Verification and Validation 

of Selected Fire Models for 

Nuclear Power Plant 

Applications 

Volume 4: 

Consolidated Fire Growth and Smoke 

Transport Model (CFAST) 

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 4: Consolidated Fire Growth and Smoke 

Transport model (CFAST) 

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, K. McGrattan 

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

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

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

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

Volume 4: Consolidated Fire and Smoke Transport Model (CFAST), 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......................................................................................................2-1

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

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

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

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

3 THEORETICAL BASIS FOR CFAST.....................................................................................3-1

3.1 The Two-Layer Model .....................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Limitations of the Zone Model Assumptions....................................................................3-2

3.3 Description of Sub-Models and Correlations...................................................................3-3

3.3.1 The Fire ...................................................................................................................3-3

3.3.2 Plumes.....................................................................................................................3-3

3.3.3 Ceiling Jet................................................................................................................3-3

3.3.4 Vent Flow.................................................................................................................3-4

3.3.5 Heat Transfer...........................................................................................................3-4

3.3.6 Targets ....................................................................................................................3-5

3.3.7 Heat Detectors.........................................................................................................3-5

3.3.8 Fire Suppression via Sprinklers...............................................................................3-5

3.3.9 Species Concentration and Deposition ...................................................................3-6

3.4 Review of the Theoretical Development of the Model.....................................................3-6

3.4.1 Assessment of the Completeness of Documentation..............................................3-6

3.4.2 Assessment of Justification of Approaches and Assumptions ................................3-7
x 

3.4.3 Assessment of Constants and Default Values ........................................................3-7

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

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

4.2 Comparison with Analytic Solutions ................................................................................4-1

4.3 Code Checking................................................................................................................4-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.4 Flame Height...................................................................................................................6-7

6.5 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration....................................................................6-7

6.6 Smoke Concentration......................................................................................................6-9

6.7 Compartment Pressure .................................................................................................6-10

6.8 Radiation and Total Heat Flux to Targets and Target Temperature..............................6-12

6.9 Surface Heat Flux and Temperature.............................................................................6-15

6.10 Summary.....................................................................................................................6-18

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................7-3

A TECHNICAL DETAILS OF CFAST VALIDATION STUDY .................................................. A-1

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

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

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

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

FM/SNL Test Series ...................................................................................................... A-15

NBS Multi-Room Test Series......................................................................................... A-17

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

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

A.4 Flame Height ............................................................................................................... A-23

ICFMP BE #2................................................................................................................. A-23
xi 

ICFMP BE #3................................................................................................................. A-25

A.5 Oxygen Concentration ................................................................................................. A-26

A.6 Smoke Concentration .................................................................................................. A-29

A.7 Compartment Pressure................................................................................................ A-33

A.8 Target Temperature and Heat Flux.............................................................................. A-37

ICFMP BE # 3................................................................................................................ A-37

ICFMP BE # 4................................................................................................................ A-66

ICFMP BE # 5................................................................................................................ A-68

A.9 Heat Flux and Surface Temperature of Compartment Walls....................................... A-72

ICFMP BE #3................................................................................................................. A-72

A.10 References................................................................................................................. A-92

B CFAST INPUT FILES ........................................................................................................... B-1

B.1 CFMP Benchmark Exercise #2...................................................................................... B-2

B.2 CFMP Benchmark Exercise #3...................................................................................... B-5

B.3 ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #4................................................................................... B-35

B.4 ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #5................................................................................... B-37

B.5 FM / SNL Test Series................................................................................................... B-39

B.6 NBS Test Series .......................................................................................................... B-42

xiii 

FIGURES 

Figure 6-1. Relative Differences for Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height ................6-4

Figure 6-2. Relative Differences for Oxygen Concentration and Carbon Dioxide 

Concentration.....................................................................................................................6-8

Figure 6-3. Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration........................................................6-9

Figure 6-4. Relative Differences for Compartment Pressure ...................................................6-11

Figure 6-5. Relative Differences for Radiation to Targets........................................................6-12

Figure 6-6. Relative Differences for Total Heat Flux to Targets...............................................6-13

Figure 6-7. Relative Differences for Target Temperature ........................................................6-14

Figure 6-8. Relative Differences for Surface Heat Flux ...........................................................6-16

Figure 6-9. Relative Differences for Surface Temperature ......................................................6-17

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-13

Figure A-11. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4. ............ A-14

Figure A-12. Snapshot from simulation of FM/SNL Test 5. ................................................... A-15

Figure A-13. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, FM/SNL Series....................... A-16

Figure A-14. Snapshot from simulation of NBS Multi-Room Test 100Z................................. A-17

Figure A-15. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test 100A..... A-18

Figure A-16. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test 100O. ... A-19

Figure A-17. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z..... A-20

Figure A-18. Photographs of heptane pan fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2. Courtesy, Simo 

Hostikka, VTT Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland................................................... A-24
xiv 

Figure A-19. 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-25

Figure A-20. O2 and CO2 concentration, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests............................. A-27

Figure A-21. 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-28

Figure A-22. Smoke Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. .................................. A-31

Figure A-23. Smoke concentration, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests....................................... A-32

Figure A-24. Compartment pressure, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. ................................ A-34

Figure A-25. Compartment pressure, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests.................................... A-35

Figure A-26. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7. .................. A-38

Figure A-27. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8. .................. A-39

Figure A-28. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10. ................ A-40

Figure A-29. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16. .............. A-41

Figure A-30. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9. .................. A-42

Figure A-31. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14. Note 

the influence of the fan in Test 5. .................................................................................... A-43

Figure A-32. 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-44

Figure A-33. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7. .......... A-45

Figure A-34. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8. .......... A-46

Figure A-35. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10. ........ A-47

Figure A-36. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16. ...... A-48

Figure A-37. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9. .......... A-49

Figure A-38. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14. ........ A-50

Figure A-39. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18. ...... A-51

Figure A-40. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7......... A-52

Figure A-41. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8......... A-53

Figure A-42. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10....... A-54

Figure A-43. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16..... A-55

Figure A-44. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9......... A-56

Figure A-45. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14....... A-57

Figure A-46. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18..... A-58

Figure A-47. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 

and 7. .............................................................................................................................. A-59

Figure A-48. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 

and 8. .............................................................................................................................. A-60

Figure A-49. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 

and 10. ............................................................................................................................ A-61

Figure A-50. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 

and 16. ............................................................................................................................ A-62
xv 

Figure A-51. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 

and 9. .............................................................................................................................. A-63

Figure A-52. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 

and 14. ............................................................................................................................ A-64

Figure A-53. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 

and 18. ............................................................................................................................ A-65

Figure A-54. Location of 3 slab targets in ICFMP BE #4. ...................................................... A-66

Figure A-55. Heat Flux and Surface Temperatures of Target Slabs, ICFMP BE #4, Test 

1. ..................................................................................................................................... A-67

Figure A-56. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4.............. A-69

Figure A-57. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-73

Figure A-58. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-74

Figure A-59. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-75

Figure A-60. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-76

Figure A-61. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-77

Figure A-62. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-78

Figure A-63. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-79

Figure A-64. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-80

Figure A-65. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. ... A-81

Figure A-66. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. ... A-82

Figure A-67. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests....... A-83

Figure A-68. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests....... A-84

Figure A-69. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. ...... A-85

Figure A-70. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. ...... A-86

Figure A-71. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests.......... A-87

Figure A-72. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests.......... A-88

xvii 

TABLES 

Table A-1. Relative Differences for Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height .............. A-21

Table A-2. Relative Differences for Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration ................... A-29

Table A-3. Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration ..................................................... A-33

Table A-4. Relative Differences for Compartment Pressure................................................... A-36

Table A-5. Relative Differences for Radiation and Total Heat Flux to Targets and Target 

Temperature.................................................................................................................... A-70

Table A-6. Relative Differences for Surface Heat Flux and Temperature............................... A-89

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 Part50; 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 tools increases in support of day-to-day nuclear power plant (NPP) 

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

studies for these tools also increases. V&V studies provide the fire modeling analysts increased 

confidence in applying analytical tools by quantifying and discussing the performance of the 

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

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

V&V study. 

The main objective of this volume is to document a V&V study for the Consolidated Fire 

Growth and Smoke Transport (CFAST) zone model. As such, this report describes the equations 

that constitute the model, the physical bases for those equations, and an evaluation of the 

sensitivity and predictive capability of the model. 

CFAST is a two-zone fire model capable of predicting the fire-induced environmental conditions 

as a function of time for single- or multi-compartment scenarios. Toward that end, the CFAST 

software calculates the temperature and evolving distribution of smoke and fire gases throughout 

a building during a user-prescribed fire. The model was developed, and is maintained, by the 

Fire Research Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which 

officially released the latest version of the CFAST model in 2004. 

CFAST is a zone model, in that it subdivides each compartment into two zones, or control volumes, 

in order to numerically solve differential equations, and the two volumes are assumed to be 

homogeneous within each zone. This two-zone approach has evolved from observations of 

layering in actual fires and real-scale fire experiments. The approximate solution of the mass 

and energy balances of each zone, together with the ideal gas law and the equation of heat 

conduction into the walls, attempts to simulate the environmental conditions generated by a fire. 

To accompany the model and simplify its use, NIST has developed a Technical Reference Guide 

[Ref. 1] that provides a detailed description of the models and numerical solutions in CFAST. That 

guide also documents a V&V study for the broad applications of CFAST (without specific reference to 

NPPs). That study was conducted at the request of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC), in accordance with ASTM E 1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive 

Capability of Deterministic Fire Models [Ref. 2], issued by the American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM). As such, this report extensively references both NIST’s Technical Reference 

Guide and ASTM E 1355. 
Introduction 

1-2 

Consistent with NIST’s Technical Reference Guide and ASTM E1355, this report is structured 

as follows: 

• Chapter 2 provides qualitative background information about CFAST and the V&V process. 

• Chapter 3 presents a brief technical description of CFAST, including a review of the 

underlying physics and chemistry. 

• Chapter 4 documents the mathematical and numerical robustness of CFAST, which involves 

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

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

and varied selected input parameters in order to explore CFAST capabilities for modeling 

typical characteristics of NPP fire scenarios. 

• Chapter 6 presents the results of the validation study in the form of percent differences 

between CFAST simulations and experimental data for relevant attributes of enclosure fires 

in NPPs. 

• Appendix A presents the technical details supporting the calculated accuracies discussed 

in Chapter 6. 

• Appendix B presents all of the CFAST input files for the simulations in this V&V study. 
2-1 

2 

MODEL DEFINITION 

This chapter provides qualitative background information about CFAST and the V&V process, 

as required by ASTM E1355 [Ref. 2]. The definitive description of the CFAST model, including 

its developers, equations, assumptions, inputs, and outputs can be found in NIST’s Technical 

Reference Guide [Ref. 1], which also follows the guidelines for ASTM E1355. 

2.1 Name and Version of the Model 

This V&V study focused on version 6.0.5 of the Consolidated Fire Growth and Smoke Transport 

(CFAST) Model. Most of the code is written in FORTRAN 90. Chapter 2 of NIST’s Technical 

Reference Guide [Ref. 1] provides a more detailed description of the evolution of CFAST. 

2.2 Type of Model

The CFAST zone model is an example of the “finite element” class of fire models. This two-zone 

fire model is capable of predicting the fire-induced environmental conditions as a function of time 

for single- or multi-compartment scenarios. Toward that end, CFAST subdivides each compartment 

into two zones (or volumes) in order to numerically solve differential equations, and the two volumes 

are assumed to be homogeneous within each zone. The approximate solution of the mass and energy 

balances of each zone, together with the ideal gas law and the equation of heat conduction 

into the walls, attempts to simulate the environmental conditions generated by a fire.

2.3 Model Developers 

The CFAST model was developed, and is maintained, by the Fire Research Division of NIST. 

The developers included Walter Jones, Richard Peacock, Glenn Forney, Rebecca Portier, 

Paul Reneke, John Hoover, and John Klote. 

2.4 Relevant Publications 

Relevant publications concerning the CFAST model include NIST’s Technical Reference Guide 

[Ref. 1] and User’s Guide [Ref. 3]. The Technical Reference Guide describes the underlying 

physical principles, provides a comparison with experimental data, and describes the limitations 

of the model. The User’s Guide describes how to use the model. In addition, numerous related 

documents available at http://cfast.nist.gov provide a wealth of information concerning Versions 

2, 3, 4 and 5 of both the model and its user interface. 
Model Definition 

2-2 

2.5 Governing Equations and Assumptions 

Section 2.1.5 and Chapter 3 of NIST’s Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1] fully describe 

the equations and assumptions associated with the CFAST model. The general equations solved 

by the CFAST model include conservation of mass and energy. The model does not explicitly solve 

the momentum equation, except for use of the Bernoulli equation for the flow velocity at vents. 

These equations are solved as ordinary differential equations. 

The CFAST model is implemented based on two general assumptions: (1) two zones per 

compartment provide a reasonable approximation of the scenario being evaluated, and (2) the 

complete momentum equation is not needed to solve the set of equations associated with the 

model. Consequently, the two zones have homogeneous properties. That is, the temperature and 

gas concentrations are assumed to be constant throughout the zone; the properties only change as 

a function of time. 

2.6 Input Data Required to Run the Model 

All of the data required to run the CFAST model reside in a primary data file, which the user creates. 

Some instances may require databases of information on objects, thermophysical properties 

of boundaries, and sample prescribed fire descriptions. In general, the data files contain 

the following information: 

• compartment dimensions (height, width, length) 

• construction materials of the compartment (e.g., concrete, gypsum) 

• material properties (e.g., thermal conductivity, specific heat, density, thickness, heat of combustion) 

• dimensions and positions of horizontal and vertical flow openings such as doors, windows, 

and vents 

• mechanical ventilation specifications 

• fire properties (e.g., heat release rate, lower oxygen limit, and species production rates as a 

function of time) 

• sprinkler and detector specifications 

• positions, sizes, and characteristics of targets

NIST’s User’s Guide [Ref. 3] provides a complete description of the required input parameters.

2.7 Property Data 

A number of material properties are needed as inputs for CFAST, related either to compartment 

bounding surfaces, objects (called targets) placed in compartments for calculation of object 

surface temperature and heat flux to the objects, or fire sources. For compartment surfaces and 

targets, CFAST needs the density, thermal conductivity, specific heat, and emissivity. 
Model Definition 

2-3 

For fire sources, CFAST needs to know the pyrolysis rate of fuel, the heat of combustion, 

stochiometric fuel-oxygen ratio, yields of important combustion products in a simplified 

combustion reaction (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, soot, and others), and the fraction of 

energy released in the form of thermal radiation. 

These properties are commonly available in fire protection engineering and materials handbooks. 

