimental data for use in developing the model 

(150 to 490 kW). As a result, the model predicts temperatures well over the range of 100 °

C 

to 300 °

C (212 to 572 oF) observed in the experiments [Ref. 11]. Based on the results, the FPA 

model does not predict temperatures outside the range of those observed in compartment fires. 

However, the following considerations are important: 

• The FPA model should not be used to calculate temperatures in rooms with flashover conditions 

(temperatures above the range of 500 °

C to 600 °C, above 930 oF). 

• The V&V study documented in Chapter 6 indicates that the FPA model yields results 

that agree with experimental observations for room temperature range of 100 °

C to 300 °C 

(212 to 572 o

F). This temperature range is useful for commercial nuclear power plant 

applications because cable qualified to the standards set forth by the Institute of Electrical 

and Electronics Engineers (IEEE-qualified cable) is a common target in NPP fire scenarios, 

and such cable is usually assumed to have damage temperatures on the order of 330 °

C (625 o

F). 

100600

11001600210026003100360041004600510056006100

100

600

1100

1600

2100

2600

3100

3600

Heat Release Rate [kW]

Fire Duration [sec] [m]

Room Temperature [C]

0-200 200-400 400-600 600-800 800-1000

Figure 5-9: Sensitivity Analysis for the FPA Model for Room Temperature 
Model Sensitivity 

5-14 

5.2.7 Ceiling Jet Temperature 

Table 5-6 summarizes the ceiling jet temperature analysis for the base case scenario 

using Alpert’s correlation with various horizontal distances. 

Table 5-6: Ceiling Jet Temperature Calculations for the Base Case Scenario 

Using Alpert’s Correlation 

EPRI’s FIVE-Rev1 Analysis 

Alpert’s Ceiling Jet Correlation 

 

Inputs 

Ambient temperature [°C] 20 

Fire location factor 1 

HRR [kW] 350 

Fire elevation [m] 0 

Room height [m] 4.6 

 

Results 

Horizontal radial distance [m] Ceiling Jet Temp [°C] 

1 76 

2 55 

3 47 

4 42 

For the ceiling height of the base case scenario, 4.6 m, Alpert’s correlation estimates ceiling jet 

temperatures below 200 °

C (392 oF) for horizontal radial distances longer than 2.0 m (6.6 ft) and 

fire intensities below 5.0 MW. These temperatures are lower than the typical cable damage 

temperatures used in nuclear power plant fire scenarios. Furthermore, fire intensities higher than 

1 MW are necessary to observe temperatures higher than 200 °

C (392 oF) for horizontal distances 

shorter than 2.0 m (6.6 ft). Figure 5-10 illustrates the results of this analysis. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-15 

50

350650950

1250155018502150245027503050335036503950425045504850

0.5

1.7

2.9

4.1

5.3

6.5

7.7

Heat Release Rate [kW]

Horizontal Distance 

[m]

Ceiling Jet Temperature [C]

0-200 200-400 400-600

Figure 5-10: Sensitivity Analysis for Alpert’s Ceiling Jet Temperature Correlation

It is relevant to stress the importance of the ceiling height in this analysis. That is, variations 

in the ceiling height can significantly impact the results of Alpert’s model. For example, 

lowering the ceiling height to 3.0 m (9.8 ft) would result in temperatures above 200 °

C (392 oF) 

in horizontal distances below 5.0 m (16.4 ft) and heat release rates above 500 kW. 

5.2.8 Ceiling Jet Heat Flux 

Table 5-7 summarizes the ceiling jet heat flux analysis for the base case scenario with various 

horizontal distances. Consistent with the discussion of incident heat fluxes inside the fire plume, 

the ceiling jet also presents a distinct hazard in a fire scenario. Figure 5-11 illustrates 

the sensitivity analysis results for the model used to predict incident heat flux assuming a 4.6 m 

(15 ft) high ceiling. Those results clearly indicate that heat fluxes above 5 kW/m2

 can be 

observed under a wide range of heat release rates and horizontal distances. A value of 5 kW/m2 

is commonly used as the damage criterion for certain types of cables in NPP applications [Ref. 17]. 

In this specific analysis, heat fluxes above 5 kW/m2

 result with fire intensities above 1,200 kW. 

The vertical distance between the fire and the ceiling is an important term in this model. 

For example, lowering the ceiling height to 3.0 m (9.8 ft) in the case analyzed in Figure 5-11 

would result in heat fluxes above 10 kW/m2

 for heat release rates over 1,200 kW. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-16 

Table 5-7: Ceiling Jet Heat Flux Analysis for the Base Case Scenario 

EPRI's FIVE-Rev1 Analysis 

Convective heat flux in the ceiling jet 

 

Inputs 

Fire heat release rate [kW] 350 

Fire elevation [m] 0 

Room height [m] 4.6 

 

Results 

Horizontal distance [m] Heat flux [kW/m2] 

1 1.1 

2 0.9 

3 0.8 

4 0.7 

Note, however, that the applications of ceiling jet models are limited in commercial nuclear 

power plant due to the numerous obstructions just below the ceiling. 50 450 850 1250 1650 2050 2450 2850 3250 3650 4050 4450

4850

0.5

1.7

2.9

4.1

5.3

6.5

7.7

Heat Release Rate [kW]

Horizontal Distance 

[m]

CeilingJet Heat Flux [kW/m2]

0.00-5.00 5.00-10.00 10.00-15.00 15.00-20.00

Figure 5-11: Sensitivity Analysis for the Model Used To Predict Incident Heat Flux in the 

Ceiling Jet 

5.2.9 Cable Tray Heat Release Rate 

Figure 5-12 illustrates the sensitivity analysis results for the model used to predict the heat release rate 

from cable tray fires. Notice that the range of bench scale heat release rates to be used with this model 

[Ref. 7] expands from approximately 100 kW/m2

 to approximately 600 kW/m2, with a value 

of 1,071 kW/m2

for IEEE cable. This is the range of bench scale values used for the sensitivity analysis. 

Assuming burning areas up to 4.0 m (13 ft), peak fire intensities are in the range of 2,000 kW. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-17 

50

200350500650800950

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3

3.6

Bench Scale Heat 

Release Rate [kW/m2

]

Cable Tray Area [m2]

Cable Tray HRR [kW]

0-500 500-1000 1000-1500 1500-2000

Figure 5-12: Sensitivity Analysis for the Model Used To Predict the Heat Release Rate from 

Cable Tray Fires 

6-1 

6 

MODEL VALIDATION 

This chapter summarizes the results of a validation study conducted for engineering calculations 

in the FIVE-Rev1 library, in which its predictions are compared with measurements collected 

from six sets of large-scale fire experiments. A brief description of each set of experiments is 

given here. Further details can be found in Volume 7 and in the individual test reports. 

ICFMP BE #2: Benchmark Exercise #2 consists of 8 experiments, representing 3 sets of 

conditions, to study the movement of smoke in a large hall with a sloped ceiling. The results of 

the experiments were contributed to the International Collaborative Fire Model Project (ICFMP) 

for use in evaluating model predictions of fires in larger volumes representative of turbine halls 

in NPPs. The tests were conducted inside the VTT Fire Test Hall, which has dimensions of 19 m 

high by 27 m long by 14 m wide (62 ft x 88.5 ft x 46 ft). Each case involved a single heptane 

pool fire, ranging from 2 MW to 4 MW. 

ICFMP BE #3: Benchmark Exercise #3, conducted as part of the International Collaborative Fire 

Model Project (ICFMP) and sponsored by the US NRC, consists of 15 large-scale tests 

performed at NIST in June, 2003. The fire sizes range from 350 kW to 2.2 MW in a 

compartment with dimensions 21.7 m x 7.1 m x 3.8 m (71 ft x 23 ft x 12.5 ft), designed to 

represent a variety of spaces in a NPP containing power and control cables. The walls and ceiling 

are covered with two layers of 25 mm thick marinate boards, while the floor is covered with two 

layers of 25 mm thick gypsum boards. The room has one 2 m x 2 m (6.6 ft x 6.6 ft) door and a 

mechanical air injection and extraction system. Ventilation conditions and fire size and location 

are varied, and the numerous experimental measurements include gas and surface temperatures, 

heat fluxes, and gas velocities. 

ICFMP BE #4: Benchmark Exercise #4 consists of kerosene pool fire experiments conducted at 

the Institut für Baustoffe, Massivbau und Brandschutz (iBMB) of the Braunschweig University 

of Technology in Germany. The results of two experiments were contributed to the International 

Collaborative Fire Model Project (ICFMP). These fire experiments involve relatively large fires 

in a relatively small (3.6 m x 3.6 m x 5.7 m high, 11.8 ft x 11.8 ft x 18.7 ft) concrete enclosure. 

Only one of the two experiments was selected for the present V&V study (Test 1). 

