Verification and Validation 

of Selected Fire Models for 

Nuclear Power Plant 

Applications 

Volume 6: 

Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) 

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 6: Fire Dynamics Simulator 

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: J. Dreisbach, M.H. Salley, B. Najafi, F. Joglar 

Volume 2, FDTS: K. Hill, J. Dreisbach 

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

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

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

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

Volume 7, Experimental Uncertainty: A. Hamins 

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 6: Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), 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 

E1355-04, “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 ..................................................................................................2-2

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

2.6 Input Data Required to Run the Model ........................................................................2-3

2.7 Property Data...............................................................................................................2-3

2.8 Model Results ..............................................................................................................2-4

3 THEORETICAL BASIS FOR FDS..........................................................................................3-1

3.1 Hydrodynamic Model ...................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Combustion Model.......................................................................................................3-1

3.3 Thermal Radiation Model.............................................................................................3-1

3.4 Thermal Boundary Conditions .....................................................................................3-2

3.5 Numerical Methods......................................................................................................3-2

3.6 Theoretical Development of the Model ........................................................................3-2

3.6.1 Assessment of the Completeness of Documentation .........................................3-3

3.6.2 Assessment of Justification of Approaches and Assumptions............................3-3

3.6.3 Assessment of Constants and Default Values....................................................3-3

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

4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Analytical Tests............................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Code Checking ............................................................................................................4-2

4.4 Numerical Tests...........................................................................................................4-2
x 

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

5.1 Grid Size ......................................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Radiation Parameters ..................................................................................................5-4

5.3 Turbulence Parameters ...............................................................................................5-4

5.4 Summary .....................................................................................................................5-5

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

6.1 Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height...........................................................6-6

6.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature...............................................................................................6-8

6.3 Plume Temperature ...................................................................................................6-10

6.4 Flame Height .............................................................................................................6-12

6.5 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration ..............................................................6-13

6.6 Smoke Concentration ................................................................................................6-15

6.7 Compartment Pressure..............................................................................................6-18

6.8 Radiation and Total Heat Flux and Target Temperature ...........................................6-20

6.9 Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature..................................................................6-24

6.10 Summary...............................................................................................................6-26

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

A TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE FDS VALIDATION STUDY............................................... A-1

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

ICFMP BE # 2.................................................................................................................. A-3

ICFMP BE # 3.................................................................................................................. A-5

ICFMP BE # 4................................................................................................................ A-10

ICFMP BE # 5................................................................................................................ A-12

FM/SNL Test Series ...................................................................................................... A-14

NBS Multi-Room Test Series......................................................................................... A-16

A.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature............................................................................................ A-21

ICFMP BE # 3................................................................................................................ A-21

FM/SNL Test Series ...................................................................................................... A-24

A.3 Plume Temperature .................................................................................................. A-26

ICFMP BE # 2................................................................................................................ A-26

The FM-SNL Test Series............................................................................................... A-27

A.4 Flame Height ............................................................................................................ A-29

ICFMP BE #2................................................................................................................. A-29
xi

ICFMP BE #3................................................................................................................. A-31

A.5 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration ............................................................. A-32

A.6 Smoke Concentration ............................................................................................... A-36

A.7 Compartment Pressure............................................................................................. A-40

A.8 Target Temperature and Heat Flux........................................................................... A-44

ICFMP BE # 3................................................................................................................ A-44

ICFMP BE # 4................................................................................................................ A-73

ICFMP BE # 5................................................................................................................ A-75

A.9 Heat Flux and Surface Temperature of Compartment Walls.................................... A-80

ICFMP BE #3................................................................................................................. A-80

ICFMP BE #4................................................................................................................. A-97

ICFMP BE #5................................................................................................................. A-98

B FDS INPUT FILES ................................................................................................................ B-1

xiii

FIGURES 

Figure 5-1. Grid sensitivity study for FM/SNL Test 5. ...............................................................5-2

Figure 5-2. Fine (left) and coarse (right) simulations of ICFMP BE #3 Test 3. .........................5-3

Figure 5-3. ICFMP BE #3 Test 3 results using 200 radiation angles (left) and 100 (right)........5-4

Figure 6-1. Summary of FDS predictions of HGL temperature and depth................................6-6

Figure 6-2. Summary of FDS predictions of ceiling jet temperature. ........................................6-8

Figure 6-3. Snapshot of FDS simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3. ...........................................6-9

Figure 6-4. Summary of FDS predictions of plume temperature.............................................6-10

Figure 6-5. Summary of FDS predictions of major gas concentrations...................................6-13

Figure 6-6. Summary of FDS predictions of smoke concentration..........................................6-15

Figure 6-7. Smoke and oxygen concentration, ICFMP BE #3 Test 8. ....................................6-16

Figure 6-8. Summary of FDS predictions of compartment pressure.......................................6-18

Figure 6-9. Ventilation rates and pressures for BE #3, Tests 10 and 16. ...............................6-19

Figure 6-10. Summary of FDS predictions of target temperature. ..........................................6-20

Figure 6-11. Summary of FDS predictions of heat flux to targets. ..........................................6-21

Figure 6-12. Summary of FDS predictions of wall heat flux and temperature.........................6-25

Figure A-1. Cut-away view of the simulation of ICFMP BE #2, Case 2. .................................. A-3

Figure A-2. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #2. ............................ A-4

Figure A-3. Snapshot of simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3................................................... A-5

Figure A-4. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................... A-6

Figure A-5. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................... A-7

Figure A-6. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, open door 

tests................................................................................................................................... A-8

Figure A-7. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, open door 

tests................................................................................................................................... A-9

Figure A-8. Snapshot of the simulation of ICFMP BE #4, Test 1........................................... A-10

Figure A-9. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #4, Test 1. .............. A-11

Figure A-10. Snapshot of the simulation of ICFMP BE #5, Test 4......................................... A-12

Figure A-11. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4. ............ A-13

Figure A-12. Snapshot from simulation of FM/SNL Test 5. ................................................... A-14

Figure A-13. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, FM/SNL Series....................... A-15

Figure A-14. Snapshot from simulation of NBS Multi-Room Test 100Z................................. A-16
xiv 

Figure A-15. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multi-Room, Test 

100A................................................................................................................................ A-17

Figure A-16. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multi-Room, Test 

100O. .............................................................................................................................. A-18

Figure A-17. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multi-Room, Test 

100Z. ............................................................................................................................... A-19

Figure A-18. Near-ceiling gas temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests...................... A-22

Figure A-19. Near-ceiling gas temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests...................... A-23

Figure A-20. Near-ceiling gas temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1 and 3...................... A-24

Figure A-21. Photographs of fire plumes in ICFMP BE #2. Courtesy Simo Hostikka, 

VTT Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland. ................................................................. A-26

Figure A-22. Plume Temperature, ICFMP BE #2 (left) and the FM/SNL Series (right)........... A-27

Figure A-23. Snapshots of fire from ICFMP BE #2 Case 2 simulation. ................................. A-29

Figure A-24. Photographs of heptane pan fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2. Courtesy, Simo 

Hostikka, VTT Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland................................................... A-30

Figure A-25. 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-31

Figure A-26. O2 and CO2 concentration, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests............................. A-33

Figure A-27. O2 and CO2 concentration, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. Note that the 

single test from ICFMP BE #5 is included at the upper right........................................... A-34

Figure A-28. Smoke Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. .................................. A-37

Figure A-29. Smoke concentration, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests....................................... A-38

Figure A-30. Compartment pressure, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. ................................ A-41

Figure A-31. Compartment pressure, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests.................................... A-42

Figure A-32. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7. .................. A-45

Figure A-33. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8. .................. A-46

Figure A-34. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10. Note 

the influence of the fan on the gas and surface temperatures. ....................................... A-47

Figure A-35. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16. Note 

the influence of the fan in Test 16. .................................................................................. A-48

Figure A-36. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9. .................. A-49

Figure A-37. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14. Note 

the influence of the fan in Test 5. .................................................................................... A-50

Figure A-38. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18. Note 

that the cable was very close to the fire in Test 15. ........................................................ A-51

Figure A-39. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7. .......... A-52

Figure A-40. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8. .......... A-53

Figure A-41. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10. ........ A-54

Figure A-42. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16. ...... A-55

Figure A-43. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9. .......... A-56

Figure A-44. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14. ........ A-57
xv

Figure A-45. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18. ...... A-58

Figure A-46. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7......... A-59

Figure A-47. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8......... A-60

Figure A-48. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10....... A-61

Figure A-49. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16..... A-62

Figure A-50. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9......... A-63

Figure A-51. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14....... A-64

Figure A-52. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18..... A-65

Figure A-53. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 

and 7. .............................................................................................................................. A-66

Figure A-54. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 

and 8. .............................................................................................................................. A-67

Figure A-55. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 

and 10. ............................................................................................................................ A-68

Figure A-56. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 

and 10. ............................................................................................................................ A-69

Figure A-57. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 

and 9. .............................................................................................................................. A-70

Figure A-58. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 

and 14. ............................................................................................................................ A-71

Figure A-59. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 

and 18. ............................................................................................................................ A-72

Figure A-60. Location of 3 slab targets in ICFMP BE #4. ...................................................... A-73

Figure A-61. Heat Flux and Surface Temperatures of Target Slabs, ICFMP BE #4, Test 

1. ..................................................................................................................................... A-74

Figure A-62. Location of targets, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4......................................................... A-75

Figure A-63. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4.............. A-76

Figure A-64. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4.............. A-77

Figure A-65. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-81

Figure A-66. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-82

Figure A-67. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-83

Figure A-68. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-84

Figure A-69. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-85

Figure A-70. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-86

Figure A-71. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-87
xvi 

Figure A-72. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-88

Figure A-73. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. ... A-89

Figure A-74. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. ... A-90

Figure A-75. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests....... A-91

Figure A-76. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests....... A-92

Figure A-77. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. ...... A-93

Figure A-78. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. ...... A-94

Figure A-79. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests.......... A-95

Figure A-80. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests.......... A-96

Figure A-81. Back wall surface temperatures, ICFMP BE #4, Test 1. Note that the 

smoke has been artificially lightened in the picture on the right...................................... A-97

Figure A-82. Top view of compartment, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4.............................................. A-98

Figure A-83. Back and side wall surface temperatures, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4....................... A-99
xvii

TABLES 

Table 6-1. Summary of the fire experiments in terms of commonly used metrics. ...................6-4

Table A-1. Summary of HGL Temperature and Depth Comparisons. ................................... A-20

Table A-2. Summary of Ceiling Jet Temperature Comparisons. ........................................... A-25

Table A-3. Summary of Plume Temperature Comparisons. .................................................. A-28

Table A-4. Summary of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Comparisons...................................... A-35

Table A-5. Summary of Smoke Concentration Comparisons ................................................ A-39

Table A-6. Summary of Pressure Comparisons .................................................................... A-43

Table A-7. Summary of Target Heat Flux and Surface Temperature. ................................... A-78

Table A-8. Summary of Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature...................................... A-100

xix

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. 
xx 

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 
xxi

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

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) 

xxiii

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. 

xxv

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 

xxvii

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. 

xxix

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 
xxx 

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 

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 increases in support of day-to-day nuclear power plant (NPP) 

applications and fire risk analyses, the importance of verification and validation (V&V) also 

increases. V&V studies build confidence in a model by evaluating its underlying assumptions, 

capabilities, and limitations; and quantifying its performance in predicting the fire conditions that 

have been measured in controlled experiments. 

This volume documents a V&V study for the field (CFD) model Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) 

for applications relevant to NPPs. Guidance has been provided by ASTM E 1355-04, Standard 

Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models [Ref. 1], including 

the basic structure of this report. 

FDS was developed and is maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST). Version 4 was officially released in July 2004, and several minor updates had been 

released at the time of publication of this report. All of the simulations performed for the current 

V&V study were done with version 4.06. With support from the US NRC, the FDS Technical 

Reference Guide for version 4 [Ref. 2] was rewritten to follow the basic outline suggested by 

ASTM E 1355. However, the Guide does not specifically address NPPs. The primary purpose 

of the present volume is to document the accuracy of FDS in predicting the results of six sets of 

large-scale fire experiments that are relevant to NPPs. These results are found in Appendix A 

and discussed in Chapter 6. Chapters 2-5 are brief summaries of corresponding chapters within 

the FDS Technical Reference Guide that discuss the underlying theory and the numerical 

methods: 

Chapter 2 provides background information about FDS and the V&V process. 

Chapter 3 presents a brief technical description of FDS, including a review of the underlying 

physics and chemistry. 

Chapter 4 discusses the mathematical and numerical robustness of FDS. 

Chapter 5 addresses the sensitivity of FDS results to various numerical input parameters, the 

most important of which is the size of the numerical grid. 

Chapter 6 presents an assessment of the accuracy of FDS predictions of experimental 

measurements made during fire tests that are relevant for nuclear facilities. 

2-1 

2 

MODEL DEFINITION 

This chapter contains information about the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), its development, 

and its use in fire protection engineering. Most of the information has been extracted from the 

FDS Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 2], which contains a comprehensive description of the 

governing equations and numerical algorithms used to solve them. The format of this chapter 

follows that of ASTM E 1355, “Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of 

Deterministic Fire Models”. 

2.1 Name and Version of the Model 

Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) is a computer program that solves the governing equations of 

fluid dynamics with a particular emphasis on fire and smoke transport. Smokeview is a 

companion program that produces images and animations of the FDS calculations. Version 1 of 

FDS/Smokeview was publicly released in February 2000, version 2 in December 2001, and 

version 3 in November 2002. The present version of FDS/Smokeview is 4, released in July 

2004. Changes in the version number correspond to major changes in the physical model or 

input parameters. For minor changes and bug fixes, incremental versions are released, 

referenced according to fractions of the integer version number. 

2.2 Type of Model 

FDS is a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model of fire-driven fluid flow. The model 

solves numerically a form of the Navier-Stokes equations appropriate for low-speed, thermallydriven flow with an emphasis on smoke and heat transport from fires. The partial derivatives of 

the conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy are approximated as finite 

differences, and the solution is updated in time on a three-dimensional, rectilinear grid. Thermal 

radiation is computed using a finite volume technique on the same grid as the flow solver. 

Lagrangian particles are used to simulate smoke movement and sprinkler sprays. 

2.3 Model Developers 

FDS was developed and is currently maintained by the Fire Research Division in the Building 

and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST). A substantial contribution to the development of the model was made by VTT Building 

and Transport in Finland. 
Model Definition 

2-2 

2.4 Relevant Publications 

FDS is documented by two publications, the Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 2] and the FDS 

User’s Guide [Ref. 3]. Smokeview is documented in the Smokeview User’s Guide [Ref. 4]. The 

FDS User’s Guide describes how to use the model and the Technical Reference Guide describes 

the underlying physical principles, provides a comparison with some experimental data and 

discusses the limitations of this model. 

NIST has developed a public website to distribute FDS and Smokeview and support users of the 

programs. The website (http://fire.nist.gov/fds/) also includes documents that describe various 

parts of the model in detail. 

2.5 Governing Equations and Assumptions 

Hydrodynamic Model: FDS solves numerically a form of the Navier-Stokes equations 

appropriate for low speed, thermally-driven flow with an emphasis on smoke and heat transport 

from fires. The core algorithm is an explicit predictor-corrector scheme, second order accurate 

in space and time. Turbulence is treated by means of the Smagorinsky (1963) form of Large 

Eddy Simulation (LES). It is possible to perform a Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) if the 

underlying numerical grid is fine enough. 

Combustion Model: For most applications, FDS uses a mixture fraction combustion model. The 

mixture fraction is a conserved scalar quantity that is defined as the fraction of gas at a given 

point in the flow field that originated as fuel. The model assumes that combustion is mixingcontrolled, and that the reaction of fuel and oxygen is infinitely fast. The mass fractions of all of 

the major reactants and products can be derived from the mixture fraction by means of “state 

relations,” empirical expressions arrived at by a combination of simplified analysis and 

measurement. 

Radiation Transport: Radiative heat transfer is included in the model via the solution of the 

radiation transport equation for a non-scattering gray gas. In a limited number of cases, a wide 

band model can be used in place of the gray gas model. The radiation equation is solved using a 

technique similar to a finite volume method for convective transport, thus the name given to it is 

the Finite Volume Method. Water and fuel droplets can absorb thermal radiation, and the 

absorption coefficients are based on Mie theory. 

Geometry: FDS approximates the governing equations on one or more rectilinear grids. The 

user prescribes rectangular obstructions that are forced to conform to the underlying grid. 

Boundary Conditions: All solid surfaces are assigned thermal boundary conditions, plus 

information about the burning behavior of the material. Usually, material properties are stored in 

a database and invoked by name. Heat and mass transfer to and from solid surfaces is usually 

handled with empirical correlations. 

Sprinklers and Detectors: The activation of sprinklers and heat and smoke detectors are modeled 

using fairly simple correlations based on thermal inertia in the case of sprinklers and heat 
Model Definition 

2-3

detectors, and the lag in smoke transport through smoke detectors. Sprinkler sprays are modeled 

by Lagrangian particles that represent a sampling of the water droplets ejected from the 

sprinkler. 

2.6 Input Data Required to Run the Model 

All of the input parameters required by FDS to describe a particular scenario are conveyed via 

one or two text files created by the user. These files contain information about the numerical 

grid, ambient environment, building geometry, material properties, combustion kinetics, and 

desired output quantities. The numerical grid is one or more rectilinear meshes with (usually) 

uniform cells. All geometric features of the scenario have to conform to this numerical grid. An 

obstruction that is smaller than a single grid cell is either approximated as a single cell or 

rejected. The building geometry is input as a series of rectangular obstructions. Materials are 

defined by their thermal conductivity, specific heat, density, thickness, and burning behavior. 

There are various ways that this information is conveyed, depending on the desired level of 

detail. A significant part of the FDS input file directs the code to output various quantities in 

various ways. Much like in an actual experiment, the user must decide before the calculation 

begins what information to save. There is no way to recover information after the calculation is 

over if it was not requested at the start. A complete description of the input parameters required 

by FDS can be found in the FDS User’s Guide [Ref. 3]. 

2.7 Property Data 

A number of material properties are needed as inputs for FDS, most related either to solid objects 

or the fuel. In many fire scenarios, the solid objects are the fuel. For solid surfaces, FDS needs 

the density, thermal conductivity, specific heat, and emissivity. Note that FDS does not 

distinguish between walls and various other solid objects, sometimes regarded as “targets” in 

simpler models. 

For the fuel, FDS needs to know whether it is a solid, liquid or gas, its heat of combustion, its 

heat of vaporization (liquids and solids), the stoichiometric coefficients of the ideal reaction, the 

soot and CO yields, and the fraction of energy released in the form of thermal radiation. The 

radiative fraction is not an inherent property of the fuel, but rather a measured quantity that 

varies with the size and geometric configuration of the fire. It can be computed directly by FDS, 

but it is often input directly because it cannot be predicted reliably with the present form of the 

combustion model. 

Some of the property data needed by FDS are commonly available in fire protection engineering 

and materials handbooks. Depending on the application, properties for specific materials may 

not be readily available, especially burning behavior at different heat fluxes. A small file 

distributed with the FDS software contains a database with thermal properties of common 

materials. This data is given as an example, and users should verify the accuracy and 

appropriateness of the data. 
Model Definition 

2-4 

2.8 Model Results 

FDS computes the temperature, density, pressure, velocity and chemical composition within each 

numerical grid cell at each discrete time step. There are typically hundreds of thousands to 

several million grid cells and thousands to hundreds of thousands of time steps. In addition, FDS 

computes at solid surfaces the temperature, heat flux, mass loss rate, and various other quantities. 

The user must carefully select what data to save, much like one would do in designing an actual 

experiment. Even though only a small fraction of the computed information can be saved, the 

output typically consists of fairly large data files. Typical output quantities for the gas phase 

include: 

• Gas temperature 

• Gas velocity 

• Gas species concentration (water vapor, CO2, CO, N2) 

• Smoke concentration and visibility estimates 

• Pressure 

• Heat release rate per unit volume 

• Mixture fraction (or air/fuel ratio) 

• Gas density 

• Water droplet mass per unit volume 

On solid surfaces, FDS predicts additional quantities associated with the energy balance between 

gas and solid phase, including 

• Surface and interior temperature 

• Heat flux, both radiative and convective 

• Burning rate 

• Water droplet mass per unit area 

Global quantities recorded by the program include: 

• Total Heat Release Rate (HRR) 

• Sprinkler and detector activation times 

• Mass and energy fluxes through openings or solids 

Time histories of various quantities at a single point in space or global quantities like the fire’s 

heat release rate (HRR) are saved in simple, comma-delimited text files that can be plotted using 

a spreadsheet program. However, most field or surface data are visualized with a program called 

Smokeview, a tool specifically designed to analyze data generated by FDS. FDS and 

Smokeview are used in concert to model and visualize fire phenomena. Smokeview performs 

this visualization by presenting animated tracer particle flow, animated contour slices of 

computed gas variables and animated surface data. Smokeview also presents contours and 

vector plots of static data anywhere within a scene at a fixed time. 

The FDS User’s Guide [Ref. 3] provides a complete list of FDS output quantities and formats. 

The Smokeview User’s Guide [Ref. 4] explains how to visualize the results of an FDS 

simulation.
3-1 

3 

THEORETICAL BASIS FOR FDS 

This chapter provides a brief overview of the major routines within FDS. A comprehensive 

description is given in the FDS Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 2], including the assumptions 

and approximations behind the governing equations, a review of the relevant literature, and the 

availability of required input data. 

3.1 Hydrodynamic Model 

FDS solves conservation equations of mass, momentum, and energy for an expandable mixture 

of ideal gases in the low Mach number limit. This means that the equations do not permit 

acoustic waves, the result of which is that the time step for the numerical solution is bounded by 

the flow speed, rather than the sound speed. The assumption also reduces the number of 

unknowns by one, as density and temperature can be related to a known background pressure. 

Flow turbulence is treated by large eddy simulation, specifically, Smagorinsky’s method 

[Ref. 6]. 

3.2 Combustion Model 

For most simulations, FDS uses a mixture fraction combustion model. The mixture fraction is a 

conserved scalar that represents the mass fraction of gases at a given point that originate in the 

fuel stream. In short, the combustion is assumed to be controlled by the rate at which fuel and 

oxygen mix, and the reaction is instantaneous, regardless of temperature. The reaction occurs at 

an infinitely thin “flame sheet,” whose location in the flow is dictated by the basic stoichiometry 

of the reaction. 

Because it is assumed in the mixture fraction model that fuel and oxygen react readily on 

contact, it is necessary to supplement the model with an empirical description of flame extinction 

in oxygen-limited compartments. A simple model, based on the work of Quintiere [Ref. 7] and 

Beyler [Ref. 8], uses the local temperature and oxygen concentration near the flame sheet to 

determine if combustion can be sustained. 

3.3 Thermal Radiation Model 

Soot is the combustion product that contributes the most to thermal radiation in large-scale fire 

scenarios. FDS treats the combustion product mixture as a gray medium since the radiation 

spectrum of soot is continuous. Using the gray gas approximation, FDS solves the radiation 

transport equation (RTE) using a finite volume numerical algorithm supplemented by a “look-
Theoretical Basis for FDS 

3-2 

up” table of absorption coefficients from a narrow-band model called RadCal [Ref. 9]. The 

spatial discretization of the RTE is achieved by dividing the unit sphere into roughly 100 solid 

angles by default. This is a user-controlled parameter. 

3.4 Thermal Boundary Conditions 

FDS applies different boundary conditions depending on the type of surface. Sometimes the user 

specifies that a fuel surface heat up and burn according to the heat feedback from the fire and the 

surrounding gases. At other times, fuel surfaces are simply assumed to burn at a prescribed rate. 

Some surfaces do not burn at all, like inert walls. For an LES calculation, FDS uses a 

combination of natural and forced convection correlations to determine the convective heat flux 

to a surface. If a solid material is assumed to be thermally-thick, a one-dimensional heat 

conduction equation determines its temperature and burning rate. If a material is assumed to be 

thermally-thin, its temperature is assumed to be uniform throughout its thickness. The burning 

rate of liquid fuels is dictated by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship of partial pressures 

[Ref. 10]. Heat transfer and burning of charring materials are modeled using a one-dimensional 

model from Atreya [Ref. 11] and modified by Ritchie et al. [Ref. 12]. 

3.5 Numerical Methods 

Spatial derivatives in the Navier-Stokes equations are written as second order finite differences 

on the rectilinear grid. Scalar quantities are assigned in the center of a cell; vector quantities are 

assigned on the face of a cell. The flow variables are updated in time with an explicit, secondorder predictor-corrector scheme. The convective terms of the mass transport equations are 

written as upwind-biased differences in the predictor step and downwind-biased differences in 

the corrector step. Thermal and material diffusion terms are pure central differences. The 

temperature is extracted from the density via the equation of state, and the heat release rate is 

extracted from the gradient of the mixture fraction across the flame sheet (essentially the mass 

flux of either fuel or oxygen times the heat of combustion). The temperatures of a solid are 

updated in time with an implicit Crank-Nicholson scheme. Wall temperatures are coupled to the 

fluid calculation via a “ghost” cell inside the wall, where temperatures and densities are specified 

based on empirical correlations. The time step is constrained by one condition that ensures that 

the solution of the equations cannot be updated with a time step larger than the amount of time a 

parcel of fluid can cross a grid cell (Courant condition), and by another condition for very small 

grid cells typical of explicit, second order schemes for solving parabolic partial differential 

equations. The Poisson equation for pressure is derived by taking the divergence of the 

momentum equation. This equation is an elliptic partial differential equation solved with a direct 

FFT-based method. 

3.6 Theoretical Development of the Model 

ASTM E 1355 includes guidance on assessing the theoretical basis of the model including a 

review of the model “by one or more recognized experts fully conversant with the chemistry and 

physics of fire phenomenon, but not involved with the production of the model.” FDS has been 

subjected to independent review both internally (at NIST), and externally. NIST documents and 
Theoretical Basis for FDS 

3-3

products receive extensive reviews by NIST staff who are not directly associated with their 

development. Internal reviews have been conducted on all previous versions of the FDS 

Technical Reference Guide over the last decade. Externally, the theoretical basis for the model 

has been published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings. In addition, FDS is 

used worldwide by fire protection engineering firms who validate the model for their particular 

applications. Some of these firms also publish in the open literature reports documenting 

internal efforts to validate the model for a particular use. Finally, FDS is referenced in the NFPA 

805 standard. 

3.6.1 Assessment of the Completeness of Documentation 

The two primary documents on FDS are the FDS Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 2] and the 

FDS User’s Guide [Ref. 3]. The Technical Reference Guide documents the governing equations, 

assumptions, and approximations of the various sub-models. At the request of the NRC, the 

Technical Reference Guide was formatted according to the suggested outline put forth in ASTM 

E 1355. It describes the fundamental governing equations of the model and how they are solved 

numerically, but refers to papers and books for the full derivations of equations or numerical 

techniques used. The FDS User’s Guide provides details on the actual execution of the program, 

the input parameters, output, etc. 

Most FDS users are able to read the manuals and perform simulations without the benefit of a 

formal training course. The users frequently contact the developers at NIST to request further 

explanation of the documentation or to suggest clarifications. 

3.6.2 Assessment of Justification of Approaches and Assumptions 

The technical approach and assumptions of FDS have been presented in the peer-reviewed 

scientific literature and at technical conferences. All documents released by NIST go through an 

internal editorial review and approval process. FDS is subjected to continuous scrutiny because 

it is available to the general public and is used internationally by specialists in fire safety design 

and post-fire reconstruction. The source code for FDS is released publicly, and has been used at 

various universities worldwide, both in research and the classroom as a teaching tool. As a 

result, flaws in the theoretical development and the computer program itself have been identified 

and fixed. 

3.6.3 Assessment of Constants and Default Values 

No single document provides a comprehensive assessment of the numerical parameters and 

physical parameters used in FDS. Specific parameters have been tested in various verification 

and validation studies performed at NIST and elsewhere. Numerical parameters are taken from 

the literature and do not undergo a formal review. The model user is expected to assess the 

appropriateness of the FDS default values and change them if necessary. 

4-1 

4 

MATHEMATICAL AND NUMERICAL ROBUSTNESS 

4.1 Introduction 

This chapter briefly describes how the mathematical and numerical robustness of FDS has been 

verified following the general criteria listed in ASTM E 1355: 

• Analytical Tests – Comparison of the computed solutions with closed-form solutions of the 

governing equations. 

• Code Checking – Verification of the basic structure of the computer code, either manually or 

automatically with a code-checking program, to detect irregularities and inconsistencies. 

• Numerical Tests – Assessment of 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). 

4.2 Analytical Tests 

There are no closed-form mathematical solutions for the fully turbulent, time-dependant NavierStokes equations. CFD provides an approximate solution for the non-linear partial differential 

equations by replacing them with discretized algebraic equations that can be solved using a 

powerful computer. Certain sub-models address phenomena that have analytical solutions, for 

example, one-dimensional heat conduction through a solid. The developers of FDS routinely use 

analytical solutions to test sub-models to verify the correctness of the coding of the model [Refs. 

13 and 14]. Such routine verification efforts are relatively simple and the results may not always 

be published or included in the documentation. 

Rehm, Baum, and coworkers checked the hydrodynamic solver that evolved to form the core of 

FDS against analytical solutions of simplified fluid flow phenomena [Refs. 16, 17 and 18]. This 

early work tested the stability and consistency of the basic hydrodynamic solver, especially the 

velocity-pressure coupling that is vitally important in low Mach number applications. Many 

numerical algorithms developed up to that point in time were intended for high-speed flow 

applications, (e.g. aerospace applications). The developers of FDS adopted many techniques 

originally developed for meteorogical models, and the techniques had to be tested to determine 

whether they were appropriate for describing relatively low-speed flow within enclosures. 
Mathematical and Numerical Robustness 

4-2 

4.3 Code Checking 

FDS has been compiled and run on computers manufactured by several companies and run under 

various operating systems, including UNIX, Linux, Microsoft Windows, and Mac OSX. Various 

FORTRAN compilers have been used as well. Each combination of hardware, operating system 

and compiler involves a slightly different set of compiler and run-time options. Compliance with 

the Fortran 90 ISO/ANSI standard improves the portability of the program. By adhering to the 

standard, the code is streamlined and outdated or potentially harmful code is removed. 

NIST also publicly releases the FDS source code. Individual users have modified the source 

code for their specific applications and compiled and run it successfully, have provided useful 

feedback to NIST on the organization of the code, and increased the code’s portability. 