Experimentally determined property data may also be available for certain scenarios. However, 

depending on the application, properties for specific materials may not be readily available. A small 

file distributed with the CFAST 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. 

2.8 Model Results 

Once the simulation run is complete, the CFAST model produces an output file containing 

all of the solution variables. Typical outputs include (but are not limited to) the following: 

• environmental conditions in the room (such as hot gas layer temperature; oxygen and smoke 

concentration; and ceiling, wall, and floor temperatures) 

• heat transfer-related outputs to walls and targets (such as incident convective, radiated, and 

total heat fluxes) 

• fire intensity and flame height 

• flow velocities through vents and openings 

• sprinkler activation time 

3-1 

3 

THEORETICAL BASIS FOR CFAST 

This chapter presents a technical description of the CFAST model, including theoretical 

background and the underlying physics and chemistry inherent in the model. The description 

includes assumptions and approximations, an assessment of whether the open literature provides 

sufficient scientific evidence to justify the approaches and assumptions used, and an assessment 

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

In so doing, this chapter addresses the ASTM E1355 requirement to “verify the appropriateness 

of the theoretical basis and assumptions used in the model.” 

Chapter 3 of NIST’s Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1] presents a comprehensive discussion 

concerning the theoretical basis for CFAST, including the theory underlying the implementation 

of the model. In so doing, it enables the user to assess the appropriateness of the model for 

specific problems. In addition, Chapter 3 of Ref 1 derives the predictive equations for zone fire 

models and presents a detailed explanation of those used in the CFAST model [Refs. 4 and 5]. 

3.1 The Two-Layer Model 

CFAST is a classic two-zone fire model. For a given fire scenario, the model subdivides a compartment 

into two control volumes, which include a relatively hot upper layer and a relatively cool lower layer. 

In addition, CFAST adds a zone for the fire plume. The lower layer is primarily fresh air. By contrast, 

the hot upper layer (which is also known as the hot gas layer) is where combustion products 

accumulate via the plume. Each layer has its own energy and mass balances. 

The most important assumption for the model is that each zone has homogeneous properties. 

That is, the temperature and gas concentrations are assumed to be constant throughout the zone; 

the properties only change as a function of time. The CFAST model describes the conditions in 

each zone by solving equations for conservation of mass, species, and energy, along with the 

ideal gas law. NIST’s Technical Reference Guide for CFAST [Ref. 1] provides a detailed 

discussion concerning the specific derivation of these conservation laws. 
Theoretical Basis for CFAST 

3-2 

CFAST also includes the following correlations (as sub-models), based on experimental data that 

are used to calculate various physical processes during a fire scenario: 

• combustion and flame spread 

• smoke production 

• fire plume 

• heat transfer by radiation, convection, and conduction 

• natural flows through openings (vertical and horizontal) 

• forced or natural ventilation 

• thermal behavior of targets 

• heat detectors 

• water spray from sprinklers 

3.2 Limitations of the Zone Model Assumptions 

The basic assumption of all zone fire models is that each compartment can be divided into a 

small number of control volumes, each of which is uniform in temperature and composition. 

In CFAST, all compartments have two zones, with the exception that the fire room has an 

additional zone for the plume. Since a real-world upper/lower interface is not as sharply defined 

as the one modeled by CFAST, the model has a spatial error of about 10 percent in determining 

the height of the hot gas layer [Refs. 6 and 11]. 

The zone model concept best applies for an enclosure (compartment) in which the horizontal dimensions 

(width and length) are similar. If the horizontal dimensions of the compartment differ too much 

(i.e., the compartment looks like a corridor), the flow pattern in the room may become 

asymmetrical. If the enclosure is too shallow, the temperature may have significant radial differences. 

In addition, at some height, the width of the plume may become equal to the width of the room, 

and the model assumptions may fail in a tall and narrow enclosure. Therefore, users should recognize 

approximate limits on the ratio of the length (L), width (W), and height (H) of the compartment. 

If the aspect ratio (the maximum of length/width or width/length) is greater than about 5, the corridor 

flow algorithm should be used to provide the appropriate filling time. By contrast, a single zone 

approximation is more appropriate for tall shafts (elevators and stairways). In addition, the 

researchers experimentally determined that the mixing between a plume and lower layer (as a 

result of the interaction with the walls of the shaft) caused complete mixing. This is the inverse 

of the corridor problem, and occurs at an aspect ratio (the maximum of height/width or 

height/length) of about 5. A recommended rule is as follows: If the width to length aspect ratio 

(the maximum of length/width or width/length) is greater than 5, use of the corridor flow 

algorithm is appropriate. If the width to length aspect ratio is greater than 3 but less than 5, the 

corridor flow algorithm may or may not be appropriate; consider the results from a simulation 

with and without the algorithm to assess its appropriateness. If the room is not a corridor and the 

height aspect ratio (the maximum height/width or height/length) is greater than 5, the single zone 

approximation is appropriate. 
Theoretical Basis for CFAST 

3-3 

3.3 Description of Sub-Models and Correlations 

This section discusses each of the sub-models incorporated in CFAST. In general, Sections 3.3.1 

through 3.3.11 are organized in a manner similar to the structure of the model itself. 

3.3.1 The Fire 

CFAST simulates a fire as a mass of fuel that burns at a prescribed “pyrolysis” rate and releases 

both energy and combustion products. The model also has the capability to simulate both 

unconstrained and constrained fires. For an unconstrained fire, CFAST simulates a fire that 

simply releases mass and energy at the pyrolysis rate prescribed by the user; the model neither 

calculates nor tracks the products of combustion. By contrast, for a constrained fire, CFAST 

calculates species production based on user-defined production yields, and both the pyrolysis rate 

and the resulting energy and species generation may be limited by the oxygen available for combustion. 

When sufficient oxygen is available for combustion, the heat release rate (HRR) for a 

constrained fire is the same as for an unconstrained fire. 

CFAST also has the capability to simulate multiple fires in multiple compartments. In such instances, 

CFAST treats each individual fire as a totally separate entity, with no interaction with other plumes. 

The user must define fire growth since CFAST does not include a pyrolysis model to predict fire 

growth. While this approach does not directly account for increased pyrolysis attributable to 

radiative feedback from the flame or compartment, the user could prescribe such effects. 

3.3.2 Plumes 

CFAST models the flame and plume regions around a fuel source using McCaffrey’s correlation, 

which divides the flame/plume into three regions [Ref. 7]. McCaffrey estimated temperature, 

velocity, and the mass entrained by the fire/plume from the lower layer into the upper layer. 

McCaffrey’s correlation is an extension of the common point source plume model, with a 

different set of coefficients for each region. These coefficients are experimental correlations. 

However, the model does not output plume temperatures. For a detailed description of 

constraints CFAST puts on air entrained into the plume, please refer to NIST’s Technical 

Reference Guide [Ref. 1]. 

3.3.3 Ceiling Jet 

CFAST uses Cooper’s correlation [Ref. 10] to simulate the ceiling jet flows and convective heat 

transfer from fire plume gases to the overhead ceiling surface in the room of fire origin. In so 

doing, the model accounts for the effect on heat transfer as a result of the fire’s location within the 

room. However, the current version of the model does not output ceiling jet temperatures. 

Complete details are available in Ref. 10. 
Theoretical Basis for CFAST 

3-4 

3.3.4 Vent Flow 

CFAST models both horizontal flow through vertical vents (doors, windows, wall vents, etc.) and 

vertical flow through horizontal vents (ceiling holes, hatches, roof vents, etc.). Horizontal flow is 

normally thought of when discussing fires. 

Horizontal vent flow through vertical vents is determined using the pressure difference across a vent. 

Flow at a given elevation may be computed using Bernoulli’s law by computing the pressure 

difference at that elevation and then the pressure on each side of the vent. This solution is 

augmented for restricted openings by using flow coefficients from Quintiere et al. [Ref. 11] 

to allow for constriction from finite door sizes. The flow (or orifice) coefficient is an empirical term, 

which addresses the problem of constriction of velocity streamlines at an orifice. 

Cooper’s algorithm [Ref. 12] is used for computing vertical mass flow through horizontal vents. 

The algorithm is based on correlations to model the two components of the flow, including a net 

flow dictated by a pressure difference, and the exchange flow based on the relative densities of the 

gases. 

There is a special case of horizontal flow in long corridors. Specifically, CFAST incorporates 

a corridor flow algorithm to calculate the ceiling jet temperature and depth as a function of time 

until it reaches the end of the corridor. A computational fluid dynamics model was used to develop 

the correlations that CFAST uses to compute flows between corridors and compartments. A more 

detailed description of this work is found in NIST’s Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1].

The model for mechanical ventilation used in CFAST is based on the model developed by Klote 

[Ref. 13]. This is a simplified form of Kirchoff’s law, which states that flow into a node must be 

balanced by flow out of the node. NIST’s Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1] describes 

the modeling of ducts and fans in CFAST.

3.3.5 Heat Transfer 

This section discusses radiation, convection, and conduction — the three mechanisms by which 

heat is transferred between the gas layers and objects and enclosing compartment walls. NIST’s 

Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1] provides a more complete description of the algorithms used 

in CFAST. 

3.3.5.1 Radiation 

Radiative transfer occurs among the fire(s), gas layers, and compartment surfaces (ceiling, walls, 

and floor). This transfer is a function of the temperature differences and emissivity of the gas layers, 

as well as the compartment surfaces. The radiation model in CFAST assumes that (1) all zones 

and surfaces radiate and absorb like a gray body, (2) the fires radiate as point sources, and 

(3) the plume does not radiate at all. Radiative heat transfer is approximated using a limited number 

of radiating wall surfaces (four in the fire room and two everywhere else). The use of these 
Theoretical Basis for CFAST 

3-5 

and other approximations allows CFAST to perform the radiation computation in a reasonably 

efficient manner [Ref. 14]. 

3.3.5.2 Convection 

The typical correlations that CFAST uses for convective heat transfer are available in the literature. 

Specifically, Atreya summarizes convective heat flux calculation methods in the SFPE handbook

[Ref. 19]. 

3.3.5.3 Conduction 

CFAST uses a finite difference scheme from Moss and Forney [Ref. 20], which utilizes a non-uniform 

spatial mesh to advance the wall temperature solution. The heat equation is discretized using a 

second order central difference for the spatial derivative and a backward difference for the time 

derivative. This process is repeated until the heat flux striking the wall (calculated from the convection 

and radiation algorithms) is consistent with the flux conducted into the wall (calculated using 

Fourier’s law). Heat transfer between compartments can be modeled by merging the connected 

surfaces for the ceiling and floor compartments or for the connected horizontal compartments. 

3.3.6 Targets 

The calculation of the radiative heat flux to a target is similar to the radiative heat transfer calculation 

discussed in Section 3.3.6.1. The main difference is that CFAST does not compute feedback 

from the target to the wall surfaces or gas layers. The target is simply a probe or sensor that does not 

interact with the modeled environment. The net flux striking a target can be used as a boundary 

condition in order to compute the temperature of the target. The four modeled components 

of heat flux to a target are fires, walls (including the ceiling and floor), gas layer radiation, 

and gas layer convection. 

3.3.7 Heat Detectors 

CFAST models heat detector (including sprinkler head) activation using Heskestad’s method 

[Ref. 21] with temperatures obtained from the ceiling jet calculation [Ref. 10]. Rooms without fires 

do not have ceiling jets; therefore, detectors in such rooms use gas layer temperatures instead of 

ceiling jet temperatures. 

3.3.8 Fire Suppression via Sprinklers 

For sprinkler suppression, CFAST uses the simple model by Madrzykowski and Vettori [Ref. 22], 

which is generalized for varying sprinkler spray densities according to Evans [Ref. 23]. 

The suppression correlation was developed by modifying the heat release rate of a fire. NIST’s 

Technical Reference Manual [Ref. 1] outlines the assumptions and limitations of this approach. 
Theoretical Basis for CFAST 

3-6 

3.3.9 Species Concentration and Deposition 

CFAST uses a combustion chemistry scheme based on a carbon-hydrogen-oxygen balance 

applied in three locations. The first is in the fire and plume in the lower layer of the 

compartment, the second is in the upper layer, and the third is in the vent flow between adjacent 

compartments. This scheme basically solves the conservation equations for each species 

independently. 

CFAST tracks the masses of an individual species as they are generated, transported, or mixed. 

As fuel is combusted, the user-prescribed species yield defines the mass of the species to be tracked. 

Each unit mass of a species produced is carried in the flow to the various rooms and accumulates 

in the layers. The model keeps track of the mass of each species in each layer, and records the volume 

of each layer as a function of time. The mass divided by the volume is the mass concentration, 

which along with the molecular weight provides the concentration in volume % or parts per 

million (ppm) as appropriate. 

CFAST contains a special additional algorithm for hydrogen chloride, which allows for 

deposition on and absorption by material surfaces. 

3.4 Review of the Theoretical Development of the Model 

The current version of ASTM E 1355 includes provisions to guide assessment of the model’s 

theoretical basis. Those provisions include 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. Publication of the theoretical basis of the model in a peer-reviewed 

journal article may be sufficient to fulfill this review” [Ref. 2]. NIST’s Technical Reference Guide 

for CFAST [Ref. 1] addresses the necessary elements of a review of the model’s technical bases. 

CFAST has been subjected to independent review both internally (at NIST) and externally. 

NIST documents and products receive extensive reviews by NIST experts not associated with 

development. The same reviews have been conducted on all previous versions of the model 

and Technical Reference Guide over the last decade. Externally, the model’s theoretical basis 

has been published in peer reviewed journals [Refs. 25, 26, and 27], and conference proceedings 

[Ref. 28]. In addition, CFAST is used worldwide by fire protection engineering firms that review 

the technical details of the model related to their particular application. Some of these firms 

also publish (in the open literature) reports documenting internal efforts to validate the model 

for a particular use. Finally, CFAST has been reviewed and included in industry-standard handbooks 

such as the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) Handbook [Ref. 29], and referenced in 

specific standards including NFPA 805 [Ref. 30] and NFPA 551 [Ref. 31]. 

3.4.1 Assessment of the Completeness of Documentation 

The two primary documents on CFAST are NIST’s Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1] and 

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

assumptions, and approximations of the various sub models, and it includes a summary description 

of the model structure and numerics. In addition, the Technical Reference Guide documents 
Theoretical Basis for CFAST 

3-7 

a V&V study for the broad applications of CFAST (without specific reference to NPPs). That study was 

conducted at the request of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in accordance with 

ASTM E1355 [Ref. 2]. The Model User’s Guide includes a description of the model input data 

requirements and model results. 