ICFMP BE #5: Benchmark Exercise #5 consists of fire experiments conducted with realistically 

routed cable trays in the same test compartment as BE #4. Only one test (Test 4) was selected for 

the present evaluation, and only the first 20 min during which time an ethanol pool fire preheats 

the compartment. 

FM/SNL Series: The Factory Mutual & Sandia National Laboratories (FM/SNL) Test Series is a 

series of 25 fire tests conducted for the NRC by Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FMRC), 

under the direction of Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). The primary purpose of these tests 

was to validate computer models for various types of NPP compartments. The experiments were 

conducted in an enclosure measuring 60 ft long x 40 ft wide x 20 ft high (18 m x 12 m x 6 m), 

constructed at the FMRC fire test facility in Rhode Island. All of the tests involved forced 
Model Validation 

6-2 

ventilation to simulate typical NPP installation practices. The fires consist of a simple gas burner, 

a heptane pool, a methanol pool, or a polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) solid fire. Four of these 

tests were conducted with a full-scale control room mockup in place. Parameters varied during 

testing are the heat release rate, enclosure ventilation rate, and fire location. Only three of these 

tests have been used in the present evaluation (Tests 4, 5 and 21). Test 21 involves the full-scale 

mock-up. All are gas burner fires. 

NBS Multi-Room Series: The National Bureau of Standards (NBS, now the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, NIST) Multi-Compartment Test Series consists of 45 fire tests 

representing 9 different sets of conditions, with multiple replicates of each set, which were 

conducted in a three-room suite. The suite consists of two relatively small rooms, connected via 

a relatively long corridor. The fire source, a gas burner, is located against the rear wall of one of 

the small compartments. Fire tests of 100, 300 and 500 kW were conducted, but for the current 

V&V study, only three 100 kW fire experiments have been used (Test 100A, 100O, and 100Z). 

This chapter documents the comparison of models in the FIVE-Rev1 library predictions with the 

experimental measurements for the six test series. Not all models in the FIVE-Rev1 library 

described in Chapter 3 are subjected to this evaluation. In general, the model was evaluated if 

the selected tests series included data supporting the evaluation. At the same time, the evaluated 

models are the ones usually used in the evaluation of nuclear power plant scenarios. 

Technical details of the calculations, including output of the model and comparison with 

experimental data are provided in Appendix A. The results are organized by quantity as follows: 

• Section 6.1 discusses the evaluation of hot gas layer temperature correlations in FIVE-Rev1. 

The MQH model was evaluated using data from compartment fire tests with open doors. The 

FPA model was evaluated using data from compartment fire tests with closed door and 

mechanical ventilation. 

• Section 6.2 discusses the evaluation of the Alpert ceiling jet temperature correlation. 

• Section 6.3 discusses the evaluation of the Heskestad’s and McCaffrey plume temperature 

correlation. 

• Section 6.4 discusses the evaluation of Heskestad’s flame height correlation. 

• Section 6.5 discusses the evaluation of the point source radiation model. 

The model predictions are compared to the experimental measurements in terms of the relative 

difference between the maximum (or where appropriate, minimum) values of each time history: 

( ) ( )

( ) p o

p o p o

E E

M M E E

E

M E

−

− − − = ∆

∆ − ∆

ε =

∆M is the difference between the peak value of the model prediction, Mp, and its original value, 

Mo. ∆E is the difference between the experimental measurement, Ep, and its original value, Eo. 

Each section in this chapter contains a scatter plot that summarizes the relative difference results 

for all of the predictions and measurements of the quantity under consideration. The details of 

the calculations, the input assumptions, and the time histories of the predicted and measured 

output are included in Appendix A. Only a brief discussion of the results is included in this 
Model Validation 

6-3 

chapter. At the end of each section, a color rating is assigned to each of the output category, 

indicating, in a very broad sense, how well the model treats that particular quantity. Colors are 

assigned based on the following criteria: The following two criteria are used to characterize the 

model prediction: 

Criterion 1 - Does the physics of the model support the calculation being made? This criterion 

reflects examination of the applicability of the model to the physics of the fire scenario. 

Generally the scope of this V&V is limited to the fire scenarios that are within the stated 

capability of the selected fire models, e.g., this study does not address the fire scenarios that 

involve flame spread within single and multiple cable trays. 

Criterion 2 - Are there significant outliers (outside the experimental uncertainty) in the 

calculated relative differences? This criterion is used as an indication of how accurate can a 

model prediction get. As long as we use fire experiments as a way of establishing confidence on 

model prediction, our confidence can only become as god as our experiments. In other words, if 

model predictions are within the ranges of experimental uncertainties, they are as reliable as they 

are going to get. However, one should recognize that the experimental uncertainties vary with 

the experiment and the attribute being measured (see volume 7 of this report). These ranges 

could be as much as +50% or more for the experiments and attributes we used in this V&V 

study. 

The predictive capability of the model is then characterized as follows based on these criteria. 

GREEN: If both criteria are satisfied, i.e., the model physics fully supports the calculation being 

made and the calculated relative differences are close to experimental uncertainty, then the V&V 

team concludes that the fire model prediction is within the experimental uncertainty and may be 

used for the recommended range of fire scenarios described in Volume 1. The user should 

recognize, however, that the model prediction may be off by as much as the experimental 

uncertainty and for some attributes such as smoke concentration and room pressure these 

uncertainties may be rather large. 

YELLOW+: If the first criterion is satisfied and the calculated relative differences are outside 

the experimental uncertainty but indicate a consistent pattern of model over-prediction the model 

predictive capability is characterized as YELLOW+. If desired the model prediction may be 

used for the recommended range of fire scenarios described in Volume 1, only when it is ensured 

that model over-prediction reflects conservatism. 

YELLOW: If the first criterion is satisfied and the calculated relative differences are outside 

experimental uncertainty with no clear pattern of over- or under-prediction (or clear pattern of 

under-prediction), the model predictive capability is characterized as YELLOW. Caution should 

be exercised in use of the fire model capability. In this case the user is referred to the details 

related to the experimental condition documented in volumes 2 through 6. The user is advised to 

review and understand those conditions and determine/justify applicability of the model 

prediction to the fire scenario for which it is being used. 

The measure of model “accuracy” used throughout this study is related to experimental 

uncertainty. Volume 7 discusses this issue in detail. In brief, the accuracy of a measurement, e.g.

a gas temperature, is related to the measurement device, e.g. a thermocouple. In addition, the 

accuracy of the numerical prediction of the gas temperature is related to the simplified physical 

description of the fire and to the accuracy of the input parameters, e.g. the specified heat release 
Model Validation 

6-4 

rate. Ideally, the purpose of a validation study is to determine the accuracy of the model in the 

absence of any errors related to the measurement of both its inputs and outputs. Because it is 

impossible to eliminate experimental uncertainty, at the very least a combination of the 

uncertainty in the measurement of model inputs and output can be used to determine accuracy. If 

the numerical prediction falls within the range of uncertainty due to both the measurement of the 

input parameters and the output quantities, it is not possible to quantify its accuracy further. At 

this stage, it is said that the prediction is within experimental uncertainty.

6.1 Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature 

The single most important prediction a fire model can make is the temperature of the hot gas 

layer (HGL). After all, the impact of the fire is often assessed not only a function of the heat 

release rate, but also as a function of the compartment temperature. A good prediction of the 

height of the HGL is largely a consequence of a good prediction of its temperature because 

smoke and heat are largely transported together and most numerical models describe the 

transport of both with the same type of algorithm. Following is a summary of the accuracy 

assessment for the HGL predictions of the six test series: 

Hot gas layer temperatures were predicted using the MQH or FPA temperature models 

depending on the ventilation characteristics of the tests. 

ICFMP BE #2: The MQH over-predicts the HGL temperature by over 600% for all three cases. 

The experimental description suggests wall boundaries as having a 1 mm thick layer of steel and 

an outside layer of mineral wool. If the hot gas layer temperature is calculated assuming steel 

only, results are under-predictions of approximately 75%. If the analysis is conducted assuming 

walls with wool properties, the results are the over-predictions mentioned above. A graphical 

comparison of the MQH predictions and the experimental observations for these three cases is 

presented in Figure A-2 in Appendix A. The scatter plot in Figure 6-1 illustrates the relative 

differences between the measured and predicted peak hot gas layer temperatures and heights. 

ICFMP BE #3: The MQH (open door tests) and FPA (closed door with mechanical ventilation 

tests) models over predict the HGL temperature for all 9 tests for which calculations were made. 

Both models over-predicted temperatures by approximately 50%. This analysis does not include 

tests 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, and 17 since no model was available in the FIVE-Rev1 library for the 

corresponding experimental conditions (closed door and no mechanical ventilation). 