This V&V project began using version 4.0.5 of FDS. As part of the V&V process, several 

improvements were made and several minor bugs were corrected in this version. The 

improvements were mostly to expand the output options, for example: 

• FDS can automatically compute HGL temperature and height. These are not part of a CFD 

calculation. 

• FDS can now predict thermocouple temperatures, as opposed to gas temperatures. Since 

temperatures are usually measured by thermocouples, this capability is useful when 

comparing FDS temperature outputs to experimental data. 

• FDS now has to capability to mimic radiometers, net heat flux gauges, and total heat flux 

gauges. These are the most common measurement tools for heat flux. This capability is 

useful when comparing FDS heat flux outputs to experimental data. 

A minor bug was identified and fixed as a result of using FDS in this V&V process. The bug 

involved a flaw in the smoke species boundary condition, which allowed the smoke 

concentration to increase even after the fire was suppressed. 

The final version of FDS used in this study is version 4.0.6 and includes the changes described 

above. 

4.4 Numerical Tests 

The use of finite differences to approximate spatial and temporal partial derivatives introduces 

error into the FDS calculation. This numerical error is dependent on the grid size. As the 

numerical grid is refined, the numerical error decreases. If the grid is refined to about 1 mm or 

less, the simulation becomes a direct numerical simulation (DNS), where no assumptions about 

the underlying turbulence need to be made. While DNS simulations are too costly for practical 

fire calculations, they can be useful in checking the numerics because there exist in the literature 

a variety of small scale fluid flow and combustion experiments that can be simulated in great 

detail. Numerous comparisons between experiments and DNS solutions using FDS [Refs. 19, 

20, 21 and 22] have shown that the hydrodynamic solver is robust and without serious flaws.
5-1 

5 

MODEL SENSITIVITY 

This chapter briefly discusses the issue of model sensitivity, or how changes in the FDS model 

parameters affect its results. Model predictions are sensitive to (1) uncertainties in input data, (2) 

the level of detail of the governing physics and chemistry, and (3) the accuracy of numerical 

parameters and constructs. The first and second of these are addressed in Chapter 6 of this volume, 

and in Chapter 2 of Volume 7. As for the third, Chapter 5 of the FDS Technical Reference Guide 

[Ref. 2] reviews sensitivity studies of the various numerical parameters in FDS. Chapter 6 of the 

Reference Guide discusses the influence of the dozens of physical parameters that are input to 

the model. The present discussion is limited only to sensitivity of numerical parameters. 

5.1 Grid Size 

The most important numerical parameter in FDS is the grid cell size. CFD models solve an 

approximate form of the conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy on a numerical 

grid. The error associated with the discretization of the partial derivatives is a function of the 

size of the grid cells and the type of differencing used. FDS uses second-order accurate 

approximations of both the temporal and spatial derivatives of the Navier-Stokes equations, 

meaning that the discretization error is proportional to the square of the cell size. In theory, 

reducing the grid cell size by a factor of 2 reduces the discretization error by a factor of 4. 

However, it also increases the computing time by a factor of 16 (a factor of 2 for the temporal 

and each spatial dimension). Clearly, there is a point of diminishing returns as one refines the 

numerical mesh. Determining what size grid cell to use in any given calculation is known as a 

grid sensitivity study. 

A grid sensitivity study was performed for all of the experimental test series that are discussed in 

Chapter 6. For example, Figure 5-1 displays predictions of the plume temperature for Test 5 of 

the FM/SNL series, computed on a 10 cm, 7.5 cm and 5 cm grid (4 in, 3 in, 2 in grid). The 10 

cm simulation required a few hours to complete on a single 2.4 GHz Pentium processor, whereas 

the 5 cm simulation required a few days. The prediction is noticeably better on the 5 cm grid 

because the entrainment of air into the hot plume is described with much greater fidelity in the 5 

cm case. Refining the mesh further does not make a noticeable difference in the results, even 

though the fidelity of the simulation continues to improve. With any grid resolution study, a 

point of diminishing returns is reached when the improvement in the quality of the results is 

outweighed by the “cost” of the computation. When this point is reached depends on the 

application. It also depends on the quantities that are of interest. Some quantities, like HGL 

temperature or height, do not typically require as fine a numerical grid as quantities such as the 

heat flux to targets near the fire. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-2 

Plume Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 5

Time (s)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

FDS (10 cm Grid)

FDS (7.5 cm Grid)

FDS (5 cm Grid)

Experiment

Figure 5-1. Grid sensitivity study for FM/SNL Test 5. 

A case in point is Test 3 of the ICFMP BE #3. The simulation has been performed with a variety 

of different input parameters, most notably a 10 cm grid versus a 20 cm grid (4 in vs. 8 in grid). 

The results of the 10 cm and 20 cm grids, shown in Figure 5-2, are not noticeably different. This 

is not surprising because the basic conservation equations still ensure a reasonably good 

prediction of the average HGL temperature, even on the coarse grid, and there are no steep 

gradients in the selected quantities that would have been more sensitive to the grid size. So why 

is the 10 cm grid chosen for the final validation study? Consider what is not shown in Figure 

5-2. The cable trays and other targets, which are difficult to resolve even on the fine grid, are 

simply too small to include on the coarse grid. The door and vent are less accurately prescribed 

on the coarse grid, leading to greater error in the computation of the compartment pressure. Still 

worse, had the fire scenario required a prediction of the heat release rate, or flame spread along 

the cable trays, even the fine grid is not necessarily fine enough to predict it accurately. 

Coarse grid CFD, much like zone model calculations, can provide reasonable predictions of 

certain quantities, especially those that can be traced directly to conservation equations of mass 

and energy, like average temperatures and pressures. However, the user has to be aware that the 

results are generally less reliable than those obtained from a finer grid, and that certain results 

cannot be obtained at all. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-3 

Test 3, Tree 7 Temperatures

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Test 3 (Coarse Grid), Tree 7 Temperatures

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Test 3, East Wall Temperatures

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Exp Time vs 159 TE1-1 

Exp Time vs 161 TE2-1 

FDS Time vs TC East U-1 

FDS Time vs TC East U-2 

Test 3 (Coarse Grid), East Wall Temperatures

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Exp Time vs 159 TE1-1 

Exp Time vs 161 TE2-1 

FDS Time vs TC East U-1 

FDS Time vs TC East U-2 

Test 3, Compartment Pressure

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Pressure (Pa)

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Exp Time vs 351 CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Test 3 (Coarse Grid), Compartment Pressure

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Pressure (Pa)

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Exp Time vs 351 CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Figure 5-2. Fine (left) and coarse (right) simulations of ICFMP BE #3 Test 3. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-4 

5.2 Radiation Parameters 

The grid size determines the fidelity of the finite-difference approximation of the governing 

hydrodynamic equations. The spatial resolution of the discretized radiation transport equation is 

another important consideration for applications in which heat flux to targets is important. FDS 

uses about 100 solid angles with which to distribute radiant energy from the fire and hot gases 

throughout the compartment and beyond. The decision to use 100 angles as a default is based on 

a desire for accuracy but also practicality. It has been observed that the use of 100 angles is 

consistent with the degree of spatial resolution afforded by the grid for the hydrodynamics 

solver. As an example, for ICFMP BE #3, Test 3, a simulation using 200 radiation angles can be 

compared with one using the default 100 (see Figure 5-3). There is no noticeable change in the 

results, confirming in this case that the default number of angles is adequate. However, this does 

not mean that the default settings are always appropriate. Sensitivity studies like the one 

performed here ought to be used to determine if and when to change the default settings. 

Test 3, Floor Heat Flux

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12 Exp Time vs 48 F1 

Exp Time vs 49 F2 

Exp Time vs 51 F4 

FDS Time vs Floor U-1 

FDS Time vs Floor U-2 

FDS Time vs Floor U-4 

Test 3, Floor Heat Flux

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12 Exp Time vs 48 F1 

Exp Time vs 49 F2 

Exp Time vs 51 F4 

FDS Time vs Floor U-1 

FDS Time vs Floor U-2 

FDS Time vs Floor U-4 

Figure 5-3. ICFMP BE #3 Test 3 results using 200 radiation angles (left) and 100 (right). 

5.3 Turbulence Parameters 

FDS uses the Smagorinsky form of the large eddy simulation technique, in which the viscosity of 

the gas mixture is modeled with a mathematical expression involving the grid cell size, the local 

strain rate, and an empirical constant. The thermal conductivity and material diffusivity are 

related to the modeled viscosity by way of “turbulent” Prandtl and Schmidt numbers. In all, 

three empirical parameters are needed in the model, all of which are assumed to be constant even 

though there is considerable debate as to what their values ought to be. The default values in 

FDS version 4 are based on simulations of smoke movement in various compartments [Ref. 23]. 

A typical user of FDS does not modify the turbulence parameters. Nevertheless, it is important 

to consider their effect on the results of different types of calculations, especially those in which 

the mixing of different gas species or gases of different temperatures play a key role in the 

outcome. For example, the simulations of ICFMP BE #2 are time-consuming because of the 

need for a fairly fine numerical grid to well-resolve the 19 m high smoke plume. For one of 

these cases, the Smagorinsky coefficient (the empirical constant in the expression for the 
Model Sensitivity 

5-5 

viscosity) can be reduced from 0.20 to 0.15 to determine its effect on the results. This reduces 

the magnitude of the “artificial” viscosity added to the numerical solution, allowing for a greater 

level of eddy formation and, thus, greater mixing. In this case, the reduction in the coefficient 

leads to about a 15 % reduction in the plume temperature, moving the simulation closer to 

experiment. While the rationale for reducing the coefficient is grounded in physics, it has been 

found over the years that the lower value makes FDS more prone to numerical instabilities. 

Since FDS is used for a wide variety of applications, the Smagorinsky coefficient has been 

chosen to balance accuracy and numerical stability. 

5.4 Summary 

This chapter has presented only a few examples of how one assesses the sensitivity of a model. 

Only a few of the more important numerical parameters have been exercised. However, 

throughout Chapter 6 (Model Validation) and Appendix A are additional examples that 

demonstrate how changes in various input parameters affect the FDS predictions. In some of the 

experimental test series used in the validation study, important test parameters are varied, one at 

a time, to determine their overall impact. Simulating these experiments and noting where the 

model replicates the observed trend is an important component of the model sensitivity study. 

6-1 

6 

MODEL VALIDATION 

This chapter summarizes the results of a validation study conducted for FDS, 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. 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, 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 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) 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 
Model Validation 

6-2 

was to provide data with which 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 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 FDS predictions with the experimental measurements 

for the six test series. 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: 

• Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height 

• Ceiling Jet Temperature 

• Plume Temperature 

• Flame Height 

• Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration 

• Smoke Concentration 

• Compartment Pressure 

• Radiation Heat Flux, Total Heat Flux, and Target Temperature 

• Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature 

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 
Model Validation 

6-3 

of the fire; for example, a higher temperature, lower oxygen concentration, higher smoke 

concentration, etc. 

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, for 

example, a gas temperature, is related to the measurement device, a thermocouple. In addition, 

the accuracy of the model prediction of the gas temperature is related to the simplified physical 

description of the fire and to the accuracy of the input parameters, especially the specified heat 

release 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 as a yard stick. 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.

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. 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 chapter. At 

the end of each section, a color rating is assigned to each of the output categories, indicating, in a 

very broad sense, how well the model treats these quantities. A detailed discussion of this rating 

system is included in Volume 1. For FDS, only the Green and Yellow ratings have been 

assigned to the 13 quantities of interest. The color Green indicates that the research team has 

concluded that the model physics accurately represent the experimental conditions, and that the 

differences between model prediction and experimental measurement are less than the combined 

experimental uncertainty. The color Yellow suggests that one exercise caution when using the 

model to evaluate this quantity – consider carefully the assumptions made by the model, how the 

model has been applied, and the accuracy of its results. There is specific discussion of model 

limitations for the quantities assigned a Yellow rating. 

In assessing the accuracy of FDS in predicting the 13 quantities, it is important to keep in mind 

that a CFD model, unlike a zone model or empirical correlation, has the potential of producing 

ever-more accurate results as the numerical grid is refined. However, FDS calculations require 

hours or days to complete, depending on the size of the numerical grid and the desired level of 

accuracy. Engineers using FDS need results in a reasonable amount of time; thus, they need 

guidance on what size grid to use for a given application that will produce good results in a 

timely manner. A few simple rules have been developed over the past few years that provide this 

information, and these rules have been applied in the calculations whose results are included in 

Appendix A and summarized below. 

Table 6-1 lists some common metrics used to assess the size of the fire relative to the size of the 

compartment. Following is a brief description of the various quantities included in the table: 

Heat Release Rate (HRR or Q& ): The most important parameter of any fire experiment is the 

overall heat release rate. In some cases, the fire model is used to predict the HRR. In the present 
Model Validation 

6-4 

study, however, the HRR is given, and the model is used to predict how the fire’s energy is 

transported throughout the compartment. A non-dimensional quantity relating the HRR to the 

diameter of the fire, D, is commonly known as Q * : 

2

*

c T gDD

Q Q

∞ p ∞

= ρ

&

where Q& is the heat release rate, ρ ∞ is the ambient density, T∞ is the ambient temperature, p c

is the specific heat, and g is the acceleration of gravity. A large value of Q* describes a fire 

whose energy output is relatively large compared to its physical diameter, like an oil well 

blowout fire. A low value describes a fire whose energy output is relatively small compared to 

its diameter, like a brush fire. Most common accidental fire scenarios have Q* values on the 

order of 1. Its relevance to the current validation study is mainly in the assessment of flame 

height. 

Table 6-1. Summary of the fire experiments in terms of commonly used metrics. 

Test Series Q&

(kW) 

* Q D

(m) 

* D

(m) 

δx

(m) x

D

δ

* H

(m) * D

H

ICFMP BE #2 1800--

3600 1.0 1.2, 1.6 1.2-3.6 0.13 9-12 19 12-16

ICFMP BE #3 400--2300 0.4-1.9 1.0 0.7-1.3 0.10 7-13 3.8 3-5 

ICFMP BE #4 3500 2.6 1.1 1.6 0.10 16 5.7 3.6 

ICFMP BE #5 400 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.10 7 5.6 8 

FM/SNL 500 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.05 14 6.1 9 

NBS Multi-Room 100 1.5 0.34 0.4 0.10 4 2.4 6 

Fire Diameter: The physical diameter of the fire is not always a well-defined property. A 

compartment fire does not have a well-defined diameter, whereas a circular pan filled with a 

burning liquid fuel has an obvious diameter. Regardless, it is not the physical diameter of the 

fire that matters when assessing the “size” of the fire, but rather its characteristic diameter, D*: 

2/5

*

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

=

∞c T∞ g

Q D

ρ p

&

In many instances, D* is comparable to the physical diameter of the fire (in which case Q* is on 

the order of 1). FDS employs a numerical technique known as large eddy simulation (LES) to 

model the unresolvable or “sub-grid” motion of the hot gases. The effectiveness of the technique 

is largely a function of the ratio of the fire’s characteristic diameter, D*, to the size of a grid cell, 
Model Validation 

6-5 

δx. In short, the greater the ratio D*/δx, the more the fire dynamics are resolved directly, and the 

more accurate the simulation. Past experience has shown that a ratio of 5 to 10 produces 

favorable results at a moderate computational cost [Ref. 24]. 

Compartment Size: The quantities Q* and D* relate the fire’s HRR to its physical dimensions. 

Equally important in determining the right numerical grid for a CFD simulation is the 

relationship between the fire “size” and the size of the overall compartment, particularly its 

height, H. The height of the compartment relative to D* indicates the relative importance of the 

fire plume to the overall transport of the hot gases. Much of the mixing of fresh air and 

combustion products takes place within the plume, and this dilution of the smoke and the 

decrease in the gas temperature ultimately determines the hot gas layer temperature. Thus, the 

parameter H/D* can be used to assess the importance of the plume relative to other features of 

the fire-driven flow, like the ceiling jet or doorway flow. 

The rule of thumb about the value of D*/δx is not a substitute for a grid resolution study. For all 

of the simulations described in this report, the numerical grid was gradually refined until the 

results were not observed to change from run to run. Of the six test series, the most challenging 

were BE #2 and the FM/SNL series because each involved a fairly large space and a relatively 

small fire. To achieve the desired level of resolution in the plume, a fine grid was used to 

capture the very important entrainment of fresh air, while coarse grids were used elsewhere. 
Model Validation 

6-6 

6.1 Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height 

All six sets of fire experiments include several floor-to-ceiling arrays of thermocouples for 

measuring the compartment temperature. From these measurements, it is possible to calculate an 

average upper layer temperature, as well as an estimate of the height of the hot gas layer above 

the floor. The FDS simulations predict the time history of each thermocouple, and the predicted 

temperatures are then used to derive an average HGL temperature and height in the exact same 

manner as the measured temperatures. Figure 6-1 summarizes the relative differences between 

the predicted and measured HGL properties for the six test series. Note that a positive value of 

the relative difference means that the numerical prediction is greater than the corresponding 

measurement. Note also that the layer depth is the ceiling height minus the layer height. 

FDS Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Depth BE 2-1 BE 2-2 BE 2-3 BE 3-1 BE 3-7 BE 3-2 BE 3-8 BE 3-4 BE 3-10 BE 3-13 BE 3-16 BE 3-17 BE 3-3 BE 3-9 BE 3-5 BE 3-14 BE 3-15 BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100A

NBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Relative Difference (%)

-100

-50

0

50

100

+13 %

-13 %

HGL Temperature 

HGL Depth 

Points other than circles

denote locations remote from

the fire room in the NBS MultiRoom series

Figure 6-1. Summary of FDS predictions of HGL temperature and depth. 

ICFMP BE #2: FDS over-predicts the HGL temperature by about 20 % for all three cases. This 

falls outside of the experimental uncertainty range and can be traced to an over-prediction in the 

flame height and plume temperature. These errors are discussed below in the appropriate 

sections. 

FDS predicts the HGL height for all three cases in BE #2 to within experimental uncertainty. 
Model Validation 

6-7 

ICFMP BE #3: FDS predicts the HGL temperature and height to within experimental 

uncertainty for all 15 tests. 

ICFMP BE #4: FDS predicts the HGL temperature and height to within experimental 

uncertainty for the single test (BE 4-1), but there is some discrepancy in the shapes of the curves. 

It is not clear whether this is related to the measurement or the model. See further discussion in 

Appendix A. 

ICFMP BE #5: FDS predicts the HGL temperature and height to within experimental 

uncertainty for the single test (BE 5-4), although again there is a noticeable difference in the 

overall shape of the temperature curves. 

FM/SNL: FDS predicts the HGL temperature to within experimental uncertainty for Tests 4 and 

5. For Test 21, there is an apparent 20 % under-prediction, but this appears to be due to an error 

in the HRR measurement for this test. FDS predicts the HGL height to within experimental 

uncertainty for Tests 4 and 21. Both of these tests have a low ventilation rate. For Test 5, with a 

high ventilation rate, FDS over-predicts the HGL depth by 26 %. However, the uncertainty in 

the HGL depth measurement is about 25 % for the FM/SNL series because only 5 thermocouples 

in the vertical direction are used to assess the height of the smoke layer, and these 5 TCs are 

relatively close to the ceiling. See Volume 7 and the FM/SNL test report for details. 

NBS Multi-Room: FDS predicts the HGL temperature and height to within experimental 

uncertainty for all three tests considered. Note that individual calculations of the temperature 

and depth have been made at 4 locations: one in the burn room, 2 in the corridor and 1 in the 

target room (or exit if the target room is closed). 

Summary: FDS is suitable for predicting HGL temperature and height, with no specific caveats, 

in both the room of origin and adjacent rooms. In terms of the ranking system adopted in this 

report, FDS merits a Green for this category, based on the following: 

• The FDS low Mach number hydrodynamic model is appropriate for predicting 

compartment temperatures and smoke filling. Note that FDS does not require the ceiling 

to be flat. 

• The FDS predictions of the HGL temperature and height are, with a few exceptions, 

within experimental uncertainty. 

• For some of the test series, like the NBS Multi-Room Experiments, the simulations 

require only about half a day to complete, whereas others require several days. This is 

not atypical of CFD models. Whenever FDS is used, the numerical grid should be 

determined by performing a grid resolution study. A description can be found in 

Chapter 5. 
Model Validation 

6-8 

6.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature 

FDS does not have a ceiling jet algorithm per se. Rather, it predicts the temperature and velocity 

of the gases anywhere in the compartment, including near the ceiling. Two of the six test series 

(ICFMP BE #3 and FM/SNL) involve a ceiling jet that forms over a relatively wide, flat ceiling. 

The results of these simulations are summarized in Figure 6-2. 

FDS Ceiling Jet Temperature

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 100A

NBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Relative Difference (%)

-100

-50

0

50

100

+16 %

-16 %

Figure 6-2. Summary of FDS predictions of ceiling jet temperature. 

ICFMP BE #3: FDS predicts the ceiling jet temperature to within experimental uncertainty for 

the closed door tests, except Test 5 and Test 17. Test 5 is ventilated with a fan that is not wellcharacterized in terms of its flow rate and direction. A number of spurious results can be linked 

to the difficulty in modeling the fan. Test 17 is a short test with no replicates. It is difficult to 

draw any firm conclusions from it. FDS over-predicts the ceiling jet for the open door tests by 

about 15 %. Although this is within the experimental uncertainty bounds, the trend is consistent 

in all the open door tests. The trend cannot be explained solely in terms of measurement or 

model input uncertainty. Rather, it is most likely caused by a lack of resolution in the numerical 

grid. Near the fire, the grid cells are about 10 cm (4 in) in all dimensions. However, the grid 

cells stretch in the horizontal dimensions away from the plume to save on computational cost 

(see Figure 6-3). In addition, the 10 cm grid spans the relatively shallow ceiling jet with just a 

few grid cells. As a result, the mixing of hot and cooler gases within the jet is slightly under-
Model Validation 

6-9 

predicted and the temperature, thus, slightly over-predicted. While the slight over-prediction of 

ceiling jet temperature could be considered conservative for some applications, for scenarios 

involving sprinkler or heat detector activation, the increased temperature in the ceiling jet would 

lead to a quicker response of the simulated sprinkler or heat detector. 

FM/SNL: FDS predicts the ceiling jet temperature at two locations in Test 4 and 5 to within 

experimental uncertainty. FDS under-predicts Test 21 by about 20 %, but this discrepancy is 

likely due to a flaw in the HRR measurement for this particular test. 

Summary: FDS merits a Green ranking for ceiling jet temperature prediction, for the following 

reasons: 

• The FDS hydrodynamic solver is suited for this application, assuming that the user 

perform a grid sensitivity study to determine a suitable grid cell size. 

• Overall, FDS is slightly less accurate in its prediction of the near-ceiling temperature than 

of the overall HGL temperature. This makes sense because the ceiling jet, as with the fire 

plume, is a region of the flow field exhibiting relatively high levels of buoyancy and/or 

shear-induced turbulence. Inaccuracies in its prediction tend to be averaged out when 

examining the bulk HGL temperature, but it is important to consider this higher degree of 

inaccuracy if the objective of the calculation is to assess the damage to or activation of 

some object or device near the ceiling. 

Figure 6-3. Snapshot of FDS simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3. 
Model Validation 

6-10 

6.3 Plume Temperature 

As with the ceiling jet, FDS has no specific plume algorithm. It simply computes the 

temperature and velocity everywhere. However, predicting temperatures within the fire plume is 

particularly important because this is where much of the mixing of the hot combustion products 

and surrounding air takes place. 

Data from ICFMP BE #2 and the FM/SNL test series have been used to assess the accuracy of 

plume temperature predictions. Figure 6-4 summarizes the results. 

FDS Plume Temperature

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 100A

NBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Relative Difference (%)

-100

-50

0

50

100

+14 %

-14 %

Upper Plume 

Lower Plume 

Figure 6-4. Summary of FDS predictions of plume temperature. 

ICFMP BE #2: It was discussed above that FDS over-predicts the HGL temperature in this test 

series. Not surprisingly, FDS over-predicts the plume temperature as well, especially at the 

lower thermocouple, 6 m above the fire pan. The flame height of the fires has been estimated to 

vary from 4 m to 5 m (13 ft to 16 ft), whereas FDS predicts the height to vary from 5 m to 6 m 

(16 ft to 19 ft). Consequently, FDS predicts higher temperatures in the region just beyond the 

flame tip where the temperatures decrease rapidly with height. At the higher thermocouple 

location, the relative difference between the predicted and measured temperatures is about 15 %, 

just at the upper edge of the experimental uncertainty range. 
Model Validation 

6-11 

FM/SNL: FDS predicts the plume temperatures in Test 4 and 5 to within experimental 

uncertainty, with the same under-prediction in Test 21 as for the HGL and ceiling jet 

temperatures, about 20 %. FDS uses 5 cm (2 in) grid cells in the vicinity of the plume to achieve 

these results. As discussed above, D*/δx=14, a fairly high value requiring several days of 

computing time. 

Summary: FDS merits a Yellow (Caution) ranking in this category for the following reasons: 

• The FDS hydrodynamic solver is well-suited for this application. 

• FDS over-predicts the lower plume temperature in BE #2 because it over-predicts the 

flame height. FDS predicts the FM/SNL plume temperature to within experimental 

uncertainty. 

• The simulations of BE #2 and the FM/SNL series are the most time-consuming of all six 

test series, mainly because of the need for a fairly fine numerical grid near the plume. It 

is important that a user understand that considerable computation time may be necessary 

to well-resolve temperatures within the fire plume. Even with a relatively fine grid, it is 

still challenging to accurately predict plume temperatures, especially in the fire itself or 

just above the flame tip. 

• There are only 9 plume temperature measurements in the data set. A more definitive 

conclusion about the accuracy of FDS in predicting plume temperature would require 

more experimental data. 
Model Validation 

6-12 

6.4 Flame Height 

Flame height is recorded by visual observations, photographs or video footage. Videos and 

photographs from the ICFMP BE # 3 test series and photographs from BE #2 are available. 

Several photographs from both test series are included in Appendix A-6. It is difficult to 

precisely measure the flame height, but the photos and videos allow one to make estimates 

accurate to within roughly a pan diameter. 

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 or 12.5 ft to 15.7 ft). The height of the 

simulated fire fluctuates from 5 m to 6 m (16 ft to 19 ft) during the peak heat release rate phase. 

This over-prediction is due to the simplified combustion model in FDS along with the limited 

grid resolution spanning the fire itself. In this type of simulation (small fire in a large 

compartment), it is challenging to design a numerical grid that spans the entire volume, but at the 

same time provides adequate resolution over the fire. In this case, the volume of the test hall is 

about 6,000 m3

 (200,000 ft3) while the fire occupies roughly 6 m3 (200 ft3). The over-prediction 

of flame height, in this test series, contributes to the over-prediction of plume and HGL 

temperature discussed above. 

ICFMP BE #3: FDS predicts the flame height correctly 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 flame. The experiments were not designed to measure the flame height other than through 

visual observation. 

Summary: FDS merits a Yellow (Caution) for Flame Height prediction, for the following 

reasons: 

• The FDS mixture fraction combustion model assumes that fuel and oxygen mix along a 

thin “flame sheet.” Although a simple description of the combustion, the model is 

capable of predicting the flame height of a well-ventilated fire. 

• FDS over-predicts the flame height of the only BE #2 fire for which photographs are 

available. FDS predicts the flame height for the BE #3 tests to an accuracy 

commensurate with visible observations. The uncertainty in interpreting the photographs, 

videos, and eye-witness accounts is considerable, as is the very definition of “flame 

height.” 

• There is not enough information about flame heights in the data sets to reach any definite 

conclusions about FDS predictions of flame height. 
Model Validation 

6-13 

6.5 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration 

FDS uses a mixture fraction combustion model, meaning that the concentrations of all of the 

major gas species are related to a single scalar variable for which a single transport equation is 

solved. Assuming that the basic stoichiometry of the combustion process is known, predicting 

oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations is similar, mathematically, to predicting temperatures. 

Gas sampling data is available from ICFMP BE #3 and BE #5. A summary of the FDS 

predictions is presented in Figure 6-5. 

FDS Gas Concentrations BE 2-1 BE 2-2 BE 2-3 BE 3-1 BE 3-7 BE 3-2 BE 3-8 BE 3-4 BE 3-10 BE 3-13

BE 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 100A

NBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Relative Difference (%)

-100

-50

0

50

100

+9 %

-9 %

Upper Oxygen 

Upper Carbon Dioxide 

Lower Oxygen 

Figure 6-5. Summary of FDS predictions of major gas concentrations. 

ICFMP BE #3: FDS predicts the upper layer concentrations of oxygen and carbon dioxide close 

to experimental uncertainty, with the notable exception of Test 5 (BE 3-5), for which the relative 

difference between FDS and measurement is about 60 % for both species. This over-prediction 

of the gases in the upper layer is most likely the result of the ventilation system. The fan, 

mounted halfway up the long wall of the compartment, blew air upward at roughly a 45° angle 

from the horizontal. Both the volume flow rate and the flow direction are subject to considerable 

uncertainty, and this is reflected in the results of Test 5, the only open door test involving the 

ventilation system. The large FDS over-prediction does not occur for the closed door tests with 

ventilation (Tests 4, 10 and 16). 
Model Validation 

6-14 

FDS predictions of the lower gas layer (LGL) oxygen concentration are close to experimental 

uncertainty except for Tests 1, 7 and 5. Tests 1 and 7 are replicate tests. They are relatively 

small fires (400 kW), the doors are closed, there is no ventilation, and the lower layer oxygen 

concentration gradually decreases to about 15 % in about 25 min. There is nothing in particular 

that might explain the over-prediction. Test 5 has the fan blowing into the upper layer, and the 

lower layer concentration is over-predicted by about the same percentage as the upper layer 

oxygen and carbon dioxide. 

ICFMP BE #5: FDS predicts the upper layer oxygen concentration in Test 4 of this test series 

(BE 5-4) to within experimental uncertainty. The carbon dioxide is slightly over-predicted by 

about 20 %, but the concentrations are relatively low (0.013 measured, 0.016 predicted). 

Summary: FDS merits a Green ranking for prediction of major gas species, for the following 

reasons: 

• The FDS mixture fraction model is capable of making predictions of major gas species 

concentrations, assuming that the basic stoichiometry of the combustion reaction is 

known and that the fire is well-ventilated. 

• With a few exceptions, the FDS predictions of major gas species concentrations are 

within experimental uncertainty. 

• FDS has only been evaluated for oxygen and carbon dioxide. The conclusions should not 

be extended to carbon monoxide, smoke, or other exhaust products whose yields and/or 

transport properties are not as well-characterized as oxygen and carbon dioxide. 
Model Validation 

6-15 

6.6 Smoke Concentration 

FDS treats smoke like all other combustion products, basically a tracer gas whose local mass 

concentration is a function of the local mixture fraction. To model smoke movement, the user 

need only prescribe the smoke yield, that is, the fraction of the fuel mass that is converted to 

smoke particulate. 