3.4.2 Assessment of Justification of Approaches and Assumptions 

The technical approach and assumptions associated with the CFAST model have been presented 

in peer reviewed scientific literature and at technical conferences. Also, all documents released 

by NIST are required to undergo an internal editorial review and approval process. In addition to 

formal internal and peer review, CFAST is subjected to ongoing scrutiny since it is available to 

the general public and is used internationally by those involved in technical areas such as fire 

safety design and post-fire reconstruction. The source code for CFAST is also released publicly, 

and has been used at various universities worldwide, both in the classroom (as a teaching tool) 

and for research. As a result, flaws in the model’s theoretical development and the computer 

program itself have been identified and rectified. The user base continues to serve as a means to 

evaluate the model, and this is as important to development of CFAST as formal internal and 

external peer review processes. 

3.4.3 Assessment of Constants and Default Values 

No single document provides a comprehensive assessment of the numerical parameters (such as 

default time step or solution convergence criteria) and physical parameters (such as empirical constants 

for convective heat transfer or plume entrainment) used in CFAST. Instead, specific parameters 

have been tested in various V&V studies performed at NIST and elsewhere. Numerical parameters 

are extracted from the literature and do not undergo a formal review. Model users are expected 

to assess the appropriateness of default values provided by CFAST and make changes to those 

values if needed.

4-1 

4 

MATHEMATICAL AND NUMERICAL ROBUSTNESS 

4.1 Introduction 

This chapter documents the mathematical and numerical robustness of CFAST, which involves 

verifying that the implementation of the model matches the stated documentation. Specifically, 

ASTM E1355 requires the following analyses to address the mathematical and numerical 

robustness of models: 

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

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

relatively few situations for which analytical solutions are known. 

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

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

and inconsistencies within the computer code. 

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

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

(as an indicator of numerical convergence). 

 4.2 Comparison with Analytic Solutions 

General analytic solutions do not exist for fire dynamics problems, even for the simplest cases. 

That is, there are no closed form solutions to this type of problem. However, two types of 

verification are possible. The first type, discussed in Section 3, “Theoretical Basis,” involves 

validating individual algorithms against experimental work. The second involves simple 

experiments, especially for conduction and radiation, for which the results are asymptotic, e.g., 

for a simple single-compartment test case with no fire, all temperatures should equilibrate 

asymptotically to a single value. Such comparisons are common and not usually published. 

4.3 Code Checking 

Two standard programs have been used to check the CFAST model structure and language. 

Specifically, FLINT and LINT have been applied to the entire model to verify correctness of the 

interface, undefined or incorrectly defined (or used) variables and constants, and completeness of 

loops and threads. 

The CFAST code has also been checked by compiling and running the model on a variety 

of computer platforms. Since FORTRAN and C are implemented differently for various computers, 
Mathematical and Numerical Robustness 

4-2 

this represents both a numerical check as well as a syntactic check. CFAST has been compiled 

for Sun (Solaris), SGI (Irix), Microsoft® Windows®-based PCs (Lahey, Digital, and Intel FORTRAN), 

and Concurrent computer platforms. Within the precision afforded by the various hardware 

implementations, the answers are identical.1

NIST’s Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1] contains a detailed description of the CFAST 

subroutine structure and interactions between the subroutines. 

This V&V project began using version 6.0.3 of CFAST. As part of the V&V process, several 

minor bugs have been corrected in this version. These include fixes to the graphical users 

interface to improve object plotting, the target flux calculation, and error checking for elements 

located outside a compartment. The updated version of CFAST used in this study is 6.0.5 and 

included these fixes. 

4.4 Numerical Tests 

Two components of the numerical solutions of CFAST must be verified. The first is the DAE solver 

(called DASSL), which has been tested for a variety of differential equations and is widely used 

and accepted [Ref. 32]. The radiation and conduction routines have also been tested against 

known solutions for asymptotic results. 

The second component is the coupling between algorithms and the general solver. The structure 

of CFAST provides close coupling that avoids most errors. The error attributable to numerical 

solution is far less than that associated with the model assumptions. Also, CFAST is designed 

to use 64-bit precision for real number calculations to minimize the effects of numerical error.

 1 Typically, an error limit of one part in 106

.
5-1 

5 

MODEL SENSITIVITY 

This chapter discusses sensitivity analysis, which ASTM E1355 defines as a study of how 

changes in model parameters affect the results. In other words, sensitivity refers to the rate of 

change of the model output with respect to input variations. The standard also indicates that model 

predictions may be sensitive to (1) uncertainties in input data, (2) the level of rigor employed in 

modeling the relevant physics and chemistry, and (3) the accuracy of numerical treatments. Thus, 

the purpose of a sensitivity analysis is to assess the extent to which uncertainty in the model 

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

Conducting a sensitivity analysis of a complex model is not a simple task. A sensitivity analysis 

involves defining a base case scenario, and varying selected input parameters. The resultant variations 

in the model output are then measured with respect to the base case scenario, in order to consider 

the extent to which uncertainty in model inputs influences model output. Therefore, a sensitivity 

analysis of CFAST should account for variations in the extensive number of input parameters 

that describe the building geometry, compartment connections, construction materials, 

and description of one or more fires. 

ASTM E1355 [Ref. 2] provides overall guidance on typical areas of evaluation of the sensitivity 

of deterministic fire models. Chapter 5 of NIST’s Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1] provides 

a review of the sensitivity analyses that have been conducted using CFAST with an emphasis on 

uncertainty in the input. Other sensitivity investigations of CFAST are also available in Refs. 33, 

34, and 35. In addition, NIST’s Technical Reference Guide demonstrates a partial sensitivity analysis 

for a few CFAST input parameters. For somewhat complex fire scenarios involving four 

interconnected rooms, the analysis found that upper layer temperature and pressure are 

insensitive to small (10%) variations in fire room volume, while the upper layer volume 

is neutrally sensitive. 

NIST’s analysis also varied heat release rates to determine sensitivity to large changes in inputs. 

In so doing, the analysis determined that the upper layer temperature is equally sensitive to heat 

release rate as to compartment volume. A second-level analysis indicated a strong functional 

upper layer temperature dependence on heat release rate, but the sensitivity is less than 1 K/kW 

in the example case for HRRs greater than 100 kW. The third-level analysis indicated that HRRs 

have more of an effect on upper layer temperatures than do vent areas.

6-1 

6 

MODEL VALIDATION 

This chapter summarizes the results of the validation study conducted for the model CFAST. Six 

experimental test series have been used in the present model evaluation. A brief description of 

each 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. All three cases, representing averaged results from the 8 tests, have been used 

in the current V&V effort. 

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. Walls and ceiling were covered with two layers of 25 mm thick 

marinate boards, while the floor was 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 18 m long x 12 m 

wide x 6 m high (60 ft x 40 ft x 20 ft), 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 were fire intensity, 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). 

CFAST simulated all of the chosen experiments. 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 

Comparisons of the model predictions with experimental measurements are presented as relative 

differences. The relative differences are calculated as follows: 

( ) ( )

( ) p o

p o p o

E E

M M E E

E

M E

−

− − − = ∆

∆ − ∆

ε =

where ∆M is the difference between the peak value (Mp) of the evaluated parameter and its 

original value (Mo), and ∆E is the difference between the experimental observation (Ep) and its 
Model Validation 

6-3 

original value (Eo). Appendix A lists the calculated relative differences for all the fire modeling 

parameters listed above. 

The measure of model “accuracy” used throughout this study is related to experimental 

uncertainty. Volume 7 discusses this issue in detail. In brief, the accuracy of a measurement, 

e.g. the gas temperature, is related to the measurement device, e.g. 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, e.g. the specified heat release 

rate which in turn is based on experimental measurements. 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. 

Included in the scatter plots are an estimate of the combined uncertainty for the experimental 

measurements and uncertainty in the model inputs. It is important to understand that these are 

simply estimates of random uncertainty and do not include systematic uncertainty in either the 

experimental measurements or model predictions. Thus, these uncertainty bounds are only 

guidelines to judge the predictive capability of the model along with expert engineering 

judgment of the project team. 

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

in a very broad sense, how ell the model treats that particular quantity. A detailed discussion of 

this rating system is included in Volume 1. For CFAST, only the Green and Yellow ratings have 

been assigned to 11 of the 13 quantities of interest because these quantities fall within the 

capability of the CFAST model. The color Green indicates that the research team concluded the 

physics of the model accurately represent the experimental conditions and the calculated relative 

differences comparing the model and the experimental are consistent with the combined 

experimental and input 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. Two of the 

quantities, plume temperature and ceiling jet temperature, are used internally by the model for its 

calculations, but are not reported as output. These were not assigned a color rating. Parameters 

that are not given a color rating indicate that the model does not include output to be able to 

evaluate that parameter in its as-tested version. 
Model Validation 

6-4 

6.1 Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height 

The single most important prediction a fire model can make is the temperature of the hot gas 

layer (HGL). The impact of the fire is not so much a function of the heat release rate, but rather 

the temperature of the compartment. A good prediction of the height of the HGL is largely a 

consequence of a good prediction of its temperature because smoke and heat are largely 

transported together and most numerical models describe the transport of both with the same 

type of algorithm. Typically, CFAST slightly over predicts the hot gas layer temperature, most 

often within experimental uncertainty. Hot gas layer height is typically within experimental 

uncertainty for well ventilated tests and near floor level for under ventilated tests where 

compartments are closed to the outside. Figure 6-1 summarizes the relative difference for all of 

the test series. For HGL height, only values from open door tests are included in Figure 6-1 and 

in Appendix A. For closed door tests, visual observations typically show that the HGL fills the 

entire compartment volume from floor to ceiling, inconsistent with the calculated results for the 

experimental data. Thus, the calculated experimental values of HGL height for closed door tests 

are not seen as appropriate for comparison to model results. 

CFAST 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 4-1

BE 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. Relative Differences for Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height 
Model Validation 

6-5 

Following is a summary of the accuracy assessment for the HGL predictions of the six test 

series: 

ICFMP BE #2: CFAST predicts the HGL temperature and height near experimental uncertainty 

for all 3 tests. 

ICFMP BE #3: CFAST predicts the HGL temperature to within experimental uncertainty for all 

of the closed-door tests except test 17. Test 17 was a rapidly growing toluene pool fire which 

was stopped for safety reasons after 273 s. CFAST predicts an initial temperature rise starting 

somewhat earlier and peaking somewhat higher than the experimental values, but curve shapes 

match in all tests. Relative difference for the open door tests is somewhat higher, ranging from 

13 % for test 5 to 26 % for test 18 (Figure 6-1 and Table A-1). CFAST predicts HGL height to 

within experimental uncertainty for the open door tests. For the closed door tests, calculated 

CFAST values are consistent with visual observations of smoke filling in the compartment. 

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

uncertainty for the single test (Test 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. 

ICFMP BE #5: CFAST predicts the HGL temperature to within experimental uncertainty for the 

single test (Test 4), although again there is a noticeable difference in the overall shape of the 

temperature curves. HGL height is under-predicted by 20 % (Figure 6-1 and Table A-1). This is 

likely due to the complicated geometry within the compartment that includes a partial height wall 

that effects both plume entrainment and radiative heat transfer from the fire to surroundings. 

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

and 5. For Test 21, there is a 33 % over-prediction (Figure 6-1 and Table A-1). This is likely 

due to the configuration of the fire in the test, with the fire inside a cabinet in the fire 

compartment. This complex geometry leads to an interaction between the fire and the confining 

cabinet that a zone model cannot simulate. 

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

uncertainty for many of the measurement locations in the three tests considered. The 

discrepancies in various locations appear to be due to experimental, rather than model, error. In 

particular, the calculation of HGL temperature and height are quite sensitive to the measured 

temperature profile, which in these tests was determined with bare-bead thermocouples that are 

subject to quite high uncertainties. Wide spacing of the thermocouples also leads to higher 

uncertainty in HGL height. 

Calculations of HGL temperature and height in the room remote from the fire have higher 

relative differences than those closer to the fire. This is likely a combination of the simplified 

single representative layer temperature inherent in zone models (temperature in the long corridor 

of this test series varied from one end of the compartment to the other) and the calculation of 

flow though doorways based on a correlation based on the pressure difference between the 

connected compartments. 
Model Validation 

6-6 

Summary: HGL Temperature and Height (Green for fire compartment and Yellow for 

compartments remote from the fire)

Based on the model physics and comparisons of model predictions with experimental 

measurements, CFAST calculations of HGL temperature and height are characterized in the 

green category within the fire compartment and yellow in compartments remote from the fire for 

the following reasons: 

• The two-zone assumption inherent in CFAST, modeled as a series of ordinary differential 

equations that describe mass and energy conservation of flows in a multiple-compartment 

structure are appropriate for the applications studied. 

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

within or close to experimental uncertainty. The CFAST predictions are typical of those 

found in other studies where the HGL temperature is typically somewhat over-predicted 

and HGL height somewhat lower (HGL depth somewhat thicker) than experimental 

measurements. These differences are likely due to simplifications in the model dealing 

with mixing between the layers, entrainment in the fire plume, and flow through vents. 

Still, predictions are mostly within 10% to 20% of experimental measurements. 

• Calculation of HGL temperature and height has higher uncertainty in rooms remote from 

the fire compared to those in the fire compartment. This is based on the results of a 

single test series however. 

6.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature 

CFAST includes an algorithm to account for the presence of the higher gas temperatures near the 

ceiling surfaces in compartments involved in a fire. In the model, this increased temperature has 

the effect of increasing the convective heat transfer to ceiling surfaces. However, the ceiling jet 

temperature is not directly calculated nor reported in a CFAST calculation. For this reason, 

comparisons of experimentally measured ceiling jet temperatures with CFAST calculations are 

not appropriate and will not be included in this report. 

6.3 Plume Temperature 

CFAST includes a plume entrainment algorithm based on the work of McCaffrey that models the 

mixing of combustion products released by the fire with air in the fire compartment and 

movements of these gases into the upper layer in the compartment. Plume temperature is not 

directly calculated nor reported in a CFAST calculation. For this reason, comparisons of 

experimentally measured plume temperatures with CFAST calculations are not appropriate and 

will not be included in this report. 
Model Validation 

6-7 

6.4 Flame Height 

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

ICFMP BE # 3 test series and photographs from BE #2 are available. It is difficult to precisely 

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

within a pan diameter. 

ICFMP BE #2: 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). From the CFAST calculations, the estimated 

flame height is 4.3 m. 

ICFMP BE #3: CFAST estimates the peak flame height to be 2.8 m, roughly consistent with the 

view through the doorway during the test. The test series was not designed to record accurate 

measurements of the flame height. 

Summary: Flame Height (Green)

Based on the model physics and comparisons of model predictions with experimental 

measurements, CFAST calculations of flame height are characterized in the green category for 

the following reasons: 

• CFAST predicts the flame height consistent with visual observations of flame height for 

the experiments. This is not surprising since CFAST simply uses a well-characterized 

experimental correlation to calculate flame height. 