The collection of graphical comparisons between MAGIC predictions for hot gas layer 

temperatures and heights for ICFMP BE #3 is presented in Figures A-3 to A-4. The relative 

differences calculated for peak values are summarized in Table A-4 and Figure 6-1. 

ICFMP BE #4: The MQH model under predicts the temperature for this test. However, the 

under prediction is within the experimental uncertainty of " 15%. Furthermore, both the 

experimental measurement and MQH predictions are above 500 o

C (932 oF), which are well 

above typical target damage values for targets in the commercial nuclear industry. Figure A-6 

illustrates both the experimental and predicted temperature profiles. 
Model Validation 

6-5 

ICFMP BE #5: The MQH model predicts the room temperature within experimental 

uncertainty in this test. The graphical comparison between experimental measurements and 

model predictions, illustrated in Figure A-8 suggests very good agreement between the profiles. 

The calculated relative differences for peak HGL temperature and height are listed in Table A-8. 

FM/SNL: The FPA model over predicts considerably the HGL temperature for Tests 4, 5 and 

21. Graphical comparisons are provided in Figure A-10. 

NBS Multi-Room: MQH predictions in this test series are within the experimental uncertainty 

for the fire room. These under predictions are depicted in Figure A-11. It should be noted that 

the ceramic fiber insulating material covering the fire-brick was selected for the room 

boundaries. Selecting the fire brick as the room material resulted in significant under 

predictions. 

Summary: HGL Temperature

• Evaluation results suggest that the MQH and FPA models over-predicts room temperatures 

by 50 % or more. It should be stressed that in the case of rooms with different layers of wall 

boundaries (ICFMP BE#2, and NBS), the most insulating one was selected. Under 

predictions would have resulted if steel properties. 

• The scatter plots in Figure 6-1 summarize the relative differences calculated for hot gas layer 

temperatures. 

• Since most of the validation results are above the experimental uncertainty, a color 

assignment of Yellow+ is recommended for the room of fire origin. Analysts should 

consider that these are correlations developed for specific scenario conditions. Furthermore, 

models should be used with caution if wall materials are good heat conductors since results 

can be under-predictions. 

Figure 6-1: Scatter plot of relative differences for hot gas layer temperature for ICFMP BE 

#2, 3, 4, 5, and the selected FM/SNL and NBS Tests 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

ICFMP 2-1ICFMP 2-2ICFMP 2-3ICFMP 3-1ICFMP 3-7ICFMP 3-2ICFMP 3-8ICFMP 3-4

ICFMP 3-10ICFMP 3-13ICFMP 3-16ICFMP 3-17

ICFMP 3-3ICFMP 3-9ICFMP 3-5

ICFMP 3-14ICFMP 3-15ICFMP 3-18

ICFMP 4-1ICFMP 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS A BRNBS O BR

NBS Z BR

Relative Differences

BE # 2 Relative 

differences are 

above 600%
Model Validation 

6-6 

6.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature 

The FIVE-Rev1 library includes the Alpert correlation for ceiling jet temperature. The 

correlation applies to the flow of hot gases under flat unobstructed ceilings, which usually limits 

its applications in nuclear power plant scenarios. Furthermore, the correlation is not intended to 

model the ceiling jet temperature in compartments with a well-developed hot gas layer. 

Only two of the six test series (ICFMP BE #3 and FM/SNL) involve a ceiling jet formed over a 

relatively wide, flat ceiling. 

ICFMP BE #3: Alpert correlation consistently under-predicts the ceiling jet temperature by 

approximately 80%. Figure 6-2 illustrates this consistent pattern of under-predictions. As 

mentioned earlier in the report, FIVE studies in the early 1990’s conservatively added the ceiling 

jet and layer temperatures in order to obtain an upper bound of the expected gas temperature in 

the ceiling jet. That practice appears to result in over predictions of the ceiling jet temperature. 

The over predictions range accordingly with the over predictions of the hot gas layer temperature 

calculated with the MQH and FPA models. Notice that Figure 6-1 does not include markers for 

ICFMP BE #3 tests with closed doors and no mechanical ventilation because no hot gas layer 

temperature was calculated for them. 

The graphical comparisons between experimental measurements and MAGIC predictions for 

ceiling jet temperature are grouped in Figures A-12 and A-13. Table A-14 lists the calculated 

relative differences. 

FM/SNL: The Alpert correlation again under predicts the ceiling jet temperature by 

approximately 80%. If the hot gas layer temperature is considered, over predictions of more than 

50 % were observed. The graphical comparisons are provided in Figure A-14. The calculated 

relative differences are listed in Table A-16, and plotted in Figure 6-2. 

Summary: Ceiling Jet Temperature

• The Alpert correlation under predicts ceiling jet temperatures in compartment fires with an 

established hot gas layer. For these cases, the results from the Alpert correlation should be 

corrected. The original version of FIVE made this correction by adding the ceiling jet and 

hot gas layer temperature. This practice results in consistent over predictions of the ceiling 

jet temperature. 

• Based on the above discussion, a classification of yellow + is recommended if hot gas layer 

effects on the ceiling jet temperature are considered. The Alpert correlation is not intended 

to be used in rooms with an established hot gas layer. 
Model Validation 

6-7 

Figure 6-2. Scatter plot of relative differences for ceiling jet temperatures in ICFMP BE #3, 

and the selected FM/SNL Tests 

Ceiling Jet Temperature

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

BE 2-1BE 2-2BE 2-3BE 3-1BE 3-7BE 3-2BE 3-8BE 3-4

BE 3-10BE 3-13BE 3-16BE 3-17

BE 3-3BE 3-9BE 3-5

BE 3-14BE 3-15BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100ANBS 100O

NBS 100Z

HGL + Alpert

Alpert
Model Validation 

6-8 

6.3 Plume Temperature 

This evaluation includes the McCaffrey and Heskestad’s plume temperature correlations 

included in the FIVE-Rev1 library. These correlations were developed considering unobstructed 

plumes in rooms with no hot gas layer. Data from ICFMP BE #2 and the FM/SNL test series 

have been used to assess the accuracy of plume temperature predictions. 

ICFMP BE #2: McCaffrey and Heskestad’s correlations suggested under-predictions of the 

plume temperature. It is interesting to note however that predictions for TG1 are close or within 

experimental uncertainty and the ones for TG2 are not. Thermocouple TG1 is closer to the fire 

where hot gas layer effects may not influence as much the plume temperature. Both under and 

over predictions were observed. Figure A-16 provides the graphical comparisons between model 

predictions and experimental measurements. The calculated relative differences are listed in 

Table A-18 and plotted in Figure 6-3. If the hot gas layer temperature (calculated with the 

MQH model) is added to the plume temperature, the results are over predictions of up to 100%. 

FM/SNL: McCaffrey and Heskestads correlation under predicted plume temperatures in Test 4 

and 5. See Figure A-14 and Table A-16 for the graphical comparisons and the calculated relative 

differences. No comparison was made in Test 21 since the fire was inside a cabinet and is not 

clear how this configuration affected the plume flow. As illustrated in Figure 6-3, summing the 

hot gas layer temperature and plume temperature results in over predictions of more than 50%. 

Summary: Plume Temperature

• McCaffrey and Heskestad’s correlations under predicts ceiling jet temperatures in 

compartment fires with an established hot gas layer. For these cases, correlation results 

should be corrected. The original version of FIVE made this correction by adding the plume 

and hot gas layer temperature. This practice results in consistent over predictions of the 

ceiling jet temperature. In the case of BE 2, the over predictions are significant due to over 

predictions in the hot gas layer discussed in Section 6.1. 

• Based on the above discussion, a classification of yellow + is recommended if hot gas layer 

effects on the plume temperature are considered. The McCaffrey and Heskestad’s 

correlations are not intended to be used in rooms with an established hot gas layer. 
Model Validation 

6-9 

Figure 6-3: Scatter plot of relative differences for plume temperatures in ICFMP BE #2, and 

the selected FM/SNL Tests 

Plume Temperature

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

BE 2-1BE 2-2BE 2-3BE 3-1BE 3-7BE 3-2BE 3-8BE 3-4

BE 3-10BE 3-13BE 3-16BE 3-17

BE 3-3BE 3-9BE 3-5

BE 3-14BE 3-15BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100ANBS 100O

NBS 100Z

TG.1-McCaffrey

TG.2-McCaffrey

TG.1-Heskestad

TG.2-Heskestad

TG.1-McCaffrey + HGL

TG.2-McCaffrey + HGL

TG.1-Heskestad + HGL

TG.2-Heskestad + HGL

Relative differences including hot 

gas layer effects for BE 2 are 

above 600%. See discussion on 

HGL t f BE2
Model Validation 

6-10 

6.4 Flame Height 

Flame height is recorded by visual observations, photographs or video footage. Videos from the 

ICFMP BE # 3 test series and photographs from BE #2 are available. It is difficult to precisely 

measure the flame height, but the photos and videos allow one to make estimates accurate to 

within a pan diameter. In FIVE-Rev1, flames heights are calculated using Heskestad’s 

correlation. 