FDS Smoke Concentration

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 100A

NBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Relative Difference (%)

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

+33 %

-33 %

Figure 6-6. Summary of FDS predictions of smoke concentration. 

Only ICFMP BE #3 has been used to assess predictions of smoke concentration. For these tests, 

the smoke yield was specified as one of the input parameters. A summary of the results is shown 

in Figure 6-6. There are two obvious trends in the results: first, the predicted concentrations are 

about 50 % higher than the measured in the open door tests. Second, the predicted 

concentrations are as much as six times the measured concentrations in the closed door tests. 

The experimental uncertainty for these measurements has been estimated to be 33 % (see 

Volume 7). It may be possible to explain the open door results in terms of uncertainty in the 

measurement and the specified smoke yield, but the closed door tests cannot be explained in 

these terms.

Assuming that the mixture fraction model is valid, at least for the open door tests, it can be 

assumed that virtually all of the carbon atoms in the fuel are transported either by the CO2 or the 
Model Validation 

6-16 

soot (with relatively small amounts in the CO, unburned hydrocarbons, etc.). It can also be 

assumed that the soot (smoke) and CO2 are transported together with no significant separation or 

reaction. If these assumptions are true, there is no reason to expect the predicted smoke 

concentration to be roughly 50 % higher than the measured value unless the soot yield 

uncertainty and the measurement uncertainty combine to cause it. 

The difference between model and experiment is far more pronounced in the closed door tests. 

Given that the oxygen and carbon dioxide predictions are no worse in the closed door tests, there 

is evidence that the smoke does not behave like the other exhaust gases, or that there are flaws in 

the data reduction for closed door (i.e. under-ventilated) fires. Consider, for example, Figure 

6-7, which shows the smoke and oxygen concentration for a closed door test with no ventilation 

(Test 8). The HRR is ramped up to 1190 kW in 176 s, followed by 434 s of steady burning and 

then a rapid shut down of the fuel supply. Assuming a 1.5 % smoke yield, no smoke loss, and a 

uniform distribution of smoke throughout the compartment, the maximum smoke concentration 

ought to be about 360 mg/m3. FDS does allow for smoke to escape through leakage paths, thus, 

it predicts a lower peak concentration at the measurement location, about 300 mg/m3

, at about 10 

min after ignition when the fuel is shut off. The measured smoke concentration peaks at 100 

mg/m3 at about 8 min and then decreases. At about this same time, the oxygen concentration 

near the fire drops to about 15 %, at which point the fire becomes under-ventilated and the 

combustion chemistry presumably changes. Curiously, the smoke production rate appears to 

decrease as the fire becomes more oxygen-starved, or possibly the optical properties of the 

smoke change, leading to a misleading measurement of the smoke mass per unit volume. 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

Oxygen concentration near fire

Figure 6-7. Smoke and oxygen concentration, ICFMP BE #3 Test 8. 

Summary: FDS merits a Yellow (Caution) for predicting smoke concentration, for the 

following reasons: 

• FDS is capable of transporting smoke throughout a compartment, assuming that the 

production rate is known and that its transport properties are comparable to gaseous 

exhaust products. This assumption may break down in closed door fires, or if an 

appreciable part of the flame extends into the upper layer. 
Model Validation 

6-17 

• FDS over-predicts the smoke concentration in all of the BE #3 tests. For the open door 

tests, it is possible to explain the discrepancy in terms of the uncertainty of both the 

specified smoke yield and the optical measurement of the smoke concentration. There is 

no clear explanation for the discrepancy in the closed door tests. 

• No firm conclusions can be drawn from this one data set. The measurements in the 

closed door experiments are inconsistent with basic conservation of mass arguments, or 

there is a fundamental change in the combustion process as the fire becomes oxygenstarved. FDS does not have the ability to adjust the production rate or the optical 

properties of smoke, regardless of whether or not this would explain the discrepancy 

between the measurements and the model predictions. 
Model Validation 

6-18 

6.7 Compartment Pressure 

Comparisons between measurement and prediction of compartment pressure for BE #3 are 

shown in Appendix A.7 and the results are summarized in Figure 6-8. For those tests in which 

the door to the compartment is open, the over-pressures are only a few Pascals, whereas when 

the door is closed, the over-pressures are several hundred Pascals. 

FDS Compartment Pressure

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 100A

NBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Relative Difference (%)

-100

-50

0

50

200

+40 %

-40 %

Figure 6-8. Summary of FDS predictions of compartment pressure. 

In general, the predicted pressures are within 50 % of the measured pressures, consistent with the 

reported uncertainties in the leakage area and the ventilation rate (see Volume 7). The one 

notable exception is Test 16. This experiment was performed with the door closed and the 

ventilation on, and there is considerable uncertainty in the magnitude of both the supply and 

exhaust flow rates. Test 16 is a 2.3 MW fire, whereas Test 10 is a 1.2 MW fire. The measured 

supply velocity is greater and the measured exhaust velocity is less in Test 10, compared to Test 

16. This is probably the result of the higher pressure caused by the larger fire in Test 16. FDS 

does not adjust the ventilation rate based on the compartment pressure, which is why the 

prescribed FDS velocities are comparable in Test 10 and Test 16. This also is the most likely 

explanation for the over-prediction of compartment pressure in Test 16. Figure 6-9 presents the 

measured (solid lines) and specified (dashed lines) air velocities 15 cm from the lower edge of 

the supply duct, and 35 cm from the lower edge of the exhaust duct, for Test 10 and 16. Also 
Model Validation 

6-19 

shown are the measured (solid lines) and predicted (dashed lines) compartment over-pressures 

for these tests. 

Supply and Exhaust Duct Velocities

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Velocity (m/s)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Exp Time vs BP Supply Vent-16 

Exp Time vs BP Exhaust Vent 

FDS Time vs BP Supply 16 

FDS Time vs BP Exhaust 17 

Supply and Exhaust Duct Velocities

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Velocity (m/s)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Exp Time vs BP Supply Vent-16 

Exp Time vs BP Exhaust Vent 

FDS Time vs BP Supply 16 

FDS Time vs BP Exhaust 17 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Figure 6-9. Ventilation rates and pressures for BE #3, Tests 10 and 16. 

Summary: FDS merits a Green rating in predicting compartment pressure, for the following 

reasons: 

• The basic mass and energy conservation equations solved by FDS ensure reliable 

predictions of compartment pressure. 

• The FDS pressure predictions for BE #3 are within experimental uncertainty, with an 

exception related to the behavior of a ventilation fan. 

• Compartment pressure predictions are extremely sensitive to the leakage area and forced 

ventilation. The fractional uncertainty in predicted pressure is roughly double that of the 

leakage area or ventilation rate. 
Model Validation 

6-20 

6.8 Radiation and Total Heat Flux and Target Temperature 

Target temperature and heat flux data are available from ICFMP BE #3, #4 and #5. In BE #3, 

the targets are various types of cables in various configurations – horizontal, vertical, in trays or 

free-hanging. In BE #4, the targets are three rectangular slabs of different materials instrumented 

with heat flux gauges and thermocouples. In BE #5, the targets are again cables, in this case, 

bundled power and control cables in a vertical ladder. 

Figure 6-10 summarizes the relative differences between predicted and measured target surface 

temperatures. Figure 6-11 summarizes the radiative and total heat flux to these same targets. 

FDS Target Surface Temperature

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 100A

NBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Relative Difference (%)

-100

-50

0

50

100

+14 %

-14 %

Cable B

Cable D

Cable F

Cable G

Miscellaneous

Figure 6-10. Summary of FDS predictions of target temperature. 
Model Validation 

6-21 

FDS Radiation Heat Flux to Targets

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 100A

NBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Relative Difference (%)

-100

-50

0

50

100

+20 %

-20 %

Cable B

Cable D 

Cable F

Cable G

FDS Total Heat Flux to Targets

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 100A

NBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Relative Difference (%)

-100

-50

0

50

100

+20 %

-20 %

Cable B

Cable D

Cable F

Cable G

Miscellaneous

Figure 6-11. Summary of FDS predictions of heat flux to targets. 
Model Validation 

6-22 

ICFMP BE #3: There are nearly 200 comparisons of heat flux and surface temperature on four 

different cables that are graphed in the Appendix and summarized above. It is difficult to make 

sweeping generalizations about the accuracy of FDS. At best, one can scan the graphs, tables, 

and summary charts to get a sense of the overall performance. The experimental uncertainty is 

about 20 % for both heat flux and surface temperature. Discounting those comparisons whose 

relative difference is less than 20 %, the rest need to be examined on a case by case basis. A few 

trends to note: 

• There is an overall trend towards over-prediction of radiative heat flux and underprediction of total heat flux. From this observation, it is assumed that the convective heat 

flux, the difference between the total and the radiative heat flux, is generally underpredicted. It is difficult to more accurately quantify this observation because the heat 

flux gauges in the experiment are mounted on steel, L-shaped brackets while the 

convective heat flux prediction by FDS is based on a flat plate empirical correlation. 

Thus, the model does not predict, nor does the experiment measure, the true convective 

heat flux to the cables themselves. 

• The predicted and measured cable surface temperatures are often virtually identical to the 

local gas temperature (see graphs in Appendix A). Good FDS predictions of the gas 

temperature often lead to good predictions of the cable temperature, regardless of the 

accuracy of the heat flux. Indeed, the scatter in the temperature predictions is less than 

that in the heat flux predictions. 

• Most of the over-predictions of cable surface temperatures occur in Tests 4, 5, 10 and 16, 

which include the ventilation fan. Cables B, D and F are located near the supply vent and 

the air blows over the measurement locations. The fan’s flow rate and direction are not 

well-characterized in the test specification, thus, there is more uncertainty in these tests 

than in the others. It is difficult to quantify this uncertainty, however, other than to look 

at similar tests that do not have the fan turned on. Tests 2 and 8 are the same as 4 and 10, 

but without the fan. Test 3 is Test 5 without the fan. Test 13 is Test 16 without the fan. 

The cable surface temperatures are not over-predicted in these unventilated tests. 

ICFMP BE #4: FDS over-predicts both the heat flux and surface temperature of three “slab” 

targets located about 1 m from the fire. The trend is consistent, but it cannot be explained solely 

in terms of experimental uncertainty. Part of the discrepancy appears to be due to the plume lean 

in FDS, which leads to the significant over-prediction of heat flux to the steel target in the back 

of the compartment. 

ICFMP BE #5: Predictions and measurements of gas temperature, total heat flux and cable 

surface temperature are available at four vertical locations along a cable tray. FDS over-predicts 

the gas temperatures by about 10 % at these locations, under-predicts heat flux by about 50 %, 

and under-predicts the cable surface temperature by 10 % to 20 %. Although the surface 

temperature predictions are within experimental uncertainty, the heat flux predictions are not. It 

is possible that in this case, two wrongs (gas temperature and heat flux) make a right (surface 

temperature). However, only one test from this series has been used in the evaluation, thus, it is 
Model Validation 

6-23 

hard to make any firm conclusions. Also, given that BE #5 uses the same compartment as 

BE #4, it is curious that FDS over-predicts the heat fluxes in BE #4, but under-predicts in BE #5. 

Summary: FDS merits a Yellow (Caution) in this category, for the following reasons: 

• FDS has the appropriate radiation and solid phase models for predicting the radiative and 

convective heat flux to targets, assuming the targets are relatively simple in shape. FDS 

is capable of predicting the surface temperature of a target, assuming that its shape is 

relatively simple and its composition fairly uniform. 

• FDS predictions of heat flux and surface temperature are generally within experimental 

uncertainty, but there are numerous exceptions due to a variety of reasons. The accuracy 

of the predictions generally decreases as the targets move closer to, or go inside of, the 

fire. There is not enough near-field data to challenge the model in this regard. 
Model Validation 

6-24 

6.9 Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature 

Heat flux and wall surface temperature measurements are available from ICFMP BE #3, and 

wall surface temperature measurements are available from BE #4 and BE #5. As with target heat 

flux and surface temperature above, there is a considerable amount of data to consider. Figure 

6-12 summarizes the relative differences for the wall (total) heat flux and wall surface 

temperature predictions. 

ICFMP BE #3: FDS generally predicts the heat flux and surface temperature of the compartment 

walls and ceiling to within experimental uncertainty (20 %). However, the predicted floor 

temperatures are as much as 90 % higher than the measurements. In fact, the over-predicted 

surface temperatures are almost all for the floor, both near and far-field. The predicted heat 

fluxes to the floor do not indicate this level of error, which means that the material properties of 

the floor need to be considered. The compartment walls and ceiling are constructed of Marinite 

I, an industrial-strength insulating material whose properties have been measured by the 

manufacturer (BNZ Materials, Inc.) for the range of temperatures experienced in the tests. The 

floor is constructed of ordinary gypsum board, the properties of which are not well-characterized 

because the exact composition of each batch changes depending on the supply of raw materials. 

The thermal properties of the gypsum board used in the test series were not measured. 

Therefore, it cannot be concluded that FDS is less accurate in predicting floor temperatures than 

it is predicting wall or ceiling temperatures. 

ICFMP BE #4: FDS predicted two wall surface temperatures to within 4 % of the measured 

values. The two points are presumably very close to the fire because the temperatures are 600 °C 

to 700 °C (1,100 °F to 1,300 °F) above ambient. This is a curious result because FDS does not 

predict the temperatures of the nearby slab targets this accurately. 

ICFMP BE #5: FDS under-predicts wall temperatures at two locations in the compartment by 

about 30 %. However, FDS slightly over-predicts the gas temperatures at these same vertical 

locations. These results are similar to those discussed above for the cable targets in BE #5. 

Summary: FDS merits a Yellow (Caution) rating in this category, for reasons similar to those 

for Target Flux and Temperature above: 

• FDS has the necessary radiation and solid phase sub-models for predicting the radiative 

and convective heat flux to walls, and the subsequent temperature rise within the walls. 

It is assumed that the composition of the wall liner is fairly uniform and its thermal 

properties are well-characterized. 

• FDS predictions of heat flux and surface temperature are generally within experimental 

uncertainty, but there are several exceptions due to a variety of reasons. As with targets, 

the accuracy of the predictions typically decreases closer to the fire or plume 

impingement region. Although there is no clear difference in near and far field 

predictions in the current study, past experience urges caution when making near-field 

predictions. 
Model Validation 

6-25 

FDS Wall Heat Flux BE 2-1 BE 2-2 BE 2-3 BE 3-1 BE 3-7 BE 3-2 BE 3-8 BE 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 100A

NBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Relative Difference (%)

-100

-50

0

50

100

+20 %

-20 %

Long Wall, Far-Field

Short Wall, Low

Floor, Far-Field

Ceiling, Far-Field

Long Wall, Near-Field

Short Wall, High

Floor, Near-Field

Ceiling, Near-Field

FDS Wall Temperature BE 2-1 BE 2-2 BE 2-3 BE 3-1 BE 3-7 BE 3-2 BE 3-8 BE 3-4 BE 3-10

BE 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 100A

NBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Relative Difference (%)

-100

-50

0

50

100

+14 %

-14 %

Long Wall, Far-Field

Short Wall, Low

Floor, Far-Field

Ceiling, Far-Field

Long Wall, Near-Field

Short Wall, High

Floor, Near-Field

Ceiling, Near-Field

Miscellaneous

Figure 6-12. Summary of FDS predictions of wall heat flux and temperature. 
Model Validation 

6-26 

6.10 Summary 

The results presented in this chapter validate the basic hydrodynamic and radiative heat transport 

algorithms within FDS. For a fire whose heat release rate is known, FDS can reliably predict gas 

temperatures, major gas species concentrations, and compartment pressures to within about 

15 %, and heat fluxes and surface temperatures to within about 25 %. 

For the experiments considered, the results of FDS are not significantly better than those of the 

two-zone models that are also evaluated in this study (CFAST, Volume 4 and MAGIC, Volume 

5). Only in the predictions of heat flux and surface temperature is FDS noticeably better. The 

reason is that the experiments used in the evaluation conform to the simple two-layer assumption 

that is the basis of CFAST and MAGIC. In addition, two-zone models use well-established 

empirical correlations to predict the plume, ceiling jet, and flame height; whereas FDS simply 

solves the basic transport equations. In this sense, FDS truly is a predictive model. However, 

the cost of solving the basic equations is substantial. The two-zone models produce answers in 

seconds to minutes; FDS produces comparable answers in hours to days. An obvious question to 

ask is why use FDS or any CFD model? The answer is that these experiments were designed to 

evaluate all types of fire models, from simple hand calculations to CFD. Rarely do real fire 

scenarios conform as neatly to the simplifying assumptions inherent in the models. Fire plumes 

are rarely free and clear of obstacles -- fires often occur in cabinets or near walls. Ceilings are 

rarely flat and unobstructed – duct work and cable trays often block the clear paths. Although 

two-zone models can be applied in some of these instances, their accuracy cannot be assured. 

Indeed, in the present study the heat flux and surface predictions by FDS are more accurate than 

those of the two-zone models because FDS computes the local temperature within the hot gas 

layer, and the radiative heat flux is a function of this local temperature raised to the fourth power. 

Obstructions near the ceiling create pockets of hotter gases whose effect on the local heat flux to 

targets and walls can be substantial. 

Most practicing fire protection engineers use a combination of models to assess the hazards of 

fire. For the fire scenarios considered in the current validation study, and for the output 

quantities of interest, the two-layer models are most suitable. The hand calculations are limited 

in applicability, and FDS is overly time-consuming. However, the experiments do provide a 

means to validate all of the models in a consistent way. Once validated for the simple 

compartment geometries, FDS can then be used to look at more complicated geometries where 

non-uniformities of temperature and non-idealized gas flows cannot be addressed by simple twozone models. 
7-1 

7 

REFERENCES 

1. ASTM Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire 

Models, ASTM E 1355-05a, West Conshohocken, PA (2004). 

2. “Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 4) Technical Reference Guide,” K. McGrattan ed., 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication 1018 (2004). 

3. McGrattan, K., G. P. Forney, “Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 4) User’s Guide,” National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, Special Publication 1019 (2005). 

4. Forney, G. P., K. McGrattan, “User’s Guide for Smokeview Version 4—A Tool for 

Visualizing Fire Dynamics Simulation Data,” National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Special Publication 1017 (2004). 

5. Rehm, R.G., H.R. Baum, “The Equations of Motion for Thermally Driven, Buoyant Flows,” 

Journal of Research of the NBS, 83:297–308, 1978.

6. Smagorinsky, J., “General Circulation Experiments with the Primitive Equations. I. The 

Basic Experiment,” Monthly Weather Review, 91(3):99–164, 1963. 

7. Quintiere, J., “A Perspective on Compartment Fire Growth,” Combustion Science and 

Technology, 39:11–54, 1984.

8. Beyler, C., SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, chapter “Flammability Limits of 

Premixed and Diffusion Flames,” National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, 

Massachusetts, 3rd edition, 2002.

9. Grosshandler, W., “RadCal: A Narrow Band Model for Radiation Calculations in a 

Combustion Environment,” NIST Technical Note TN 1402, National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, 1993.

10. Prasad, K., C. Li, K. Kailasanath, C. Ndubizu, R. Ananth, and P.A. Tatem, “Numerical 

modelling of methanol liquid pool fires,” Combustion Theory and Modelling, 3:743–768, 

1999.

11. Atreya, A., “Pyrolysis, Ignition and Fire Spread on Horizontal Surfaces of Wood,” NBS 

GCR 83-449, National Bureau of Standards (now NIST), 1983.

12. Ritchie, S.J., K.D. Steckler, A. Hamins, T.G. Cleary, J.C. Yang, and T. Kashiwagi, “The 

Effect of Sample Size on the Heat Release Rate of Charring Materials,” In Proceedings of the 

5th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, pages 177–188, International 

Association For Fire Safety Science, 1997.

13. Mell, W., K. McGrattan, and H. Baum, “Numerical Simulation of Combustion in Fire 

Plumes,” In Twenty-Sixth Symposium (International) on Combustion, Combustion Institute, 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1996.
References 

7-2 

14. McGrattan, K., H.R. Baum, and R.G. Rehm, “Large Eddy Simulations of Smoke 

Movement,” Fire Safety Journal, 30:161–178, 1998.

15. Xin, Y., J.P. Gore, K. McGrattan, R.G. Rehm, and H.R. Baum, “Large Eddy Simulation of 

Buoyant Turbulent Pool Fires,” In Proceedings of the 2002 Spring Technical Meeting, 

Central States Section, Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, April 2002. 

16. Baum, H.R., R.G. Rehm, P.D. Barnett, and D.M. Corley, “Finite Difference Calculations of 

Buoyant Convection in an Enclosure, Part I: The Basic Algorithm,” SIAM Journal of 

Scientific and Statistical Computing, 4(1):117–135, 1983. 

17. Baum, H.R. and R.G. Rehm, “Finite Difference Solutions for Internal Waves in Enclosures,” 

SIAM Journal of Scientific and Statistical Computing, 5(4):958–977, 1984. 

18. Rehm, R.G., H.R. Baum, P.D. Barnett, and D.M. Corley, “Finite Difference Calculations of 

Buoyant Convection in an Enclosure, Part II: Verification of the Nonlinear Algorithm,” 

Applied Numerical Mathematics, 1:515–529, 1985. 

19. McGrattan, K., R.G. Rehm, and H.R. Baum, “Fire-Driven Flows in Enclosures,” Journal of 

Computational Physics, 110(2):285–292, 1994. 

20. Mell, W. and T. Kashiwagi, “Dimensional Effects on Microgravity Flame Transition,” In 

Twenty-Seventh Symposium (International) on Combustion. Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania, 1998. 

21. Jhalani A., “A Numerical Study of Stretch in Partially Premixed Flames,” Master’s thesis, 

University of Illinois at Chicago, 2001. 

22. Hamins, A., M. Bundy, I. Puri, K.B. McGrattan, and W.C. Park, “Suppression of Low Strain 

Rate Non-Premixed Flames by an Agent,” In Proceedings of the 6th International 

Microgravity Combustion Workshop, NASA/CP-2001-210826, pages 101–104, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lewis Research Center, May 2001. 

23. Zhang, W., A. Hamer, M. Klassen, D. Carpenter, and R. Roby, “Turbulence Statistics in a 

Fire Room Model by Large Eddy Simulation,” Fire Safety Journal, 2002. 

24. McGrattan, K., J. Floyd, G. Forney, H. Baum and S. Hostikka, “Improved Radiation and 

Combustion Routines for a Large Eddy Simulation Fire Model,” Fire Safety Science -- 

Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium. International Association for Fire 

Safety Science, 2003.
A-1 

A 

TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE FDS VALIDATION 

STUDY 

Appendix A provides comparisons of FDS predictions and experimental measurements for the 

six series of fire experiments under consideration. Each section to follow contains an assessment 

of the model predictions for the following quantities: 

A.1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height 

A.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature 

A.3 Plume Temperature 

A.4 Flame Height 

A.5 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration 

A.6 Smoke Concentration 

A.7 Compartment Pressure 

A.8 Target Heat Flux and Surface Temperature 

A.9 Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature 

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. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-2 

A.1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height 

FDS, like any CFD model, does not perform a direct calculation of the HGL temperature or 

height. These are constructs unique to two-zone models, like CFAST and MAGIC. 

Nevertheless, FDS does make predictions of gas temperature at the same locations as the 

thermocouples in the experiments, and these values can be reduced in the same manner as the 

experimental measurements to produce an “average” HGL temperature and height. Regardless 

of the validity of the reduction method, the FDS predictions of the HGL temperature and height 

ought to be representative of the accuracy of its predictions of the individual thermocouple 

measurements that are used in the HGL reduction. 

The temperature measurements from all six test series are used to compute an HGL temperature 

and height with which to compare to FDS. The same layer reduction method is used for five of 

the six test series. Only the NBS Multi-Room series uses another method. 

A brief description of each test series is included below, followed by graphs comparing the 

predicted and measured HGL temperature and layer height. A summary table is provided at the 

end of the section that displays the relative differences between predictions and measurements 

for all six test series. Note that the calculation of relative difference is based on the temperature 

rise above ambient, and the layer depth, that is, the distance from the ceiling to where the hot gas 

layer descends. Where the model over-predicts the HGL temperature or the depth of the HGL, 

the relative difference is a positive number. This convention is used throughout the Appendix – 

where the model over-predicts the severity of the fire, the relative difference is positive; where it 

under-predicts, the difference is negative. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-3

ICFMP BE # 2 

The HGL temperature and depth are calculated from the averaged gas temperatures from three 

vertical thermocouple arrays using the standard reduction method. There are 10 thermocouples 

in each vertical array, spaced 2 m apart in the lower two-thirds of the hall, and 1 m apart near the 

ceiling. Figure A-1 presents a snapshot from one of the simulations. 

Figure A-1. Cut-away view of the simulation of ICFMP BE #2, Case 2. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-4 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #2, Case 1

Time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Exp Time vs T_upper 

FDS Time vs HGL Temp 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #2, Case 1

Time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Height (m)

0

5

10

15

20

Exp Time vs Height 

FDS Time vs Layer Height 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #2, Case 2

Time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Exp Time vs T_upper 

FDS Time vs HGL Temp 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #2, Case 2

Time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Height (m)

0

5

10

15

20

Exp Time vs Height 

FDS Time vs Layer Height 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #2, Case 3

Time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Exp Time vs T_upper 

FDS Time vs HGL Temp 1 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #2, Case 3

Time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Height (m)

0

5

10

15

20

Exp Time vs Height 

FDS Time vs Layer Height 

Figure A-2. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #2. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-5

ICFMP BE # 3 

BE #3 consists of 15 liquid spray fire tests with different heat release rates, pan locations, and 

ventilation conditions. The basic geometry, including the numerical grid, is shown in Figure 

A-3. Gas temperatures were measured using seven floor-to-ceiling thermocouple arrays (or 

“trees”) distributed throughout the compartment. The average hot gas layer temperature and 

height are calculated using thermocouple Trees 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Tree 4 is not used because 

one of its thermocouples (4-9) malfunctioned during most of the experiments. 

Figure A-3. Snapshot of simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3. 

A few observations about the simulations: 

• During Tests 4, 5, 10 and 16 a fan blew air into the compartment through a vent in the 

south wall. The measured velocity profile of the fan is not uniform, with the bulk of the 

air blowing from the lower third of the duct towards the ceiling at a roughly 45° angle. 

The exact flow pattern is difficult to replicate in the model, thus, the results for Tests 4, 5, 

10 and 16 should be evaluated with this in mind. The effect of the fan on the hot gas 

layer is small, but it does have a some effect on target temperatures near the vent. 

• For all of the tests involving a fan, the predicted HGL height rises after the fire is 

extinguished, while the measured HGL drops. This appears to be a curious artifact of the 

layer reduction algorithm. It is not included in the calculation of the relative difference. 

• In the closed door tests, the hot gas layer descends all the way to the floor. However, the 

reduction method, used on both the measured and predicted temperatures, does not 

account for the formation of a single layer, and therefore does not indicate that the layer 

drops all the way to the floor. This is neither a flaw in the measurements nor in FDS, but 

rather in the layer reduction method. 

• The HGL reduction method produces spurious results in the first few minutes of each test 

because no clear layer has yet formed. These early times are not included in the relative 

difference calculation. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-6 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

FDS Time vs T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Layer Height above floor (m) 

FDS Time vs Height 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

FDS Time vs T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Layer Height above floor (m) 

FDS Time vs Height 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

FDS Time vs T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Layer Height above floor (m) 

FDS Time vs Height 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

FDS Time vs T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Layer Height above floor (m) 

FDS Time vs Height 

Figure A-4. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-7

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

FDS Time vs T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Layer Height above floor (m) 

FDS Time vs Height 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

FDS Time vs T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Layer Height above floor (m) 

FDS Time vs Height 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

FDS Time vs T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Layer Height above floor (m) 

FDS Time vs Height 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

FDS Time vs T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Layer Height above floor (m) 

FDS Time vs Height 

Figure A-5. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-8 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

FDS Time vs T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Layer Height above floor (m) 

FDS Time vs Height 

Open Door Tests to Follow

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

FDS Time vs T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Layer Height above floor (m) 

FDS Time vs Height 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

FDS Time vs T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Layer Height above floor (m) 

FDS Time vs Height 

Figure A-6. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-9

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

FDS Time vs T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Layer Height above floor (m) 

FDS Time vs Height 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

FDS Time vs T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Layer Height above floor (m) 

FDS Time vs Height 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

FDS Time vs T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Layer Height above floor (m) 

FDS Time vs Height 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

FDS Time vs T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Layer Height above floor (m) 

FDS Time vs Height 

Figure A-7. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-10 

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. As shown in Figure A-8, the compartment geometry is fairly simple, with most of the 

objects contained within it being rectangular and easily conforming to the simple 10 cm uniform 

grid used by FDS. The only exception is a cylindrically-shaped waste container located just 

behind the fire pan, which according to the simulation, is engulfed by the fire. In the model, the 

cylindrical barrel is approximated as a rectangular solid. 

Figure A-8. Snapshot of the simulation of ICFMP BE #4, Test 1. 

The HGL temperature prediction, while matching the experiment in maximum value, has a 

noticeably different shape than the measured profile, both in the first 5 minutes and following 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-11

extinction. The HGL height prediction is distinctly different in the first 10 minutes and differs 

by about 30 % after that time. There appears to be an error in the reduction of the experimental 

data. 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #4, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

200

400

600

800

Exp Time vs T_up 

FDS Time vs Avg T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #4, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs Layer Height 

FDS Time vs Avg Layer Height 

Figure A-9. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #4, Test 1. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-12 

ICFMP BE # 5 

BE #5 was performed in the same fire test facility as BE #4. Figure A-10 displays the overall 

geometry of the compartment, as idealized by FDS. Only one of the experiments from this test 

series is used in the evaluation, Test 4, and only the first 20 min of the test, during the “preheating” stage when only the ethanol pool fire is active. The burner was lit after that point, and 

the cables began to burn. 

Figure A-10. Snapshot of the simulation of ICFMP BE #5, Test 4. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-13

 

Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs T_up 

FDS Time vs Avg T_upper 

Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Height

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Exp Time vs Layer height 

FDS Time vs Avg Layer Height 

Figure A-11. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-14 

FM/SNL Test Series 

Tests 4, 5, and 21 from the FM/SNL test series are selected for comparison. The hot gas layer 

temperature and height are calculated using the standard method. The thermocouple arrays that 

are referred to as Sectors 1, 2 and 3 are averaged (with an equal weighting for each) for Tests 4 

and 5. For Test 21, only Sectors 1 and 3 are used, as Sector 2 falls within the smoke plume. 