6.5 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration 

CFAST simulates a fire as a mass of fuel that burns at a prescribed pyrolysis rate and releases 

both energy and combustion products. CFAST calculates species production based on userdefined production yields, and both the pyrolysis rate and the resulting energy and species 

generation may be limited by the oxygen available for combustion. When sufficient oxygen is 

available for combustion, the heat release rate (HRR) for a constrained fire is the same as for an 

unconstrained fire. Mass and species concentrations are tracked by the model as gases flow 

through openings in a structure to other compartments in the structure or to the outdoors. 

Gas sampling data is available from ICFMP BE #3 and BE #5 (one test only). Figure 6-2 

summarizes the relative difference for all of the tests. 
Model Validation 

6-8 

CFAST 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 3-16

BE 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 

Figure 6-2. Relative Differences for Oxygen Concentration and Carbon Dioxide 

Concentration 

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

close to experimental uncertainty. For closed door tests 4 and 10, and for open door tests 9 and 

14, the magnitude of relative difference is higher, under predicting by 22 % to 25 % (Figure 6-2 

and Table A-2). Tests 4, 10, and 16 were closed-door tests with the mechanical ventilation 

system on. The higher relative differences for these tests are likely due to a non-uniform gas 

layer in the experiments with higher oxygen concentration near the mechanical ventilation inlet 

and lower concentrations remote from the inlet. In CFAST, the flow from the mechanical 

ventilation system is assumed to completely mix with the gases in the appropriate gas layer of a 

compartment. CFAST consistently under predicts the drop in oxygen concentration, with tests 9 

and 14 showing a higher relative uncertainty than other closed door tests. The cause of a higher 

than average difference is not clear. 

ICFMP BE #5: CFAST predicts the upper layer oxygen and carbon dioxide concentration in 

Test 4 of this test series close to experimental uncertainty. 

Summary: Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration (Green)
Model Validation 

6-9 

Based on the model physics and comparisons of model predictions with experimental 

measurements, CFAST calculations of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentration are 

characterized in the green category for the following reasons: 

• CFAST uses a simple user-specified combustion chemistry scheme based on a prescribed 

pyrolysis rate and species yields that is appropriate for the applications studied. 

• CFAST predicts the major gas species close to experimental uncertainty. 

6.6 Smoke Concentration 

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

fraction is dependent on a user-specified species yield. 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. Figure 6-3 summarizes the relative difference for all of the tests. 

CFAST 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 6-3. Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration 

 
Model Validation 

6-10 

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 test parameters. There are two obvious trends in the 

results: first, the predicted concentrations are within or near experimental uncertainties in the 

open door tests. Second, the predicted concentrations are roughly three to five times the 

measured concentrations in the closed door tests. The experimental uncertainty for these 

measurements has been estimated to be 45 % (see Volume 7). The closed door tests cannot be 

explained from the experimental uncertainty.

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 (and indeed even better) in 

the closed door tests, there is reason to believe either that the smoke is not transported with the 

other exhaust gases or the specified smoke yield, developed from free-burning experiments, is 

not appropriate for the closed-door tests. These qualitative differences between the open- and 

closed-door tests are consistent with the FDS predictions (see Volume 6). 

Summary: Smoke Concentration (Yellow)

Based on the model physics and comparisons of model predictions with experimental 

measurements, CFAST calculations of smoke concentration are characterized in the yellow 

category for the following reasons: 

• CFAST 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. 

• CFAST typically over-predicts the smoke concentration in all of the BE #3 tests, with the 

exception of test 17. Predicted concentrations for open-door tests are within 

experimental uncertainties, but those for closed-door tests are far higher. 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 oxygen-starved. 

6.7 Compartment Pressure 

Comparisons between measurement and prediction of compartment pressure for BE #3 are 

shown in Appendix A.7. Figure 6-4 summarizes the relative difference for all of the tests. 
Model Validation 

6-11 

CFAST 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

100

300

+80 %

-80 %

Figure 6-4. Relative Differences for Compartment Pressure 

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. For 

both the open and closed door tests, CFAST predicts the pressure to within experimental 

uncertainty. The one notable exception is Test 16 (Figure 6-3 and Table A-3). This experiment 

was a large fire performed with the door closed and the ventilation on. Test 16 is a 2.3 MW fire, 

whereas Test 10, with a comparable geometry and ventilation is a 1.2 MW fire. There is 

considerable uncertainty in the magnitude of both the supply and return mass flow rates for test 

16. 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. CFAST does not adjust the ventilation rate based on the compartment pressure until a 

specified cutoff pressure is reached. This also is the most likely explanation for the overprediction of compartment pressure in Test 16. 

In general, prediction of pressure in CFAST in closed compartments is critically dependent on 

correct specification of the leakage from the compartment. Compartments are rarely totally 

sealed, and small changes in the leakage area can produce significant changes in the predicted 

over-pressure. 

Summary: Compartment Pressure (Green)
Model Validation 

6-12 

Based on the model physics and comparisons of model predictions with experimental 

measurements, CFAST calculations of pressure are characterized in the green category for the 

following reasons: 

• With one exception, compartment pressures are predicted within experimental 

uncertainty. 

• Prediction of compartment pressure for closed door tests is critically dependent on correct 

specification of the leakage from the compartment. 

6.8 Radiation and Total Heat Flux to Targets 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 6-5 through Figure 6-7 summarizes 

the relative difference for all of the tests. 

CFAST 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

150

+20 %

-20 %

Cable B

Cable D 

Cable F

Cable G

Figure 6-5. Relative Differences for Radiation to Targets 
Model Validation 

6-13 

CFAST 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 6-6. Relative Differences for Total Heat Flux to Targets 
Model Validation 

6-14 

CFAST 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 6-7. Relative Differences for Target Temperature 

ICFMP BE #3: There are nearly 200 comparisons of heat flux and surface temperature on four 

different cables that are graphed in the Appendix. It is difficult to make sweeping 

generalizations about the accuracy of CFAST. At best, one can scan the figures and the 

associated tables to get a sense of the overall performance. A few trends to note: 

• The difference between predicted and measured cable surface temperatures is often 

within experimental uncertainty, with exceptions most often in the values for cable G. 

Accurate prediction of the surface temperature of the cable should indicate that the flux to 

the target, a combination of radiation from the fire, surrounding surfaces, and the gas 

layers, along with convection from the surrounding gas should be correspondingly 

accurate. For ICFMP BE#3, the cable surface predictions show lower relative difference 

overall compared to the total heat flux and particularly the radiative heat flux. 

• Total heat flux to targets is typically predicted to within about 30 %, and often underpredicted. Predictions for cable D and cable G are notable exceptions, with higher 

uncertainties. 
Model Validation 

6-15 

• Radiative heat flux to targets is typically over-predicted compared to experimental 

measurements, with higher values for closed-door tests. For the closed-door tests, this 

may be a function of the over-prediction of the smoke concentration which leads to the 

radiation contribution from the hot gas layer being a larger fraction of the total heat flux 

compared to the experimental values. 

• For many of the experiments, the convective heat flux component, taken to be the 

difference between the total heat flux and the radiative heat flux is seen to be higher than 

typically-measured values in fire experiments. 

ICFMP BE #4: CFAST 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. Again, the differences for surface temperature are smaller 

than the differences for the total heat flux. 

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. CFAST underpredicts heat flux by about 50 %, and under-predicts the cable surface temperature by about 

20 %. Although the surface temperature predictions are within experimental uncertainty, the 

heat flux predictions are not. Only one test from this series has been used in the evaluation, thus, 

it is hard to make any firm conclusions. 

Summary: Radiation and Total Heat Flux to Targets and Target Temperature (Yellow)

Based on the model physics and comparisons of model predictions with experimental 

measurements, CFAST calculations of target heat flux and temperature are characterized in the 

yellow category for the following reasons: 

• Cable target surface temperature predictions are often within experimental uncertainty, 

with exceptions, particularly for Cables F and G. 

• Total heat flux to targets is typically predicted to within about 30 %, and often underpredicted. 

• Radiative heat flux to targets is typically over-predicted compared to experimental 

measurements, with higher relative difference values for closed-door tests. 

6.9 Surface Heat Flux and Temperature 

Heat flux and wall surface temperature measurements are available from ICFMP BE #3, plus 

wall surface temperature measurements are available from BE #4 and BE #5. As with target heat 

flux and surface temperature above, there are numerous comparisons. Figure 6-8 and Figure 6-9 

summarizes the relative difference for all of the tests. 
Model Validation 

6-16 

CFAST Wall Heat Flux

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 %

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

Figure 6-8. Relative Differences for Surface Heat Flux 
Model Validation 

6-17 

CFAST 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 3-13

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

+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 6-9. Relative Differences for Surface Temperature 

ICFMP BE #3: CFAST generally predicts the heat flux and surface temperature of the 

compartment walls to within 10 % to 30 %. Typically, CFAST over-predicts the far-field fluxes 

and temperatures and under-predicts the near-field measurements. This is understandable since 

any two-zone model predicts an average representative value of gas temperature in the upper and 

lower regions of a compartment. Thus the values predicted by CFAST should be an average of 

values near the fire and those farther away. 

However, differences for the ceiling and particularly the floor fluxes and temperatures are 

higher, with a more pronounced difference between the near-field and far-field comparisons. In 

addition to the limitations of the two-zone assumption, calculations of the flux to ceiling and 

floor surfaces are further confounded by the simple point-source calculation of radiation 

exchange in CFAST for the fire source. In CFAST, the fire is assumed to be a point source of 

energy located at the base of the fire rather than a 3-dimensional flame surface radiating to 

surroundings. With the fire typically at the floor surface, this makes the calculation of flux to the 

floor surface inherently worse than for other surfaces. 
Model Validation 

6-18 

ICFMP BE #4: CFAST predicts one of the wall surface temperatures to within 8 % of the 

measured values while the other was under-predicted by nearly 70 % (Figure 6-9 and Table A-6). 

The two points are presumably very close to the fire because the temperatures are 600 °C to 

700 °C above ambient. For points very close to the fire, a significant under-prediction can be 

expected. The reason for the difference in the predictions is not clear. 

ICFMP BE #5: CFAST typically under-predicts wall temperatures at two locations in the 

compartment by about more than 50 % (Figure 6-9 and Table A-6). The more complicated 

geometry inside the compartment, with a partial height wall inside the compartment is a 

particular challenge for the model. Only one test from this series has been used in the evaluation, 

thus, it is hard to make any firm conclusions. 

Summary: Surface Heat Flux and Temperature (Yellow)

Based on the model physics and comparisons of model predictions with experimental 

measurements, CFAST calculations of flame height are characterized in the yellow category for 

the following reasons: 

• CFAST is capable of predicting the surface temperature of a wall, assuming that its 

composition is fairly uniform and its thermal properties are well-characterized. 

Predictions are typically within 10% to 30%. Generally, CFAST over-predicts the farfield fluxes and temperatures and under-predicts the near-field measurements. This is 

consistent with the single representative layer temperature assumed by zone fire models. 

• CFAST predictions of floor heat flux and temperature are particularly problematic due to 

the simple point-source calculation of radiative exchange between the fire and 

compartment surfaces. 

6.10 Summary 

This chapter presents a summary of numerous comparisons of the CFAST model with a range of 

experimental results conducted as part of this V&V effort. Thirteen quantities were selected for 

comparison and a color rating assigned to each of the output categories, indicating, in a very 

broad sense, how well the model treats that particular quantity: 

• Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height: Green 

• Ceiling Jet Temperature: No color assigned 

• Plume Temperature: No color assigned 

• Flame Height: Green 

• Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration: Green 

• Smoke Concentration: Yellow 

• Compartment Pressure: Green 

• Radiation Heat Flux, Total Heat Flux, and Target Temperature: Yellow 
Model Validation 

6-19 

• Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature: Yellow 

Four of the quantities were assigned a green rating indicating that the research team concluded 

the physics of the model accurately represent the experimental conditions and the calculated 

relative differences comparing the model and the experimental are consistent with the combined 

experimental and input uncertainty. A few notes on the comparisons are appropriate: 

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

within or close to experimental uncertainty. The CFAST predictions are typical of those 

found in other studies where the HGL temperature is typically somewhat over-predicted 

and HGL height somewhat lower (HGL depth somewhat thicker) than experimental 

measurements. Still, predictions are mostly within 10% to 20% of experimental 

measurements. Calculation of HGL temperature and height has higher uncertainty in 

rooms remote from the fire compared to those in the fire compartment. 

• CFAST predicts the flame height consistent with visual observations of flame height for 

the experiments. This is not surprising since CFAST simply uses a well-characterized 

experimental correlation to calculate flame height. 

• Gas concentrations and compartment pressure predicted by CFAST are within or close to 

experimental uncertainty. 

Three of the quantities were assigned a yellow rating indicating the user should take caution 

when using the model to evaluate that quantity. This typically indicates limitations in the use of 

the model. A few notes on the comparisons are appropriate: 

• Predictions of smoke concentration by CFAST are typically over-predicted. Predicted 

concentrations for open-door tests are within experimental uncertainties, but those for 

closed-door tests are far higher. 

• With exceptions, cable surface temperatures are predicted within experimental 

uncertainties. Total heat flux to targets is typically predicted to within about 30 %, and 

often under-predicted. Radiative heat flux to targets is typically over-predicted compared 

to experimental measurements, with higher relative difference values for closed-door 

tests. Care should be taken in the prediction of localized conditions such as target 

temperature and heat flux due to inherent limitations in all zone fire models. 

• Predictions of compartment surface temperature and heat flux are typically within 10% to 

30%. Generally, CFAST over-predicts the far-field fluxes and temperatures and underpredicts the near-field measurements. This is consistent with the single representative 

layer temperature assumed by zone fire models. 

Two of the quantities, plume temperature and ceiling jet temperature, are used internally by the 

model for its calculations, but are not reported as output. These were not assigned a color rating. 
Model Validation 

6-20 

Parameters that are not given a color rating indicate that the model does not include output to be 

able to evaluate that parameter in its as-tested version. 

CFAST predictions in this validation study were consistent with numerous earlier studies that 

show the use of the model is appropriate in a wide range of fire scenarios. The CFAST model 

has been subjected to extensive evaluation studies by NIST and others. Although differences 

between the model and the experiments were evident in these studies, most differences can be 

explained by limitations of the model as well as of the experiments. Like all predictive models, 

the best predictions come with a clear understanding of the limitations of the model and of the 

inputs provided to do the calculations.
7-1 

7 

REFERENCES 

1. Jones, W.W., R.D. Peacock, G.P. Forney, and P.A. Reneke, “Consolidated Model of Fire Growth 

and Smoke Transport (Version 5) - Technical Reference Guide,” SP 1030, National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (2004). 