ICFMP BE #2: The height of the visible flame in the photographs of BE #2 has been estimated 

to be between 2.4 and 3 pan diameters (3.8 m to 4.8 m, 12.5 ft to 15.7 ft). From Figure A-19, 

which reports flame height predictions, flame heights are 3 to 5 m (9.8 ft to 16.4 ft) high. Those 

predictions are consistent with the experimental observations. 

ICFMP BE #3: The Heskestad correlation appears to predicts the flame height accurately in this 

test series, at least to the accuracy of visual observations and a few photographs taken before the 

HGL obscures the upper part of the fire. The experiments were not designed to measure the 

flame height other than through visual observation. Flame height pictures and model predictions 

can be found in Figures A-21 to A-23. 

Summary: Flame Height 

• Based on a comparison between visual observations and Heskestad’s correlation predictions, 

the correlation is appropriate to calculate flame height for scenarios similar to the ones 

evaluated in this study. 

• Visual observations of flames compared with Heskestad’s predictions suggest good 

agreement. It is not possible to provide a quantitative assessment of the comparison given 

that no flame height data was collected during the experiments. However, this evaluation 

does not suggest that the Heskestad correlation is consistently under-predicting or over 

predicting flame height. A green classification is recommended for applications involving 

flames away from walls. 
Model Validation 

6-11 

6.5 Radiation and Total Heat Flux and Target Temperature 

Radiant heat flux data is available from ICFMP BE #3 only. This evaluation compares point 

source model results with experimental measurements using radiation gauges. Graphical 

comparisons of experimental measurements and model results are included in Figures A-24 to A31. Relative differences are listed in Table A-22. 

• ICFMP BE #3: Four radiation gauges were selected for comparison, Gauges 1, 3, 7, and 10. 

The experimental uncertainty is about 20 % for both heat flux and surface temperature. 

Figure 6-4 shows the relative differences. The following observations are relevant: 

• Experimental measurements for Gauge 10 are consistently under predicted by about 50%. 

• Gauges 1, 3, and 7 show similar patterns per test of over and under predictions. Closed 

door tests are over predicted, and opened door tests are either within experimental 

uncertainty or under predicted. 

• The point source model is intended for predicting radiation from flames in an 

unobstructed and smoke-clear path between flames and targets. That is not the case in 

most of these comparisons. Gauge 10 has the lowest elevation from the floor, but its 

location alone does not explain a consistent under-prediction in open and close door tests. 

Gauges 1, 3, and 7 were located 2, 2.5, and 3 m (6.6 ft, 8 ft, and 9.8 ft) respectively above 

the floor. The hot gas layer in opened door tests descended to 1 m (3.3. ft) above the 

floor. Therefore, these three gauges were immersed in smoke during all tests by the time 

were the radiation measurements were selected for comparison. Given that the point 

source inputs are the same for all tests with the exception of the heat release rate, the 

difference between the over predictions in closed door tests and under predictions is open 

door tests is due to the effect experimental measurements. That is, experimental 

measurements are lower in open door tests than in close door tests. This observation is 

difficult to generalize for practical purposes since conditions like location of the hot gas 

layer, soot concentration and location of the target relative to the fire will need to be 

considered on a case by case basis. 

• Based on the above discussion, a yellow classification is recommended. Analysts should 

consider that the point source model is intended for predicting radiation from flames in an 

unobstructed and smoke-clear path between flames and targets. No data was available in 

this study from a scenario with such conditions. 
Model Validation 

6-12 

Figure 6-4. Scatter plot of relative differences for target temperature and heat 

flux in ICFMP BE#4 and 5.

Radiant Heat Flux

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

BE 2-1BE 2-2BE 2-3BE 3-1BE 3-7BE 3-2BE 3-8BE 3-4

BE 3-10BE 3-13BE 3-16BE 3-17

BE 3-3BE 3-9BE 3-5

BE 3-14BE 3-15BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100ANBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Gauge 1 (Cable F)

Gauge 3 (Cable B)

Gauge 7 (Cable D)

Gauge 10 (Cable G)
7-1 

7 

REFERENCES 

1. EPRI TR-1002981, “Fire Modeling Guide for Nuclear Power Plant Applications,” August 2001. 

2. ASTM E1355, “Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic 

Fire Models.” 

3. EPRI TR-100443, “Methods for Quantitative Fire Hazard Analysis,” May 1992. 

4. SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd. Edition, 2002. 

5. Karlsson, B. and J. Quintiere. Enclosure Fire Dynamics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2000. 

6. Drysdale, D. An Introduction to Fire Dynamics, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Chichester, 1996. 

7. Lee, B. T. “Heat Release Rate Characteristics of Some Combustible Fuel Sources in Nuclear 

Power Plants” National Bureau of Standards NBS 85-3195. July 1985. 

8. Heskestad, G. “Fire Plumes, Flame Height, and Air Entrainment” SFPE Handbook of Fire 

Protection Engineering, 3rd Edition. Chapter 2-1. 

9. Beyler, C. “Fire Plumes and Ceiling Jets”. Fire Safety Journal 11 (1986) pp 53–75. 

10. Alpert, R. “Ceiling Jet Flows” SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd Edition. 

Chapter 2-2. 

11. Thomas, P., and D. Walton. “Estimating Temperatures in Compartment Fires,” 

SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd. Edition, 2002. Chapter 3–6. 

12. Cooper, L. “Fire Plume Generated Ceiling Jet Characteristics and Convective Heat Transfer 

to Ceiling and Wall Surfaces in a Two-Layer Fire Environment: Uniform Temperature, 

Ceiling and Walls” Fire Science & Technology, Vol. 13, No. 1 & No. 2 (1–17), 1993. 

13. Mulholland, G. “Smoke Production and Properties” SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection 

Engineering, 3rd Edition. Chapter 2–13. 

14. Alpert, R. “Evaluation of Unsprinklered Fire Hazards” Fire Safety Journal, 7 (1984) p 127–143. 

15. SFPE – DETACT 

16. NUREG-1758, “Evaluation of Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications: 

Cable Tray Fires” 

17. U.S. NRC, Inspection Manual Chapter 06.09, Appendix F, “Fire Protection Significance 

Determination Process,” May 28, 2004.

A-1 

A 

TECHNICAL DETAILS OF FIVE-REV1 VALIDATION 

STUDY 

This appendix provides technical basis for the relative difference values listed in Chapter 6 of 

Volume 3 for the output parameters in the FIVE-Rev1 library of fire modeling engineering 

calculations. This appendix is organized into sections for the parameters that have been verified 

and validated in this study for this specific tool. Not all of the models in FIVE-Rev2 have been 

subjected to verification and validation due to a lack of experimental data or model applicability. 

Each section presents a graph of the experimental data and the model output and a table of 

relative differences at the peaks between experimental data and the model output. The sections 

also list the values selected for input to the model. Within each section, the graphs are grouped 

by experimental test series. Discussion and analysis of the relative differences can found in 

Chapter 6 of Volume 3. The Appendix is organized into the following sections: 

A.1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature 

A.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature 

A.3 Plume Temperature 

A.4 Flame Height 

A.5 Radiant Heat Flux 

Volume 7 includes detailed discussion of the uncertainties associated with both the experimental 

data and model predictions presented in this Appendix. 

The model predictions are compared to the experimental measurements in terms of the relative 

difference between the maximum (or where appropriate, minimum) values of each time history: 

( ) ( )

( ) p o

p o p o

E E

M M E E

E

M E

−

− − − = ∆

∆ − ∆

ε =

∆M is the difference between the peak value of the model prediction, Mp, and its original value, 

Mo. ∆E is the difference between the experimental measurement, Ep, and its original value, Eo. 

A positive value of the relative difference indicates that the model has over-predicted the severity 

of the fire; for example, a higher temperature, lower oxygen concentration, higher smoke 

concentration, etc. 

Finally, all of the calculations performed in the evaluation were open; that is, the heat release rate 

of the fire was a specified model input, and the results of the experiments were provided to the 

analysts. 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-2 

A.1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature 

Relative differences for hot gas layer temperature were calculated using experimental data from 

ICFMP benchmark exercises 2, 3, 4, and 5, the FM/SNL test series, and the NBS multicompartment fire test series. In the case of hot gas layer temperature, positive relative 

differences are an indication that the temperature predictions are higher than the experimental 

observations. 

As described in Chapter 3, the hot gas layer temperature in the FIVE-Rev1 library can be 

calculated using the FPA for closed mechanically ventilated rooms or MQH model for naturally 

ventilated enclosures. 