Figure A-12. Snapshot from simulation of FM/SNL Test 5. 

Note the following: 

• The HGL heights, both the measured and predicted, are somewhat noisy due to the effect 

of ventilation ducts in the upper layer. 

• The ventilation was turned off after 9 min in Test 5, the effect of which was a slight 

increase in both the measured and predicted HGL temperature. 

• The measured HGL temperature is noticeably greater than the prediction in Test 21. This 

is possibly due to an increase in the HRR towards the end of the test. The simulations all 

used fixed HRRs after the 4 min ramp up. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-15

HGL Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

FDS Time vs Layer Temperature 

Exp Time vs T_upper 

HGL Height

FM/SNL, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

FDS Time vs Layer Height 

Exp Time vs Height 

HGL Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

FDS Time vs Layer Temperature 

Exp Time vs T_upper 

HGL Height

FM/SNL, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

FDS Time vs Layer Height 

Exp Time vs Height 

HGL Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 21

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

FDS Time vs Layer Temperature 

Exp Time vs T_upper 

HGL Height

FM/SNL, Test 21

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

FDS Time vs Layer Height 

Exp Time vs Height 

Figure A-13. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, FM/SNL Series. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-16 

NBS Multi-Room Test Series 

This series of experiments consists of two relatively small rooms connected by a long corridor. 

The fire is located in one of the rooms. Eight vertical arrays of thermocouples are 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 have been selected for 

comparison with model prediction: the array in the burn room (BR), the array in the middle of 

the corridor (18 ft from the BR), the array at the far end of the corridor (38 ft from the BR), and 

the array in the target room (TR). In Tests 100A and 100O, the target room is closed, in which 

case the array in the exit (EXI) doorway is used. 

The standard reduction method is not used to compute the experimental HGL temperature or 

height for this test series. Rather, the test director reduced the layer information individually for 

the eight thermocouple arrays using an alternative method1

. For a CFD model like FDS, it is 

useful to consider the difference in layer statistics at two locations in the corridor. For the zone 

models, it is useful to consider alternative layer reduction schemes. 

Figure A-14. Snapshot from simulation of NBS Multi-Room Test 100Z. 

 

1

 Peacock, R.D. and Babrauskas, V, “Analysis of Large-Scale Fire Test Data,” Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 17, pp 387-

414, 1991. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-17

Room 1 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp TIME vs UP BR 

FDS Time vs Layer Temp 1 

Room 1 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Height (m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp TIME vs HGT BR 

FDS Time vs Layer Height 1 

Tree 4 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Exp TIME vs UP 18 

FDS Time vs Layer Temp 4 

Tree 4 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Height (m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp TIME vs HGT 18 

FDS Time vs Layer Height 4 

Tree 5 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Exp TIME vs UP 38 

FDS Time vs Layer Temp 5 

Tree 5 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Height (m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp TIME vs HGT 38 

FDS Time vs Layer Height 5 

Tree 6 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Exp TIME vs UP EXI 

FDS Time vs Layer Temp 6 

Tree 6 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Height (m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp TIME vs HGTEXI 

FDS Time vs Layer Height 6 

Figure A-15. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multi-Room, Test 100A. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-18 

Room 1 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100O

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp TIME vs UP BR 

FDS Time vs Layer Temp 1 

Room 1 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100O

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Height (m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp TIME vs HGT BR 

FDS Time vs Layer Height 1 

Tree 4 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100O

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Exp TIME vs UP 18 

FDS Time vs Layer Temp 4 

Tree 4 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100O

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Height (m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp TIME vs HGT 18 

FDS Time vs Layer Height 4 

Tree 5 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100O

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Exp TIME vs UP 38 

FDS Time vs Layer Temp 5 

Tree 5 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100O

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Height (m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp TIME vs HGT 38 

FDS Time vs Layer Height 5 

Tree 6 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100O

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Exp TIME vs UP EXI 

FDS Time vs Layer Temp 6 

Tree 6 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100O

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Height (m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp TIME vs HGTEXI 

FDS Time vs Layer Height 6 

Figure A-16. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multi-Room, Test 100O. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-19

Room 1 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp TIME vs UP BR 

FDS Time vs Layer Temp 1 

Room 1 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Height (m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp TIME vs HGT BR 

FDS Time vs Layer Height 1 

Tree 4 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Exp TIME vs UP 18 

FDS Time vs Layer Temp 4 

Tree 4 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Height (m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp TIME vs HGT 18 

FDS Time vs Layer Height 4 

Tree 5 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Exp TIME vs UP 38 

FDS Time vs Layer Temp 5 

Tree 5 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Height (m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp TIME vs HGT 38 

FDS Time vs Layer Height 5 

Tree 8 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Exp TIME vs UP TR 

FDS Time vs Layer Temp 8 

Tree 8 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Height (m)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp TIME vs HGT TR 

FDS Time vs Layer Height 8 

Figure A-17. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multi-Room, Test 100Z. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-20 

Table A-1. Summary of HGL Temperature and Depth Comparisons. 

HGL Temperature Rise HGL Depth 

∆E 

(°C) 

∆M 

(°C) 

Diff. 

(%) 

∆E 

(m) 

∆M 

(m) 

Diff. 

(%) 

Case1 55 66 21 14.6 14.9 3 

Case2 86 102 18 14.8 15.3 4 

BE #2 

Case3 83 101 23 13.9 14.1 2 

Test 1 123 125 2 3.0 3.0 -1 

Test 7 117 122 5 3.1 3.0 -1 

Test 2 229 220 -4 3.0 2.9 -3 

Test 8 218 220 1 3.0 2.9 -2 

Test 4 204 214 5 3.0 2.9 -2 

Test 10 198 212 7 3.2 2.9 -9 

Test 13 291 289 -1 3.0 2.9 -2 

Test 16 268 275 2 2.9 2.9 -1 

Test 17 135 143 6 3.1 3.0 -3 

Test 3 207 218 5 2.9 2.8 -3 

Test 9 204 216 6 2.9 2.8 -4 

Test 5 176 190 8 3.0 2.7 -10 

Test 14 208 218 4 2.9 2.8 -3 

Test 15 211 223 6 2.9 2.8 -3 

BE #3 

Test 18 193 213 10 2.9 2.9 -2 

BE #4 Test 1 700 693 -1 4.2 4.6 10 

BE #5 Test 4 151 166 10 4.3 4.1 -4 

Test 4 59 58 -3 3.4 3.4 1 

Test 5 47 48 3 2.3 2.9 26 

FM/ 

SNL 

Test 21 66 53 -20 3.4 3.4 -1 

BR 267 253 -5 1.2 1.1 -5 

18 81 82 1 1.3 1.2 -8 

38 75 75 0 1.4 1.4 0 100A 

EXI 73 77 5 1.2 1.3 4 

BR 313 289 -8 1.2 1.2 6 

18 98 94 -4 2.1 1.9 -10 

38 93 92 -1 2.2 2.1 -7 100O 

EXI -- 92 -- 2.2 2.1 -4 

BR 260 234 -10 1.2 1.1 -2 

18 65 75 16 1.2 1.2 -1 

38 67 68 2 1.2 1.4 13 

NBS Multi-Room 

100Z 

TR 35 40 14 1.5 1.5 -1 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-21

A.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature 

FDS is a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model and has no explicit ceiling jet model. 

Rather, temperatures throughout the fire compartment are computed directly from the governing 

conservation equations. Nevertheless, temperature measurements near the ceiling can be used to 

evaluate the model’s ability to predict the flow of hot gases across a relatively flat ceiling. 

Measurements for this category are available from ICFMP BE #3 and the FM/SNL series. 

ICFMP BE # 3 

The thermocouple nearest the ceiling in Tree 7, located towards the back of the compartment, 

has been chosen as a surrogate for the ceiling jet temperature. Curiously, the difference between 

measured and predicted temperatures is noticeably greater for the open door tests. Certainly, the 

open door changes the flow pattern of the exhaust gases. However, the predicted HGL heights 

for the open door tests, shown in the previous section, do not show a noticeable difference from 

their closed door counterparts. The predicted HGL temperatures are only slightly less than those 

measured in the open door tests, due in large part to the contribution of Tree 7 in the layer 

reduction calculation. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-22 

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs Tree 7-10 

FDS Time vs Tr 7-10 

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs Tree 7-10 

FDS Time vs Tr 7-10 

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 7-10 

FDS Time vs Tr 7-10 

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 7-10 

FDS Time vs Tr 7-10 

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 7-10 

FDS Time vs Tr 7-10 

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 7-10 

FDS Time vs Tr 7-10 

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500

Exp Time vs Tree 7-10 

FDS Time vs Tr 7-10 

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500

Exp Time vs Tree 7-10 

FDS Time vs Tr 7-10 

Figure A-18. Near-ceiling gas temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-23

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 7-10 

FDS Time vs Tr 7-10 

Open Door Tests to Follow

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 7-10 

FDS Time vs Tr 7-10 

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 7-10 

FDS Time vs Tr 7-10 

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 7-10 

FDS Time vs Tr 7-10 

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 7-10 

FDS Time vs Tr 7-10 

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 7-10 

FDS Time vs Tr 7-10 

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 7-10 

FDS Time vs Tr 7-10 

Figure A-19. Near-ceiling gas temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-24 

FM/SNL Test Series 

The near-ceiling thermocouples in Sectors 1 and 3 have been chosen as surrogates for the ceiling 

jet temperature. The results are shown below. The only noticeable discrepancy is in Test 21, 

and it is the same pattern that was observed in the HGL temperature comparison for this test. 

Near Ceiling Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

FM/SNL, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

FDS Time vs Sector1 Ch1 

FDS Time vs Sector3 Ch11 

Exp Time vs 1/(0.98 H) 

Exp Time vs 11/(0.98 H) 

Near Ceiling Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

FM/SNL, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

FDS Time vs Sector1 Ch1 

FDS Time vs Sector3 Ch11 

Exp Time vs 1/(0.98 H) 

Exp Time vs 11/(0.98 H) 

Near Ceiling Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

FM/SNL, Test 21

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

FDS Time vs Sector1 Ch1 

FDS Time vs Sector3 Ch11 

Exp Time vs 1/(0.98 H) 

Exp Time vs 11/(0.98 H) 

Figure A-20. Near-ceiling gas temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1 and 3. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-25

Table A-2. Summary of Ceiling Jet Temperature Comparisons. 

Ceiling Jet Temperature Rise 

∆E 

(°C) 

∆M 

(°C) 

Diff. 

(%) 

Test 1 155 148 -4 

Test 7 139 145 4 

Test 2 271 258 -5 

Test 8 247 259 5 

Test 4 229 241 5 

Test 10 218 244 12 

Test 13 330 337 2 

Test 16 278 303 9 

Test 17 156 184 18 

Test 3 241 268 11 

Test 9 235 264 12 

Test 5 208 243 17 

Test 14 241 271 13 

Test 15 244 270 11 

ICFMP BE #3 

Test 18 235 269 15 

Sec 1 82 88 7 Test 4 Sec 3 66 69 5 

Sec 1 70 66 -6 Test 5 Sec 3 53 50 -6 

Sec 1 75 62 -17 

FM/SNL 

Test 21 Sec 3 77 63 -19 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-26 

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 above the fire is not reported, or the fire 

plume leans because of the flow pattern within the compartment, or the fire is positioned against 

a wall. Only for BE #2 and the FM/SNL series are the plumes relatively free from perturbations. 

ICFMP BE # 2 

BE #2 consists of liquid fuel pan fires conducted in the middle of a large fire test hall. Plume 

temperatures are measured at two heights above the fire, 6 m and 12 m. The flames extend to 

about 4 m above the fire pan. FDS over-predicts the 6 m measurement by 20 % to 30 %. This is 

a challenging prediction because the temperature decreases rapidly just above the flame tip 

(Figure A-21). The 12 m measurement is less challenging because the temperatures are not 

decreasing as rapidly at this height. 

Figure A-21. Photographs of fire plumes in ICFMP BE #2. Courtesy Simo Hostikka, VTT 

Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-27

The FM-SNL Test Series 

In Tests 4 and 5, thermocouples are positioned near the ceiling directly over the fire pan. In Test 

21, the fire is located within an empty electrical cabinet, and the closest near ceiling 

thermocouple is used to assess the “plume” temperature. Note that in Test 5, the FDS plume 

temperature curve has been smoothed to better assess the relative difference between the peak 

values of the model and the measurement. 

Plume Temperatures

ICFMP BE #2, Case 1

Time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500 Exp Time vs T G.1 

Exp Time vs T G.2 

FDS Time vs T G.1

FDS Time vs T G.2

Plume Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 4

Time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

FDS Time vs Station13 Ch28 

Exp Time vs 28/(0.98 H) 

Plume Temperatures

ICFMP BE #2, Case 2

Time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500 Exp Time vs T G.1 

Exp Time vs T G.2 

FDS Time vs T G.1

FDS Time vs T G.2

Plume Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 5

Time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

FDS Time vs Station 13, Ch 28 

Exp Time vs 28/(0.98 H) 

Plume Temperatures

ICFMP BE #2, Case 3

Time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500 Exp Time vs T G.1 

Exp Time vs T G.2 

FDS Time vs T G.1

FDS Time vs T G.2

Plume Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 21

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

FDS Time vs Sector2 Ch6 

Exp Time vs 6/(0.98 H) 

Figure A-22. Plume Temperature, ICFMP BE #2 (left) and the FM/SNL Series (right). 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-28 

Table A-3. Summary of Plume Temperature Comparisons. 

Plume Temperature Rise 

∆E 

(°C) 

∆M 

(°C) 

Diff. 

(%) 

T G.1 166 215 30 Case 1 T G.2 77 91 18 

T G.1 288 362 26 Case 2 T G.2 128 140 9 

T G.1 252 329 31 

BE #2 

Case 3 T G.2 128 148 16 

Test 4 Ch 28 114 124 9 

Test 5 Ch 28 93 104 12 

FM/ 

SNL 

Test 21 Ch 6 78 67 -14 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-29

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. 

ICFMP BE #2 

Shown in Figure A-23 are snapshots from the simulation of the 1.6 m diameter heptane pan fire. 

The pan has been approximated as a square because of the requirement by FDS of rectangular 

geometry. Figure A-24 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. 

Figure A-23. Snapshots of fire from ICFMP BE #2 Case 2 simulation. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-30 

Figure A-24. Photographs of heptane pan fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2. Courtesy, Simo 

Hostikka, VTT Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-31

ICFMP BE #3 

No measurements of flame height are reported for BE #3, but numerous photographs are 

available. These photographs provide at least a qualitative assessment of the FDS flame height 

prediction. 

Figure A-25. 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 the FDS Validation Study 

A-32 

A.5 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration 

FDS uses a mixture fraction combustion model, meaning that all gas species within the 

compartment are assumed to be functions of a single scalar variable. FDS solves only one 

transport equation for this variable, and reports gas concentrations at any given point at any 

given time by extracting its value from a pre-computed “look-up” table. For the major species, 

like carbon dioxide and oxygen, the predictions are essentially an indicator of how well FDS is 

predicting the bulk transport of combustion products throughout the space. For minor species, 

like carbon monoxide and soot, FDS version 4 does not account for changes in combustion 

efficiency, relying only on fixed yields of CO and soot from the combustion process. In reality, 

the generation rate of CO and soot change depending on the ventilation conditions in the 

compartment. 

The following pages present comparisons of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentration 

predictions with measurement for BE #3 and BE #5. In BE #3, there are two oxygen 

measurements, one in the upper layer, one in the lower. There is only one carbon dioxide 

measurement in the upper layer. For BE #5, Test 4, a plot of upper layer oxygen and carbon 

dioxide is included along with the results for BE #3. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-33

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

Figure A-26. O2 and CO2 concentration, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-34 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs GA 2-O2 

Exp Time vs GA 2-CO2 

FDS Time vs GA2-O2 

FDS Time vs GA2-CO2 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

O2 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volume Fraction

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Exp Time vs O2-1 

Exp Time vs O2-2 

Exp Time vs CO2-4 

FDS Time vs O2 1 

FDS Time vs O2 2 

FDS Time vs CO2 4 

Figure A-27. O2 and CO2 concentration, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. Note that the single 

test from ICFMP BE #5 is included at the upper right. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-35

Table A-4. Summary of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Comparisons 

HGL CO2

Concentration 

HGL O2 Concentration 

Decrease 

LGL O2 Concentration 

Decrease 

∆E 

(mol/

mol) 

∆M 

(mol/

mol) 

Diff. 

(%) 

∆E 

(mol/

mol) 

∆M 

(mol/

mol) 

Diff. 

(%) 

∆E 

(mol/

mol) 

∆M 

(mol/

mol) 

Diff. 

(%) 

Test 1 0.038 0.044 15 0.065 0.076 16 0.055 0.067 23 

Test 7 0.038 0.043 13 0.064 0.074 15 0.054 0.068 25 

Test 2 0.054 0.057 4 0.092 0.097 5 -- 0.084 -- 

Test 8 0.058 0.057 -1 0.096 0.098 2 0.079 0.086 8 

Test 4 0.047 0.042 -11 0.079 0.072 -8 0.068 0.059 -14 

Test 10 0.047 0.043 -8 0.079 0.073 -8 0.066 0.059 -11 

Test 13 0.060 0.059 -2 0.101 0.101 0 0.080 0.089 12 

Test 16 0.055 0.047 -15 0.091 0.080 -12 0.078 0.069 -11 

Test 17 0.022 0.022 0 0.033 0.034 1 0.028 0.024 -14 

Test 3 0.031 0.032 4 0.052 0.055 6 0.006 0.006 13 

Test 9 0.031 0.031 0 0.054 0.054 -1 0.006 0.006 1 

Test 5 0.017 0.028 63 0.030 0.049 60 0.003 0.006 67 

Test 14 0.032 0.034 5 0.055 0.058 5 0.006 0.005 -8 

Test 15 0.031 0.034 10 0.052 0.059 14 0.006 0.006 -1 

ICFMP BE #3 

Test 18 0.031 0.033 9 0.051 0.057 13 0.004 0.004 -6 

BE #5, Test 4 0.013 0.016 20 0.023 0.027 14 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-36 

A.6 Smoke Concentration 

FDS treats smoke like all other combustion products, basically a tracer gas whose mass fraction 

is a function of the mixture fraction. To model smoke movement, the user need only prescribe 

the smoke yield, that is, the fraction of the fuel mass that is converted to smoke particulate. For 

the simulations of BE #3, the smoke yield is specified as one of the test parameters. 

Figure A-28 and Figure A-29 contain comparisons of measured and predicted smoke 

concentration at one measuring station in the upper layer. There are two obvious trends in the 

figures: first, the predicted concentrations are about 50 % higher than the measured in the open 

door tests. Second, the predicted concentrations are roughly three times the measured 

concentrations in the closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-37

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

Figure A-28. Smoke Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-38 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

Open Door Tests to Follow

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

FDS Time vs Smoke Concentration 

Figure A-29. Smoke concentration, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-39

Table A-5. Summary of Smoke Concentration Comparisons 

Smoke Concentration 

∆E 

(mg/m3

) 

∆M 

(mg/m3) 

Diff. 

(%) 

Test 1 42 283 582 

Test 7 55 279 406 

Test 2 128 303 137 

Test 8 100 296 197 

Test 4 80 230 188 

Test 10 71 231 227 

Test 13 224 291 30 

Test 16 139 224 61 

Test 17 353 2164 513 

Test 3 118 163 38 

Test 9 117 160 37 

Test 5 87 162 86 

Test 14 91 183 101 

Test 15 123 163 32 

ICFMP BE #3 

Test 18 110 156 42 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-40 

A.7 Compartment Pressure 

Experimental measurements for room pressure are available from the ICFMP BE #3 test series 

only. The pressure within the compartment is measured at a single point, near the floor. In the 

simulations of the closed door tests, the compartment is assumed to leak via a small uniform 

flow spread over the walls and ceiling. The flow rate is calculated based on the assumption that 

the leakage rate is proportional to the measured leakage area times the square root of 

compartment over-pressure. 

Comparisons between measurement and prediction are shown in Figure A-30 and Figure A-31. 

For those tests in which the door to the compartment is open, the over-pressures are only a few 

Pascals, whereas when the door is closed, the over-pressures are several hundred Pascals. 

Note that in the closed door tests, there is often a dramatic drop in the predicted compartment 

pressure. This is the result of the assumption in FDS that the heat release rate is decreased to 

zero in one second at the time in the experiment when the fuel flow was stopped for safety 

reasons. In reality, the fire did not extinguish immediately because there was an excess of fuel in 

the pan following the flow stoppage. For the purpose of model comparison, the peak overpressures are differenced in the closed door tests, and the peak (albeit small) under-pressures are 

compared in the open door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-41

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-100

-50

0

50

100

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-100

-50

0

50

100

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-400

-200

0

200

400

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-400

-200

0

200

400

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-200

-100

0

100

200

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-200

-100

0

100

200

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-400

-200

0

200

400

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-400

-200

0

200

400

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Figure A-30. Compartment pressure, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-42 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-400

-200

0

200

400

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Open Door Tests to Follow

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-3

-2

-1

0

1

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-3

-2

-1

0

1

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-3

-2

-1

0

1

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-3

-2

-1

0

1

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-3

-2

-1

0

1

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-3

-2

-1

0

1

Exp Time vs CompP 

FDS Time vs Pressure 

Figure A-31. Compartment pressure, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-43

Table A-6. Summary of Pressure Comparisons 

Compartment Pressure Rise 

∆E 

(Pa) 

∆M 

(Pa) 

Diff. 

(%) 

Test 1 58 40 -31 

Test 7 46 28 -38 

Test 2 290 231 -20 

Test 8 189 198 5 

Test 4 57 45 -20 

Test 10 49 22 -56 

Test 13 232 268 16 

Test 16 81 235 191 

Test 17 195 112 -42 

Test 3 -1.9 -2.3 22 

Test 9 -2.0 -2.3 19 

Test 5 -1.8 -1.5 -17 

Test 14 -2.1 -2.4 15 

Test 15 -2.4 -2.9 23 

ICFMP BE #3 

Test 18 -2.0 -2.7 32 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-44 

A.8 Target Temperature and Heat Flux 

Target temperature and heat flux data are available from ICFMP BE #3, BE #4 and BE #5. In 

BE #3, the targets are various types of cables in various configurations – horizontal, vertical, in 

trays or free-hanging. In BE #4, the targets are three rectangular slabs of different materials 

instrumented with heat flux gauges and thermocouples. In BE #5, the targets are again cables, in 

this case bundled power and control cables in a vertical ladder. 

ICFMP BE # 3 

For each of the four cable targets considered, measurements of the local gas temperature, surface 

temperature, radiative heat flux, and total heat flux are available. The following pages display 

comparisons of these quantities for Control Cable B, Horizontal Cable Tray D, Power Cable F 

and Vertical Cable Tray G. 

FDS does not have a detailed solid phase model that can account for the heat transfer within the 

bundled, cylindrical, non-homogenous cables. For the bundled cables within horizontal and 

vertical trays (Targets D and G), FDS assumes them to be rectangular slabs of thickness 

comparable to the diameter of the individual cables. For the free-hanging cables B and F, FDS 

assumes them to be cylinders of uniform composition into which it computes the radial heat 

transfer as a function of the heat flux to a designated location. 

The superposition of gas temperature, heat flux and surface temperature in the figures on the 

following pages provides information about how cables heat up in fires. Favorable or 

unfavorable predictions of cable surface temperatures can often be explained in terms of 

comparable errors in the prediction of the thermal environment in the vicinity of the cable. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-45

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs Tree 4-8 

FDS Time vs Tr 4-8 

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs Tree 4-8 

FDS Time vs Tr 4-8 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 4 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 3 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 4 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 3 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 4 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 3 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 4 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 3 

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

FDS Time vs B Ts-14 

Control Cable B Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

FDS Time vs B Ts-14 

Figure A-32. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-46 

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 4-8 

FDS Time vs Tr 4-8 

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 4-8 

FDS Time vs Tr 4-8 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 4 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 3 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 4 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 3 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 4 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 3 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 4 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 3 

Control Cable B Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

FDS Time vs B Ts-14 

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

FDS Time vs B Ts-14 

Figure A-33. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-47

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 4-8 

FDS Time vs Tr 4-8 

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 4-8 

FDS Time vs Tr 4-8 

Total and Rad. Heat Flux to Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 4 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 3 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 4 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 3 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 4 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 3 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 4 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 3 

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

FDS Time vs B Ts-14 

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

FDS Time vs B Ts-14 

Figure A-34. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10. Note the 

influence of the fan on the gas and surface temperatures. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-48 

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 4-8 

FDS Time vs Tr 4-8 

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 4-8 

FDS Time vs Tr 4-8 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 4 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 3 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 4 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 3 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 4 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 3 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 4 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 3 

Control Cable B Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

FDS Time vs B Ts-14 

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

FDS Time vs B Ts-14 

Figure A-35. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16. Note the 

influence of the fan in Test 16. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-49

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 4-8 

FDS Time vs Tr 4-8 

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 4-8 

FDS Time vs Tr 4-8 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 4 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 3 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 4 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 3 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 4 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 3 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 4 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 3 

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

FDS Time vs B Ts-14 

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

FDS Time vs B Ts-14 

Figure A-36. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-50 

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 4-8 

FDS Time vs Tr 4-8 

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 4-8 

FDS Time vs Tr 4-8 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 4 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 3 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 4 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 3 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 4 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 3 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 4 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 3 

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

FDS Time vs B Ts-14 

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

FDS Time vs B Ts-14 

Figure A-37. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14. Note the 

influence of the fan in Test 5. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-51

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Exp Time vs Tree 4-8 

FDS Time vs Tr 4-8 

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 4-8 

FDS Time vs Tr 4-8 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

20

40

60

80

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 4 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 3 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 4 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 3 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 4 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 3 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 4 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 3 

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

FDS Time vs B Ts-14 

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

FDS Time vs B Ts-14 

Figure A-38. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18. Note that 

the cable was very close to the fire in Test 15. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-52 

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs Tree 3-9 

FDS Time vs Tr 3-9 

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs Tree 3-9 

FDS Time vs Tr 3-9 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 8 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 7 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Gauge 8 Inoperative

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 8 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 7 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs D-Ts-12 

FDS Time vs D Ts-12 

Thermocouple Inoperative

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs D-Ts-12 

FDS Time vs D Ts-12 

Figure A-39. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-53

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 3-9 

FDS Time vs Tr 3-9 

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 3-9 

FDS Time vs Tr 3-9 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 8 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 7 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 8 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 7 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs D-Ts-12 

FDS Time vs D Ts-12 

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs D-Ts-12 

FDS Time vs D Ts-12 

Figure A-40. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-54 

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 3-9 

FDS Time vs Tr 3-9 

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 3-9 

FDS Time vs Tr 3-9 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 8 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 7 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 8 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 7 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs D-Ts-12 

FDS Time vs D Ts-12 

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs D-Ts-12 

FDS Time vs D Ts-12 

Figure A-41. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-55

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 3-9 

FDS Time vs Tr 3-9 

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 3-9 

FDS Time vs Tr 3-9 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 8 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 7 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 8 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 7 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs D-Ts-12 

FDS Time vs D Ts-12 

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs D-Ts-12 

FDS Time vs D Ts-12 

Figure A-42. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-56 

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 3-9 

FDS Time vs Tr 3-9 

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 3-9 

FDS Time vs Tr 3-9 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 8 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 7 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Radiometer 7 malfunctioned

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 8 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 7 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs D-Ts-12 

FDS Time vs D Ts-12 

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs D-Ts-12 

FDS Time vs D Ts-12 

Figure A-43. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-57

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 3-9 

FDS Time vs Tr 3-9 

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 3-9 

FDS Time vs Tr 3-9 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 8 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 7 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 8 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 7 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs D-Ts-12 

FDS Time vs D Ts-12 

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs D-Ts-12 

FDS Time vs D Ts-12 

Figure A-44. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-58 

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 3-9 

FDS Time vs Tr 3-9 

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 3-9 

FDS Time vs Tr 3-9 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 8 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 7 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Radiometer 7 Inoperative

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 8 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 7 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Radiometer 7 Inoperative

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs D-Ts-12 

FDS Time vs D Ts-12 

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs D-Ts-12 

FDS Time vs D Ts-12 

Figure A-45. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-59

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs Tree 5-6 

FDS Time vs Tr 5-6 

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs Tree 5-6 

FDS Time vs Tr 5-6 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 2 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 2 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 1 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 2 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 2 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 1 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

FDS Time vs F Ts-20 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

FDS Time vs F Ts-20 

Figure A-46. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-60 

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 5-6 

FDS Time vs Tr 5-6 

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 5-6 

FDS Time vs Tr 5-6 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 2 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 2 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 1 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 2 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 2 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 1 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

FDS Time vs F Ts-20 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

FDS Time vs F Ts-20 

Figure A-47. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-61

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 5-6 

FDS Time vs Tr 5-6 

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 5-6 

FDS Time vs Tr 5-6 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 2 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 2 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 1 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 2 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 2 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 1 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

FDS Time vs F Ts-20 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

FDS Time vs F Ts-20 

Figure A-48. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-62 

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 5-6 

FDS Time vs Tr 5-6 

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 5-6 

FDS Time vs Tr 5-6 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 2 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 2 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 1 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 2 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 2 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 1 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

FDS Time vs F Ts-20 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

FDS Time vs F Ts-20 

Figure A-49. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-63

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 5-6 

FDS Time vs Tr 5-6 

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 5-6 

FDS Time vs Tr 5-6 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 2 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 2 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 1 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 2 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 2 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 1 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

FDS Time vs F Ts-20 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

FDS Time vs F Ts-20 

Figure A-50. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-64 

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 5-6 

FDS Time vs Tr 5-6 

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 5-6 

FDS Time vs Tr 5-6 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 2 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 2 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 1 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 2 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 2 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 1 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

FDS Time vs F Ts-20 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

FDS Time vs F Ts-20 

Figure A-51. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-65

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Exp Time vs Tree 5-6 

FDS Time vs Tr 5-6 

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Exp Time vs Tree 5-6 

FDS Time vs Tr 5-6 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 2 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 2 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 1 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 2 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 2 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 1 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

FDS Time vs F Ts-20 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

FDS Time vs F Ts-20 

Figure A-52. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-66 

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs Tree 2-5 

FDS Time vs Tr 2-5 

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs Tree 2-5 

FDS Time vs Tr 2-5 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 9 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 10 

Gauge 9 Inoperative

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 9 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 10 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33 

FDS Time vs G Ts-33 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33 

FDS Time vs G Ts-33 

Figure A-53. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-67

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 2-5 

FDS Time vs Tr 2-5 

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 2-5 

FDS Time vs Tr 2-5 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 9 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 10 

Gauge 9 Inoperative

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 9 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 10 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33 

FDS Time vs G Ts-33 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33 

FDS Time vs G Ts-33 

Figure A-54. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-68 

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 2-5 

FDS Time vs Tr 2-5 

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 2-5 

FDS Time vs Tr 2-5 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 9 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 10 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 9 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 10 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33 

FDS Time vs G Ts-33 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33 

FDS Time vs G Ts-33 

Figure A-55. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 

10. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-69

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 2-5 

FDS Time vs Tr 2-5 

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 2-5 

FDS Time vs Tr 2-5 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 9 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 10 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 9 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 10 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33 

FDS Time vs G Ts-33 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33 

FDS Time vs G Ts-33 

Figure A-56. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 

10. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-70 

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 2-5 

FDS Time vs Tr 2-5 

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 2-5 

FDS Time vs Tr 2-5 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 9 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 10 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 9 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 10 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33 

FDS Time vs G Ts-33 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33 

FDS Time vs G Ts-33 

Figure A-57. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-71

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 2-5 

FDS Time vs Tr 2-5 

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tree 2-5 

FDS Time vs Tr 2-5 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 9 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 10 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 9 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 10 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33 

FDS Time vs G Ts-33 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33 

FDS Time vs G Ts-33 

Figure A-58. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 

14. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-72 

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 2-5 

FDS Time vs Tr 2-5 

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Tree 2-5 

FDS Time vs Tr 2-5 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 9 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 10 

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

FDS Time vs Total Flux Gauge 9 

FDS Time vs Rad Gauge 10 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33 

FDS Time vs G Ts-33 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33 

FDS Time vs G Ts-33 

Figure A-59. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 

18. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-73

 ICFMP BE # 4 

The targets in BE #4, Test 1 are three material probes made of concrete, aerated (light) concrete 

and steel. Figure A-60 displays a snapshot from FDS, showing the fire and the location of the 

three targets. 