2. “ASTM Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models,” 

ASTM E1355-05a, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA 

(2005). 

3. Peacock, R.D., W.W. Jones, P.A. Reneke, and G.P. Forney, “Consolidated Model of Fire 

Growth and Smoke Transport (Version 6), User’s Guide,” SP 1041, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (2005). 

4. Incorpera, F.P., and D.P. DeWitt, Fundamentals of Heat Transfer, John Wiley & Sons, 

New York, NY (1981). 

5. Rehm, R., and G. Forney, “A Note on the Pressure Equations Used in Zone Fire Modeling,” 

NISTIR 4906, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (1992). 

6. Steckler, K.D, J.G. Quintiere, and W.J. Rinkinen, “Flow Induced by Fire in a Compartment,” 

NBS IR 82-23520, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD (1982). 

7. McCaffrey, B.J., “Momentum Implications for Buoyant Diffusion Flames,” Combustion and Flame,

52, 149 (1983). 

8. Klote, J.H., “Fire Experiments of Zoned Smoke Control at the Plaza Hotel in Washington, DC,” 

NISTIR 90-4253, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (1990). 

9. Drysdale, D., An Introduction to Fire Dynamics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY (1985). 

10. Cooper, L.Y., “Fire-Plume-Generated Ceiling Jet Characteristics and Convective Heat Transfer 

to Ceiling and Wall Surfaces in a Two-Layer Zone-Type Fire Environment,” NISTIR 4705, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (1991). 

11. Quintiere, J.G., K. Steckler, and D. Corley, “An Assessment of Fire-Induced Flows 

in Compartments,” Fire Science and Technology, 4, 1 (1984). 

12. Cooper, L.Y., “Calculation of the Flow Through a Horizontal Ceiling/Floor Vent,” 

NISTIR 89-4052, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (1989). 

13. Klote, J.H., “A Computer Model of Smoke Movement by Air Conditioning Systems,” 

NBS IR 87-3657, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD (1987). 

14. Forney, G.P., “Computing Radiative Heat Transfer Occurring in a Zone Fire Model,” 

NISTIR 4709, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (1991). 
References 

7-2 

15. Siegel, R., and J.R. Howell, Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, 2nd edition, Hemisphere 

Publishing Corporation, New York, NY (1981). 

16. Hottel, H.C., Heat Transmission, 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY 

(1954). 

17. Hottel, H., and E. Cohen, “Radiant Heat Exchange in a Gas Filled Enclosure: Allowance for 

Non-Uniformity of Gas Temperature,” American Institute of Chemical Engineering Journal 4, 3 

(1958). 

18. Yamada, T., and L.Y. Cooper, “Algorithms for Calculating Radiative Heat Exchange 

Between the Surfaces of an Enclosure, the Smoke Layers, and a Fire,” Building and Fire 

Research Laboratory Research Colloquium, July 20, 1990 (1990). 

19. Atreya, A., “Convection Heat Transfer,” SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 

3rd Edition, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA (2002). 

20. Moss, W.F., and G.P. Forney, “Implicitly Coupling Heat Conduction Into a Zone Fire Model,” 

NISTIR 4886, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (1992). 

21. Heskestad, G., and H.F. Smith, “Investigation of a New Sprinkler Sensitivity Approval Test: 

The Plunge Test,” Technical Report Serial No. 22485 2937, RC 76-T-50, Factory Mutual 

Research Corporation, Norwood, MA (1976). 

22. Madrzykowski, D., and R.L. Vettori, “A Sprinkler Fire Suppression Algorithm for the GSA 

Engineering Fire Assessment System,” Technical Report 4833, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (1992). 

23. Evans, D.D., “Sprinkler Fire Suppression for Hazard,” Technical Report 5254, National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (1993). 

24. Cleary, T.G., and J.G. Quintiere, “Framework for Utilizing Fire Property Tests,” NISTIR 4619, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (1991); also Proceedings 

of the 3rd International Symposium, International Association of Fire Safety Science, 

Edinburgh, Scotland, G. Cox and B. Langford, Editors, Elsevier Applied Science, New York, 

pp. 647–656 (1991). 

25. Jones, W.W., “Modeling Smoke Movement through Compartmented Structures,” Journal of 

Fire Sciences, 11(2), 172 (1993). 

26. Jones, W.W., “Multicompartment Model for the Spread of Fire, Smoke, and Toxic Gases,” 

Fire Safety Journal, 9(1), 55 (1985). 

27. Jones, W.W., and J.G. Quintiere, “Prediction of Corridor Smoke Filling by Zone Models,” 

Combustion Science and Technology, 35, 239 (1984). 

28. Jones, W.W., and G.P. Forney, “Modeling Smoke Movement through Compartmented 

Structures,” Proceedings of the Fall Technical Meeting of Combustion Institute/Eastern 

States Section, Ithaca, NY (1991). 

29. Walton, W.D., “Zone Fire Models for Enclosures,” SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection 

Engineering, 3rd Edition, P.J. DiNenno, C.L. Beyler, R.L.P. Custer, W.D. Walton, and 

J.M. Watts, Editors, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA (2002). 
References 

7-3 

30. NFPA 805, Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light-Water Reactor 

Electric Generating Plants, 2001 Edition, 2004/2005 National Fire Codes, National Fire 

Protection Association, Quincy, MA (2004). 

31. NFPA 551, Guide for the Evaluation of Fire Risk Assessment, 2004 Edition, 2004/2005 

National Fire Code, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA (2004). 

32. Barnett, J.R., and C.L. Beyler, “Development of an Instructional Program for Practicing 

Engineers HAZARD I Users,” GCR 90-580, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Gaithersburg, MD (1990). 

33. Peacock, R.D., P.A. Reneke, C.L. Forney, and M.M. Kostreva, “Issues in Evaluation of 

Complex Fire Models,” Fire Safety Journal, 30, 103-136 (1998). 

34. Beard, A., “Evaluation of Fire Models: Part I – Introduction,” Fire Safety Journal, 19, 295–306 

(1992). 

35. Notarianni, K.A., “The Role of Uncertainty in Improving Fire Protection Regulation,” 

PhD Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (2000). 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “International Collaborative Project to Evaluate Fire 

Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications: International Panel Report on Benchmark 

Exercise #1, Cable Tray Fires,” Dey, M., NUREG-1758, June, 2002. 

A-1 

A 

TECHNICAL DETAILS OF CFAST VALIDATION STUDY 

Appendix A provides comparisons of CFAST 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 

Volume 7 includes detailed discussion of the uncertainties associated with both the experimental 

data and model predictions presented in this Appendix. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-2 

A.1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height 

CFAST is a classic two-zone fire model. For a given fire scenario, the model subdivides a 

compartment into two control volumes, which include a relatively hot upper layer and a 

relatively cool lower layer. In addition, CFAST adds a zone for the fire plume. The lower layer 

is primarily fresh air. By contrast, the hot upper layer (which is also known as the hot gas layer) 

is where combustion products accumulate via the plume. Each layer has its own energy and 

mass balances. 

Within a compartment, each zone has homogeneous properties. That is, the temperature and gas 

concentrations are assumed to be constant throughout the zone; the properties only change as a 

function of time. The CFAST model describes the conditions in each zone by solving equations 

for conservation of mass, species, and energy, along with the ideal gas law. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-3 

ICFMP BE # 2

The HGL temperature and depth were calculated from the averaged gas temperatures from three 

vertical thermocouple arrays using the standard reduction method. There were 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. 

Specified Leakage

Heptane

Pan Fire

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

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #2, Case 1

Time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Height (m)

0

5

10

15

Exp Time vs Height 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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 Exp Upper Temp 

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #2, Case 2

Time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Height (m)

0

5

10

15

Exp Time vs Exp Height 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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 

CFAST 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

Exp Time vs Height 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

Figure A-2. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #2. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-5 

ICFMP BE # 3 

BE #3 consists of 15 liquid spray fire tests with different heat release rate, pan locations, and 

ventilation conditions. The basic geometry, plus the numerical grid, are 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 were 

calculated using thermocouple Trees 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Tree 4 was not used because one of its 

thermocouples (4-9) malfunctioned during most of the experiments. 

Liquid spray fire

Doorway Cable target locations

and directions

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

A few observations about the simulations: 

• In the closed door tests, the HGL layer descended all the way to the floor. However, the 

reduction method, used on the measured temperatures, does not account for the formation 

of a single layer, and therefore does not indicate that the layer dropped all the way to the 

floor. This is not a flaw in the measurements, but rather in the data reduction method. 

• The HGL reduction method produces spurious results in the first few minutes of each test 

because no clear layer has yet formed. 
Technical Details of CFAST 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

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Tavg upper layer (C) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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) 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

Figure A-7. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST 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 a single large 

vent from the compartment. . 

Kerosene

Pan Fire

Compartment

Vent

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 

extinction. The HGL height prediction is distinctly different in the first 10 minutes and differs 

by about 40 % after that time. There appears to be an error in the reduction of the experimental 

data. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-11 

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 

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

Figure A-9. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #4, Test 1. 
Technical Details of CFAST 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 was 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 was active. The burner was lit after that point, 

and the cables began to burn. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-13 

Ethanol

Pan Fire

Gas Burner

Fire

Vertical Cable

Bundles

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

 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-14 

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 

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

Figure A-11. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-15 

FM/SNL Test Series 

Tests 4, 5, and 21 from the FM-SNL test series were selected for comparison. The hot gas layer 

temperature and height were calculated using the standard method. The thermocouple arrays that 

are referred to as Sectors 1, 2 and 3 were averaged (with an equal weighting for each) for Tests 4 

and 5. For Test 21, only Sectors 1 and 3 were used, as Sector 2 fell within the smoke plume. 

Controlled

gas fire

Ceiling exhaust vent

Mechanical ventilation

supply 1.2 m below ceiling

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

Note the following: 

• The experimental HGL heights are somewhat noisy due to the effect of ventilation ducts 

in the upper layer. The corresponding predicted HGL heights are consistently lower than 

experimental measurements, typically approaching floor level by the end of the test. This 

is likely a combination of the calculation technique for the experimental measurements 

and rules for flow from mechanical vents in the CFAST model. 

• The ventilation was turned off after 9 min in Test 5, the effect of which was a slight 

increase in the measured HGL temperature. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-16 

HGL Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

Exp Time(79) vs Layer Temperature 

HGL Height

FM/SNL, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 

Exp Time vs Layer Height 

HGL Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

20

40

60

80

100

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

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

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

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

120

CFAST Time vs HGL Temp 1 

Exp Time(79) vs Layer Temperature 

HGL Height

FM/SNL, Test 21

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Height (m)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 1 

Exp Time(79) vs BURN RATE(80) 

Figure A-13. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, FM/SNL Series. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-17 

NBS Multi-Room Test Series 

This series of experiments consisted of two relatively small rooms connected by a long corridor. 

The fire was located in one of the rooms. Eight vertical arrays of thermocouples were positioned 

throughout the test space: one in the burn room, one near the door of the burn room, three in the 

corridor, one in the exit to the outside at the far end of the corridor, one near the door of the other 

or “target” room, and one inside the target room. Four of the eight arrays were selected for 

comparison with model prediction: the array in the burn room, the array in the middle of the 

corridor, the array at the far end of the corridor, and the array in the target room. In Tests 100A 

and 100O, the target room was closed, in which case the array in the exit doorway was used. 

The standard reduction method was not used to compute the experimental HGL temperature or 

height for this test series. Rather, the test director reduced the layer information individually for 

the eight thermocouple arrays using an alternative method (Peacock 1991). 

Burn room

110 kW gas

burner fire

Target room

Figure A-14. Snapshot from simulation of NBS Multi-Room Test 100Z. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-18 

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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 6 

Figure A-15. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test 100A. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-19 

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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 6 

Figure A-16. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test 100O. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-20 

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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL 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 

CFAST Time vs HGL Height 8 

Figure A-17. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-21 

Table A-1. Relative Differences for Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height 

Exp CFAST Relative 

Difference Exp CFAST Relative Difference

(°C) (°C) (%) (m) (m) (%)

Case 1 55 62 14

Case 2 86 99 15

Case 3 83 91 10 13.9 14.9 8

Test 1 123 135 10

Test 7 117 133 13

Test 2 229 235 2

Test 8 218 233 7

Test 4 204 222 9

Test 10 198 221 12

Test 13 290 311 7

Test 16 268 290 8

Test 17 135 164 21

Test 3 207 243 17 2.9 2.8 -3

Test 9 204 241 18 2.9 2.8 -4

Test 5 175 198 13 3.0 2.7 -10

Test 14 208 242 16 2.9 2.8 -4

Test 15 211 242 15 2.9 2.8 -3

Test 18 193 243 26 2.9 -2.8 4

BE4 Test 1 700 602 -14 4.2 5.1 21

BE5 Test 4 151 172 14 4.3 3.5 -20

Test 4 59 69 16

Test 5 47 40 -14

Test 21 66 88 33

Burn Room 267 237 -11 1.2 1.3 11

Corridor 18 81 88 8 1.3 1.2 -7

Corridor 38 75 88 17 1.4 1.2 -14

Corridor Exit 73 88 20 1.2 1.2 -2

Burn Room 313 336 7

Corridor 18 98 75 -24

Corridor 38 93 75 -19

Corridor Exit

Burn Room 260 240 -8 1.2 1.3 14

Corridor 18 65 64 -1 1.2 1.5 24

Corridor 38 67 64 -4 1.2 1.5 26

Target Room 35 33 -4 1.5 2.1 39

Hot Gas Layer Temperature Rise Hot Gas Layer Depth

BE2 BE3

Series Test Measurement 

Position

FM 

SNL NBS

MV100A

MV100O

MV100Z

A.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature 

CFAST includes an algorithm to account for the presence of the higher gas temperatures near the 

ceiling surfaces in compartments involved in a fire. In the model, this increased temperature has 

the effect of increasing the convective heat transfer to ceiling surfaces. However, the ceiling jet 

temperature is not directly calculated nor reported in a CFAST calculation. For this reason, 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-22 

comparisons of experimentally measured ceiling jet temperatures with CFAST calculations are 

not appropriate and will not be included in this report. 

A.3 Plume Temperature 

CFAST includes a plume entrainment algorithm based on the work of McCaffrey that models the 

mixing of combustion products released by the fire with air in the fire compartment and 

movements of these gases into the upper layer in the compartment. Plume temperature is not 

directly calculated nor reported in a CFAST calculation. For this reason, comparisons of 

experimentally measured plume temperatures with CFAST calculations are not appropriate and 

will not be included in this report. 