A.1.1 ICFMP BE #2 

The HGL temperature for the ICFMP BE #2 experiments was calculated using the MQH model. 

The experimental description suggests that although the structure was closed in the first two 

experiments, leakages up to 2 m2

 may exist. The third experiment had an exhaust system 

(11m3

/s). However, considering that the system was not supplying any air into the enclosure, 

and that there were two opened doors, the MQH model may be more appropriate for temperature 

calculations since fresh air only moves in through the openings. 

The input parameters to the MQH model are listed in Table A-1 and Figure A-1. The comparison 

between measured hot gas layer temperatures for ICFMP BE #2 Cases 1, 3 and 3 are presented in 

Figure A-2. 

Table A-1: Inputs to MQH model in ICFMA BE # 2 

Heat Release Rate Profile

ICFMP BE # 2, Case 3

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 100 200 300 400 500

Time [sec]

HRR [k

W

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 

Figure A-1: Heat release rate profile for ICFMP BE #2 

Ambient temp [C] 20 

 

Room Size 

Room length [m] 27 

Room width [m] 13.8 

Room height [m] 15.8 

 

Wall Properties 

Wall k [kW/m-K] 0.0002 

Wall Cp [kJ/Kg-K] 0.15 

Wall ρ [kg/m3] 500 

Thickness [m] 0.05 

 

Nat & Mech Vent 

Opening height Ho [m] 0.7 

Opening area Ao [m2] 2 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-3 

Figure A-2: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #2. 

Table A-2 summarizes the relative differences calculated for the hot gas layer temperature. 

MAGIC under predicts the measured temperature. 

Table A-2: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature in ICFMP BE# 2 

 Hot Gas Layer Temperature 

Test ∆E (oC) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference

ICFMP 2-1 54.8 432.6 690% 

ICFMP 2-2 86.3 624.1 623% 

ICFMP 2-3 82.6 678.4 722% 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

BE 2, Case 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MQH T_upper

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

BE 2, Case 2

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

02468

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MQH T_upper

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

BE 2, Case 3

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

02468

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MQH T_upper
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-4 

A.1.2 ICFMP BE # 3 

BE #3 consists of 15 liquid spray fire tests with different heat release rate, pan locations, and 

ventilation conditions. Gas temperatures were measured using seven floor-to-ceiling 

thermocouple arrays (or “trees”) distributed throughout the compartment. The average hot gas 

layer temperature was calculated using thermocouple Trees 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Tree 4 was not 

used because one of its thermocouples (4-9) malfunctioned during most of the experiments. 

It is important to indicate also that the HGL reduction method produces spurious results in the 

first few minutes of each test because no clear layer has yet formed. 

The comparison between MAGIC simulations and measured hot gas layer temperatures are 

compiled in Figure A-3 to Figure A-4. Notice that comparisons are only available for tests with 

opened doors with or without mechanical ventilation, and closed doors with mechanical 

ventilation. The temperature for the former group was calculated using the MQH model. The 

temperature for the later group was calculated with the FPA model. No comparisons are 

provided for tests with closed door and no mechanical ventilation because the FIVE-Rev1 library 

does not include a model for such conditions. The inputs for the MQH and FPA models are 

listed in Table A-3 The heat release rate profiles are identical to the ones used in the MAGIC 

simulations, and are described in Volume 7 of this report. 

Table A-3: Inputs to the MQH and FPA model in ICFMP BE #3 

Ambient temp [C] 22 

 

Room Size 

Room length [m] 21.7 

Room width [m] 7.04 

Room height [m] 3.82 

 

Wall Properties 

Wall k [kW/m-K] 0.00013 

Wall Cp [kJ/Kg-K] 1.17 

Wall ρ [kg/m3] 737 

Thickness [m] 0.025 

 

Nat & Mech Vent 

Opening height Ho [m] 2 

Opening area Ao [m2] 4 

CFM 1907 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-5 

No plot for BE #3, Test 1. This is a closed 

door test with no mechanical ventilation. 

No plot for BE #3, Test 7. This is a closed 

door test with no mechanical ventilation. 

No plot for BE #3, Test 2. This is a closed 

door test with no mechanical ventilation. 

No plot for BE #3, Test 8. This is a closed 

door test with no mechanical ventilation. 

 

No plot for BE #3, Test 13. This is a closed 

door test with no mechanical ventilation. 

Figure A-3. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests with 

mechanical ventilation. 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper FPA

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper FPA

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0123456

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper FPA
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-6 

No plot for BE #3, Test 17. This is a closed 

door test with no mechanical ventilation. Open Door Tests 

 

 

 

Figure A-4: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) temperature ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper MQH

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper MQH

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper MQH

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper MQH

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper MQH

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper MQH
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-7 

Table A-4: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in ICFMP BE# 3 

 Hot Gas Layer Temperature 

Test ∆E (oC) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference 

ICFMP 3-1 N/A1

ICFMP 3-7 N/A1

ICFMP 3-2 N/A1

ICFMP 3-8 N/A1

ICFMP 3-4 204.3 295.5 45% 

ICFMP 3-10 197.8 293.8 49% 

ICFMP 3-13 N/A1

ICFMP 3-16 268.4 359.8 34% 

ICFMP 3-17 N/A1

ICFMP 3-3 207.3 309.2 49% 

ICFMP 3-9 204.0 306.1 50% 

ICFMP 3-5 175.5 309.2 76% 

ICFMP 3-14 208.2 307.6 48% 

ICFMP 3-15 210.6 307.6 46% 

ICFMP 3-18 193.4 307.6 59% 

1. No relative differences calculated for closed-door rooms with no mechanical ventilation. There is no model 

applicable to this case in the FIVE-Rev1 library. 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-8 

A.1.3 ICFMP BE #4 

ICFMP BE # 4 consisted of two experiments, of which one was chosen for validation, Test 1. 

Compared to the other experiments, this fire was relatively large in a relatively small 

compartment. Thus, its HGL temperature is considerably higher than the other fire tests under 

study. The hot gas layer temperature was calculated with using the MQH model. Table A-5 lists 

the input parameters. The heat release rate profile is presented in Figure A-5. 

Table A-5: Inputs to the MQH model in ICFMP BE #4 

 

Figure A-5: Heat release rate profile for ICFMP BE #4. 

Ambient temp [C] 20 

 

Room Size 

Room length [m] 3.6 

Room width [m] 3.6 

Room height [m] 5.7 

 

Wall Properties 

Wall k [kW/m-K] 0.00075 

Wall Cp [kJ/Kg-K] 0.84 

Wall ρ [kg/m3] 1500 

Thickness [m] 0.025 

 

Nat & Mech Vent 

Opening height Ho [m] 3.6 

Opening area Ao [m2] 2.1 

Heat Release Rate Profile

ICFMP BE # 4: Test 1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time [min]

HRR [M

W
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-9 

Figure A-6 includes the comparison between experimental and predicted hot gas layer 

temperature and height. The relative differences calculated for this experiment are listed in 

Table A-6. 

Figure A-6: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #4, Test 1. 

Table A-6: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature in ICFMP BE# 4 

 Hot Gas Layer Temperature 

Test ∆E (oC) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference 

ICFMP 4-1 700.1 589.0 -16% 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

BE 4, Test 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MQH

Tup
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-10 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

BE 5, Test 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MQH T_up

A.1.4: ICFMP BE #5 

BE #5 was performed in the same fire test facility as BE #4. Only one of the experiments from 

this test series was used in the evaluation, Test 4, and only the first 20 min of the test, during the 

“pre-heating” stage when only the ethanol pool fire was active. The burner was lit after that 

point, and the cables began to burn. Figure A-7 presents the heat release rate profile measured 

during the test. The inputs for the MQH equation are listed in Table A-7. 

Table A-7: Inputs to the MQH model in ICFMP BE #5 

 

Figure A-7: Heat release rate profile for ICFMP BE #5.

Figure A-8 summarizes the comparison between the experimental and predicted hot gas layer 

and height during the first 20 minutes of simulation. The corresponding relative differences are 

listed in Table A-8. 

Figure A-8: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4. 

Ambient temp [C] 20 

 

Room Size 

Room length [m] 3.6 

Room width [m] 3.6 

Room height [m] 5.7 

 

Wall Properties 

Wall k [kW/m-K] 0.0016 

Wall Cp [kJ/Kg-K] 0.75 

Wall ρ [kg/m3] 2400 

Thickness [m] 0.3 

 

Nat & Mech Vent 

Opening height Ho [m] 2.2 

Opening area Ao [m2] 1.54 

Heat Release Rate Profile

ICFMP BE # 5, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20

Time [min]

HRR [k

W
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-11 

Table A-8: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature in ICFMP BE# 5 

 Hot Gas Layer Temperature 

Test ∆E (oC) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference 

ICFMP 5-4 150.3 136.0 -10% 

A.1.5 FM/SNL Test Series 

Tests 4, 5, and 21 from the FM-SNL test series were selected for comparison. Hot gas layer 

temperatures were calculated using the FPA model. Figure A-9 and Table A-9 provide the input 

parameters for the FPA model. The experimental hot gas layer temperature and height were 

calculated using the standard method. The thermocouple arrays that are referred to as Sectors 1, 

2 and 3 were averaged (with an equal weighting for each) for Tests 4 and 5. For Test 21, only 

Sectors 1 and 3 were used, as Sector 2 fell within the smoke plume. 