Figure A-60. Location of 3 slab targets in ICFMP BE #4. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-74 

Heat Flux to Steel Plate

ICFMP BE #4, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Exp Time vs WS 2 

FDS Time vs WS2 

Steel Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #4, Test 1

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Exp Time vs M 34 

FDS Time vs M34 

Heat Flux to Concrete

ICFMP BE #4, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Exp Time vs WS 3 

FDS Time vs WS3 

Concrete Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #4, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Exp Time vs M 33 

FDS Time vs M33 

Heat Flux to Light Concrete

ICFMP BE #4, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Exp Time vs WS 4 

FDS Time vs WS4 

Light Concrete Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #4, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Exp Time vs M 29 

FDS Time vs M29 

Figure A-61. Heat Flux and Surface Temperatures of Target Slabs, ICFMP BE #4, Test 1. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-75

ICFMP BE # 5 

A vertical cable tray is positioned near a wall opposite the fire. Heat flux gauges are located in 

between two bundles of cables, one containing power cables, the other, control. On the 

following pages are plots of the gas temperature, heat flux and cable surface temperatures at four 

vertical locations above the floor: 

200 cm (Gas Temperature TR 5-3, Heat Flux WS 2, Cable Temperature TCO 1-3 and TCO 3.3) 

280 cm (TR 5-4, WS 3, TCO 1-5 and TCO 3-5) 

360 cm (TR 5-5, WS 4, TCO 1-7 and TCO 3-7) 

440 cm (TR 5-6, WS 5, TCO 1-9 and TCO 3-9) 

Figure A-62. Location of targets, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-76 

Gas Temperature near Cables at 200 cm

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TR 5-3 

FDS Time vs TR_5-3 

Gas Temperature near Cables at 280 cm

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TR 5-4 

FDS Time vs TR_5-4 

Heat Flux to Cable Tray at 200 cm

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs WS2 

FDS Time vs WS_2 

Heat Flux to Cable Tray at 280 cm

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs WS3 

FDS Time vs WS_3 

Cable Surface Temperatures at 200 cm

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TCO 1-3 

Exp Time vs TCO 3-3 

FDS Time vs TCO_1-3 

FDS Time vs TCO_3-3 

Cable Surface Temperatures at 280 cm

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TCO 1-5 

Exp Time vs TCO 3-5 

FDS Time vs TCO_1-5 

FDS Time vs TCO_3-5 

Figure A-63. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-77

Gas Temperature near Cables at 360 cm

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TR 5-5 

FDS Time vs TR_5-5 

Gas Temperature near Cables at 440 cm

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TR 5-6 

FDS Time vs TR_5-6 

Heat Flux to Cable Tray at 360 cm

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs WS4 

FDS Time vs WS_4 

Heat Flux to Cable Tray at 440 cm

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs WS5 

FDS Time vs WS_5 

Cable Surface Temperatures at 360 cm

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TCO 1-7 

Exp Time vs TCO 3-7 

FDS Time vs TCO_1-7 

FDS Time vs TCO_3-7 

Cable Surface Temperatures at 440 cm

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TCO 1-9 

Exp Time vs TCO 3-9 

FDS Time vs TCO_1-9 

FDS Time vs TCO_3-9 

Figure A-64. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-78 

Table A-7. Summary of Target Heat Flux and Surface Temperature. 

Radiation Heat Flux Total Heat Flux Surface 

Temperature Rise 

∆E 

(kW/m2

) 

∆M 

(kW/m2)

Diff.

(%) 

∆E 

(kW/m2)

∆M 

(kW/m2)

Diff.

(%) 

∆E 

(°C) 

∆M 

(°C) 

Diff.

(%) 

Cable B 1.12 1.26 13 1.85 1.72 -7 106 112 5 

Cable D 1.44 1.59 11 -- 2.30 -- -- 78 -- 

Cable F 0.87 1.04 20 1.60 1.57 -2 83 84 2 

Test 1 

Cable G 1.51 1.47 -3 -- 1.99 -- 64 71 11 

Cable B 1.20 1.24 3 1.84 1.69 -8 109 110 1 

Cable D 1.35 1.55 15 2.52 2.21 -12 87 81 -7 

Cable F 0.82 1.02 24 1.51 1.51 0 90 88 -2 

Test 7 

Cable G 1.47 1.45 -2 1.89 1.94 3 78 75 -4 

Cable B 2.88 3.20 11 5.26 4.32 -18 176 172 -2 

Cable D 4.16 4.36 5 9.83 5.90 -40 126 134 6 

Cable F 1.99 2.58 29 4.77 3.82 -20 129 116 -10 

Test 2 

Cable G 5.97 4.05 -32 -- 5.16 -- 107 123 15 

Cable B 2.91 3.22 11 5.58 4.39 -21 183 170 -7 

Cable D 3.55 4.33 22 8.51 5.88 -31 150 133 -11 

Cable F 1.93 2.56 33 4.93 3.82 -22 131 114 -13 

Test 8 

Cable G 6.03 4.22 -30 5.98 5.34 -11 107 123 15 

Cable B 2.92 3.37 15 5.52 4.21 -24 149 197 32 

Cable D 3.26 4.14 27 7.23 5.66 -22 113 141 24 

Cable F 2.02 2.74 35 5.02 3.97 -21 149 139 -7 

Test 4 

Cable G 6.00 4.56 -24 6.42 5.45 -15 125 140 12 

Cable B 2.69 3.44 28 4.91 4.33 -12 144 198 38 

Cable D 2.91 4.32 48 6.71 5.68 -15 132 147 11 

Cable F 1.93 2.74 42 4.36 3.95 -9 150 150 0 

ICFMP BE #3 

Test 10 

Cable G 5.42 4.78 -12 6.20 5.49 -12 148 150 1 

Cable B 4.77 5.53 16 8.26 7.31 -12 186 195 5 

Cable D 6.58 7.90 20 11.22 10.22 -9 173 172 -1 

Cable F 2.90 4.26 47 7.28 6.10 -16 143 128 -11 

Test 13 

Cable G 10.06 7.51 -25 12.12 8.95 -27 133 163 22 

Cable B 4.12 4.83 17 8.37 6.03 -28 160 206 28 

Cable D 4.83 6.86 42 11.67 9.10 -22 156 172 11 

Cable F 2.76 4.12 50 6.13 6.11 0 168 141 -16 

Test 16 

Cable G 11.96 9.37 -22 12.23 10.73 -12 169 191 13 

Cable B 1.30 1.68 29 2.36 2.57 9 -- 70 -- 

Cable D 1.52 2.35 55 3.29 3.40 4 -- 59 -- 

Cable F 0.88 1.28 45 1.85 2.05 11 -- 46 -- 

Test 17 

Cable G 2.42 2.09 -14 3.07 2.66 -13 -- 51 -- 

Cable B 4.45 4.36 -2 7.10 4.97 -30 226 226 0 

Cable D -- 5.63 -- 9.45 6.77 -28 210 197 -6 

Cable F 2.95 3.48 18 5.55 4.38 -21 195 185 -5 

Test 3 

Cable G 5.36 5.67 6 6.45 6.18 -4 169 191 13 

Cable B 4.29 4.22 -2 6.58 4.85 -26 228 225 -1 

Cable D 5.26 5.49 4 9.06 6.70 -26 220 195 -11 

Cable F 2.73 3.36 23 5.08 4.25 -16 195 183 -6 

Test 9 

Cable G 5.15 5.42 5 6.37 5.92 -7 166 187 12 

Cable B 3.88 3.28 -15 6.86 4.03 -41 150 195 30 

ICFMP BE 3# 

Test 

5 

Cable D 4.78 4.55 -5 8.52 5.61 -34 132 169 28 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-79

Radiation Heat Flux Total Heat Flux Surface 

Temperature Rise 

∆E 

(kW/m2

) 

∆M 

(kW/m2)

Diff.

(%) 

∆E 

(kW/m2)

∆M 

(kW/m2)

Diff.

(%) 

∆E 

(°C) 

∆M 

(°C) 

Diff.

(%) 

 Cable F 2.65 2.56 -3 6.45 3.70 -43 175 159 -9 

Cable G 5.45 5.70 5 6.69 6.37 -5 161 189 17 

Cable B 2.84 3.00 6 3.82 4.13 8 199 194 -2 

Cable D 3.32 3.61 9 6.07 5.16 -15 178 151 -15 

Cable F 2.12 2.33 10 3.46 3.57 3 171 152 -11 

Test 14 

Cable G 10.50 10.45 -1 10.90 11.61 6 270 286 6 

Cable B 46.49 60.77 31 57.72 68.82 19 416 445 7 

Cable D -- 8.17 -- 20.87 9.16 -56 243 267 10 

Cable F 18.29 15.42 -16 23.94 17.03 -29 669 400 -40 

Test 15 

Cable G 3.73 3.17 -15 5.12 4.18 -18 161 144 -11 

Cable B 5.23 5.37 3 7.61 6.47 -15 236 239 1 

Cable D -- 4.95 -- 7.83 6.20 -21 217 182 -16 

Cable F 5.18 5.04 -3 8.74 5.97 -32 232 233 1 

ICFMP BE #3 

Test 18 

Cable G 2.85 3.26 15 4.45 4.25 -5 109 133 22 

Total Heat Flux Surface 

Temperature Rise

Surface 

Temperature Rise

∆E 

(kW/m2) 

∆M 

(kW/m2)

Diff.

(%) 

∆E 

(°C) 

∆M 

(°C) 

Diff.

(%) 

∆E 

(°C) 

∆M 

(°C) 

Diff.

(%) 

Steel 27.2 47.1 73 356 454 28 

Concrete 33 42.0 27 308 413 34 

BE #4 

Lt. Concrete 26 32.4 25 489 537 10 

200 cm 2.9 1.7 -42 87 71 -19 112 95 -15 

280 cm 4 2.0 -50 110 97 -11 146 121 -17 

360 cm 4.5 2.1 -53 107 102 -5 140 126 -10 

BE #5 

440 cm 4.5 2.4 -47 114 104 -9 142 130 -8 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-80 

A.9 Heat Flux and Surface Temperature of Compartment Walls 

Heat fluxes and surfaces temperatures at compartment walls, floor and ceiling are available from 

ICFMP BE #3. Wall temperatures are available from BE #4 and BE #5. This category is similar 

to that of the previous section, Target Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, only here the focus is 

on compartment walls, ceiling and floors, which some models treat differently than “targets.” 

FDS makes no distinction. 

ICFMP BE #3 

Thirty-six heat flux gauges were positioned at various locations on all four walls of the 

compartment, plus the ceiling and floor. Comparisons between measured and predicted heat 

fluxes and surface temperatures are shown on the following pages for a selected number of 

locations. Over half of the measurement points are in roughly the same relative location to the 

fire and hence the measurements and predictions are similar. For this reason, data for the east 

and north walls are shown because the data from the south and west walls are comparable. Data 

from the south wall is used in cases where the corresponding instrument on the north wall failed, 

or in cases where the fire is positioned close to the south wall. 

For each test, eight locations are used for comparison, two on the long (mainly north) wall, two 

on the short (east) wall, two on the floor, and two on the ceiling. Of the two locations for each 

panel, one is considered in the far-field, relatively remote from the fire; one is in the near-field, 

relatively close to the fire. How close or far varies from test to test, depending on the availability 

of working flux gauges. The two short wall locations are equally remote from the fire; thus, one 

location is in the lower layer, one in the upper. Table A-8 lists the locations for each test. 

The heat flux gauges used on the compartment walls measured the net, not total, heat flux. FDS 

predicts the net heat flux, but this prediction cannot be compared directly with the measured net

heat flux because the predicted and measured wall temperatures can differ, and this affects the 

net heat flux. In a sense, the net heat flux and surface temperature are coupled, and it is difficult 

to assess the accuracy of the models if the two quantities cannot be decoupled. For the purpose 

of comparing prediction and measurement, the following correction has been applied to both the 

measured and predicted net heat fluxes:

( ) ( ) '' '' 4 4qtotal = qnet + σ Ts − T∞ + h Ts − T∞ &

Ts is the temperature of the surface. A constant convective heat transfer coefficient is assumed 

(5 W/m2

/K) and an emissivity of 1. After applying the correction, it is easier to compare total

heat fluxes that are independent of the surface temperature. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-81

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp Time vs North U-1 

Exp Time vs South U-4 

FDS Time vs N U-1 

FDS Time vs S U-4 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

Exp Time vs TC North U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC South U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC N U-1 

FDS Time vs TC S U-4 

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp Time vs North U-1 

Exp Time vs South U-4 

FDS Time vs N U-1 

FDS Time vs S U-4 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

Exp Time vs TC North U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC South U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC N U-1 

FDS Time vs TC S U-4 

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs North U-1 

Exp Time vs South U-4 

FDS Time vs N U-1 

FDS Time vs S U-4 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC North U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC South U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC N U-1 

FDS Time vs TC S U-4 

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs North U-1 

Exp Time vs North U-4 

FDS Time vs N U-1 

FDS Time vs N U-4 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC North U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC North U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC N U-1 

FDS Time vs TC N U-4 

Figure A-65. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-82 

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs North U-1 

Exp Time vs North U-4 

FDS Time vs N U-1 

FDS Time vs N U-4 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC North U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC North U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC N U-1 

FDS Time vs TC N U-4 

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs North U-1 

Exp Time vs North U-4 

FDS Time vs N U-1 

FDS Time vs N U-4 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC North U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC North U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC N U-1 

FDS Time vs TC N U-4 

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

FDS Time vs N U-1 

FDS Time vs N U-4 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs TC North U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC North U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC N U-1 

FDS Time vs TC N U-4 

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

FDS Time vs N U-1 

FDS Time vs N U-4 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs TC North U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC North U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC N U-1 

FDS Time vs TC N U-4 

Figure A-66. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-83

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Exp Time vs North U-1 

Exp Time vs North U-4 

FDS Time vs N U-1 

FDS Time vs N U-4 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

Exp Time vs TC North U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC North U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC N U-1 

FDS Time vs TC N U-4 

Open Door Tests to Follow

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs North U-1 

Exp Time vs North U-4 

FDS Time vs N U-1 

FDS Time vs N U-4 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TC North U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC North U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC N U-1 

FDS Time vs TC N U-4 

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs North U-1 

Exp Time vs North U-4 

FDS Time vs N U-1 

FDS Time vs N U-4 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TC North U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC North U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC N U-1 

FDS Time vs TC N U-4 

Figure A-67. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-84 

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Exp Time vs North U-1 

Exp Time vs North U-4 

FDS Time vs N U-1 

FDS Time vs N U-4 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs TC North U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC North U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC N U-1 

FDS Time vs TC N U-4 

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Exp Time vs North U-1 

Exp Time vs North U-4 

FDS Time vs N U-1 

FDS Time vs N U-4 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs TC North U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC North U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC N U-1 

FDS Time vs TC N U-4 

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Exp Time vs South U-1 

Exp Time vs South U-3 

FDS Time vs S U-1 

FDS Time vs S U-3 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs TC South U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC South U-3-2 

FDS Time vs TC S U-1 

FDS Time vs TC S U-3 

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Exp Time vs South U-1 

Exp Time vs South U-4 

FDS Time vs S U-1 

FDS Time vs S U-4 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs TC South U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC South U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC S U-1 

FDS Time vs TC S U-4 

Figure A-68. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-85

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp Time vs East U-1 

Exp Time vs East U-2 

FDS Time vs E U-1 

FDS Time vs E U-2 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

Exp Time vs TC East U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC E U-1 

FDS Time vs TC E U-2 

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Exp Time vs East U-3 

Exp Time vs East U-2 

FDS Time vs E U-3 

FDS Time vs E U-2 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

Exp Time vs TC East U-3-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC E U-3 

FDS Time vs TC E U-2 

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs East U-1 

Exp Time vs East U-2 

FDS Time vs E U-1 

FDS Time vs E U-2 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC East U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC E U-1 

FDS Time vs TC E U-2 

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs East U-1 

Exp Time vs East U-2 

FDS Time vs E U-1 

FDS Time vs E U-2 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC East U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC E U-1 

FDS Time vs TC E U-2 

Figure A-69. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-86 

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs East U-1 

Exp Time vs East U-2 

FDS Time vs E U-1 

FDS Time vs E U-2 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC East U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC E U-1 

FDS Time vs TC E U-2 

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs East U-3 

Exp Time vs East U-2 

FDS Time vs E U-3 

FDS Time vs E U-2 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC East U-3-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC E U-3 

FDS Time vs TC E U-2 

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

FDS Time vs E U-1 

FDS Time vs E U-4 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC East U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC E U-1 

FDS Time vs TC E U-4 

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

FDS Time vs E U-1 

FDS Time vs E U-2 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC East U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC E U-1 

FDS Time vs TC E U-2 

Figure A-70. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-87

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Exp Time vs East U-3 

Exp Time vs East U-2 

FDS Time vs E U-3 

FDS Time vs E U-2 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Exp Time vs TC East U-3-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC E U-3 

FDS Time vs TC E U-2 

Open Door Tests to Follow

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs East U-1 

Exp Time vs East U-2 

FDS Time vs E U-1 

FDS Time vs E U-2 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC East U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC E U-1 

FDS Time vs TC E U-2 

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs East U-3 

Exp Time vs East U-4 

FDS Time vs E U-3 

FDS Time vs E U-4 

Flux Gauge Inoperative

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC East U-3-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC E U-3 

FDS Time vs TC E U-4 

Figure A-71. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-88 

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs East U-1 

Exp Time vs East U-2 

FDS Time vs E U-1 

FDS Time vs E U-2 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC East U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC E U-1 

FDS Time vs TC E U-2 

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs East U-3 

Exp Time vs East U-2 

FDS Time vs E U-3 

FDS Time vs E U-2 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC East U-3-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC E U-3 

FDS Time vs TC E U-2 

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs East U-3 

Exp Time vs East U-2 

FDS Time vs E U-3 

FDS Time vs E U-2 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC East U-3-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC E U-3 

FDS Time vs TC E U-2 

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs East U-3 

Exp Time vs East U-2 

FDS Time vs E U-3 

FDS Time vs E U-2 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC East U-3-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC E U-3 

FDS Time vs TC E U-2 

Figure A-72. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-89

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

FDS Time vs C U-1 

FDS Time vs C C-4 

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC C U-1 

FDS Time vs TC C C-4 

Ceiling Net Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

FDS Time vs C U-1 

FDS Time vs C C-4 

Gauge Inoperative

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC C U-1 

FDS Time vs TC C C-4 

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

FDS Time vs C U-1 

FDS Time vs C C-4 

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC C U-1 

FDS Time vs TC C C-4 

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

FDS Time vs C U-1 

FDS Time vs C C-4 

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC C U-1 

FDS Time vs TC C C-4 

Figure A-73. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-90 

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

FDS Time vs C U-1 

FDS Time vs C C-4 

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC C U-1 

FDS Time vs TC C C-4 

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

FDS Time vs C U-1 

FDS Time vs C C-4 

Gauge Inoperative

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC C U-1 

FDS Time vs TC C C-4 

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

FDS Time vs C C-7 

FDS Time vs C C-5 

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-7-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-5-2 

FDS Time vs TC C C-7 

FDS Time vs TC C C-5 

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

FDS Time vs C C-7 

FDS Time vs C C-5 

Gauges Covered for 2 MW Test

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-7-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-5-2 

FDS Time vs TC C C-7 

FDS Time vs TC C C-5 

Figure A-74. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-91

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

FDS Time vs C U-1 

FDS Time vs C C-4 

Gauges Inoperative

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC C U-1 

FDS Time vs TC C C-4 

Open Door Tests to Follow

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

FDS Time vs C U-1 

FDS Time vs C C-4 

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC C U-1 

FDS Time vs TC C C-4 

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-2 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

FDS Time vs C C-2 

FDS Time vs C C-4 

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-2-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC C C-2 

FDS Time vs TC C C-4 

Figure A-75. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-92 

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-5 

FDS Time vs C U-1 

FDS Time vs C C-5 

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-5-2 

FDS Time vs TC C U-1 

FDS Time vs TC C C-5 

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-5 

FDS Time vs C U-1 

FDS Time vs C C-5 

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-5-2 

FDS Time vs TC C U-1 

FDS Time vs TC C C-5 

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

FDS Time vs C U-1 

FDS Time vs C C-4 

Gauges Inoperative

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC C U-1 

FDS Time vs TC C C-4 

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

FDS Time vs C U-1 

FDS Time vs C C-4 

Gauge Inoperative

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC C U-1 

FDS Time vs TC C C-4 

Figure A-76. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-93

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-4 

FDS Time vs F U-1 

FDS Time vs F U-4 

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC F U-1 

FDS Time vs TC F U-4 

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-4 

FDS Time vs F U-1 

FDS Time vs F U-4 

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC F U-1 

FDS Time vs TC F U-4 

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-4 

FDS Time vs F U-1 

FDS Time vs F U-4 

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC F U-1 

FDS Time vs TC F U-4 

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-4 

FDS Time vs F U-1 

FDS Time vs F U-4 

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC F U-1 

FDS Time vs TC F U-4 

Figure A-77. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-94 

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-4 

FDS Time vs F U-1 

FDS Time vs F U-4 

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC F U-1 

FDS Time vs TC F U-4 

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-4 

FDS Time vs F U-1 

FDS Time vs F U-4 

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC F U-1 

FDS Time vs TC F U-4 

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

FDS Time vs F U-1 

FDS Time vs F U-2 

Gauges Inoperative

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC F U-1 

FDS Time vs TC F U-2 

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

FDS Time vs F U-1 

FDS Time vs F U-2 

Gauges Inoperative

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC F U-1 

FDS Time vs TC F U-2 

Figure A-78. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-95

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-2 

FDS Time vs F U-1 

FDS Time vs F U-2 

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC F U-1 

FDS Time vs TC F U-2 

Open Door Tests to Follow

Floor Net Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-2 

FDS Time vs F U-1 

FDS Time vs F U-2 

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC F U-1 

FDS Time vs TC F U-2 

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-2 

FDS Time vs F U-1 

FDS Time vs F U-2 

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC F U-1 

FDS Time vs TC F U-2 

Figure A-79. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-96 

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-4 

FDS Time vs F U-1 

FDS Time vs F U-4 

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-4-2 

FDS Time vs TC F U-1 

FDS Time vs TC F U-4 

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-2 

FDS Time vs F U-1 

FDS Time vs F U-2 

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC F U-1 

FDS Time vs TC F U-2 

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-2 

FDS Time vs F U-1 

FDS Time vs F U-2 

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC F U-1 

FDS Time vs TC F U-2 

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

) 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-2 

FDS Time vs F U-1 

FDS Time vs F U-2 

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-2-2 

FDS Time vs TC F U-1 

FDS Time vs TC F U-2 

Figure A-80. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-97

ICFMP BE #4 

Three thermocouples are positioned on the back wall of the compartment. Because the fire leans 

towards the back wall, the temperatures measured by the thermocouples are considerably hotter 

than most of the other wall surface points considered in this report. 

Wall Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #4, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

200

400

600

800

Exp Time vs M 19 

Exp Time vs M 20 

FDS Time vs M19 

FDS Time vs M20 

Figure A-81. Back wall surface temperatures, ICFMP BE #4, Test 1. Note that the smoke 

has been artificially lightened in the picture on the right. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-98 

ICFMP BE #5 

Wall surface temperatures are measured in two locations in the BE #5 test series. The 

thermocouples labeled TW 1-x (Wall Chain 1) are against the back wall; those labeled TW 2-x 

(Wall Chain 2) are behind the vertical cable tray. Seven thermocouples are in each chain, spaced 

80 cm apart. In Figure A-83, the lowest (1), middle (4), and highest (7) locations are used for 

comparison. Nearby gas temperature comparisons have been added for reference. 

Figure A-82. Top view of compartment, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-99

Gas Temperatures near Back Wall

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs TR 3-1 

Exp Time vs TR 3-4 

Exp Time vs TR 3-7 

FDS Time vs TR_3-1 

FDS Time vs TR_3-4 

FDS Time vs TR_3-7 

Gas Temperatures near Side Wall

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs TR 5-1 

Exp Time vs TR 5-4 

Exp Time vs TR 5-7 

FDS Time vs TR_5-1 

FDS Time vs TR_5-4 

FDS Time vs TR_5-7 

Back Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

Exp Time vs TW 1-1 

Exp Time vs TW 1-4 

Exp Time vs TW 1-7 

FDS Time vs TW_1-1 

FDS Time vs TW_1-4 

FDS Time vs TW_1-7 

Side Wall Temperatures (Behind Cables)

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

Exp Time vs TW 2-1 

Exp Time vs TW 2-4 

Exp Time vs TW 2-7 

FDS Time vs TW_2-1 

FDS Time vs TW_2-4 

FDS Time vs TW_2-7 

Figure A-83. Back and side wall surface temperatures, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4. 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-100 

Table A-8. Summary of Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature 

Total Heat Flux Surface Temperature Rise 

∆E. 

(kW/m2

) 

∆M 

(kW/m2) 

Diff. 

(%) 

∆E 

(°C) 

∆M 

(°C) 

Diff. 

(%) 

Long Wall, Far (N1) 1.38 1.43 3 54 66 21 

Long Wall, Near (S4) 1.77 1.66 -6 68 75 11 

Short Wall, Low (E1) 1.26 1.30 3 55 59 6 

Short Wall, High (E2) 1.72 1.74 1 71 79 11 

Floor, Far (F1) 0.92 1.19 28 38 53 40 

Floor, Near (F4) 2.38 2.68 12 77 117 51 

Ceiling, Far (C1) 1.93 2.04 6 81 89 11 

Test 1 

Ceiling, Near (C4) 3.75 3.53 -6 176 142 -19 

Long Wall, Far (N1) 1.38 1.41 2 53 64 20 

Long Wall, Near (S4) 1.88 1.62 -14 70 74 5 

Short Wall, Low (E3) 1.22 1.25 2 55 57 5 

Short Wall, High (E2) 1.79 1.71 -4 70 77 9 

Floor, Far (F1) 0.90 1.17 29 36 52 44 

Floor, Near (F4) 2.32 2.63 13 78 114 46 

Ceiling, Far (C1) 1.94 2.00 3 80 87 9 

Test 7 

Ceiling, Near (C4) -- 3.43 -- 191 138 -28 

Long Wall, Far (N1) 3.78 3.33 -12 96 110 15 

Long Wall, Near (S4) 4.51 3.85 -15 120 131 9 

Short Wall, Low (E1) 3.62 2.95 -19 110 98 -11 

Short Wall, High (E2) 4.62 4.24 -8 125 138 10 

Floor, Far (F1) 2.59 2.78 7 74 91 23 

Floor, Near (F4) 8.90 6.54 -27 156 203 30 

Ceiling, Far (C1) 5.65 5.18 -8 148 163 11 

Test 2 

Ceiling, Near (C4) 14.51 11.05 -24 308 281 -9 

Long Wall, Far (N1) 3.84 3.25 -15 95 108 14 

Long Wall, Near (N4) 3.26 4.20 29 132 140 6 

Short Wall, Low (E1) 2.46 3.07 25 109 97 -11 

Short Wall, High (E2) 4.70 4.12 -12 125 135 8 

Floor, Far (F1) 2.56 2.75 8 71 89 26 

Floor, Near (F4) 8.63 6.49 -25 148 203 37 

Ceiling, Far (C1) 6.14 5.09 -17 148 161 9 

Test 8 

Ceiling, Near (C4) 12.92 10.37 -20 325 270 -17 

Long Wall, Far (N1) 3.41 3.36 -1 97 118 22 

Long Wall, Near (N4) 3.51 3.92 12 146 141 -3 

Short Wall, Low (E1) 3.26 2.99 -8 106 106 0 

Short Wall, High (E2) 3.97 3.92 -1 121 137 14 

Floor, Far (F1) 2.47 2.91 18 76 103 35 

Floor, Near (F4) 8.51 6.61 -22 152 205 35 

Ceiling, Far (C1) 5.08 4.63 -9 147 157 6 

Test 4 

Ceiling, Near (C4) 6.02 7.55 25 180 224 24 

Long Wall, Far (N1) 3.35 3.35 0 94 119 26 

Long Wall, Near (N4) 3.48 4.01 15 163 142 -13 

Short Wall, Low (E3) 3.12 2.98 -5 106 104 -2 

Short Wall, High (E2) 3.88 3.99 3 117 138 18 

Floor, Far (F1) 2.27 2.94 29 71 104 46 

Floor, Near (F4) 7.89 6.78 -14 158 209 32 

BE #3 

Test 10 

Ceiling, Far (C1) 4.79 4.63 -3 138 156 13 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-101

Total Heat Flux Surface Temperature Rise 

∆E. 

(kW/m2

) 

∆M 

(kW/m2) 

Diff. 