 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-23 

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 

Figure A-18 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). From 

the CFAST calculations, the estimated flame height is 4.3 m. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-24 

Figure A-18. Photographs of heptane pan fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2. Courtesy, Simo 

Hostikka, VTT Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-25 

ICFMP BE #3 

No measurements were made of the flame height during BE #3, but numerous photographs were 

taken through the 2 m by 2 m doorway. During BE #3, Test 3, the peak flame height is estimated 

to be 2.8 m, roughly consistent with the view through the doorway in the figure below. 

Figure A-19. 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 CFAST Validation Study 

A-26 

A.5 Oxygen Concentration 

CFAST simulates a fire as a mass of fuel that burns at a prescribed “pyrolysis” rate and releases 

both energy and combustion products. CFAST calculates species production based on userdefined production yields, and both the pyrolysis rate and the resulting energy and species 

generation may be limited by the oxygen available for combustion. When sufficient oxygen is 

available for combustion, the heat release rate (HRR) for a constrained fire is the same as for an 

unconstrained fire. Mass and species concentrations are tracked by the model as gases flow 

through openings in a structure to other compartments in the structure or to the outdoors. 

The following pages present comparisons of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentration 

predictions with measurement for BE #3 and BE #5. In BE #3, there were two oxygen 

measurements, one in the upper layer, one in the lower layer. There was 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. 

Not surprisingly, the accuracy of the gas species predictions is comparable to that of the HGL 

temperature. After all, CFAST uses the same basic algorithm for transport, whether it be the 

transport of heat or the transport of mass. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-27 

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 CO2-4 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

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 CO2-4 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

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 CO2-4 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

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 CO2-4 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

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 CO2-4 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

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 CO2-4 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

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 CO2-4 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

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 CO2-4 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

Figure A-20. O2 and CO2 concentration, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-28 

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 CO2-4 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

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 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

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 CO2-4 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

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 CO2-4 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

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 CO2-4 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

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 CO2-4 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

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 CO2-4 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

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 CO2-4 

CFAST Time vs O2 1 

CFAST Time vs CO2 1 

Figure A-21. 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 CFAST Validation Study 

A-29 

Table A-2. Relative Differences for Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration 

Exp CFAST Relative 

Difference Exp CFAST Relative Difference

(molar 

fraction)

(molar 

fraction) (%) (molar fraction)

(molar 

fraction) (%)

Test 1 0.065 0.076 17 0.038 0.044 16

Test 7 0.064 0.073 14 0.038 0.043 12

Test 2 0.092 0.101 9 0.054 0.059 8

Test 8 0.096 0.098 2 0.058 0.057 -1

Test 4 0.079 0.060 -24 0.047 0.035 -26

Test 10 0.079 0.059 -25 0.047 0.035 -25

Test 13 0.101 0.110 10 0.060 0.064 7

Test 16 0.091 0.075 -18 0.055 0.044 -21

Test 17 0.033 0.031 -7 0.022 0.018 -16

Test 3 0.052 0.044 -15 0.031 0.027 -12

Test 9 0.054 0.042 -22 0.031 0.027 -14

Test 5 0.030 0.026 -14 0.017 0.016 -8

Test 14 0.055 0.042 -24 0.032 0.027 -16

Test 15 0.052 0.042 -19 0.031 0.027 -15

Test 18 0.051 0.044 -14 0.031 0.027 -11

BE5 Test 4 0.023 0.020 -15 0.013 0.012 -9

HGL Oxygen Concentration 

Decrease

HGL Carbon Dioxide 

Concentration

BE3

Series Test

A.6 Smoke Concentration 

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

fraction specified combustion chemistry. 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 BE #3, the smoke yield was specified as one of the test parameters. 

Figure A-22 and Figure A-23 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.

Consider the first issue. The reported mass concentration of smoke was computed using the 

following expression: 

L

I I M

s

s φ

ln( / ) 0 =
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-30 

Errors in the measurement were due to errors in the path length L , the light attenuation I / I 0 , 

and the assumed specific extinction coefficient φs . Hamins reported the expanded uncertainty of 

the measurement to be 18 %. In addition, the simulation was subject to error mainly from the 

prescribed soot yield. The soot yields were given as 1.5 % ± 0.3 % (heptane) and 20 % ± 5 % 

(toluene, Test 17). The combination of numerical and measurement error for the heptane tests 

was therefore 18 % + 20 % = 40 %, and for the toluene test 18 % + 25 % = 45 %. 

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 either ended up in the CO2 or the soot 

(with relatively small amounts going to CO, unburned hydrocarbons, etc.). It can also be 

assumed that the soot (smoke) and CO2 were 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 error combined to cause it. 

Now, consider the second issue. The difference between model and experiment is even more 

pronounced in the closed door tests. Given that the oxygen and carbon dioxide predictions are 

no worse (and indeed even better) in the closed door tests, there is reason to believe either that 

the smoke is not transported with the other exhaust gases or that the data analysis is flawed. It 

has been assumed throughout the test series that the specific extinction coefficient, φs , is 

constant. However, various studies have shown it to change as a function of the combustion 

efficiency. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-31 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

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. 

CFAST Time vs OD 1 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

CFAST Time vs OD 1 

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

500

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

CFAST Time vs OD 1 

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

500

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

CFAST Time vs OD 1 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

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. 

CFAST Time vs OD 1 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

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. 

CFAST Time vs OD 1 

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

500

600

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

CFAST Time vs OD 1 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

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. 

CFAST Time vs OD 1 

Figure A-22. Smoke Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-32 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Smoke Density (mg/m3

)

0

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs Smoke Conc. 

CFAST Time vs OD 1 

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. 

CFAST Time vs OD 1 

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. 

CFAST Time vs OD 1 

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. 

CFAST Time vs OD 1 

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. 

CFAST Time vs OD 1 

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. 

CFAST Time vs OD 1 

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. 

CFAST Time vs OD 1 

Figure A-23. Smoke concentration, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-33 

Table A-3. Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration 

Exp CFAST Relative 

Difference

(mg/m3

) (mg/m3) (%)

Test 1 42 321 672

Test 7 55 307 457

Test 2 128 420 228

Test 8 100 411 313

Test 4 80 177 122

Test 10 71 177 150

Test 13 224 480 115

Test 16 139 204 47

Test 17 353 143 -60

Test 3 118 140 18

Test 9 117 139 19

Test 5 87 91 4

Test 14 91 139 53

Test 15 124 140 13

Test 18 110 140 27

Smoke Concentration

BE3

Series Test

A.7 Compartment Pressure 

Experimental measurements for room pressure are available from the ICFMP BE #3 test series 

only. The pressure within the compartment was 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 vent near the 

ceiling with an area consistent with the measured leakage area. 

Comparisons between measurement and prediction are shown in Figure A-24 and Figure A-25. 

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. 

In general, the predicted pressures are of comparable magnitude to the measured pressures, and 

in most cases differences can be explained using the reported uncertainties in the leakage area 

and the fact that the leakage area changed from test to test because of the thermal stress on the 

compartment walls. 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 return mass flow rates. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-34 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

Exp Time vs CompP 

CFAST Time vs Pressure 1 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

Exp Time vs CompP 

CFAST Time vs Pressure 1 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

Exp Time vs CompP 

CFAST Time vs Pressure 1 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

Exp Time vs CompP 

CFAST Time vs Pressure 1 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

Exp Time vs CompP 

CFAST Time vs Pressure 1 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

Exp Time vs CompP 

CFAST Time vs Pressure 1 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

Exp Time vs CompP 

CFAST Time vs Pressure 1 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

Exp Time vs CompP 

CFAST Time vs Pressure 1 

Figure A-24. Compartment pressure, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-35 

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pressure (Pa)

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

Exp Time vs CompP 

CFAST Time vs Pressure 1 

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 

CFAST Time vs Pressure 1 

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 

CFAST Time vs Pressure 1 

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 

CFAST Time vs Pressure 1 

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 

CFAST Time vs Pressure 1 

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 

CFAST Time vs Pressure 1 

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 

CFAST Time vs Pressure 1 

Figure A-25. Compartment pressure, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-36 

Table A-4. Relative Differences for Compartment Pressure 

Exp CFAST Relative 

Difference

(Pa) (Pa) (%)

Test 1 58 42 -27

Test 7 46 29 -38

Test 2 290 266 -8

Test 8 189 213 12

Test 4 57 76 34

Test 10 49 45 -9

Test 13 232 336 45

Test 16 81 304 277

Test 17 195 166 -15

Test 3 -1.9 -2.1 10

Test 9 -2.0 -2.1 7

Test 5 -1.8 -2.0 8

Test 14 -2.1 -2.1 3

Test 15 -2.4 -2.2 -6

Test 18 -2.0 -2.1 7

Comparment Pressure Rise

BE3

Series Test
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-37 

A.8 Target Temperature and Heat Flux 

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. 

ICFMP BE # 3 

For each of the four cable targets considered, measurements of the target surface temperature and 

total heat flux are compared for Control Cable B, Horizontal Cable Tray D, Power Cable F and 

Vertical Cable Tray G. 

CFAST does not have a detailed model of the heat transfer within the bundled, cylindrical, nonhomogenous cables. For all the cable targets, CFAST assumes them to be rectangular 

homogeneous slabs of thickness comparable to the diameter of the individual cables. Material 

properties for the targets are assumed to be those of the covering material for the respective 

cables. 

 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-38 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Rad 

 

Total 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

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 4 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 3 

CFAST Time vs Cable E Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Rad 

 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Temp 

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Temp 

Figure A-26. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-39 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable E Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Rad 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable E Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Rad 

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Temp 

Figure A-27. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-40 

 

Total Heat Flux to Control 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable E Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Rad 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable E Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Rad 

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Temp 

Figure A-28. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-41 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Rad 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Rad 

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Temp 

Figure A-29. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-42 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Rad 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Rad 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Temp 

Figure A-30. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-43 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Rad 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Rad 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Temp 

Figure A-31. Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14. Note the 

influence of the fan in Test 5. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-44 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Rad 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Rad 

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

Exp Time vs B-Ts-14 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable B Temp 

Figure A-32. 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 CFAST Validation Study 

A-45 

 

Total 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

2

4

6

8

10

CFAST Time vs Cable D Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Rad 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 Gauge 8 inoperative

Total 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

CFAST Time vs Cable D Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Rad 

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

100

200

300

400

Exp Time vs D-Ts-12 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp 

Figure A-33. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-46 

 

Total 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

CFAST Time vs Cable D Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Rad 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

Total 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

CFAST Time vs Cable D Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Rad 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp 

Figure A-34. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-47 

 

Total 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

CFAST Time vs Cable D Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Rad 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Total 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

CFAST Time vs Cable D Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Rad 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp 

Figure A-35. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-48 

 

Total 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

CFAST Time vs Cable D Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Rad 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Total 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

CFAST Time vs Cable D Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Rad 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp 

Figure A-36. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-49 

 

Total 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

CFAST Time vs Cable D Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Rad 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Total 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

CFAST Time vs Cable D Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Rad 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp 

Figure A-37. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-50 

 

Total 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

CFAST Time vs Cable D Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Rad 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Total 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

CFAST Time vs Cable D Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Rad 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp 

Figure A-38. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-51 

 

Total 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

25

30

CFAST Time vs Cable D Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Rad 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

Total 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

CFAST Time vs Cable D Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Rad 

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 8 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 7 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp 

Figure A-39. Thermal environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-52 

 

Total 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 10 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Rad 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Rad 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Temp 

Figure A-40. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-53 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Rad 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Rad 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Temp 

Figure A-41. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-54 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Rad 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Rad 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Temp 

Figure A-42. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-55 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Rad 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Rad 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Temp 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Flux 

Figure A-43. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-56 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Rad 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Rad 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Temp 

Figure A-44. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-57 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Rad 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Rad 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Temp 

Figure A-45. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-58 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Rad 

Total 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

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 2 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 1 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Rad 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

200

400

600

800

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Temp 

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

200

400

600

800

Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Temp 

Figure A-46. Thermal environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-59 

 

Total 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 Rad Gauge 7

CFAST Time vs Cable G Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable G33 Rad 

Gauge 9 inoperative

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable G Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable G33 Rad 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface 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 Vertical Cable Ts-35 

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-31 

CFAST Time vs Cable G31 Temp 

CFAST Time vs Cable G35 Temp 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface 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 Vertical Cable Ts-35 

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-31 

CFAST Time vs Cable G31 Temp 

CFAST Time vs Cable G35 Temp 

Figure A-47. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-60 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable G Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable G33 Rad 

Gauge 9 inoperative

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable G Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable G33 Rad 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface 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 Vertical Cable Ts-35 

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-31 

CFAST Time vs Cable G31 Temp 

CFAST Time vs Cable G35 Temp 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface 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 Vertical Cable Ts-35 

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-31 

CFAST Time vs Cable G31 Temp 

CFAST Time vs Cable G35 Temp 

Figure A-48. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-61 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable G Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable G33 Rad 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable G Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable G33 Rad 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface 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 Vertical Cable Ts-35 

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-31 

CFAST Time vs Cable G31 Temp 

CFAST Time vs Cable G35 Temp 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface 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 Vertical Cable Ts-35 

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-31 

CFAST Time vs Cable G31 Temp 

CFAST Time vs Cable G35 Temp 

Figure A-49. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 

10. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-62 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable G Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable G33 Rad 

Total 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 1 

CFAST Time vs Cable G Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable F Rad 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface 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 Vertical Cable Ts-35 

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-31 

CFAST Time vs Cable G31 Temp 

CFAST Time vs Cable G35 Temp 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface 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 Vertical Cable Ts-35 

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-31 

CFAST Time vs Cable G31 Temp 

CFAST Time vs Cable G35 Temp 

Figure A-50. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 

16. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-63 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable G Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable G33 Rad 

Total 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

10

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

CFAST Time vs Cable G Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable G33 Rad 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface 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 Vertical Cable Ts-35 

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-31 

CFAST Time vs Cable G31 Temp 

CFAST Time vs Cable G35 Temp 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface 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 Vertical Cable Ts-35 

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-31 

CFAST Time vs Cable G31 Temp 

CFAST Time vs Cable G35 Temp 

Figure A-51. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-64 

 

Total 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 

CFAST Time vs Cable G Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable G33 Rad 

Total 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

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

CFAST Time vs Cable G Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable G33 Rad 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface 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 Vertical Cable Ts-35 

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-31 

CFAST Time vs Cable G31 Temp 

CFAST Time vs Cable G35 Temp 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-35 

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-31 

Col 325 vs Col 336 

Col 325 vs Col 337 

Figure A-52. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 

14. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-65 

 

Total 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

2

4

6

8

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

CFAST Time vs Cable G Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable G33 Rad 

Total 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

2

4

6

8

10

Exp Time vs Cable Total Flux 9 

Exp Time vs Cable Rad Gauge 10 

CFAST Time vs Cable G Flux 

CFAST Time vs Cable G33 Rad 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-35 

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-31 

CFAST Time vs Cable G31 Temp 

CFAST Time vs Cable G35 Temp 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-35 

Exp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-31 

CFAST Time vs Cable G31 Temp 

CFAST Time vs Cable G35 Temp 

Figure A-53. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 

18. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-66 

 ICFMP BE # 4 

Targets in BE #4, Test 1 were three material probes made of concrete, aerated concrete and steel. 