Table A-9: Input parameters for the FPA model in FM/SNL tests 

 Test 5 Test 4 & 21

Ambient temp [C] 20 20 

 

Room Size 

Room length [m] 18.3 18.3 

Room width [m] 12.2 12.2 

Room height [m] 6.1 6.1 

Wall Properties 

Wall k [kW/m-K] 0.00012 0.00012 

Wall Cp [kJ/Kg-K] 1.25 1.25 

Wall ρ [kg/m3] 720 720 

Thickness [m] 0.0125 0.0125 

Mech Vent 

CFM 8000 800 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-12 

Heat Release Rate Profile

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time [min]

HRR [k

W

Figure A-9: Heat release rate profiles for the selected FM.SNL tests. 

Figure A-10 summarizes the graphical comparison of hot gas layer temperatures and heights for 

Tests 4, 5, and 21. The relative differences are included in Table A-10. 

 

Figure A-10: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, FM/SNL Series. 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

FPA T_upper

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

FPA T_upper

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 21

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

FPA T_upper
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-13 

Table A-10: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in FM/SNL 

 Hot Gas Layer Temperature 

Test ∆E (oC) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference 

FM/SNL 4 59.2 171.5 190% 

FM/SNL 5 46.6 74.9 61% 

FM/SNL 21 66.0 171.5 160% 

A.1.6 The NBS Multi-Room Test Series 

This series of experiments consisted of two relatively small rooms connected by a long corridor. 

The fire was located in one of the rooms. Eight vertical arrays of thermocouples were positioned 

throughout the test space: one in the burn room, one near the door of the burn room, three in the 

corridor, one in the exit to the outside at the far end of the corridor, one near the door of the other 

or “target” room, and one inside the target room. Four of the eight arrays were selected for 

comparison with model prediction: the array in the burn room, the array in the middle of the 

corridor, the array at the far end of the corridor, and the array in the target room. In Tests 100A 

and 100O, the target room was closed, in which case the array in the exit doorway was used. 

The standard reduction method was not used to compute the experimental HGL temperature for 

this test series. Rather, the test director reduced the layer information individually for the eight 

thermocouple arrays using an alternative method (Peacock 1991). 

This evaluation is limited to the room of fire origin only. The MQH model was selected for the 

evaluation since the room has an open door and no mechanical ventilation. Table A-11 lists the 

input parameters for the MQH model. 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-14 

Table A-11: Input parameters for the MQH model in the NBS tests 

Ambient temp [C] 20 

 

Room Size 

Room length [m] 2.3 

Room width [m] 2.3 

Room height [m] 2.16 

 

Wall Properties 

Wall k [kW/m-K] 0.00009 

Wall Cp [kJ/Kg-K] 128 

Wall ρ [kg/m3] 1.04 

Thickness [m] 0.05 

 

Nat & Mech Vent 

Opening height Ho [m] 1.6 

Opening area Ao [m2] 1.28 

 

Fire 

HRR [kW] -- Constant 110 

Figure A-11 compiles the graphical comparison between experimental measurements and 

modeling results for hot gas layer temperature for the three selected experiments. The 

corresponding relative differences are listed in Table A-12. 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-15 

Figure A-11: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature, NBS Multiroom, Test 100A. 

Table A-12: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in NBS Tests 

 Hot Gas Layer Temperature 

 ∆E (oC) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference 

NBS A Burn Room 247.8 166.0 -33% 

NBS O Burn Room 310.3 166.0 -47% 

NBS Z Burn Room 283.9 166.0 -42% 

Hot Gas Layer Temp, Burn Room

NBS, MV100Z_2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

UP BR

MQH

Hot Gas Layer Temp, Burn Room

NBS, MV100A_2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

UP BR MQH

Hot Gas Layer Temp, Burn Room

NBS, MV100O_2

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

UP BR

MQH
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-16 

A.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature 

The FIVE-Rev1 library includes the Alpert correlation for ceiling jet temperature. Experimental 

measurements for the ceiling are available from ICFMP BE #3 and the FM/SNL series only. 

Positive relative differences are an indication that the MAGIC prediction is higher than the 

experimental observation. 

The ceiling jet temperature correlation using experimental data collected from controlled 

environments with no hot gas layer effects. If such correlations are used for analyzing fire 

scenarios involving a hot gas layer, a correction is recommended to account for the thermal 

effects of the hot gas layer in the ceiling jet temperature. In the case of the ceiling jet, hot gas 

layer effects may not be important in the following two situations: 1) in the early phases of the 

fire event, when a hot gas layer has not been established, and 2) in relatively large rooms with 

relatively small fires, where the hot gas layer temperature is close to ambient. 

In the first version of FIVE, the hot gas layer effects were included in the analysis by adding 

(superimposing) the calculated temperature rise in the ceiling jet to the hot gas layer temperature. 

In some cases, this simplification produce over predictions in the ceiling jet temperature. The 

equation is: TP−HGL = THGL + ∆TP = THGL +TP −Tamb 

This section presents both comparisons: with and without considerations for the hot gas layer 

effects. The hot gas layer temperature added to the ceiling jet was reported earlier in section A.1. 

A.2.1 ICFMP BE # 3 

The thermocouple nearest the ceiling in Tree 7, located towards the back of the compartment, 

was chosen as a surrogate for the ceiling jet temperature. The 15 graphical comparisons of 

experimental measurements and model results are grouped in Figure A-12 and Figure A-13. The 

corresponding relative differences are listed in Table A-14. 

Table A-13 lists specific location parameters required for the plume temperature correlation. 

The heat release rate values are listed in Volume 7. 

Table A-13: Target location information for ceiling jet correlation 

Ceiling Jet 

Target height [m] 3.5 

Fire elevation [m] 0 

 

Instrument All Others Test 14 Test 15 Test 18 

Radial dist [m] 5.9 6.1 6.3 4.8 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-17 

 

 

 

Figure A-12: Near-ceiling gas (ceiling jet) temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

Alpert CJ

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

Alpert CJ

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

Alpert CJ

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

Alpert CJ

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

Alpert CJ

THGL + Alpert

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

Alpert CJ

THGL + Alpert

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

Alpert CJ

Ceiling Jet Temp

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0246

Time (min)

Pressure (PSI)

Tree 7-10 

Alpert CJ

THGL + Alpert
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-18 

Open Door Tests 

 

 

 

Figure A-13: Near-ceiling gas (ceiling jet) temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests 

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

Alpert CJ

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

Alpert CJ

THGL + Alpert

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

Alpert CJ

THGL + Alpert

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

Alpert CJ

THGL + Alpert

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

Alpert CJ

THGL + Alpert

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

Alpert CJ

THGL + Alpert

Ceiling Jet Temp

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Tree 7-10 

Alpert CJ

THGL + Alpert
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-19 

Table A-14: Relative differences for ceiling jet temperature in ICFMP BE #3 

No Hot Gas Layer Effects Hot Gas Layer Effects 

∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference

ICFMP 3-1 Tree 7-10 154.90 23.29 -85% 154.9 175.3 13% 

ICFMP 3-7 Tree 7-10 139.32 23.29 -83% 139.3 175.3 26% 

ICFMP 3-2 Tree 7-10 270.60 47.03 -83% 270.6 272.3 1% 

ICFMP 3-8 Tree 7-10 246.93 47.03 -81% 246.9 271.5 10% 

ICFMP 3-4 Tree 7-10 228.86 47.39 -79% 228.9 342.8 50% 

ICFMP 3-10 Tree 7-10 217.55 47.03 -78% 217.5 340.9 57% 

ICFMP 3-13 Tree 7-10 330.51 73.38 -78% 330.5 395.7 20% 

ICFMP 3-16 Tree 7-10 277.66 72.73 -74% 277.7 432.6 56% 

ICFMP 3-17 Tree 7-10 155.86 46.32 -70% 155.9 239.2 53% 

ICFMP 3-3 Tree 7-10 240.67 47.03 -80% 240.7 356.2 48% 

ICFMP 3-9 Tree 7-10 234.60 46.56 -80% 234.6 352.6 50% 

ICFMP 3-5 Tree 7-10 207.74 47.03 -77% 207.7 356.2 71% 

ICFMP 3-14 Tree 7-10 240.80 46.80 -81% 240.8 354.4 47% 

ICFMP 3-15 Tree 7-10 243.66 46.80 -81% 243.7 354.4 45% 

ICFMP 3-18 Tree 7-10 235.13 46.80 -80% 235.1 354.4 51% 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-20 

A.2.2 The FM/SNL Test Series 

The near-ceiling thermocouples in Sectors 1 and 3 were chosen as surrogates for the ceiling jet 

temperature. The results are shown below. 