(%) 

∆E 

(°C) 

∆M 

(°C) 

Diff. 

(%) 

Ceiling, Near (C4) -- 7.68 -- 221 225 2 

Long Wall, Far (N1) -- 5.22 -- 110 134 21 

Long Wall, Near (N4) -- 6.78 -- 199 183 -8 

Short Wall, Low (E1) -- 4.56 -- 127 116 -8 

Short Wall, High (E4) -- 6.61 -- 145 168 16 

Floor, Far (F1) -- 4.41 -- 89 112 25 

Floor, Near (F2) -- 6.14 -- 149 171 15 

Ceiling, Far (C7) -- 11.83 -- 319 269 -16 

Test 13 

Ceiling, Near (C5) -- 20.54 -- 498 365 -27 

Long Wall, Far (N1) -- 5.02 -- 107 131 23 

Long Wall, Near (N4) -- 7.00 -- 217 185 -15 

Short Wall, Low (E1) -- 4.78 -- 123 120 -2 

Short Wall, High (E2) -- 5.96 -- 141 158 12 

Floor, Far (F1) -- 4.19 -- 80 110 37 

Floor, Near (F2) -- 7.61 -- 146 187 28 

Ceiling, Far (C7) -- 9.04 -- 284 223 -21 

Test 16 

Ceiling, Near (C5) -- 19.34 -- 441 348 -21 

Long Wall, Far (N1) 1.46 1.63 11 39 40 4 

Long Wall, Near (N4) 0.93 2.08 124 82 57 -31 

Short Wall, Low (E3) 1.56 1.42 -9 56 33 -41 

Short Wall, High (E2) 1.90 2.48 31 61 62 2 

Floor, Far (F1) 0.86 0.95 11 24 25 3 

Floor, Near (F2) 1.50 1.91 28 52 54 5 

Ceiling, Far (C1) -- 3.25 -- 69 81 17 

Test 17 

Ceiling, Near (C4) -- 8.68 -- 230 195 -15 

Long Wall, Far (N1) 3.50 3.15 -10 114 128 12 

Long Wall, Near (N4) 4.32 5.09 18 172 186 8 

Short Wall, Low (E1) 2.53 2.36 -7 87 100 14 

Short Wall, High (E2) 4.45 4.50 1 146 169 16 

Floor, Far (F1) 1.97 2.31 17 54 98 83 

Floor, Near (F2) 4.07 4.17 2 119 161 36 

Ceiling, Far (C1) 4.62 4.85 5 155 181 16 

Test 3 

Ceiling, Near (C4) 9.88 9.73 -1 287 285 -1 

Long Wall, Far (N1) 3.42 3.02 -11 113 125 11 

Long Wall, Near (N4) 4.20 4.90 17 178 183 3 

Short Wall, Low (E3) 2.42 2.21 -9 88 95 8 

Short Wall, High (E4) -- 4.29 -- 135 165 23 

Floor, Far (F1) 1.91 2.21 15 53 95 79 

Floor, Near (F2) 3.89 4.03 4 122 158 30 

Ceiling, Far (C2) 5.45 6.57 21 203 223 10 

Test 9 

Ceiling, Near (C4) 9.41 9.48 1 290 282 -3 

Long Wall, Far (N1) 2.68 2.24 -16 94 97 3 

Long Wall, Near (N4) 3.81 4.66 22 155 175 13 

Short Wall, Low (E1) 2.00 1.84 -8 71 80 12 

Short Wall, High (E2) 3.29 3.62 10 118 145 23 

Floor, Far (F1) 1.40 1.67 19 42 75 79 

Floor, Near (F4) 10.06 7.36 -27 171 241 41 

Ceiling, Far (C1) 3.37 3.77 12 125 150 19 

Test 5 

Ceiling, Near (C5) 6.74 8.25 22 263 256 -3 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

A-102 

Total Heat Flux Surface Temperature Rise 

∆E. 

(kW/m2

) 

∆M 

(kW/m2) 

Diff. 

(%) 

∆E 

(°C) 

∆M 

(°C) 

Diff. 

(%) 

Long Wall, Far (N1) 3.50 3.08 -12 114 127 11 

Long Wall, Near (N4) 8.10 7.82 -3 255 251 -1 

Short Wall, Low (E3) 2.35 2.30 -2 87 98 13 

Short Wall, High (E2) 4.47 4.54 2 148 172 17 

Floor, Far (F1) 1.89 2.37 25 52 101 93 

Floor, Near (F2) 2.97 3.42 15 104 138 33 

Ceiling, Far (C1) 4.69 4.94 5 158 183 16 

Test 14 

Ceiling, Near (C5) 8.99 41.91 366 352 499 42 

Long Wall, Far (S1) 3.64 2.90 -20 124 124 0 

Long Wall, Near (S3) 7.46 6.13 -18 220 221 1 

Short Wall, Low (E3) 2.61 2.14 -18 96 95 -2 

Short Wall, High (E2) 4.65 4.27 -8 151 167 10 

Floor, Far (F1) 1.95 2.16 11 52 96 83 

Floor, Near (F2) 5.23 4.85 -7 132 187 42 

Ceiling, Far (C1) -- 4.75 -- 157 184 18 

Test 15 

Ceiling, Near (C4) -- 9.10 -- 287 281 -2 

Long Wall, Far (S1) 3.40 2.96 -13 118 123 4 

Long Wall, Near (S4) -- 10.19 -- 312 298 -5 

Short Wall, Low (E3) 2.58 2.39 -8 94 101 7 

Short Wall, High (E2) 4.67 4.40 -6 153 166 9 

Floor, Far (F1) 1.79 2.27 27 50 97 96 

Floor, Near (F2) 3.06 3.75 23 107 149 39 

Ceiling, Far (C1) 4.48 4.76 6 145 180 24 

Test 18 

Ceiling, Near (C4) -- 7.68 -- 250 248 -1 

Wall Temperature Rise Wall Temperature Rise 

∆E 

(°C) 

∆M 

(°C) 

Diff. 

(%) 

Exp. 

(°C) 

FDS 

(°C) 

Diff. 

(%) 

BE #4-1 M 19; M 20 596 573 -4 722 695 -4 

TW 1-1; TW 2-1 56 62 11 4 4 -18 

TW 1-4; TW 2-4 87 59 -32 68 44 -35 

BE #5 

Test 4 

TW 1-7; TW 2-7 86 63 -27 72 57 -21 
B-1 

B 

FDS INPUT FILES 

Appendix B lists the FDS input files for all six test series. For those series with multiple tests, a 

single input file has been compiled that contains all of the input parameters used in the entire 

series. The data structure used by FDS (Fortran NAMELIST) allows one to “comment out” 

unwanted input parameters by replacing the first character of the input line. For example, the 

fires for ICFMP BE #2 are specified by the following lines: 

Fires for Cases 1, 2 and 3 

&OBST XB=15.4,16.6, 6.6, 7.8, 0.0, 1.0,SURF_IDS='FIRE1','STEEL','STEEL' / 

cOBST XB=15.2,16.8, 6.4, 8.0, 0.0, 1.0,SURF_IDS='FIRE2','STEEL','STEEL' / 

cOBST XB=15.2,16.8, 6.4, 8.0, 0.0, 1.0,SURF_IDS='FIRE3','STEEL','STEEL' / 

The “c” at the start of the last two lines, used for BE #2 Cases 2 and 3, means that these lines are 

currently inactive. The “&” character indicates that the line is active. Turning on fans, opening 

doors, selecting fires, etc., are accomplished simply by commenting the appropriate lines in or 

out. 

Note that electronic versions of the input files are available. It is not recommended that the lines 

of input below be “cut and pasted” into electronic form. FDS text input files are often corrupted 

by characters introduced by word processing software like Microsoft Word. 
FDS Input Files 

B-2 

B.1 ICFMP BE #2 

&HEAD CHID='ICFMP2_composite',TITLE='NRC Benchmark Exercise #2' / 

&GRID IBAR=32,JBAR=32,KBAR=144 / 

&PDIM XBAR0=14.0,XBAR=18.0,YBAR0= 5.2,YBAR= 9.2,ZBAR0= 0.0,ZBAR=19.0 / 

&GRID IBAR=72,JBAR=18,KBAR=60 / 

&PDIM XBAR0= 0.0,XBAR=27.0,YBAR0= 0.0,YBAR= 5.2,ZBAR0= 0.0,ZBAR=19.0 / 

&GRID IBAR=72,JBAR=15,KBAR=60 / 

&PDIM XBAR0= 0.0,XBAR=27.0,YBAR0= 9.2,YBAR=13.8,ZBAR0= 0.0,ZBAR=19.0 / 

&GRID IBAR=48,JBAR=15,KBAR=60 / 

&PDIM XBAR0= 0.0,XBAR=14.0,YBAR0= 5.2,YBAR= 9.2,ZBAR0= 0.0,ZBAR=19.0 / 

&GRID IBAR=30,JBAR=15,KBAR=60 / 

&PDIM XBAR0=18.0,XBAR=27.0,YBAR0= 5.2,YBAR= 9.2,ZBAR0= 0.0,ZBAR=19.0 / 

&TIME TWFIN=600.,SYNCHRONIZE=.TRUE. / 

&MISC REACTION='HEPTANE',SURF_DEFAULT='STEEL' / 

&SURF ID='SUCK',VOLUME_FLUX=11.0,RGB=1.0,0.0,0.0 / 

&SURF ID = 'CONCRETE' 

 FYI = 'Specified in ICFMP exercise' 

 DELTA = 0.1 

 C_P = 0.90 

 EMISSIVITY = 0.95 

 KS = 2.0 

 RGB = 0.7,0.7,0.7 / 

&SURF ID = 'STEEL' 

 FYI = 'Specified in ICFMP exercise' 

 DELTA = 0.001 

 C_P = 0.425 

 EMISSIVITY = 0.95 

 KS = 54. 

 RGB = 0.4,0.4,0.4 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE1',HRRPUA=1290.,RAMP_Q='fire1',RGB=1.0,1.0,0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='fire1',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='fire1',T= 13.,F=0.67 / 

&RAMP ID='fire1',T= 90.,F=0.92 / 

&RAMP ID='fire1',T=288.,F=1.00 / 

&RAMP ID='fire1',T=327.,F=0.96 / 

&RAMP ID='fire1',T=409.,F=0.73 / 

&RAMP ID='fire1',T=438.,F=0.00 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE2',HRRPUA=1273.,RAMP_Q='fire2',RGB=1.0,1.0,0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='fire2',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='fire2',T= 14.,F=0.66 / 

&RAMP ID='fire2',T= 30.,F=0.78 / 

&RAMP ID='fire2',T= 91.,F=0.94 / 

&RAMP ID='fire2',T=193.,F=1.00 / 

&RAMP ID='fire2',T=282.,F=0.96 / 

&RAMP ID='fire2',T=340.,F=0.84 / 

&RAMP ID='fire2',T=372.,F=0.07 / 

&RAMP ID='fire2',T=395.,F=0.00 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE3',HRRPUA=1421.,RAMP_Q='fire3',RGB=1.0,1.0,0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='fire3',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='fire3',T= 13.,F=0.67 / 

&RAMP ID='fire3',T= 63.,F=0.88 / 

&RAMP ID='fire3',T=166.,F=0.99 / 

&RAMP ID='fire3',T=256.,F=1.00 / 

&RAMP ID='fire3',T=292.,F=0.95 / 

&RAMP ID='fire3',T=330.,F=0.07 / 

&RAMP ID='fire3',T=345.,F=0.00 / 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

B-3

&REAC ID='HEPTANE' 

 FYI='Heptane, C_7 H_16' 

 DTSAM=10. 

 MW_FUEL=100. 

 NU_O2=11. 

 NU_CO2=7. 

 NU_H2O=8. 

 SOOT_YIELD=0.015 / 

Fires for Cases 1, 2 and 3 

&OBST XB=15.4,16.6, 6.6, 7.8, 0.0, 1.0,SURF_IDS='FIRE1','STEEL','STEEL' / 

cOBST XB=15.2,16.8, 6.4, 8.0, 0.0, 1.0,SURF_IDS='FIRE2','STEEL','STEEL' / 

cOBST XB=15.2,16.8, 6.4, 8.0, 0.0, 1.0,SURF_IDS='FIRE3','STEEL','STEEL' / 

&OBST XB= 1.2, 6.2, 9.7,12.5, 0.0, 9.4,BLOCK_COLOR='GREEN' / Obstruction 

&OBST XB=18.0,25.0, 9.7,12.5, 0.0, 4.0,BLOCK_COLOR='CYAN' / Obstruction 

&OBST XB=10.0,11.0, 6.4, 7.4,12.0,16.1,SURF_IDS='STEEL','STEEL','STEEL' / 

Case 3 Ventilation 

cOBST XB=10.0,11.0, 6.4, 7.4,12.0,16.1,SURF_IDS='STEEL','STEEL','SUCK' / 

&OBST XB=10.0,27.0, 6.4, 7.4,16.1,17.1 / Horizontal Part of Exhaust Duct 

Leakage 

&VENT XB= 0.0, 0.0, 6.6, 7.2, 0.2, 1.0,SURF_ID='OPEN',VENT_COLOR='RED' / 

&VENT XB= 0.0, 0.0, 6.6, 7.2,11.8,12.4,SURF_ID='OPEN',VENT_COLOR='RED' / 

&VENT XB=27.0,27.0, 6.6, 7.2, 0.2, 1.0,SURF_ID='OPEN',VENT_COLOR='RED' / 

&VENT XB=27.0,27.0, 6.6, 7.2,11.8,12.4,SURF_ID='OPEN',VENT_COLOR='RED' / 

cVENT XB= 0.0, 0.0, 8.9, 9.7, 0.0, 4.0,SURF_ID='OPEN' / Open Door, Case 3 

cVENT XB=27.0,27.0, 8.9, 9.7, 0.0, 4.0,SURF_ID='OPEN' / Open Door, Case 3 

&VENT PBZ=0.0,SURF_ID='CONCRETE' / Concrete Floor 

&THCP XYZ=1.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T1.1',DTSAM=10. / 

&THCP XYZ=1.5,6.9, 4.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T1.2' / 

&THCP XYZ=1.5,6.9, 6.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T1.3' / 

&THCP XYZ=1.5,6.9, 8.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T1.4' / 

&THCP XYZ=1.5,6.9,10.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T1.5' / 

&THCP XYZ=1.5,6.9,12.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T1.6' / 

&THCP XYZ=1.5,6.9,14.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T1.7' / 

&THCP XYZ=1.5,6.9,16.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T1.8' / 

&THCP XYZ=1.5,6.9,17.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T1.9' / 

&THCP XYZ=1.5,6.9,18.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T1.10' / 

&THCP XYZ=6.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.1' / 

&THCP XYZ=6.5,6.9, 4.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.2' / 

&THCP XYZ=6.5,6.9, 6.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.3' / 

&THCP XYZ=6.5,6.9, 8.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.4' / 

&THCP XYZ=6.5,6.9,10.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.5' / 

&THCP XYZ=6.5,6.9,12.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.6' / 

&THCP XYZ=6.5,6.9,14.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.7' / 

&THCP XYZ=6.5,6.9,16.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.8' / 

&THCP XYZ=6.5,6.9,17.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.9' / 

&THCP XYZ=6.5,6.9,18.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.10' / 

&THCP XYZ=20.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.1' / 

&THCP XYZ=20.5,6.9, 4.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.2' / 

&THCP XYZ=20.5,6.9, 6.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.3' / 

&THCP XYZ=20.5,6.9, 8.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.4' / 

&THCP XYZ=20.5,6.9,10.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.5' / 

&THCP XYZ=20.5,6.9,12.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.6' / 

&THCP XYZ=20.5,6.9,14.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.7' / 

&THCP XYZ=20.5,6.9,16.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.8' / 

&THCP XYZ=20.5,6.9,17.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.9' / 

&THCP XYZ=20.5,6.9,18.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.10' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.0,7.2, 7.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TG.1' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.0,7.2,13.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TG.2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='HGL Height 1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='HGL Temp 1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='HGL Height 2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='HGL Temp 2' / 
FDS Input Files 

B-4 

&THCP XYZ=20.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='HGL Height 3' / 

&THCP XYZ=20.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='HGL Temp 3' / 

&SLCF PBY=7.2,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / 

&SLCF PBY=7.2,QUANTITY='HRRPUV' / 

&SLCF PBY=7.2,QUANTITY='MIXTURE_FRACTION' / 

&SLCF PBX=16.,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / 

&SLCF PBX=16.,QUANTITY='HRRPUV' / 

&SLCF PBX=16.,QUANTITY='MIXTURE_FRACTION' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX' / 

Roof Approximation 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 0.3,12.1,12.4,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,13.5,13.8,12.1,12.4,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 0.5,12.4,12.7,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,13.3,13.8,12.4,12.7,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 0.8,12.7,12.9,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,13.0,13.8,12.7,12.9,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 1.0,12.9,13.2,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,12.8,13.8,12.9,13.2,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 1.3,13.2,13.5,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,12.5,13.8,13.2,13.5,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 1.5,13.5,13.7,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,12.3,13.8,13.5,13.7,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 1.8,13.7,14.0,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,12.0,13.8,13.7,14.0,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 2.0,14.0,14.3,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,11.8,13.8,14.0,14.3,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 2.3,14.3,14.5,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,11.5,13.8,14.3,14.5,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 2.6,14.5,14.8,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,11.2,13.8,14.5,14.8,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 2.8,14.8,15.0,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,11.0,13.8,14.8,15.0,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 3.1,15.0,15.3,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,10.7,13.8,15.0,15.3,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 3.3,15.3,15.6,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,10.5,13.8,15.3,15.6,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 3.6,15.6,15.8,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,10.2,13.8,15.6,15.8,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 3.8,15.8,16.1,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,10.0,13.8,15.8,16.1,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 4.1,16.1,16.4,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 9.7,13.8,16.1,16.4,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 4.3,16.4,16.6,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 9.5,13.8,16.4,16.6,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 4.6,16.6,16.9,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 9.2,13.8,16.6,16.9,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 4.9,16.9,19.0,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 8.9,13.8,16.9,19.0,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. / 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

B-5

B.2 ICFMP BE #3 

&HEAD CHID='ICFMP3_composite',TITLE='NRC ICFMP Benchmark Exercise 3' / 

Numerical grid with stretching to put finer grid over fire 

&GRID IBAR=100,JBAR=36,KBAR=32 / 

&PDIM XBAR=21.7,YBAR=7.04,ZBAR=3.82 / 

&TRNX IDERIV=0,CC=10.8,PC=10.8 / 

&TRNX IDERIV=1,CC=10.8,PC=0.5 / 

&TRNY IDERIV=0,CC= 3.58,PC=3.58 / Comment out for Tests 14, 15 and 18 

&TRNY IDERIV=1,CC= 3.58,PC=0.5 / Comment out for Tests 14, 15 and 18 

&TIME TWFIN=1800. / 

&MISC TMPA=30.,SURF_DEFAULT='MARINITE',NFRAMES=1800,REACTION='HEPTANE' / 

&REAC ID='HEPTANE' 

 FYI='Heptane, C_7 H_16' 

 DTSAM=10. 

 MW_FUEL=100. 

 NU_O2=11. 

 NU_CO2=7. 

 NU_H2O=8. 

 CO_YIELD=0.006 

 SOOT_YIELD=0.015 / 

cREAC ID='TOLUENE' 

 FYI='Toluene, C_7 H_8, Test 17 only' 

 MW_FUEL=92. 

 NU_O2=9. 

 NU_CO2=7. 

 NU_H2O=4. 

 SOOT_YIELD=0.195 / 

Definitions of fan and extraction duct 

&SURF ID='INFLOW' ,VOLUME_FLUX=-0.90,RGB=1,0,0,VEL_T=0.0,4.0,PARTICLES=.TRUE. / 

&SURF ID='OUTFLOW',VOLUME_FLUX= 1.70,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_V='exhaust' / 

&RAMP ID='exhaust',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='exhaust',T= 1.,F=0.6 / 

&RAMP ID='exhaust',T=180.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='exhaust',T=400.,F=0.9 / 

Definitions of cables. Note that RADIUS tells FDS to do 

a 1-D heat transfer calc into a cylinder instead of a slab. 

&SURF ID='PVC TRAY CONTROL', RAMP_KS='k_pvc',RAMP_C_P='cp_pvc',DENSITY=1380., 

 EMISSIVITY=0.95,RGB=1,0,0,DELTA=0.01 / 

&SURF ID='PVC SINGLE CONTROL',RAMP_KS='k_pvc',RAMP_C_P='cp_pvc',DENSITY=1380., 

 EMISSIVITY=0.95,RGB=1,0,0,RADIUS=0.005 / 

&SURF ID='PVC SINGLE POWER', RAMP_KS='k_pvc',RAMP_C_P='cp_pvc',DENSITY=1380., 

 EMISSIVITY=0.95,RGB=1,0,0,RADIUS=0.008 / 

&RAMP ID='k_pvc',T= 23.,F=0.192 / 

&RAMP ID='k_pvc',T= 50.,F=0.175 / 

&RAMP ID='k_pvc',T= 75.,F=0.172 / 

&RAMP ID='k_pvc',T=100.,F=0.147 / 

&RAMP ID='k_pvc',T=125.,F=0.141 / 

&RAMP ID='k_pvc',T=150.,F=0.134 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_pvc',T= 23.,F=1.289 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_pvc',T= 50.,F=1.353 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_pvc',T= 75.,F=1.407 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_pvc',T=100.,F=1.469 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_pvc',T=125.,F=1.530 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_pvc',T=150.,F=1.586 / 

&SURF ID='XLP TRAY CONTROL', RAMP_KS='k_xlp',RAMP_C_P='cp_xlp',DENSITY=1374., 

 EMISSIVITY=0.95,RGB=0,1,0,DELTA=0.01 / 

&SURF ID='XLP SINGLE CONTROL',RAMP_KS='k_xlp',RAMP_C_P='cp_xlp',DENSITY=1374., 
FDS Input Files 

B-6 

 EMISSIVITY=0.95,RGB=0,1,0,RADIUS=0.005 / 

&SURF ID='XLP SINGLE POWER', RAMP_KS='k_xlp',RAMP_C_P='cp_xlp',DENSITY=1374., 

 EMISSIVITY=0.95,RGB=0,1,0,RADIUS=0.0095 / 

&RAMP ID='k_xlp',T= 23.,F=0.235 / 

&RAMP ID='k_xlp',T= 50.,F=0.232 / 

&RAMP ID='k_xlp',T= 75.,F=0.223 / 

&RAMP ID='k_xlp',T=100.,F=0.210 / 

&RAMP ID='k_xlp',T=125.,F=0.190 / 

&RAMP ID='k_xlp',T=150.,F=0.192 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_xlp',T= 23.,F=1.390 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_xlp',T= 50.,F=1.476 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_xlp',T= 75.,F=1.526 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_xlp',T=100.,F=1.560 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_xlp',T=125.,F=1.585 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_xlp',T=150.,F=1.607 / 

&SURF ID = 'STEEL SHEET' 

 RGB = 0.20,0.20,0.20 

 C_DELTA_RHO = 28. 

 BACKING = 'EXPOSED' 

 DELTA = 0.00635 / 

&SURF ID = 'FERALOY' 

 RGB = 0.40,0.40,0.40 

 C_DELTA_RHO = 25. 

 BACKING = 'EXPOSED' 

 DELTA = 0.007 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE1',HRRPUA=410.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE1_RAMP' / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE1_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE1_RAMP',T= 148.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE1_RAMP',T=1350.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE1_RAMP',T=1500.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE2',HRRPUA=1190.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE2_RAMP' / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE2_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE2_RAMP',T= 180.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE2_RAMP',T= 625.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE2_RAMP',T= 626.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE3',HRRPUA=1190.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE3_RAMP' / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE3_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE3_RAMP',T= 180.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE3_RAMP',T=1380.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE3_RAMP',T=1560.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE4',HRRPUA=1200.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE4_RAMP' / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE4_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE4_RAMP',T= 180.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE4_RAMP',T= 816.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE4_RAMP',T= 817.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE5',HRRPUA=1190.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE5_RAMP' / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE5_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE5_RAMP',T= 180.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE5_RAMP',T=1380.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE5_RAMP',T=1560.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE7',HRRPUA=400.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE7_RAMP' / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE7_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE7_RAMP',T= 129.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE7_RAMP',T=1332.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE7_RAMP',T=1515.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE8',HRRPUA=1190.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE8_RAMP' / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE8_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE8_RAMP',T= 176.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE8_RAMP',T= 610.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE8_RAMP',T= 611.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE9',HRRPUA=1170.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE9_RAMP' / 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

B-7

&RAMP ID='FIRE9_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE9_RAMP',T= 175.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE9_RAMP',T=1376.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE9_RAMP',T=1560.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE10',HRRPUA=1190.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE10_RAMP' / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE10_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE10_RAMP',T= 176.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE10_RAMP',T= 826.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE10_RAMP',T= 827.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE13',HRRPUA=2330.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE13_RAMP' / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE13_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE13_RAMP',T= 177.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE13_RAMP',T= 364.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE13_RAMP',T= 365.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE14',HRRPUA=1180.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE14_RAMP' / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE14_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE14_RAMP',T= 176.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE14_RAMP',T=1381.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE14_RAMP',T=1567.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE15',HRRPUA=1180.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE15_RAMP' / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE15_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE15_RAMP',T= 180.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE15_RAMP',T=1380.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE15_RAMP',T=1567.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE16',HRRPUA=2300.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE16_RAMP' / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE16_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE16_RAMP',T= 177.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE16_RAMP',T= 382.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE16_RAMP',T= 383.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE17',HRRPUA=1160.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE17_RAMP' / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE17_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE17_RAMP',T= 181.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE17_RAMP',T= 272.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE17_RAMP',T= 273.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE18',HRRPUA=1180.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE18_RAMP' / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE18_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE18_RAMP',T= 178.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE18_RAMP',T=1380.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='FIRE18_RAMP',T=1567.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='MARINITE' 

 FYI='BNZ Materials, Marinite I' 

 RGB = 0.70,0.70,0.70 

 BACKING = 'EXPOSED' 

 EMISSIVITY=0.8 

 LEAKING=.TRUE. 

 DENSITY = 737. 