Sensor M29 represents the aerated concrete material while Sensors M33 and M34 represent the 

concrete and steel materials respectively. 

Figure A-54. Location of 3 slab targets in ICFMP BE #4. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-67 

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 

CFAST Time vs WS2 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs WS2 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs WS3 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs WS3 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs WS4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs WS4 Temp 

Figure A-55. Heat Flux and Surface Temperatures of Target Slabs, ICFMP BE #4, Test 1. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-68 

ICFMP BE # 5 

A vertical cable tray was positioned near a wall opposite the fire. Heat flux gauges were inserted 

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 

three vertical locations along the tray. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-69 

 

Heat Flux to Cable Tray

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 

Exp Time vs WS3 

Exp Time vs WS4 

CFAST Time vs WS2 Flux 

CFAST Time vs WS3 Flux 

CFAST Time vs WS4 Flux 

Power Cable Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TCO 1-3 

Exp Time vs TCO 1-5 

Exp Time vs TCO 1-7 

CFAST Time vs TCO1-3 Temp 

CFAST Time vs TCO1-5 Temp 

CFAST Time vs TCO1-7 Temp 

Control Cable Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

Exp Time vs TCO 3-3 

Exp Time vs TCO 3-5 

Exp Time vs TCO 3-7 

CFAST Time vs TCO3-3 Temp 

CFAST Time vs TCO3-5 Temp 

CFAST Time vs TCO3-7 Temp 

Figure A-56. Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-70 

Table A-5. Relative Differences for Radiation and Total Heat Flux to Targets and Target Temperature 

 Radiant Heat Flux to Targets Total Heat Flux to Targets Target Temperature Rise 

 Test Cable Exp CFAST Diff Exp CFAST Diff Exp CFAST Diff 

 (kW/m2) (kW/m2) (%) (kW/m2) (kW/m2) (%) (°C) (°C) (%) 

BE3 Test 1 B 1.1 1.5 37 1.9 1.7 -10 106 103 -3 

 D 1.4 1.6 10 

 F 0.9 1.4 65 1.6 1.8 12 83 68 -18 

 G33 1.5 1.6 5 64 96 49 

 Test 7 B 1.2 1.5 24.6 1.8 1.6 -12 109 102 -7 

 D 1.3 1.6 15.0 2.5 1.7 -33 87 102 17 

 F 0.8 1.4 71.2 1.5 1.7 13 90 73 -19 

 G33 1.5 1.6 5.8 1.9 1.7 -11 78 93 19 

 Test 2 B 2.9 4.2 45.3 5.3 4.6 -12 176 144 -18 

 D 4.2 4.3 4 9.8 4.8 -52 126 146 15 

 F 2.0 3.9 96 4.8 4.6 -4 129 112 -13 

 G33 6.0 4.3 -27 107 138 30 

 Test 8 B 2.9 4.1 41 5.6 4.6 -18 183 142 -23 

 D 3.6 4.3 20 8.5 4.7 -45 150 143 -4 

 F 1.9 3.8 98 4.9 4.5 -9 131 110 -16 

 G33 6.0 4.3 -29 6.0 4.6 -22 107 136 27 

 Test 4 B 2.9 3.9 32 5.5 4.1 -25 149 156 5 

 D 3.3 4.0 23 7.2 4.3 -41 113 157 39 

 F 2.0 3.6 78 5.0 4.2 -17 149 115 -22 

 G33 6.0 4.0 -34 6.4 4.2 -34 125 149 19 

 Test 

10 

B 2.7 3.8 43 4.9 4.1 -17 144 162 13 

 D 2.9 4.0 36 6.7 4.2 -37 132 164 24 

 F 1.9 3.6 86 4.4 4.0 -7 150 129 -14 

 G33 5.4 4.0 -27 6.2 4.2 -32 148 149 0 

 Test 

13 

B 4.8 7.7 61 8.3 8.4 2 186 165 -11 

 D 6.6 8.0 22 11.2 8.7 -22 173 169 -3 

 F 2.9 7.2 147 7.3 8.1 11 143 143 0 

 G33 10.1 8.0 -20 12.2 8.6 -30 133 164 23 

 Test 

16 

B 4.1 6.5 59 8.4 7.2 -14 160 166 3 

 D 4.8 6.8 41 11.7 7.4 -37 156 170 9 

 F 2.8 6.0 119 6.1 6.8 11 168 148 -12 

 G33 12.0 6.8 -43 12.2 7.3 -40 169 150 -11 

 Test 

17 

B 1.3 2.4 85 2.4 3.0 27 

 D 1.5 2.5 67 3.3 3.1 -5 

 F 0.9 2.1 143 1.9 2.8 51 

 G33 2.4 2.6 8 3.1 3.1 1 

 Test 3 B 4.4 4.9 10 7.1 4.9 -31 226 221 -2 

 D 9.5 5.1 -46 210 223 6 

 F 3.0 4.5 53 5.5 4.9 -12 195 160 -18 

 G33 5.4 5.5 2 6.5 5.5 -15 169 224 33 

 Test 9 B 4.3 4.7 9 6.6 4.8 -28 228 218 -4 

 D 5.3 4.9 -8 9.1 4.9 -46 220 219 -1 

 F 2.7 4.3 59 5.1 4.7 -7 195 156 -20 

 G33 5.2 5.3 2 6.4 5.3 -17 166 221 33 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-71 

 Radiant Heat Flux to Targets Total Heat Flux to Targets Target Temperature Rise 

 Test Cable Exp CFAST Diff Exp CFAST Diff Exp CFAST Diff 

 (kW/m2) (kW/m2) (%) (kW/m2) (kW/m2) (%) (°C) (°C) (%) 

 Test 5 B 3.9 3.6 -7 6.9 3.6 -47 150 183 22 

 D 4.8 3.7 -22 8.5 3.8 -56 132 184 39 

 F 2.6 3.3 25 6.4 3.6 -44 175 128 -27 

 G33 5.4 4.2 -23 6.7 4.2 -37 161 190 18 

 Test 

14 

B 2.8 4.1 46 3.8 4.3 12 199 207 4 

 D 6.1 4.4 -27 178 208 17 

 F 2.1 3.9 83 3.5 4.3 26 171 145 -15 

 G33 10.5 7.3 -31 10.9 7.3 -33 270 262 -3 

 Test 

15 

B 46.5 3.9 -92 57.7 4.0 -93 416 207 -50 

 D 20.9 4.2 -80 243 209 -14 

 F 18.3 3.6 -80 23.9 4.0 -83 669 155 -77 

 G33 3.7 7.0 89 5.1 7.0 37 161 263 63 

 Test 

18 

B 5.2 5.1 -3 7.6 5.1 -33 236 227 -4 

 D 7.8 5.0 -36 217 221 2 

 F 5.2 5.7 10 8.7 5.9 -32 232 188 -19 

 G33 2.8 4.4 54 4.4 4.5 1 

BE4 Test 1 WS 2 27.2 36.5 34 356 360 1 

 WS 3 46.6 37.3 -20 308 412 34 

 WS 4 32.4 35.8 10 489 514 5 

BE5 Test 4 WS 2 / TCO 1-3 3.6 1.7 -53 87 67 -23 

 TCO 2-3 112 85 -24 

 WS 3 / TCO 1-5 96.9 2.2 -98 110 88 -20 

 TCO 2-5 146 115 -22 

 WS 4 / TCO 1-7 5.7 2.2 -62 107 87 -18 

 TCO 2-7 140 114 -19 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-72 

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. This category is similar to that of the previous section, Heat Flux and Surface 

Temperature of Targets, only here the focus is on compartment walls, ceiling and floors. 

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 were in roughly the same relative location to the 

fire and hence the measurements and predictions were 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 was positioned close to the south wall. 

The heat flux gauges used on the compartment walls measured the net, not total, heat flux. FDS 

has an option for outputting the net heat flux, but this output cannot be compared directly with 

the measured net heat flux because the predicted and measured wall temperatures can differ, and 

this will affect the 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 uncoupled. 

For the purpose of comparing prediction and measurement, the following correction was 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 heat fluxes 

independently of the surface temperature. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-73 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs S U-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs S U-4 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs S U-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs S U-4 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs S U-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs S U-4 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Temp 

Figure A-57. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-74 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Temp 

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

Exp Time vs North U-1 

Exp Time vs North U-4 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Flux 

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

Exp Time vs TC North U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC North U-4-2 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Temp 

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

Exp Time vs North U-1 

Exp Time vs North U-4 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Flux 

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

Exp Time vs TC North U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC North U-4-2 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Temp 

Figure A-58. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-75 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Temp 

Figure A-59. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-76 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Temp 

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

CFAST Time vs S U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs S U-3 Flux 

Long Wall 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 South U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC South U-3-2 

CFAST Time vs S U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs S U-3 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs N U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs N U-4 Temp 

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Exp Time vs TC South U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC South U-4-2 

CFAST Time vs S U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs S U-4 Temp 

Figure A-60. Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-77 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-3 Flux 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-3 Temp 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Flux 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TC East U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Temp 

Figure A-61. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-78 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-3 Flux 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Flux 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TC East U-3-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

CFAST Time vs E U-3 Temp 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Temp 

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

Exp Time vs East U-1 

Exp Time vs East U-4 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs E U-4 Flux 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TC East U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-4-2 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs E U-4 Temp 

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

Exp Time vs East U-1 

Exp Time vs East U-2 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Flux 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TC East U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Temp 

Figure A-62. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-79 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-3 Flux 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-3 Temp 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Flux 

Short 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 East U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-3 Flux 

CFAST Time vs E U-4 Flux 

Flux Gauge E U-4 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

250

Exp Time vs TC East U-3-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-4-2 

CFAST Time vs E U-3 Temp 

CFAST Time vs E U-4 Temp 

Figure A-63. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-80 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Flux 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TC East U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

CFAST Time vs E U-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Temp 

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 

Col 325 vs Col 368 

Col 325 vs Col 367 

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Exp Time vs TC East U-3-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

Col 325 vs Col 345 

Col 325 vs Col 344 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-3 Flux 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Flux 

Short Wall 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 East U-3-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

CFAST Time vs E U-3 Temp 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs E U-3 Flux 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Flux 

Short Wall 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 East U-3-2 

Exp Time vs TC East U-2-2 

CFAST Time vs E U-3 Temp 

CFAST Time vs E U-2 Temp 

Figure A-64. Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-81 

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

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Temp 

Ceiling 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 Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Flux 

Gauge U-4 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 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Temp 

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

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Temp 

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

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Temp 

Figure A-65. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-82 

Ceiling 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 Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Flux 

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Temp 

Ceiling 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 Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Flux 

Gauge U-4 Inoperative

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Temp 

Ceiling 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

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-7 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-5 

CFAST Time vs C-7 Flux 

CFAST Time vs C-5 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs C-7 Temp 

CFAST Time vs C-5 Temp 

Ceiling 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

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-7 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-5

CFAST Time vs C-7 Flux 

CFAST Time vs C-5 Flux 

Ceiling Temperatures

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 TC Ceiling C-7-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-5-2 

CFAST Time vs C-7 Temp 

CFAST Time vs C-5 Temp 

Figure A-66. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-83 

Ceiling 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

CFAST Time vs C-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Flux 

Gauges Inoperative

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Temperature (C)

0

100

200

300

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Temp 

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Heat Flux (kW/m2

)

0

5

10

15

20

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-2 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4 

CFAST Time vs C-2 Flux 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Flux 

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-2-1 

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2 

CFAST Time vs C-2 Temp 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Temp 

Figure A-67. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-84 

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

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-5 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs C-5 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs C-5 Temp 

Ceiling 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 Ceiling U-1 

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-5 

Col 325 vs Col 370 

Col 325 vs Col 373 

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

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 

Col 325 vs Col 347 

Col 325 vs Col 350 

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 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Flux 

Gauge U-4 Inoperative

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 

CFAST Time vs C-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs C-4 Flux 

Gauge U-4 Inoperative

Figure A-68. Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-85 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs F-4 Flux 

Floor 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 Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-4-2 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs F-4 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs F-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs F-4 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs F-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs F-4 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs F-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs F-4 Temp 

Figure A-69. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-86 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs F-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs F-4 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs F-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs F-4 Temp 

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

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-2 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Temp 

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

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-2 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Temp 

Figure A-70. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-87 

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

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-2 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Temp 

Open Door Tests to Follow

Floor 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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Temp 

Floor 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

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-2 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Temp 

Figure A-71. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-88 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs F-4 Flux 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs F-4 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Flux 

Floor 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 Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-4-2 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Temp 

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 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Flux 

Floor Temperatures

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 TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-2-2 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Temp 

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

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

3.5

Exp Time vs Floor U-1 

Exp Time vs Floor U-2 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Flux 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Flux 

Floor Temperatures

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 TC Floor U-1-2 

Exp Time vs TC Floor U-2-2 

CFAST Time vs F-1 Temp 

CFAST Time vs F-2 Temp 

Figure A-72. Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-89 

Table A-6. Relative Differences for Surface Heat Flux and Temperature 

 Total Flux to Surface Surface Temperature 

Series Test Measurement 

Position 

Exp CFAST Diff Exp CFAST Diff 

 (kW/m2) (kW/m2) (%) (°C) (°C) (%) 

BE3 Test 1 Long Wall 1.4 1.7 21 54 89 64 

 1.8 1.7 -6 68 89 31 

 Short Wall 1.3 1.7 33 55 89 60 

 1.7 1.7 -3 71 89 26 

 Floor 0.9 1.4 48 38 71 86 

 2.4 1.3 -44 77 69 -11 

 Ceiling 1.9 1.7 -12 81 92 14 

 3.8 1.7 -56 176 91 -49 

 Test 7 Long Wall 1.4 1.6 19 53 87 63 

 1.9 1.6 -14 70 87 23 

 Short Wall 1.2 1.6 34 55 86 58 

 1.8 1.6 -9 70 87 24 

 Floor 0.9 1.3 49 36 69 89 

 2.3 1.3 -44 78 67 -14 

 Ceiling 1.9 1.7 -14 80 89 12 

 191 88 -54 

 Test 2 Long Wall 3.8 4.4 17 96 150 57 

 4.5 4.3 -4 120 151 26 

 Short Wall 3.6 4.4 21 110 150 37 

 4.6 4.4 -5 125 151 20 

 Floor 2.6 3.7 41 74 127 71 

 8.9 3.5 -60 156 124 -21 

 Ceiling 5.6 4.5 -21 148 154 4 

 14.5 4.3 -70 308 152 -51 

 Test 8 Long Wall 3.8 4.3 13 95 149 57 

 3.3 4.3 31 132 149 13 

 Short Wall 2.5 4.3 76 109 148 36 

 4.7 4.3 -8 125 149 19 

 Floor 2.6 3.6 40 71 125 75 

 8.6 3.5 -60 148 121 -18 

 Ceiling 6.1 4.4 -28 148 153 3 

 12.9 4.3 -67 325 150 -54 

 Test 4 Long Wall 3.4 4.0 16 97 150 54 

 3.5 4.0 13 146 152 4 

 Short Wall 3.3 4.0 21 106 149 41 

 4.0 3.9 -1 121 150 24 

 Floor 2.5 3.3 35 76 130 70 

 8.5 3.2 -62 152 127 -16 

 Ceiling 5.1 4.0 -21 147 153 4 

 6.0 4.0 -34 180 153 -15 

 Test 10 Long Wall 3.3 3.9 18 94 150 59 

 3.5 3.9 13 163 151 -7 

 Short Wall 3.1 3.9 26 106 149 41 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-90 