Table A-15 lists specific location parameters required for the plume temperature correlation. 

The heat release rate values are listed in Volume 7. 

Figure A-14 compiles the graphical comparisons between experimental measurements for ceiling 

jet temperature and the correlation predictions. The corresponding relative differences are listed 

in Table A-16. 

Table A-15: Target location information for ceiling jet correlation 

Ceiling Jet 

Target height [m] 5.9 

Fire elevation [m] 0 

 

Instrument X Y Z 

Fire 12.0 6.1 0.3 Radial dist [m] 

3-98 3.04 2.032 5.97 9.8 

1-98 15.24 6.09 5.97 7.1 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-21 

 

 

 

Figure A-14: Near-ceiling gas (ceiling jet) temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1 and 3. 

Ceiling Jet Temp

FM/SNL, Test 4 - Sector 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Alpert

1/(0.98 H)

Alpert + HGL

Ceiling Jet Temp

FM/SNL, Test 4 - Sector 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Alpert

11/(0.98 H)

Alpert + HGL

Ceiling Jet Temp

FM/SNL, Test 5 - Sector 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Alpert

1/(0.98 H)

Alpert + HGL

Ceiling Jet Temp

FM/SNL, Test 5 - Sector 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Alpert

11/(0.98 H)

Alpert + HGL

Ceiling Jet Temp

FM/SNL, Test 21 - Sector 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Alpert

11/(0.98 H)

Alpert + HGL

Ceiling Jet Temp

FM/SNL, Test 21- Sector 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Alpert

1/(0.98 H)

Alpert + HGL
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-22 

Table A-16: Relative differences for ceiling jet temperatures in FM/SNL Tests 

No Hot Gas Layer Effects Hot Gas Layer Effects 

∆E (oC) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference

1/98H 82.8 11.8 -86% 82.8 183.3 121% FM/SNL 4 11/98H 66.1 14.7 -78% 66.1 186.2 182% 

1/98H 73.7 11.8 -84% 73.7 86.7 18% FM/SNL 5 11/98H 52.6 14.7 -72% 52.6 89.5 70% 

1/98H 75.9 11.8 -84% 75.9 86.7 14% FM/SNL 21 11/98H 77.2 14.7 -81% 77.2 89.5 16% 

A.3 Plume Temperature 

Plume temperature measurements are available from ICFMP BE #2 and the FM/SNL series. For 

all the other series of experiments, the temperature was not measured above the fire, the fire 

plume leaned because of the flow pattern within the compartment, or the fire was set up against a 

wall. Only for BE #2 and the FM/SNL series were the plumes relatively free from perturbations. 

The Heskestad’s and McCaffrey’s plume temperature correlations are considered in this 

evaluation. 

The plume temperature correlations using experimental data collected from controlled 

environments with no hot gas layer effects. If such correlations are used for analyzing fire 

scenarios involving a hot gas layer, a correction is recommended to account for the thermal 

effects of the hot gas layer in the ceiling jet temperature. In the case of the plume, hot gas layer 

effects may not be important in the following two situations: 1) in the early phases of the fire 

event, when a hot gas layer has not been established, and 2) in relatively large rooms with 

relatively small fires, where the hot gas layer temperature is close to ambient. 

In the first version of FIVE, the hot gas layer effects were included in the analysis by adding 

(superimposing) the calculated temperature rise in the ceiling jet to the hot gas layer temperature. 

In some cases, this simplification produces over predictions in the ceiling jet temperature. The 

equation is: TP−HGL = THGL + ∆TP = THGL +TP −Tamb . 

This section presents both comparisons: with and without considerations for the hot gas layer 

effects. The hot gas layer temperature added to the ceiling jet was reported earlier in section A.1. 

A.3.1 ICFMP BE # 2 

BE #2 consisted of liquid fuel pan fires conducted in the middle of a large fire test hall. Plume 

temperatures were measured at two heights above the fire, 6 m and 12 m. The flames extended 

to about 4 m above the fire pan. (Figure A-15). The suspended rectangle contains an array of 

thermocouples designed to locate the plume centerline. Notice that the smoke plume does not 

always rise straight up because of air currents within the large test hall. 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-23 

Figure A-15: Fire plumes in ICFMP BE #2. Courtesy Simo Hostikka, VTT Building and 

Transport, Espoo, Finland. 

Table A-17 lists specific location parameters required for the plume temperature correlation. 

The heat release rate values are listed in Volume 7. Table A-16 compiles the graphical 

comparisons between experimental measurements for plume temperature and the correlation 

predictions. The corresponding relative differences are listed in Table A-18. 

Table A-17: Target location information for plume correlations 

Plume TG.1 TG.2 

Target height [m] 6 12 

 

Fire elevation [m] 0 

 

Fire diameter [m] 1.6 

Rad fraction, Xr 0.4 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-24 

 

 

 

Figure A-16: Near-ceiling gas temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1 and 3 compared with 

Heskestad’s plume temperature correlation. 

Plume Temp

BE 2, Case 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Heskestad Heskestad

T G.1 T G.2

Plume Temp

BE 2, Case 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

02468

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Heskestad Heskestad

T G.1 T G.2

Plume Temp

BE 2, Case 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0123456

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Heskestad Heskestad

T G.1 T G.2

Plume Temp

BE 2, Case 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 2 4 6 8 10 Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Heskestad + HGL

Heskestad + HGL

T G.1

T G.2

Plume Temp

BE 2, Case 2

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

02468

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Heskestad + HGL

Heskestad + HGL

T G.1

T G.2

Plume Temp

BE 2, Case 3

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0123456

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Heskestad + HGL

Heskestad + HGL

T G.1

T G.2
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-25 

 

 

 

Figure A-17: Near-ceiling gas temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1 and 3 compared with 

McCaffrey plume temperature correlation. 

Figure A-16 and Figure A-17 above illustrate the graphical comparison between experimental 

plume temperatures and MAGIC prediction for the three cases in ICFMP BE #2. The 

corresponding relative differences are listed in Table A-18. 

Plume Temp

BE 2, Case 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

McCaffrey McCaffrey

T G.1 T G.2

Plume Temp

BE 2, Case 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

02468

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

McCaffrey McCaffrey

T G.1 T G.2

Plume Temp

BE 2, Case 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

02468

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

McCaffrey McCaffrey

T G.1 T G.2

Plume Temp

BE 2, Case 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

McCaffrey + HGL

McCaffrey + HGL

T G.1

T G.2

Plume Temp

BE 2, Case 2

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

02468

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

McCaffrey + HGL

T G.1

T G.2

Plume Temp

BE 2, Case 3

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

02468

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

McCaffrey + HGL

McCaffrey + HGL

T G.1

T G.2
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-26 

Table A-18: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in ICFMP BE #2 

 ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference ∆M (o

C) 

Relative 

Difference

TG.1 McCaffrey 166.0 163.2 -2% 595.8 259% 

TG.2 McCaffrey 79.0 51.7 -35% 484.3 513% 

TG.1 Heskestad 166.0 132.6 -20% 565.2 240% 

Case 1 

TG.2 Heskestad 79.0 41.7 -47% 474.3 500% 

TG.1 McCaffrey 288.0 237.1 -18% 858.8 198% 

TG.2 McCaffrey 128.0 75.0 -41% 698.4 446% 

TG.1 Heskestad 288.0 218.0 -24% 839.1 191% 

Case 2 

TG.2 Heskestad 128.0 64.3 -50% 687.7 437% 

TG.1 McCaffrey 252.0 254.9 1% 933.2 270% 

TG.2 McCaffrey 128.0 80.6 -37% 759.0 493% 

TG.1 Heskestad 252.0 241.1 -4% 919.5 265% 

Case 3 

TG.2 Heskestad 128.0 70.1 -45% 748.4 485% 

A.3.2 The FM/SNL Test Series 

In Tests 4 and 5, thermocouples were positioned near the ceiling directly (5.9 m) over the fire 

pan. In Test 21, the fire pan was inside a cabinet. For that reason, no plume temperature 

comparison has been made. Figure A-18 presents the graphical comparisons and Table A-20 

lists the corresponding relative differences. Target location inputs are listed in Table A-19. 