 RAMP_C_P='rampcp' 

 RAMP_KS='rampks' 

 DELTA=0.0254 / 

&RAMP ID='rampks',T= 24.,F=0.13 / 

&RAMP ID='rampks',T=149.,F=0.12 / 

&RAMP ID='rampks',T=538.,F=0.12 / 

&RAMP ID='rampcp',T= 93.,F=1.172 / 

&RAMP ID='rampcp',T=205.,F=1.255 / 

&RAMP ID='rampcp',T=316.,F=1.339 / 

&RAMP ID='rampcp',T=425.,F=1.423 / 

&SURF ID = 'GYPSUM BOARD' 

 FYI = 'NIST SP 1013-1' 

 RGB = 0.80,0.80,0.70 

 KS = 0.16 

 C_P = 0.9 

 DENSITY = 790. 
FDS Input Files 

B-8 

 DELTA = 0.0254 / 

The fire pan, assumed to be 1 m by 1 m 

&OBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF_IDS='FIRE1' ,'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF_IDS='FIRE2' ,'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF_IDS='FIRE3' ,'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF_IDS='FIRE4' ,'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF_IDS='FIRE5' ,'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF_IDS='FIRE7' ,'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF_IDS='FIRE8' ,'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF_IDS='FIRE9' ,'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF_IDS='FIRE10','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF_IDS='FIRE13','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,4.74,5.74,0.00,0.20,SURF_IDS='FIRE14','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,0.75,1.75,0.00,0.20,SURF_IDS='FIRE15','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF_IDS='FIRE16','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF_IDS='FIRE17','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

cOBST XB=11.80,12.80,1.00,2.00,0.00,0.20,SURF_IDS='FIRE18','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

Cables are defined as rectangular objects, but heat transfer controlled by SURF 

&OBST XB= 5.85,15.85,1.90,2.10,3.20,3.30,SURF_IDS='XLP TRAY CONTROL','STEEL SHEET','XLP TRAY 

CONTROL' / Cable Tray D 

&OBST XB=10.70,11.00,1.10,1.30,2.70,2.90,SURF_ID='PVC SINGLE CONTROL' / Slab Target E 

&OBST XB=10.40,10.70,1.10,1.30,2.70,2.90,SURF_ID='XLP SINGLE CONTROL' / Control Cable B 

&OBST XB= 5.80,15.80,0.40,0.60,2.20,2.30,SURF_ID='XLP SINGLE POWER' / Power Cable F 

&OBST XB=10.58,10.88,6.80,7.04,0.00,3.82,SURF_ID='XLP TRAY CONTROL' / Vertical Ladder Tray G 

&OBST XB=17.55,17.85,3.37,3.67,3.72,3.82,SURF_ID='FERALOY' / Junction Box 

&VENT CB='ZBAR0',SURF_ID='GYPSUM BOARD' / Floor 

&VENT XB= 0.00, 0.00,2.51,4.51,0.00,2.00,SURF_ID='OPEN' / Open Door 

cVENT XB=10.88,11.58,0.00,0.00,2.05,2.40,SURF_ID='INFLOW' / Supply 

cVENT XB=10.88,11.58,7.04,7.04,2.05,2.76,SURF_ID='OUTFLOW' / Exhaust 

&SLCF PBY=3.5,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / 

&SLCF PBY=3.5,QUANTITY='HRRPUV' / 

&SLCF PBY=3.5,QUANTITY='MIXTURE_FRACTION' / 

&SLCF PBX=10.8,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / 

&SLCF PBX=10.8,QUANTITY='HRRPUV' / 

&SLCF PBX=10.8,QUANTITY='MIXTURE_FRACTION' / 

&SLCF XB= 0.00, 0.00,2.60,4.60,0.00,2.00,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX' / 

&PL3D DTSAM=60. / 

Gas Phase TC Trees 

 

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 0.35,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-1',DTSAM=10. / 

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 0.70,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 1.05,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 1.75,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 2.10,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 2.45,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 2.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-8' / 

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 3.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-9' / 

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 3.50,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-10'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 0.35,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-1' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 0.70,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-2' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 1.05,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-3' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-4' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 1.75,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-5' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 2.10,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-6' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 2.45,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-7' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 2.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-8' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 3.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-9' / 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

B-9

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 3.50,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-10'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 2.20, 0.35,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 3-1' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 2.20, 0.70,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 3-2' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 2.20, 1.05,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 3-3' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 2.20, 1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 3-4' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 2.20, 1.75,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 3-5' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 2.20, 2.10,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 3-6' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 2.20, 2.45,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 3-7' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 2.20, 2.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 3-8' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 2.20, 3.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 3-9' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 2.20, 3.50,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 3-10'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 1.35, 0.35,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-1' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 1.35, 0.70,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-2' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 1.35, 1.05,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-3' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 1.35, 1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-4' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 1.35, 1.75,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-5' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 1.35, 2.10,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-6' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 1.35, 2.45,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-7' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 1.35, 2.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-8' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 1.35, 3.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-9' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 1.35, 3.50,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-10'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 0.55, 0.35,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 5-1' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 0.55, 0.70,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 5-2' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 0.55, 1.05,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 5-3' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 0.55, 1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 5-4' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 0.55, 1.75,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 5-5' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 0.55, 2.10,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 5-6' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 0.55, 2.45,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 5-7' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 0.55, 2.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 5-8' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 0.55, 3.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 5-9' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 0.55, 3.50,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 5-10'/ 

&THCP XYZ=11.95, 3.58, 0.35,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 6-1' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.95, 3.58, 0.70,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 6-2' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.95, 3.58, 1.05,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 6-3' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.95, 3.58, 1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 6-4' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.95, 3.58, 1.75,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 6-5' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.95, 3.58, 2.10,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 6-6' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.95, 3.58, 2.45,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 6-7' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.95, 3.58, 2.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 6-8' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.95, 3.58, 3.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 6-9' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.95, 3.58, 3.50,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 6-10'/ 

&THCP XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 0.35,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 7-1' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 0.70,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 7-2' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 1.05,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 7-3' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 7-4' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 1.75,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 7-5' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 2.10,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 7-6' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 2.45,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 7-7' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 2.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 7-8' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 3.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 7-9' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 3.50,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 7-10'/ 

Wall TCs 

&THCP XYZ= 3.91, 7.04, 1.49,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-2,LABEL='TC N U-1'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 3.91, 7.04, 3.72,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-2,LABEL='TC N U-2'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 9.55, 7.04, 1.87,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-2,LABEL='TC N U-3'/ 

&THCP XYZ=12.15, 7.04, 1.87,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-2,LABEL='TC N U-4'/ 

&THCP XYZ=17.79, 7.04, 1.50,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-2,LABEL='TC N U-5'/ 

&THCP XYZ=17.79, 7.04, 3.73,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-2,LABEL='TC N U-6'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 3.91, 0.00, 1.49,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 2,LABEL='TC S U-1'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 3.91, 0.00, 3.72,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 2,LABEL='TC S U-2'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 9.55, 0.00, 1.87,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 2,LABEL='TC S U-3'/ 

&THCP XYZ=12.15, 0.00, 1.87,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 2,LABEL='TC S U-4'/ 

&THCP XYZ=17.79, 0.00, 1.50,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 2,LABEL='TC S U-5'/ 
FDS Input Files 

B-10 

&THCP XYZ=17.79, 0.00, 3.73,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 2,LABEL='TC S U-6'/ 

&THCP XYZ=21.70, 1.59, 1.12,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-1,LABEL='TC E U-1'/ 

&THCP XYZ=21.70, 1.59, 2.43,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-1,LABEL='TC E U-2'/ 

&THCP XYZ=21.70, 5.76, 1.12,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-1,LABEL='TC E U-3'/ 

&THCP XYZ=21.70, 5.76, 2.43,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-1,LABEL='TC E U-4'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 1.59, 1.12,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 1,LABEL='TC W U-1'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 1.59, 2.43,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 1,LABEL='TC W U-2'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 5.76, 1.12,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 1,LABEL='TC W U-3'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 5.76, 2.43,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 1,LABEL='TC W U-4'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 3.04, 3.59, 0.00,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 3,LABEL='TC F U-1'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 9.11, 2.00, 0.00,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 3,LABEL='TC F U-2'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 9.11, 5.97, 0.00,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 3,LABEL='TC F U-3'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 2.39, 0.00,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 3,LABEL='TC F U-4'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 5.17, 0.00,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 3,LABEL='TC F C-5'/ 

&THCP XYZ=13.02, 2.00, 0.00,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 3,LABEL='TC F U-6'/ 

&THCP XYZ=13.02, 5.97, 0.00,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 3,LABEL='TC F U-7'/ 

&THCP XYZ=18.66, 3.59, 0.00,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 3,LABEL='TC F U-8'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 3.04, 3.59, 3.82,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C U-1'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 9.11, 2.00, 3.82,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C C-2'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 9.11, 5.97, 3.82,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C C-3'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 2.39, 3.82,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C C-4'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 5.17, 3.82,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C C-5'/ 

&THCP XYZ=13.02, 2.00, 3.82,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C C-6'/ 

&THCP XYZ=13.02, 5.97, 3.82,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C C-7'/ 

&THCP XYZ=18.66, 3.59, 3.82,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C U-8'/ 

Bidirectional Probe TCs 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 2.81, 0.20,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 1'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 2.81, 0.60,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 2'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 2.81, 1.00,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 3'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 2.81, 1.20,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 4'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 2.81, 1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 5'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 2.81, 1.60,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 6'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 2.81, 1.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 7'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 2.81, 1.90,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 8'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.61, 0.20,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 9'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.61, 0.60,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 10'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.61, 1.00,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 11'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.61, 1.20,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 12'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.61, 1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 13'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.61, 1.60,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 14'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.61, 1.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 15'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.61, 1.90,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 16'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 4.21, 0.20,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 17'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 4.21, 0.60,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 18'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 4.21, 1.00,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 19'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 4.21, 1.20,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 20'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 4.21, 1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 21'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 4.21, 1.60,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 22'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 4.21, 1.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 23'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 4.21, 1.90,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Door 24'/ 

&THCP XYZ=11.35, 0.00, 2.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Supply 25'/ 

&THCP XYZ=11.35, 7.04, 2.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Exhaust 26'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 0.30, 0.08,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC Leak 27'/ 

Cable TCs 

&THCP XYZ=10.55, 1.30, 2.80,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='B Ts-14'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.55, 1.30, 2.80,QUANTITY='INSIDE_WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='B Tc15',DEPTH=0.0012 / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 2.00, 3.20,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='D Ts-12'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 1.25, 2.70,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='E Ts-16'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 1.25, 2.85,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR= 3,LABEL='E Ts-16p'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 1.25, 2.70,QUANTITY='INSIDE_WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='E Tc17',DEPTH=0.0025 / 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 0.50, 2.20,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='F Ts-20'/ 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

B-11

&THCP XYZ=14.85, 2.00, 3.20,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='D Ts-26'/ 

&THCP XYZ=14.85, 0.50, 2.20,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='F Ts-30'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.80, 6.80, 0.35,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-2,LABEL='G Ts-31'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.80, 6.80, 0.70,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-2,LABEL='G Ts-32'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.80, 6.80, 1.75,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-2,LABEL='G Ts-33'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.80, 6.80, 2.45,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-2,LABEL='G Ts-35'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.80, 6.80, 3.15,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-2,LABEL='G Ts-36'/ 

&THCP XYZ=17.70, 3.58, 3.72,QUANTITY='BACK_WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='Junction Box TC-37'/ 

&THCP XYZ=17.70, 3.58, 3.72,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='Junction Box Ts-38'/ 

&THCP XYZ=17.55, 3.52, 3.77,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-1,LABEL='Junction Box Ts-39'/ 

Aspirated TCs 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.61, 0.20,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='ATC Door 1'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.61, 1.00,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='ATC Door 2'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.61, 1.80,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='ATC Door 3'/ 

&THCP XYZ=11.35, 7.04, 2.40,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='ATC Exhaust 4'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 0.55, 1.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='ATC 5'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 0.55, 2.80,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='ATC 6'/ 

Wall Flux Gauges 

&THCP XYZ= 3.91, 7.04, 1.49,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-2,LABEL='N U-1'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 3.91, 7.04, 3.72,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-2,LABEL='N U-2'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 9.55, 7.04, 1.87,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-2,LABEL='N U-3'/ 

&THCP XYZ=12.15, 7.04, 1.87,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-2,LABEL='N U-4'/ 

&THCP XYZ=17.79, 7.04, 1.50,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-2,LABEL='N U-5'/ 

&THCP XYZ=17.79, 7.04, 3.73,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-2,LABEL='N U-6'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 3.91, 0.00, 1.49,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 2,LABEL='S U-1'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 3.91, 0.00, 3.72,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 2,LABEL='S U-2'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 9.55, 0.00, 1.87,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 2,LABEL='S U-3'/ 

&THCP XYZ=12.15, 0.00, 1.87,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 2,LABEL='S U-4'/ 

&THCP XYZ=17.79, 0.00, 1.50,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 2,LABEL='S U-5'/ 

&THCP XYZ=17.79, 0.00, 3.73,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 2,LABEL='S U-6'/ 

&THCP XYZ=21.70, 1.59, 1.12,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-1,LABEL='E U-1'/ 

&THCP XYZ=21.70, 1.59, 2.43,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-1,LABEL='E U-2'/ 

&THCP XYZ=21.70, 5.76, 1.12,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-1,LABEL='E U-3'/ 

&THCP XYZ=21.70, 5.76, 2.43,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-1,LABEL='E U-4'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 1.59, 1.12,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 1,LABEL='W U-1'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 1.59, 2.43,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 1,LABEL='W U-2'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 5.76, 1.12,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 1,LABEL='W U-3'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 5.76, 2.43,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 1,LABEL='W U-4'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 3.04, 3.59, 0.00,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 3,LABEL='F U-1'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 9.11, 2.00, 0.00,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 3,LABEL='F U-2'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 9.11, 5.97, 0.00,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 3,LABEL='F U-3'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 2.39, 0.00,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 3,LABEL='F U-4'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 5.17, 0.00,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 3,LABEL='F C-5'/ 

&THCP XYZ=13.02, 2.00, 0.00,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 3,LABEL='F U-6'/ 

&THCP XYZ=13.02, 5.97, 0.00,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 3,LABEL='F U-7'/ 

&THCP XYZ=18.66, 3.59, 0.00,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 3,LABEL='F U-8'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 3.04, 3.59, 3.82,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C U-1'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 9.11, 2.00, 3.82,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C C-2'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 9.11, 5.97, 3.82,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C C-3'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 2.39, 3.82,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C C-4'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 5.17, 3.82,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C C-5'/ 

&THCP XYZ=13.02, 2.00, 3.82,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C C-6'/ 

&THCP XYZ=13.02, 5.97, 3.82,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C C-7'/ 

&THCP XYZ=18.66, 3.59, 3.82,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C U-8'/ 

Rad and Total Flux Gauges 

&THCP XYZ=10.87, 0.50, 2.20,QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='Total Flux Gauge 2'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.87, 1.25, 2.70,QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='Total Flux Gauge 4'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.87, 1.30, 2.80,QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX',IOR= 2,LABEL='Total Flux Gauge 6'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.87, 2.00, 3.20,QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='Total Flux Gauge 8'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.81, 6.80, 1.75,QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX',IOR=-2,LABEL='Total Flux Gauge 9'/ 
FDS Input Files 

B-12 

&THCP XYZ=10.87, 0.50, 2.20,QUANTITY='RADIOMETER',IOR=-3,LABEL='Rad Gauge 1'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.87, 1.25, 2.70,QUANTITY='RADIOMETER',IOR=-3,LABEL='Rad Gauge 3'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.87, 1.30, 2.80,QUANTITY='RADIOMETER',IOR= 2,LABEL='Rad Gauge 5'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.87, 2.00, 3.20,QUANTITY='RADIOMETER',IOR=-3,LABEL='Rad Gauge 7'/ 

&THCP XYZ=10.81, 6.80, 1.75,QUANTITY='RADIOMETER',IOR=-2,LABEL='Rad Gauge 10'/ 

Gaseous Sampling 

&THCP XYZ= 6.85, 3.48, 3.22,QUANTITY='oxygen', LABEL='O2 1'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 6.85, 3.48, 0.50,QUANTITY='oxygen', LABEL='O2 2'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 6.85, 3.48, 3.22,QUANTITY='carbon monoxide',LABEL='CO 3'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 6.85, 3.48, 3.22,QUANTITY='carbon dioxide' ,LABEL='CO2 4'/ 

Bidirectional Probes 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 2.71, 0.20,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Door 1'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 2.71, 0.60,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Door 2'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 2.71, 1.00,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Door 3'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 2.71, 1.40,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Door 4'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 2.71, 1.80,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Door 5'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.51, 0.20,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Door 6'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.51, 0.60,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Door 7'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.51, 1.00,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Door 8'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.51, 1.40,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Door 9'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 3.51, 1.80,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Door 10'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 4.31, 0.20,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Door 11'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 4.31, 0.60,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Door 12'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 4.31, 1.00,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Door 13'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 4.31, 1.40,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Door 14'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 4.31, 1.80,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Door 15'/ 

&THCP XYZ=11.35, 0.00, 2.40,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Supply 16'/ 

&THCP XYZ=11.35, 7.04, 2.40,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Exhaust 17'/ 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 0.30, 0.08,QUANTITY='VELOCITY', LABEL='BP Leak 18'/ 

Smoke Obscuration/Concentration 

&THCP XYZ=21.10, 0.50, 3.60,QUANTITY='soot density', LABEL='Smoke Concentration'/ 

Compartment Pressure 

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 0.10, 0.10,QUANTITY='PRESSURE', LABEL='Pressure'/ 

Integrated Quantities 

&THCP XB= 0.00, 0.00,2.51,4.51,0.00,2.00,QUANTITY='MASS FLOW',LABEL='Door Mass FLOW' / 

&THCP XB= 0.00, 0.00,2.51,4.51,0.00,2.00,QUANTITY='HEAT FLOW',LABEL='E-FLOW' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 3.00,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 3.00,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='HGL Temp' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 3.00,QUANTITY='LOWER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='LGL Temp' / 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

B-13

B.3 ICFMP BE #4 

&HEAD CHID='ICFMP4_01',TITLE='NRC ICFMP Benchmark Exercise 4, Test 1' / 

&GRID IBAR=36,JBAR=72,KBAR=56 / 

&PDIM XBAR0=0.0,XBAR=3.6,YBAR0=-3.6,YBAR=3.6,ZBAR=5.7 / 

&TIME TWFIN=1800. / 

&MISC TMPA=19.,SURF_DEFAULT='LIGHT CONCRETE',NFRAMES=1800,REACTION='DODECANE' / 

&REAC ID='DODECANE' 

 FYI='C_11.64 H_25.29' 

 MW_FUEL=165.0 

 NU_O2=17.96 

 NU_CO2=11.64 

 NU_H2O=12.65 

 EPUMO2=12736. 

 DTSAM=15. 

 CO_YIELD=0.012 

 SOOT_YIELD=0.042 / 

&SURF ID='BURNER',HRRPUA=1000.,RAMP_Q='e1',RGB = 0.40,0.40,0.40,TMPWAL=216. / 

&RAMP ID='e1',T= 0.0, F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='e1',T= 92.0, F=0.11984 / 

&RAMP ID='e1',T= 180.0, F=1.5836 / 

&RAMP ID='e1',T= 260.0, F=2.62364 / 

&RAMP ID='e1',T= 600.0, F=3.19716 / 

&RAMP ID='e1',T= 822.0, F=3.35124 / 

&RAMP ID='e1',T= 870.0, F=3.3812 / 

&RAMP ID='e1',T=1368.0, F=3.51816 / 

&RAMP ID='e1',T=1395.0, F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID = 'CONCRETE' 

 RGB = 0.66,0.66,0.66 

 C_P = 0.88 

 DENSITY = 2400. 

 KS = 2.1 

 DELTA = 0.25 

 BACKING='INSULATED' / 

&SURF ID = 'CONCRETE TARGET' 

 RGB = 0.76,0.76,0.76 

 C_P = 0.88 

 DENSITY = 2400. 

 KS = 2.1 

 DELTA = 0.10 

 BACKING='INSULATED' / 

&SURF ID = 'AERATED CONCRETE' 

 RGB = 0.46,0.46,0.46 

 C_P = 1.35 

 DENSITY = 420. 

 KS = 0.11 

 DELTA = 0.10 

 BACKING='INSULATED' / 

&SURF ID = 'LIGHT CONCRETE' 

 RGB = 0.76,0.76,0.76 

 C_P = 0.84 

 DENSITY = 1500. 

 KS = 0.75 

 DELTA = 0.25 

 BACKING='INSULATED' / 

&SURF ID = 'STEEL SHEET' 

 RGB = 0.20,0.20,0.20 
FDS Input Files 

B-14 

 C_DELTA_RHO = 28. 

 BACKING = 'EXPOSED' 

 DELTA = 0.00635 / 

&SURF ID = 'STEEL PLATE' 

 RGB = 0.20,0.20,0.20 

 C_P = 0.48 

 DENSITY = 7743. 

 KS = 44.5 

 BACKING = 'INSULATED' 

 DELTA = 0.02 / 

&SURF ID='HOOD',VOLUME_FLUX=1.0,RGB=0,0,1,RAMP_V='HOOD1' / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 0.,F=2.12 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 15.,F=2.24 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 30.,F=2.41 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 45.,F=2.26 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 195.,F=2.55 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 210.,F=3.20 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 225.,F=3.08 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 240.,F=3.20 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 255.,F=3.26 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 405.,F=3.30 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 886.,F=3.51 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T=1449.,F=3.66 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T=1711.,F=2.65 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T=1755.,F=3.03 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T=1770.,F=2.68 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T=1785.,F=2.86 / 

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T=1800.,F=2.82 / 

&SURF ID='FUCHS',VOLUME_FLUX=0.5,RGB=0,1,1,RAMP_V='FUCHS1' / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 0.,F=0.00 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 150.,F=0.00 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 165.,F=0.08 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 180.,F=0.44 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 195.,F=0.83 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 210.,F=1.32 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 225.,F=1.41 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 551.,F=2.18 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 615.,F=2.17 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 666.,F=2.13 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 720.,F=2.25 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 859.,F=1.92 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T=1011.,F=1.57 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T=1245.,F=1.09 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T=1405.,F=0.43 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T=1650.,F=0.14 / 

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T=1800.,F=0.06 / 

&OBST XB= 1.30, 1.30, 1.30, 2.30, 0.60, 0.70,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / 

&OBST XB= 2.30, 2.30, 1.30, 2.30, 0.60, 0.70,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / 

&OBST XB= 1.30, 2.30, 1.30, 1.30, 0.60, 0.70,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / 

&OBST XB= 1.30, 2.30, 2.30, 2.30, 0.60, 0.70,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / 

&OBST XB= 1.30, 2.30, 1.30, 2.30, 0.50, 0.60,SURF_IDS='BURNER','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

&OBST XB= 0.00, 3.60, 0.00, 0.80, 0.00, 0.60,SURF_ID='AERATED CONCRETE' / Floor 

&OBST XB= 0.00, 3.60, 2.80, 3.60, 0.00, 0.60,SURF_ID='AERATED CONCRETE' / 

&OBST XB= 0.00, 0.80, 0.80, 2.80, 0.00, 0.60,SURF_ID='AERATED CONCRETE' / 

&OBST XB= 2.80, 3.60, 0.80, 2.80, 0.00, 0.60,SURF_ID='AERATED CONCRETE' / 

&OBST XB= 0.80, 2.80, 0.80, 2.80, 0.00, 0.40,SURF_ID='CONCRETE' / 

&OBST XB= 0.00, 1.45, -.25, 0.00, 0.00, 5.70,SURF_ID='CONCRETE' / Wall with door 

&OBST XB= 2.15, 3.60, -.25, 0.00, 0.00, 5.70,SURF_ID='CONCRETE' / 

&OBST XB= 1.45, 2.15, -.25, 0.00, 3.60, 5.70,SURF_ID='CONCRETE' / 

&OBST XB= 1.50, 2.10, 2.90, 3.50, 0.60, 1.60,SURF_ID='CONCRETE TARGET' / Barrel 

&HOLE XB= 1.60, 2.00, 3.00, 3.40, 0.60, 1.50 / Hollow interior of Barrel 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

B-15

&OBST XB= 0.35, 0.35,-2.90,-0.25, 2.60, 4.60,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood 

&OBST XB= 3.25, 3.25,-2.90,-0.25, 2.60, 4.60,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood 

&OBST XB= 0.35, 3.25,-2.90,-2.90, 2.60, 4.60,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood 

&OBST XB= 0.35, 1.30,-2.90,-0.25, 4.60, 4.60,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood 

&OBST XB= 2.30, 3.25,-2.90,-0.25, 4.60, 4.60,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood 

&OBST XB= 1.30, 2.30,-2.90,-1.95, 4.60, 4.60,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood 

&OBST XB= 1.30, 2.30,-0.95,-0.25, 4.60, 4.60,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood 

&OBST XB= 1.30, 2.30,-1.95,-0.95, 4.60, 5.60,SURF_IDS='STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET','HOOD' / 

Exhaust 

&OBST XB= 0.00, 0.10, 0.50, 0.80, 1.55, 1.85,SURF_ID='AERATED CONCRETE' / Aerated concrete 

target 

&OBST XB= 0.00, 0.10, 1.75, 2.05, 1.55, 1.85,SURF_ID='CONCRETE TARGET' / Concrete target 

&VENT XB= 0.00, 0.00, 2.65, 2.95, 1.55, 1.85,SURF_ID='STEEL PLATE' / Steel target 

&VENT XB= 0.00, 3.60, 0.00, 3.60, 5.70, 5.70,SURF_ID='CONCRETE' / Ceiling 

&VENT XB= 0.00, 0.42, 0.13, 3.60, 5.70, 5.70,SURF_ID='FUCHS' / FUCHS fan1 

&VENT XB= 3.18, 3.60, 0.13, 3.60, 5.70, 5.70,SURF_ID='FUCHS' / FUCHS fan2 

&VENT XB= 0.00, 0.00,-3.60,-0.25, 0.00, 5.70,SURF_ID='OPEN' / 

&VENT XB= 3.60, 3.60,-3.60,-0.25, 0.00, 5.70,SURF_ID='OPEN' / 

&VENT CB='YBAR0',SURF_ID='OPEN' / 

&SLCF PBX=1.8,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / 

&SLCF PBX=1.8,QUANTITY='HRRPUV' / 

&SLCF PBX=1.8,QUANTITY='MIXTURE_FRACTION' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='INCIDENT_HEAT_FLUX' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='CONVECTIVE_FLUX' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='RADIATIVE_FLUX' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='BURNING_RATE' / 

&PL3D DTSAM=300. / 

TC Trees 

&THCP XYZ= 1.75, 1.95, 1.00, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M1', DTSAM=15. / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.75, 1.95, 1.50, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.75, 1.95, 2.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.75, 1.95, 3.35, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.75, 1.95, 4.30, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.75, 1.95, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.75, 0.85, 1.50, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.45, 3.45, 1.50, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M8' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.95, 0.60, 1.50, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M9' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.90, 2.80, 1.50, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M10' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.75, 0.85, 3.35, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M11' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.45, 3.45, 3.35, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M12' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.95, 0.60, 3.35, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M13' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.90, 2.80, 3.35, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M14' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.75, 0.85, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M15' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.45, 3.45, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M16' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.95, 0.60, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M17' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.90, 2.80, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M18' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 1.80, 4.00, QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Tup' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 1.80, 4.00, QUANTITY='LOWER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Tlow' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 1.80, 4.00, QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer height' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.45, 3.60, 1.50, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M19',IOR=-2 / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.45, 3.60, 3.35, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M20',IOR=-2 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 1.90, 1.70, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M21',IOR= 1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.45, 3.60, 1.50, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M22',IOR=-2 / 
FDS Input Files 

B-16 

&THCP XYZ= 2.45, 3.60, 3.35, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M23',IOR=-2 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 1.90, 1.70, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M24',IOR= 1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 1.80, 0.60, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M25',IOR= 3 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 0.65, 1.70, QUANTITY='INSIDE_WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M26',IOR= 1,DEPTH=0.02 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 0.65, 1.70, QUANTITY='INSIDE_WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M27',IOR= 1,DEPTH=0.05 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 0.65, 1.70, QUANTITY='INSIDE_WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M28',IOR= 1,DEPTH=0.08 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 0.65, 1.70, QUANTITY='INSIDE_WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M29',IOR= 1,DEPTH=0.00 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 1.90, 1.70, QUANTITY='INSIDE_WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M30',IOR= 1,DEPTH=0.02 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 1.90, 1.70, QUANTITY='INSIDE_WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M31',IOR= 1,DEPTH=0.05 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 1.90, 1.70, QUANTITY='INSIDE_WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M32',IOR= 1,DEPTH=0.08 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 1.90, 1.70, QUANTITY='INSIDE_WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M33',IOR= 1,DEPTH=0.00 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.80, 1.70, QUANTITY='INSIDE_WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M34',IOR= 1,DEPTH=0.00 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.80, 1.70, QUANTITY='INSIDE_WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M35',IOR= 1,DEPTH=0.02 / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 0.00, 0.80, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M54' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 0.00, 1.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M55' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 0.00, 1.80, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M56' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 0.00, 2.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M57' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 0.00, 2.80, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M58' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 0.00, 3.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M59' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.60, 1.50, 1.80, QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX',LABEL='WS1',IOR=-1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.80, 1.70, QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX',LABEL='WS2',IOR= 1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 1.90, 1.70, QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX',LABEL='WS3',IOR= 1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 0.70, 1.70, QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX',LABEL='WS4',IOR= 1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 1.80, 0.60, QUANTITY='MASS_LOSS',LABEL='GV1',IOR= 3 / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.75, 1.95, 1.50, QUANTITY='VELOCITY',LABEL='V1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.75, 1.95, 3.35, QUANTITY='VELOCITY',LABEL='V2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 0.00, 0.80, QUANTITY='VELOCITY',LABEL='V3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 0.00, 1.40, QUANTITY='VELOCITY',LABEL='V4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 0.00, 1.80, QUANTITY='VELOCITY',LABEL='V5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 0.00, 2.40, QUANTITY='VELOCITY',LABEL='V6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 0.00, 2.80, QUANTITY='VELOCITY',LABEL='V7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80, 0.00, 3.40, QUANTITY='VELOCITY',LABEL='V8' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 1.90, 3.80, QUANTITY='oxygen', LABEL='GA1-O2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 1.90, 3.80, QUANTITY='carbon monoxide',LABEL='GA1-CO' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 1.90, 3.80, QUANTITY='carbon dioxide', LABEL='GA1-CO2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-1.45, 4.50, QUANTITY='oxygen', LABEL='GA2-O2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-1.45, 4.50, QUANTITY='carbon monoxide',LABEL='GA2-CO' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-1.45, 4.50, QUANTITY='carbon dioxide', LABEL='GA2-CO2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.10, 2.40, 5.40, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='P1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.30, 2.00, 2.80, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='P2' / 

&THCP XB= 1.45, 2.15, 0.00, 0.00, 0.60, 3.60,QUANTITY='MASS FLOW',LABEL='Gin+Gout(Door)' / 

&THCP XB= 0.00, 3.60, 0.00, 3.60, 5.70, 5.70,QUANTITY='MASS FLOW',LABEL='Gout(FUCHS)' / 

&THCP XB= 1.45, 2.15, 0.00, 0.00, 0.60, 3.60,QUANTITY='HEAT FLOW',LABEL='HeatFlow(Door)' / 

&THCP XB= 0.00, 3.60, 0.00, 3.60, 5.70, 5.70,QUANTITY='HEAT FLOW',LABEL='HeatFlow(FUCHS)' / 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

B-17

B.4 ICFMP BE #5 

&HEAD CHID='ICFMP5_04',TITLE='NRC Benchmark Exercise 5, Test 4' / 

&GRID IBAR=36,JBAR=72,KBAR=56 / 

&PDIM XBAR0=0.0,XBAR=3.6,YBAR0=-3.6,YBAR=3.6,ZBAR=5.6 / 

&TIME TWFIN=1800. / 

&MISC TMPA=18.,SURF_DEFAULT='LIGHT CONCRETE',NFRAMES=1800,REACTION='ETHANOL' / 

&REAC ID='ETHANOL' 

 FYI='Ethanol, C_2 H_6 O' 

 EPUMO2=12842. 

 DTSAM=10. 

 SOOT_YIELD=0. 

 CO_YIELD=0. 

 MW_FUEL=46. 

 NU_O2=3. 

 NU_H2O=3. 

 NU_CO2=2. 

 RADIATIVE_FRACTION=0.20 / 

&SURF ID='FIRE',HRRPUA=2041.,RAMP_Q='ramp_e',RGB=1,1,0,TMPWAL=78. / 

&RAMP ID='ramp_e',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='ramp_e',T= 60.,F=0.12 / 

&RAMP ID='ramp_e',T= 120.,F=0.22 / 

&RAMP ID='ramp_e',T= 180.,F=0.28 / 

&RAMP ID='ramp_e',T= 240.,F=0.29 / 

&RAMP ID='ramp_e',T= 300.,F=0.30 / 

&RAMP ID='ramp_e',T= 480.,F=0.32 / 

&RAMP ID='ramp_e',T= 600.,F=0.33 / 

&RAMP ID='ramp_e',T= 900.,F=0.34 / 

&RAMP ID='ramp_e',T=1800.,F=0.36 / 

&SURF ID='BURNER',HRRPUA=1111.1,RGB=1,0,0,RAMP_Q='ramp4' / 

&RAMP ID='ramp4',T= 0.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='ramp4',T=1200.,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='ramp4',T=1201.,F=0.5 / 

&RAMP ID='ramp4',T=2100.,F=0.5 / 

&RAMP ID='ramp4',T=2120.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='ramp4',T=2280.,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='ramp4',T=2300.,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID = 'CONCRETE' 

 RGB = 0.66,0.66,0.66 

 C_P = 0.88 

 DENSITY = 2400. 

 KS = 2.1 

 EMISSIVITY=0.75 

 DELTA = 0.25 / 

&SURF ID = 'LIGHT CONCRETE' 

 RGB = 0.76,0.76,0.76 

 C_P = 0.84 

 DENSITY = 1500. 

 KS = 0.75 

 EMISSIVITY=0.75 

 DELTA = 0.25 / 

&SURF ID = 'AERATED CONCRETE' 

 RGB = 0.46,0.46,0.46 

 C_P = 1.35 

 DENSITY = 420. 
FDS Input Files 

B-18 

 KS = 0.11 

 EMISSIVITY=0.75 

 DELTA = 0.20 / 

&SURF ID = 'PVC IC' 

 RGB = 1,0,0 

 TMPIGN= 314. 

 HEAT_OF_COMBUSTION=11200. 

 HEAT_OF_VAPORIZATION=3910. 