Table A-19: Target location information for plume correlations 

Plume TG.1 

Target height [m] 5.9 

 

Fire elevation [m] 0 

 

Fire diameter [m] 0.8 

Xr 0.4 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-27 

 

 

Figure A-18: Near-plume temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 13. 

Table A-20: Relative differences of plume temperature in FM/SNL tests 

No Hot Gas Layer Effects Hot Gas Layer Effects 

∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Difference ∆E (oC) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference

McCaffrey 28/98H 115.8 70.7 -39% 115.8 242.2 109% Test 4 

Heskestad 28/98H 115.8 59.6 -49% 115.8 231.1 100% 

McCaffrey 28/98H 93.8 70.7 -25% 93.8 145.5 55% Test 5 Heskestad 28/98H 93.8 59.6 -36% 93.8 134.5 43% 

A.4 Flame Height 

Flame height is recorded by visual observations, photographs or video footage. Videos from the 

ICFMP BE # 3 test series and photographs from BE #2 are available. It is difficult to precisely 

measure the flame height, but the photos and videos allow one to make estimates accurate to 

within a pan diameter. 

A.4.1 ICFMP BE #2 

Shown in Figure A-19 are Heskestad’s correlation predictions for flame height. Figure A-20 

contains photographs of the actual fire. The height of the visible flame in the photographs has 

been estimated to be between 2.4 and 3 pan diameters (3.8 m to 4.8 m). The height of the 

simulated fire fluctuates from 5 m to 6 m during the peak heat release rate phase. 

Plume Temp

FM/SNL, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

McCaffrey

28/(0.98 H)

McCaffrey + HGL

Plume Temp

FM/SNL, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Heskestad

28/(0.98 H)

Heskestad+ HGL

Plume Temp

FM/SNL, Test 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

McCaffrey

28/(0.98 H)

McCaffrey + HGL

Plume Temp

FM/SNL, Test 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Heskestad

28/(0.98 H)

Heskestad+ HGL
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-28 

Figure A-19: Flame heights for ICFMP BE # 2 

Flame Height

BE 2, Case 2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

02468

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad

Flame Height

BE 2, Case 3

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

02468

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad

Flame Height

BE 2, Case 1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

02468

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-29 

Figure A-20: Photographs of heptane pan fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2. Courtesy, Simo 

Hostikka, VTT Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland. 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-30 

A.4.2 ICFMP BE #3 

No measurements were made of the flame height during BE #3, but numerous photographs were 

taken. Figure A-21 is one of these photographs. These photographs provide at least a qualitative 

assessment of the Heskestad flame height prediction. Recall that the size of the door is 2.0 m 

high. Inspection of the picture suggests that the flame height, at least is some of its oscillations, 

can be more than 2.0 m high. 

Figure A-21: Photograph and simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3, as seen through the 2 m by 2 

m doorway. Photo courtesy of Francisco Joglar, SAIC. 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-31 

 

 

 

Figure A-22: Near-ceiling gas temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad's

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad's

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad's

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad's

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad's

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad's

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

02468

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad's

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

02468

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad's
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-32 

Open Door Tests 

 

 

 

Figure A-23: Flame heights, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests 

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad's

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0123456

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad's

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad's

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad's

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad's

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad's

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Height (m)

Heskestad's
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-33 

 A.5 Radiant Heat Flux 

Radiant heat flux data is available only from ICFMP BE #3. This data is compared with results 

from the point-source radiant heat flux model available in the FIVE-Rev1 library of equations. 

The four radiometers selected for this study are labeled Rad Gauge 1, 3, 7 and 10. Table A-21 

lists the effective distance from the gauges to the fire. A radiation fraction of 0.4 was assumed 

for the analysis. The heat release rate profiles for each of the tests is described in Volume 7 of 

this report. 

Table A-21: Effective horizontal distances from the fire to the rad gauges 

Instrument All Others Test 14 Test 15 Test 18 

R Gauge 1 [m] 3.70 5.16 2.18 2.76 

R Gauge 3 [m] 3.45 4.74 2.55 2.98 

R Gauge 7 [m] 3.44 4.45 3.14 3.44 

R Gauge 10 [m] 3.75 2.41 5.91 5.83 

Figures A-24 to A-27 provide the graphical comparisons between the point source radiation 

predictions and the experimental measurements. When available, the corresponding measured 

total heat flux was also included in the comparison. Finally, Table A-22 lists the calculated 

relative differences for this comparison.
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-34 

 

 

 

 

Figure A-24: Radiative heat flux to cable B 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

02468

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

02468

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 4 

8
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-35 

Open Door Tests 

 

 

 

Figure A-25: Radiative heat flux to cable B 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0123456

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 4 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-36 

 

 

 

 

Figure A-26: Radiative heat flux to cable D 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Point Source

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Point Source

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 6 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Point Source

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Point Source

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

4

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Point Source

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 8 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

02468

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 8 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-37 

Door Open Tests 

 

 

 

Figure A-27: Radiative heat flux to cable D 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0123456

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 6 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 6 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 6 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Point Source

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 6 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 6 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 6 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-38 

 

 

 

 

Figure A-28: Radiative heat flux to cable F 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 2 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 2 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 2 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 2 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 2 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 2 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

02468

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 2 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

02468

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 2 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-39 

Open Door Tests 

 

 

;; 

Figure A-29: Radiative heat flux to cable F 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

02468

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 2 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 2 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 2 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 2 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 2 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 2 Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 2 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-40 

 

 

 

 

Figure A-30: Radiative heat flux to cable G 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

Point Source Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

Point Source

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

Point Source

Target TS-35 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

Point Source

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

Point Source

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

Point Source

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

02468

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 9 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

02468

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 9 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-41 

Open Door Tests 

 

 

 

Figure A-31: Radiative heat flux to cable G 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 9 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 9 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

02468

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 9 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

Point Source

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 9 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 9 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

Point Source

Cable Total Flux 9 
Technical Details of FIVE-Rev1 Validation Study 

A-42 

Table A-22: Relative differences for radiative heat flux 

Gauge 1 

∆E 

(kW/m2

) 

∆M 

(kW/m2) 

Relative 

DifferenceGauge 3 

∆E 

(kW/m2) 

∆M 

(kW/m2) 

Relative 

Difference

Test 1 0.87 0.95 10% Test 1 1.12 1.09 -3% 

Test 7 0.82 0.95 16% Test 7 1.21 1.09 -9% 

Test 2 1.99 2.76 39% Test 2 2.88 3.17 10% 

Test 8 1.93 2.76 43% Test 8 2.91 3.17 9% 

Test 4 2.02 2.80 38% Test 4 2.92 3.21 10% 

Test 10 2.73 2.72 0% Test 10 2.69 3.17 18% 

Test 13 2.90 5.42 87% Test 13 4.77 6.22 30% 

Test 16 2.76 5.35 94% Test 16 4.12 6.14 49% 

Test 17 0.88 2.70 206% Test 17 1.30 3.10 138% 

Test 3 2.95 2.76 -6% Test 3 4.45 3.17 -29% 

Test 9 1.93 2.76 43% Test 9 4.29 3.12 -27% 

Test 5 2.65 2.76 4% Test 5 3.88 3.17 -18% 

Test 14 2.12 1.41 -34% Test 14 2.84 1.67 -41% 

Test 15 18.29 7.88 -57% Test 15 46.49 5.77 -88% 

Test 18 5.18 4.93 -5% Test 18 5.23 4.22 -19% 

Gauge 7 

∆E 

(kW/m2

) 

∆M 

(kW/m2) 

Relative 

Difference Gauge 10

∆E 

(kW/m2) 

∆M 

(kW/m2) 

Relative 

Difference

Test 1 1.44 1.11 -23% Test 1 1.51 0.93 -39% 

Test 7 1.35 1.11 -18% Test 7 1.47 0.93 -37% 

Test 2 4.16 3.21 -23% Test 2 5.97 2.69 -55% 

Test 8 3.55 3.21 -10% Test 8 6.03 2.69 -55% 

Test 4 3.26 3.24 0% Test 4 6.00 2.72 -55% 

Test 10 2.91 3.21 10% Test 10 5.42 2.69 -50% 

Test 13 6.58 6.29 -4% Test 13 10.06 5.27 -48% 

Test 16 4.83 6.21 28% Test 16 11.96 5.20 -57% 

Test 17 1.52 3.13 106% Test 17 2.42 2.62 9% 

Test 3 3.21 Test 3 5.36 2.69 -50% 

Test 9 5.26 3.16 -40% Test 9 5.15 2.65 -49% 

Test 14 3.32 1.90 -43% Test 5 5.45 2.69 -51% 

Test 5 4.78 3.21 -33% Test 14 10.50 2.67 -75% 

Test 15 3.81 Test 15 3.73 1.07 -71% 

Test 18 3.18 Test 18 2.85 1.10 -61%