 RADIUS=0.007 

 EMISSIVITY=0.8 

 RAMP_KS='k_pvc' 

 RAMP_C_P='cp_pvc' 

 DENSITY=1380. / 

&SURF ID = 'PVC POWER' 

 RGB = 0,1,0 

 TMPIGN= 313. 

 HEAT_OF_COMBUSTION=18100. 

 HEAT_OF_VAPORIZATION=4930. 

 RADIUS=0.015 

 EMISSIVITY=0.8 

 RAMP_KS='k_pvc' 

 RAMP_C_P='cp_pvc' 

 EMISSIVITY=0.8 

 DENSITY=1380. / 

&RAMP ID='k_pvc',T= 23.,F=0.192 / 

&RAMP ID='k_pvc',T= 50.,F=0.175 / 

&RAMP ID='k_pvc',T= 75.,F=0.172 / 

&RAMP ID='k_pvc',T=100.,F=0.147 / 

&RAMP ID='k_pvc',T=125.,F=0.141 / 

&RAMP ID='k_pvc',T=150.,F=0.134 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_pvc',T= 23.,F=1.289 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_pvc',T= 50.,F=1.353 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_pvc',T= 75.,F=1.407 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_pvc',T=100.,F=1.469 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_pvc',T=125.,F=1.530 / 

&RAMP ID='cp_pvc',T=150.,F=1.586 / 

 

&SURF ID = 'STEEL SHEET' 

 RGB = 0.20,0.20,0.20 

 C_DELTA_RHO = 28. 

 BACKING = 'EXPOSED' 

 DELTA = 0.00635 / 

&SURF ID='HOOD',VOLUME_FLUX=2.76,RGB=0,0,1 / 

&OBST XB= 2.60, 3.30, 1.50, 2.20, 0.30, 0.70,SURF_IDS='FIRE','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

&OBST XB= 2.35, 3.60, 1.10, 2.60, 0.00, 0.30,SURF_ID='AERATED CONCRETE' / Base for fire pan 

&OBST XB= 2.15, 2.35, 0.00, 3.60, 0.00, 1.40,SURF_ID='AERATED CONCRETE' / 1.4 m high Divider 

&OBST XB= 0.35, 0.35, 1.80, 2.40, 0.50, 4.50,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Cable Tray 

&OBST XB= 0.30, 0.40, 1.80, 1.80, 0.50, 4.50,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / 

&OBST XB= 0.30, 0.40, 2.40, 2.40, 0.50, 4.50,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / 

&OBST XB= 0.35, 0.45, 1.95, 2.05, 0.50, 4.50,SURF_ID='PVC IC' / Cables 

&OBST XB= 0.35, 0.45, 2.15, 2.25, 0.50, 4.50,SURF_ID='PVC POWER' / 

Burner 

&OBST XB= 0.45, 0.75, 1.95, 2.25, 0.00, 0.40,SURF_IDS='BURNER','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' / 

&OBST XB= 0.00, 1.45, -.25, 0.00, 0.00, 5.60,SURF_ID='LIGHT CONCRETE' / Walls surrounding door 

&OBST XB= 2.15, 3.60, -.25, 0.00, 0.00, 5.60,SURF_ID='LIGHT CONCRETE' / 

&OBST XB= 1.45, 2.15, -.25, 0.00, 3.60, 5.60,SURF_ID='LIGHT CONCRETE' / 

&OBST XB= 1.45, 2.15, -.10, 0.00, 0.00, 1.40,SURF_ID='AERATED CONCRETE' / Door Blocker 

&OBST XB= 0.35, 0.35,-2.90,-0.25, 2.60, 4.60,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood 

&OBST XB= 3.25, 3.25,-2.90,-0.25, 2.60, 4.60,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood 

&OBST XB= 0.35, 3.25,-2.90,-2.90, 2.60, 4.60,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

B-19

&OBST XB= 0.35, 1.30,-2.90,-0.25, 4.60, 4.60,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood 

&OBST XB= 2.30, 3.25,-2.90,-0.25, 4.60, 4.60,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood 

&OBST XB= 1.30, 2.30,-2.90,-1.95, 4.60, 4.60,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood 

&OBST XB= 1.30, 2.30,-0.95,-0.25, 4.60, 4.60,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood 

&OBST XB= 1.30, 2.30,-1.95,-0.95, 4.60, 5.60,SURF_IDS='STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET','HOOD' / 

Exhaust 

&VENT XB= 0.00, 0.00,-3.60,-0.25, 0.00, 5.60,SURF_ID='OPEN' / 

&VENT XB= 3.60, 3.60,-3.60,-0.25, 0.00, 5.60,SURF_ID='OPEN' / 

&VENT CB='YBAR0',SURF_ID='OPEN' / 

&VENT CB='ZBAR0',SURF_ID='CONCRETE' / Floor 

&SLCF PBX=1.8,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / 

&SLCF PBX=1.8,QUANTITY='HRRPUV' / 

&SLCF PBX=1.8,QUANTITY='MIXTURE_FRACTION' / 

&SLCF PBY=2.1,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / 

&SLCF PBY=2.1,QUANTITY='HRRPUV' / 

&SLCF PBY=2.1,QUANTITY='MIXTURE_FRACTION' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='INCIDENT_HEAT_FLUX' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='CONVECTIVE_FLUX' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='RADIATIVE_FLUX' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='BURNING_RATE' / 

&PL3D DTSAM=60. / 

TC Trees 

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 0.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TP_1', DTSAM=10. / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 1.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TP_2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 2.00, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TP_3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 2.80, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TP_4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 3.60, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TP_5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 4.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TP_6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TP_7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 0.60, 0.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_1-1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 0.60, 1.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_1-2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 0.60, 2.00, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_1-3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 0.60, 2.80, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_1-4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 0.60, 3.60, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_1-5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 0.60, 4.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_1-6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 0.60, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_1-7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 0.60, 0.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_2-1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 0.60, 1.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_2-2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 0.60, 2.00, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_2-3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 0.60, 2.80, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_2-4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 0.60, 3.60, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_2-5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 0.60, 4.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_2-6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 0.60, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_2-7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 3.00, 0.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_3-1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 3.00, 1.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_3-2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 3.00, 2.00, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_3-3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 3.00, 2.80, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_3-4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 3.00, 3.60, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_3-5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 3.00, 4.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_3-6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 3.00, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_3-7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 3.00, 0.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_4-1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 3.00, 1.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_4-2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 3.00, 2.00, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_4-3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 3.00, 2.80, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_4-4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 3.00, 3.60, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_4-5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 3.00, 4.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_4-6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 3.00, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_4-7' / 
FDS Input Files 

B-20 

&THCP XYZ= 0.85, 2.20, 0.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_5-1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.85, 2.20, 1.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_5-2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.85, 2.20, 2.00, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_5-3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.85, 2.20, 2.80, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_5-4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.85, 2.20, 3.60, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_5-5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.85, 2.20, 4.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_5-6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.85, 2.20, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_5-7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 0.40, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_1-1',IOR=-2 / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 1.20, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_1-2',IOR=-2 / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 2.00, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_1-3',IOR=-2 / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 2.80, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_1-4',IOR=-2 / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 3.60, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_1-5',IOR=-2 / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 4.40, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_1-6',IOR=-2 / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 5.20, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_1-7',IOR=-2 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 0.40, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_2-1',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 1.20, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_2-2',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 2.00, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_2-3',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 2.80, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_2-4',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 3.60, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_2-5',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 4.40, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_2-6',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 5.20, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_2-7',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.10, 1.60, 0.70, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T E',IOR=3 / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 1.60, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TB_2-1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 2.05, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TB_2-2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 2.50, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TB_2-3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 2.95, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TB_2-4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 3.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TB_2-5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.59, 2.15, 1.05, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TB_3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-1.80, 4.50, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TB_4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 1.20, QUANTITY='BACK_WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TWO_1',IOR=-2 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 1.20, QUANTITY='BACK_WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TWO_2',IOR= 1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 1.20, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_1-1',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 1.60, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_1-2',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 2.00, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_1-3',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 2.40, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_1-4',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 2.80, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_1-5',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 3.20, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_1-6',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 3.60, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_1-7',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 4.00, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_1-8',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 4.40, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_1-9',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 1.20, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_3-1',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 1.60, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_3-2',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 2.00, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_3-3',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 2.40, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_3-4',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 2.80, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_3-5',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 3.20, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_3-6',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 3.60, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_3-7',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 4.00, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_3-8',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 4.40, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_3-9',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.41, 2.13, 1.20, QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX',LABEL='WS_1',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.41, 2.13, 2.00, QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX',LABEL='WS_2',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.41, 2.13, 2.80, QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX',LABEL='WS_3',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.41, 2.13, 3.60, QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX',LABEL='WS_4',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.41, 2.13, 4.40, QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX',LABEL='WS_5',IOR=1 / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 1.20, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP_1-1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 2.80, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP_1-2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 4.40, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP_1-3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 1.60, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP_2-1' / 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

B-21

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 2.05, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP_2-2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 2.50, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP_2-3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 2.95, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP_2-4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 3.40, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP_2-5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.59, 2.15, 1.05, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP_3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-1.80, 4.50, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP_4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 0.65, 0.55, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP_5-1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 0.65, 2.75, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP_5-2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.10, 0.65, 4.95, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP_5-3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.30, 2.10, 2.00, QUANTITY='oxygen', LABEL='GA1-O2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.30, 2.10, 2.00, QUANTITY='carbon monoxide',LABEL='GA1-CO' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.30, 2.10, 2.00, QUANTITY='carbon dioxide', LABEL='GA1-CO2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.30, 2.10, 4.40, QUANTITY='oxygen', LABEL='GA2-O2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.30, 2.10, 4.40, QUANTITY='carbon monoxide',LABEL='GA2-CO' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.30, 2.10, 4.40, QUANTITY='carbon dioxide', LABEL='GA2-CO2' / 

&THCP XB= 1.45, 2.15, 0.00, 0.00, 1.40, 3.60,QUANTITY='MASS FLOW',LABEL='Gin + Gout(Door)' / 

&THCP XB= 1.45, 2.15, 0.00, 0.00, 1.40, 3.60,QUANTITY='HEAT FLOW',LABEL='Heat Flow(Door)' / 
FDS Input Files 

B-22 

B.5 FM/SNL Test Series 

&HEAD CHID='FM_SNL_composite',TITLE='FM-SNL Test Series' / 

&GRID IBAR=48,JBAR=48,KBAR=120 / 

&PDIM XBAR0=11.0,XBAR=13.4,YBAR0=4.9,YBAR=7.3,ZBAR=6.1 / 

&GRID IBAR=64,JBAR=24,KBAR=32 / 

&PDIM XBAR0= 0.0,XBAR=13.4,YBAR0=0.0,YBAR=4.9,ZBAR=6.1 / 

&GRID IBAR=54,JBAR=12,KBAR=32 / 

&PDIM XBAR0= 0.0,XBAR=11.0,YBAR0=4.9,YBAR= 7.3,ZBAR=6.1 / 

&GRID IBAR=64,JBAR=24,KBAR=32 / 

&PDIM XBAR0= 0.0,XBAR=13.4,YBAR0=7.3,YBAR=12.2,ZBAR=6.1 / 

&GRID IBAR=24,JBAR=64,KBAR=32 / 

&PDIM XBAR0=13.4,XBAR=18.3,YBAR0=0.0,YBAR=12.2,ZBAR=6.1 / 

&TIME TWFIN=900.,SYNCHRONIZE=.TRUE. / 1800 s for Test 21 

&MISC TMPA=21.,SURF_DEFAULT='MARINITE',REACTION='PROPENE' / 

&REAC ID='PROPENE' 

 FYI='Propylene, C_3 H_6' 

 MW_FUEL=42 

 NU_O2=4.5 

 NU_CO2=3. 

 NU_H2O=3. 

 DTSAM=5. 

 SOOT_YIELD=0.02 / 

&SURF ID='MARINITE',DENSITY=1000.,C_P=1.16,KS=0.23,DELTA=0.025,RGB=.7,.7,.7 / 

&SURF ID='burner4',HRRPUA=806.,RAMP_Q='fire',RGB=1,0,0 / 

&SURF ID='burner5',HRRPUA=806.,RAMP_Q='fire',RGB=1,0,0 / 

&RAMP ID='fire',T= 0.0,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='fire',T= 60.0,F=0.0625 / 

&RAMP ID='fire',T=120.0,F=0.25 / 

&RAMP ID='fire',T=180.0,F=0.5625 / 

&RAMP ID='fire',T=240.0,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='fire',T=600.0,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='fire',T=601.0,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='burner21',HRRPUA=734.,RAMP_Q='fire21',RGB=1,0,0 / 

&RAMP ID='fire21',T= 0.0,F=0.0 / 

&RAMP ID='fire21',T= 60.0,F=0.0625 / 

&RAMP ID='fire21',T= 120.0,F=0.25 / 

&RAMP ID='fire21',T= 180.0,F=0.5625 / 

&RAMP ID='fire21',T= 240.0,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='fire21',T=1140.0,F=1.0 / 

&RAMP ID='fire21',T=1141.0,F=0.0 / 

&SURF ID='duct4',VOLUME_FLUX=-0.11,RGB=0,0,1 / 

&SURF ID='duct5',VOLUME_FLUX=-0.76,RGB=0,0,1,RAMP_V='ductramp5' / 

&RAMP ID='ductramp5',T= 0.,F=0. / 

&RAMP ID='ductramp5',T= 1.,F=1. / 

&RAMP ID='ductramp5',T=540.,F=1. / 

&RAMP ID='ductramp5',T=541.,F=0. / 

&OBST XB=11.8,12.6, 5.7,6.5,0.0,0.2,SURF_IDS='burner4', 'MARINITE','MARINITE' /sand burner 

cOBST XB=11.8,12.6, 5.7,6.5,0.0,0.2,SURF_IDS='burner5', 'MARINITE','MARINITE' /sand burner 

cOBST XB= 8.7, 9.5, 7.4,8.2,0.0,0.2,SURF_IDS='burner21','MARINITE','MARINITE' /sand burner 

cOBST XB= 8.5, 9.7, 8.8,8.8,0.0,2.4,SURF_ID='STEEL' / cabinet back panel 

cOBST XB= 8.5, 8.5, 6.8,8.8,0.0,2.4,SURF_ID='STEEL' / cabinet side panel 

cOBST XB= 9.7, 9.7, 6.8,8.8,0.0,2.4,SURF_ID='STEEL' / cabinet side panel 

cOBST XB= 8.5, 9.7, 6.8,8.8,2.4,2.4,SURF_ID='STEEL' / cabinet top panel 

&OBST XB= 2.8, 3.4, 2.8, 3.4, 4.9, 6.1, SURF_IDS='MARINITE','MARINITE','duct' /#1 injection duct 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

B-23

&OBST XB= 2.8, 3.4, 2.8, 3.4, 4.6, 4.6 / deflector plate 

&OBST XB= 8.9, 9.5, 2.8, 3.4, 4.9, 6.1, SURF_IDS='MARINITE','MARINITE','duct' /#2 injection duct 

&OBST XB= 8.9, 9.5, 2.8, 3.4, 4.6, 4.6 / deflector plate 

&OBST XB=15.0,15.6, 2.8, 3.4, 4.9, 6.1, SURF_IDS='MARINITE','MARINITE','duct' /#3 injection duct 

&OBST XB=15.0,15.6, 2.8, 3.4, 4.6, 4.6 / deflector plate 

 

&OBST XB= 2.8, 3.4, 8.9, 9.5, 4.9, 6.1, SURF_IDS='MARINITE','MARINITE','duct' /#4 injection duct 

&OBST XB= 2.8, 3.4, 8.9, 9.5, 4.6, 4.6 / deflector plate 

 

&OBST XB= 8.9, 9.5, 8.9, 9.5, 4.9, 6.1, SURF_IDS='MARINITE','MARINITE','duct' /#5 injection duct 

&OBST XB= 8.9, 9.5, 8.9, 9.5, 4.6, 4.6 / deflector plate 

&OBST XB=15.0,15.6, 8.9, 9.5, 4.9, 6.1, SURF_IDS='MARINITE','MARINITE','duct' /#6 injection duct 

&OBST XB=15.0,15.6, 8.9, 9.5, 4.6, 4.6 / deflector plate 

&VENT XB= 0.0, 0.6, 5.2, 7.0, 6.1, 6.1, SURF_ID='OPEN' / exhaust vent 

&SLCF PBY=6.1,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.05, 6.10,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector3 Ch11',DTSAM=5 / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.05, 6.10,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector3 Ch12' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.05, 6.10,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector3 Ch13' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.05, 6.10,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector3 Ch14' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.05, 6.10,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector3 Ch15' / 

&THCP XYZ= 9.15, 6.10,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector2 Ch6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 9.15, 6.10,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector2 Ch7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 9.15, 6.10,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector2 Ch8' / 

&THCP XYZ= 9.15, 6.10,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector2 Ch9' / 

&THCP XYZ= 9.15, 6.10,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector2 Ch10' / 

&THCP XYZ=15.25, 6.10,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector1 Ch1' / 

&THCP XYZ=15.25, 6.10,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector1 Ch2' / 

&THCP XYZ=15.25, 6.10,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector1 Ch3' / 

&THCP XYZ=15.25, 6.10,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector1 Ch4' / 

&THCP XYZ=15.25, 6.10,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector1 Ch5' / 

&THCP XYZ=15.25, 1.52,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station1 Ch16' / 

&THCP XYZ=15.25, 1.52,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station1 Ch41' / 

&THCP XYZ=15.25, 1.52,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station1 Ch42' / 

&THCP XYZ=15.25, 1.52,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station1 Ch43' / 

&THCP XYZ=15.25, 1.52,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station1 Ch44' / 

&THCP XYZ= 9.14, 1.52,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station2 Ch17' / 

&THCP XYZ= 9.14, 1.52,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station2 Ch45' / 

&THCP XYZ= 9.14, 1.52,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station2 Ch46' / 

&THCP XYZ= 9.14, 1.52,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station2 Ch47' / 

&THCP XYZ= 9.14, 1.52,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station2 Ch48' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.05, 1.52,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station3 Ch18' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.05, 1.52,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station3 Ch49' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.05, 1.52,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station3 Ch50' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.05, 1.52,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station3 Ch51' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.05, 1.52,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station3 Ch52' / 

&THCP XYZ=12.19, 3.05,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station4 Ch19' / 

&THCP XYZ=12.19, 3.05,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station4 Ch53' / 

&THCP XYZ=12.19, 3.05,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station4 Ch54' / 

&THCP XYZ=12.19, 3.05,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station4 Ch55' / 

&THCP XYZ=12.19, 3.05,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station4 Ch56' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.10, 3.05,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station5 Ch20' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.10, 3.05,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station5 Ch57' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.10, 3.05,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station5 Ch58' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.10, 3.05,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station5 Ch59' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.10, 3.05,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station5 Ch60' / 

&THCP XYZ=12.19, 9.14,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station6 Ch21' / 

&THCP XYZ=12.19, 9.14,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station6 Ch61' / 

&THCP XYZ=12.19, 9.14,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station6 Ch62' / 

&THCP XYZ=12.19, 9.14,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station6 Ch63' / 

&THCP XYZ=12.19, 9.14,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station6 Ch64' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.10, 9.14,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station7 Ch22' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.10, 9.14,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station7 Ch65' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.10, 9.14,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station7 Ch66' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.10, 9.14,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station7 Ch67' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.10, 9.14,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station7 Ch68' / 
FDS Input Files 

B-24 

&THCP XYZ=15.24,10.67,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station8 Ch23' / 

&THCP XYZ=15.24,10.67,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station8 Ch69' / 

&THCP XYZ=15.24,10.67,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station8 Ch70' / 

&THCP XYZ=15.24,10.67,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station8 Ch71' / 

&THCP XYZ=15.24,10.67,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station8 Ch72' / 

&THCP XYZ= 9.14,10.67,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station9 Ch24' / 

&THCP XYZ= 9.14,10.67,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station9 Ch73' / 

&THCP XYZ= 9.14,10.67,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station9 Ch74' / 

&THCP XYZ= 9.14,10.67,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station9 Ch75' / 

&THCP XYZ= 9.14,10.67,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station9 Ch76' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,10.67,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station10 Ch25' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,10.67,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station10 Ch77' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,10.67,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station10 Ch78' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,10.67,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station10 Ch79' / 

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,10.67,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station10 Ch80' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.76, 4.57,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station11 Ch26' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.52, 4.57,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station12 Ch27' / 

&THCP XYZ=12.19, 6.10,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station13 Ch28' / (Centerline Plume) 

&THCP XYZ= 6.10, 6.10,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station14 Ch29' / 

&THCP XYZ=16.76, 7.62,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station15 Ch30' / 

&THCP XYZ= 1.52, 7.62,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station16 Ch31' / 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

B-25

B.6 NBS Multi-Room Test Series 

&HEAD CHID='NBS_composite',TITLE='NBS Multiroom Tests' / 

&GRID IBAR=24,JBAR=34,KBAR=22 / 

&PDIM XBAR0= 9.8,XBAR=12.2,YBAR0=0.0,YBAR=3.4,ZBAR=2.2 / 

&GRID IBAR=122,JBAR=24,KBAR=24 / 

&PDIM XBAR0= 0.0,XBAR=12.2,YBAR0=3.4,YBAR=5.8,ZBAR=2.4 / 

cGRID IBAR=122,JBAR=24,KBAR=24 / 

cPDIM XBAR0= 2.4,XBAR= 4.6,YBAR0=0.0,YBAR=3.4,ZBAR=2.4 / 

&TIME TWFIN=1200. / 

&MISC TMPA=23.,NFRAMES=2400,SURF_DEFAULT='GYPSUM BOARD',REACTION='METHANE' / 

&SURF ID='burner',HRRPUA=1222.,RGB=1,0,0,RAMP_Q='burner_ramp' / 

&RAMP ID='burner_ramp',T= 0.,F=0. / 

&RAMP ID='burner_ramp',T= 1.,F=1. / 

&RAMP ID='burner_ramp',T=900.,F=1. / 

&RAMP ID='burner_ramp',T=901.,F=0. / 

&SURF ID = 'GYPSUM BOARD' 

 FYI = 'NBSIR 88-3752' 

 RGB = 0.80,0.80,0.70 

 KS = 0.17 

 C_P = 1.09 

 DENSITY= 930. 

 DELTA = 0.013 / 

&SURF ID = 'CALCIUM SILICATE' 

 FYI = 'NBSIR 88-3752' 

 RGB = 0.70,0.70,0.70 

 KS = 0.12 

 C_P = 1.25 

 DENSITY= 720. 

 EMISSIVITY = 0.83 

 DELTA = 0.013 / 

&SURF ID = 'CERAMIC FIBER' 

 FYI = 'NBSIR 88-3752' 

 RGB = 0.40,0.40,0.40 

 KS = 0.09 

 C_P = 1.04 

 DENSITY= 128. 

 EMISSIVITY = 0.97 

 DELTA = 0.050 / 

&SURF ID = 'FIRE BRICK' 

 FYI = 'NBSIR 88-3752' 

 RGB = 0.90,0.60,0.60 

 KS = 0.36 

 C_P = 1.04 

 DENSITY= 750. 

 EMISSIVITY = 0.80 

 DELTA = 0.113 / 

&SURF ID = 'CONCRETE' 

 FYI = 'NBSIR 88-3752' 

 RGB = 0.60,0.60,0.60 

 KS = 1.8 

 C_P = 1.04 

 DENSITY= 2280. 

 DELTA = 0.102 / 

&SURF ID = 'STEEL' 
FDS Input Files 

B-26 

 RGB = 0.20,0.20,0.20 

 C_DELTA_RHO = 20. 

 DELTA = 0.005 / 

&REAC ID='METHANE' 

 FYI='Methane, C H_4' 

 MW_FUEL=16 

 NU_O2=2. 

 NU_CO2=1. 

 NU_H2O=2. 

 DTSAM = 10. 

 RADIATIVE_FRACTION=0.20 

 SOOT_YIELD=0.005 / 

&OBST XB=10.9,11.2, 0.0, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5,SURF_IDS='burner','STEEL','STEEL' / Burner 

&OBST XB= 9.8,11.1, 2.3, 3.4, 0.0, 2.2,SURF_ID6='CERAMIC FIBER','CERAMIC FIBER','CERAMIC FIBER', 

 'GYPSUM BOARD','CERAMIC FIBER','CERAMIC FIBER' / Room 1 cut-out 

&OBST XB=11.1,11.2, 3.3, 3.4, 0.0, 2.2 / Door jamb (Room 1) 

&OBST XB=12.0,12.2, 3.3, 3.4, 0.0, 2.2 / Door jamb (Room 1) 

&OBST XB=11.2,12.0, 3.3, 3.4, 1.6, 2.2 / Door Sill (Room 1) 

&OBST XB= 3.2, 4.6, 2.2, 3.4, 0.0, 2.4 / Room 3 cut-out 

&OBST XB= 2.4, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 2.0, 2.4 / Door Sill (Room 3) 

&VENT XB= 0.0, 0.0, 4.2, 5.0, 0.0, 2.0,SURF_ID='OPEN' / Open Door at end of hallway 

&VENT XB= 9.8,12.2, 0.0, 3.4, 0.0, 0.0,SURF_ID='FIRE BRICK' / Floor of Room 1 

&VENT XB= 9.8,12.2, 0.0, 3.4, 2.2, 2.2,SURF_ID='CERAMIC FIBER' / Ceiling of Room 1 

&VENT XB= 9.8, 9.8, 0.0, 3.4, 0.0, 2.2,SURF_ID='CERAMIC FIBER' / Wall of Room 1 

&VENT XB=12.2,12.2, 0.0, 3.4, 0.0, 2.2,SURF_ID='CERAMIC FIBER' / Wall of Room 1 

&VENT XB= 9.8,12.2, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 2.2,SURF_ID='CERAMIC FIBER' / Wall of Room 1 

&VENT XB= 2.4, 4.6, 0.0, 3.4, 0.0, 0.0,SURF_ID='CONCRETE' / Floor of Room 3 

&BNDF QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEAT_FLUX' / 

&BNDF QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE' / 

&SLCF PBY= 4.6,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / Hallway (Room 2) 

&SLCF PBZ= 2.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / Ceiling 

&SLCF PBX=11.7,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / Room 1 

&SLCF PBX= 2.8,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / Room 3 

&THCP XYZ=10.0, 2.0, 0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 1-1',DTSAM=10. / 

&THCP XYZ=10.0, 2.0, 0.36,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 1-2' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.0, 2.0, 0.66,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 1-3' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.0, 2.0, 0.97,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 1-4' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.0, 2.0, 1.27,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 1-5' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.0, 2.0, 1.57,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 1-6' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.0, 2.0, 1.88,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 1-7' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.0, 2.0, 2.03,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 1-8' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.0, 2.0, 2.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 1-9' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.7, 2.3, 0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 2-1' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.7, 2.3, 0.30,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 2-2' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.7, 2.3, 0.61,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 2-3' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.7, 2.3, 0.91,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 2-4' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.7, 2.3, 1.22,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 2-5' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.7, 2.3, 1.52,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 2-6' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.8, 4.6, 0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-1' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.8, 4.6, 0.30,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-2' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.8, 4.6, 0.61,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-3' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.8, 4.6, 0.91,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-4' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.8, 4.6, 1.22,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-5' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.8, 4.6, 1.52,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-6' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.8, 4.6, 1.83,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-7' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.8, 4.6, 2.13,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-8' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.8, 4.6, 2.29,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-9' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.8, 4.6, 2.40,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TC 3-10',IOR=-3 / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.7, 4.6, 0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 4-1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.7, 4.6, 0.30,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 4-2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.7, 4.6, 0.61,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 4-3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.7, 4.6, 0.91,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 4-4' / 
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study 

B-27

&THCP XYZ= 6.7, 4.6, 1.22,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 4-5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.7, 4.6, 1.52,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 4-6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.7, 4.6, 1.83,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 4-7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.7, 4.6, 2.13,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 4-8' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.7, 4.6, 2.29,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 4-9' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.7, 4.6, 2.40,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TC 4-10',IOR=-3 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.5, 5.5, 0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.5, 5.5, 0.30,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.5, 5.5, 0.61,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.5, 5.5, 0.91,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.5, 5.5, 1.22,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.5, 5.5, 1.52,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.5, 5.5, 1.83,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.5, 5.5, 2.13,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-8' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.5, 5.5, 2.29,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-9' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.5, 5.5, 2.40,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TC 5-10',IOR=-3 / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.1, 4.6, 0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 6-1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.1, 4.6, 0.30,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 6-2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.1, 4.6, 0.61,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 6-3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.1, 4.6, 0.91,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 6-4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.1, 4.6, 1.22,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 6-5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.1, 4.6, 1.52,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 6-6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.1, 4.6, 1.83,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 6-7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.1, 4.6, 2.13,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 6-8' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.8, 2.8, 0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 7-1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.8, 2.8, 0.61,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 7-2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.8, 2.8, 0.91,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 7-3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.8, 2.8, 1.07,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 7-4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.8, 2.8, 1.22,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 7-5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.8, 2.8, 1.52,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 7-6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.8, 2.8, 1.83,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 7-7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.8, 2.8, 1.93,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 7-8' / 

&THCP XYZ= 4.4, 2.0, 0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-1' / 

&THCP XYZ= 4.4, 2.0, 0.61,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-2' / 

&THCP XYZ= 4.4, 2.0, 0.91,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 4.4, 2.0, 1.07,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 4.4, 2.0, 1.22,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 4.4, 2.0, 1.52,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 4.4, 2.0, 1.83,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 4.4, 2.0, 2.13,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-8' / 

&THCP XYZ= 4.4, 2.0, 2.29,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-9' / 

&THCP XYZ= 4.4, 2.0, 2.40,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TC 8-10',IOR=-3 / 

&THCP XYZ=10.0, 2.0, 0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height 1' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.0, 2.0, 0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Layer Temp 1' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.7, 2.3, 0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height 2' / 

&THCP XYZ=11.7, 2.3, 0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Layer Temp 2' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.8, 4.6, 0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height 3' / 

&THCP XYZ=10.8, 4.6, 0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Layer Temp 3' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.7, 4.6, 0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height 4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 6.7, 4.6, 0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Layer Temp 4' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.5, 5.5, 0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height 5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.5, 5.5, 0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Layer Temp 5' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.1, 4.6, 0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height 6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 0.1, 4.6, 0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Layer Temp 6' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.8, 2.8, 0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height 7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 2.8, 2.8, 0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Layer Temp 7' / 

&THCP XYZ= 4.4, 2.0, 0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height 8' / 

&THCP XYZ= 4.4, 2.0, 0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Layer Temp 8' /