 Total Flux to Surface Surface Temperature 

Series Test Measurement 

Position 

Exp CFAST Diff Exp CFAST Diff 

 (kW/m2) (kW/m2) (%) (°C) (°C) (%) 

 3.9 3.9 1 117 150 28 

 Floor 2.3 3.3 45 71 130 83 

 7.9 3.2 -59 158 127 -20 

 Ceiling 4.8 4.0 -17 138 153 11 

 221 153 -31 

 Test 13 Long Wall 110 195 77 

 199 198 -1 

 Short Wall 127 194 53 

 145 196 35 

 Floor 89 166 87 

 149 161 8 

 Ceiling 319 197 -38 

 498 197 -60 

 Test 16 Long Wall 107 175 64 

 217 180 -17 

 Short Wall 123 175 42 

 141 176 24 

 Floor 80 148 85 

 146 144 -1 

 Ceiling 284 178 -37 

 441 180 -59 

 Test 17 Long Wall 1.5 2.6 76 39 62 59 

 0.9 2.7 188 82 72 -12 

 Short Wall 1.6 2.6 65 56 61 7 

 1.9 2.6 35 61 64 4 

 Floor 0.9 1.6 87 24 38 57 

 1.5 1.5 1 52 36 -31 

 Ceiling 69 67 -2 

 230 72 -69 

 Test 3 Long Wall 3.5 4.5 27 114 187 64 

 4.3 5.0 16 172 203 18 

 Short Wall 2.5 3.6 42 87 152 74 

 4.4 4.6 3 146 191 31 

 Floor 2.0 3.2 62 54 143 166 

 4.1 3.1 -24 119 139 17 

 Ceiling 4.6 4.7 1 155 194 25 

 9.9 4.8 -52 287 197 -31 

 Test 9 Long Wall 3.4 4.3 25 113 184 63 

 4.2 4.8 15 178 200 12 

 Short Wall 2.4 3.4 42 88 148 68 

 135 188 39 

 Floor 1.9 3.0 59 53 139 161 

 3.9 2.9 -25 122 135 10 

 Ceiling 5.5 4.5 -18 204 191 -6 

 9.4 4.6 -51 290 194 -33 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-91 

 Total Flux to Surface Surface Temperature 

Series Test Measurement 

Position 

Exp CFAST Diff Exp CFAST Diff 

 (kW/m2) (kW/m2) (%) (°C) (°C) (%) 

 Test 5 Long Wall 2.7 3.1 14 94 146 55 

 3.8 3.7 -2 155 168 9 

 Short Wall 2.0 2.5 27 71 116 62 

 3.3 3.1 -5 118 148 26 

 Floor 1.4 2.2 56 42 107 157 

 10.1 2.1 -79 171 104 -39 

 Ceiling 3.4 3.2 -6 125 151 21 

 6.7 3.4 -49 263 159 -40 

 Test 14 Long Wall 3.5 4.3 23 114 184 61 

 8.1 5.7 -30 255 222 -13 

 Short Wall 2.4 3.5 49 87 149 72 

 4.5 4.5 0 148 189 28 

 Floor 1.9 3.1 64 52 141 169 

 3.0 3.0 1 104 137 32 

 Ceiling 4.7 4.5 -3 158 192 22 

 9.0 4.8 -46 352 200 -43 

 Test 15 Long Wall 3.6 4.1 12 220 183 -17 

 7.5 4.2 -44 205 188 -9 

 Short Wall 2.6 3.3 25 96 145 50 

 4.7 4.2 -10 151 187 24 

 Floor 1.9 2.9 46 52 137 161 

 5.2 2.8 -47 132 132 1 

 Ceiling 157 191 22 

 287 186 -35 

 Test 18 Long Wall 3.4 4.3 25 118 185 56 

 312 248 -21 

 Short Wall 2.6 3.5 36 94 154 64 

 4.7 4.5 -4 153 190 24 

 Floor 1.8 3.1 74 50 141 185 

 3.1 3.0 -2 107 137 29 

 Ceiling 4.5 4.5 2 145 193 33 

 250 194 -23 

BE4 Test 1 M 19 596 546 -8 

 M 20 722 238 -67 

BE5 Test 4 TW 1-1 56 37 -34 

 TW 2-1 4 26 480 

 TW 1-4 87 36 -58 

 TW 2-4 68 35 -49 

 TW 1-7 86 37 -57 

 TW 2-7 72 37 -49 
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study 

A-92 

A.10 References 

McCaffrey, B. J. Momentum Implications for Buoyant Diffusion Plumes. Combustion and 

Flame, vol. 52, pp. 149 (1983).
B-1 

B 

CFAST INPUT FILES 

Appendix B includes the CFAST input files used for the simulations in this V&V study. They 

are organized by test series as follows: 

B.1 ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #2 

B.2 ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #3 

B.3 ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #4 

B.4 ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #5 

B.5 ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #2 

B.6 FM /SNL Test Series 

B.7 NBS Test Series 
CFAST Input Files 

B-2 

B.1 CFMP Benchmark Exercise #2 

Case 1, Input File

VERSN,6,ICFMP 2 Test 1 Leakage vents only 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,600,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,293.15,101300,0 

TAMB,293.15,101300,0,50 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,13.8,27,19,0,0,0,SteelBE2,ConcreteBE2,SteelBE2 

ROOMA,1,4,372.6,372.6,51.3,51.3 

ROOMH,1,4,0,12,17.1,19 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,0.71,0.71,0,1,6.55,0,4,1 

HVENT,1,2,2,0.71,0.71,0,1,6.55,0,2,1 

HVENT,1,2,3,0.71,12.71,12,1,6.55,0,4,1 

HVENT,1,2,4,0.71,12.71,12,1,6.55,0,2,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE2 1,1,7.2,16,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

Case 1, Fire Definition File

NRC BE2 1 

7,0,0,0,0,1.08,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,13,1245000,0.0279148,0,1.08,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,90,1709000,0.03831838,0,1.08,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,288,1858000,0.04165919,0,1.08,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0,327,1783000,0.03997758,0,1.08,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.35,409,1356000,0.03040359,0,1.08,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

10000,438,0,0,0,1.08,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.46E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-3 

Case 2, Input File

VERSN,6,ICFMP 2 Test 2 Leakage vents only 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,600,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,293.15,101300,0 

TAMB,293.15,101300,0,50 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,13.8,27,19,0,0,0,SteelBE2,ConcreteBE2,SteelBE2 

ROOMA,1,4,372.6,372.6,51.3,51.3 

ROOMH,1,4,0,12,17.1,19 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,0.71,0.71,0,1,6.55,0,4,1 

HVENT,1,2,2,0.71,0.71,0,1,6.55,0,2,1 

HVENT,1,2,3,0.71,12.71,12,1,6.55,0,4,1 

HVENT,1,2,4,0.71,12.71,12,1,6.55,0,2,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE2 2,1,7.2,16,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

Case 2, Fire Definition File

NRC BE2 2 

9,0,0,0,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,14,2151000,0.0482287,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,30,2542000,0.05699551,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,91,3063000,0.06867713,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0,193,3259000,0.07307175,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.35,282,3129000,0.07015695,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

10000,340,2737000,0.06136771,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

1,372,2275000,0.05100897,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

1,395,0,0,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.25 

4.46E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-4 

Case 3, Input File

VERSN,6,ICFMP 3 Test 3 Leakage vents and mechanical ventilation 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,600,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,293.15,101300,0 

TAMB,293.15,101300,0,50 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,13.8,27,19,0,0,0,SteelBE2,ConcreteBE2,SteelBE2 

ROOMA,1,4,372.6,372.6,51.3,51.3 

ROOMH,1,4,0,12,17.1,19 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,0.71,0.71,0,1,6.55,0,4,1 

HVENT,1,2,2,0.71,0.71,0,1,6.55,0,2,1 

HVENT,1,2,3,0.71,12.71,12,1,6.55,0,4,1 

HVENT,1,2,4,0.71,12.71,12,1,6.55,0,2,1 

HVENT,1,2,5,0.8,4,0,1,8.9,8.9,1,1 

HVENT,1,2,6,0.8,4,0,1,8.9,8.9,3,1 

MVENT,1,2,1,H,12,3.14,H,12,3.14,11,200,300,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE2 3,1,7.2,16,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

Case 3, Fire Definition File

NRC BE2 3 

8,0,0,0,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,13,2426000,0.05439462,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,63,3184000,0.07139014,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,166,3601000,0.08073991,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0,256,3639000,0.08159193,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.35,292,3450000,0.07735426,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

10000,330,2654000,0.05950673,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

1,345,0,0,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

1 

0.25 

4.46E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-5 

B.2 CFMP Benchmark Exercise #3 

Test 1, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 1, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV Off" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,295.15,101300,0 

TAMB,295.15,101300,0,34 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,8.47,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE3 1,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP_P_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-6 

Test 1, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 1 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,148,410000,0.009111111,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,1350,410000,0.009111111,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,1500,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.44 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-7 

Test 2, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 2, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV Off" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,299.15,101300,0 

TAMB,299.15,101300,0,36 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,8.29,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE3 2,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP_P_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-8 

Test 2, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 2 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,180,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,625,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,626,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.44 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-9 

Test 3, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 3, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV Off" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,303.15,101300,0 

TAMB,303.15,101300,0,34 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,2,2,0,1,2.58,0,4,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE3 3,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP_P_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-10 

Test 3, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 3 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,178,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,1379,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,1562,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.44 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-11 

Test 4, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 4, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV On" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,300.15,101300,0 

TAMB,300.15,101300,0,44 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,8.29,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1 

MVENT,2,1,1,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,0.9,200,300,1 

MVENT,1,2,2,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,1.7,200,300,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE3 4,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP_P_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-12 

Test 4, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 4 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,178,1200000,0.02666667,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,814,1200000,0.02666667,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,815,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.44 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-13 

Test 5, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 5, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV On" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,301.15,101300,0 

TAMB,301.15,101300,0,37 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,5.8,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1 

HVENT,1,2,2,2,2,0,1,2.58,2.58,1,1 

MVENT,2,1,1,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,0.9,200,300,1 

MVENT,1,2,2,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,1.7,200,300,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE3 5,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP_P_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-14 

Test 5, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 5 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,178,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,1379,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,1562,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.44 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-15 

Test 7, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 7, PVC Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV Off" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,297.15,101300,0 

TAMB,297.15,101300,0,58 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,10.17,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE3 7,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,PVC_P_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-16 

Test 7, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 7 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,129,400000,0.008888889,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,1332,400000,0.008888889,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,1460,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.44 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-17 

Test 8, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 8, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV Off" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,298.15,101300,0 

TAMB,298.15,101300,0,63 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,9.21,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE3 8,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP_P_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-18 

Test 8, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 8 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,176,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,610,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,611,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.44 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-19 

Test 9, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 9, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV Off" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,300.15,101300,0 

TAMB,300.15,101300,0,62 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,2,2,0,1,2.58,0,4,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE3 9,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP_P_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-20 

Test 9, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 9 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,175,1170000,0.026,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,1376,1170000,0.026,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,1560,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.44 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-21 

Test 10, Input File

lVERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 10, PVC Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV On" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,300.15,101300,0 

TAMB,300.15,101300,0,63 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,10.17,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1 

MVENT,2,1,1,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,0.9,200,300,1 

MVENT,1,2,2,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,1.7,200,300,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE3 10,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,PVC_P_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-22 

Test 10, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 10 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,176,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,826,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,827,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.44 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-23 

Test 13, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 13, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV Off" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,304.15,101300,0 

TAMB,304.15,101300,0,52 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,11.9,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE3 13,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP_P_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-24 

Test 13, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 13 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,177,2330000,0.05177778,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,364,2330000,0.05177778,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,365,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.44 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-25 

Test 14, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 14, Test 3, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV Off" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,301.15,101300,0 

TAMB,301.15,101300,0,61 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,2,2,0,1,2.58,0,4,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE3 14,1,10.83,5.21,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP_P_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-26 

Test 14, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 14 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,176,1180000,0.02622222,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,1381,1180000,0.02622222,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,1567,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.44 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-27 

Test 15, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 15, Test 3, PVC Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV Off" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,291.15,101300,0 

TAMB,291.15,101300,0,95 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,2,2,0,1,2.58,0,4,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE3 15,1,10.83,5.21,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,PVC_P_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-28 

Test 15, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 15 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,180,1180000,0.02622222,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,1380,1180000,0.02622222,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,1567,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.44 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-29 

Test 16, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 16, PVC Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV On" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,299.15,101300,0 

TAMB,299.15,101300,0,55 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,10.17,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1 

MVENT,2,1,1,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,0.9,200,300,1 

MVENT,1,2,2,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,1.7,200,300,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE3 16,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,PVC_P_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-30 

Test 16, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 16 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,177,2300000,0.05111111,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,382,2300000,0.05111111,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,383,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.44 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-31 

Test 17, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 17, PVC Cable, Toluene, Door Closed, MV Off" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,300.15,101300,0 

TAMB,300.15,101300,0,40 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,10.17,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE3 17,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,PVC_P_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-32 

Test 17, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 17 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.0921,181,1160000,0.02577778,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,272,1160000,0.02577778,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,273,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.44 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-33 

Test 18, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 18, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV Off" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,300.15,101300,0 

TAMB,300.15,101300,0,40 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,2,2,0,1,2.58,0,4,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE3 18,1,12.33,1.55,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP_P_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP_C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-34 

Test 18, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 18 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,178,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,1379,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,1562,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.44 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-35 

B.3 ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #4 

Test 1, Input File

VERSN,6,CFAST Simulation 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,293.15,101300,0 

TAMB,293.15,101300,0,50 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,3.6,3.6,5.7,0,0,0,ConcreteBE4,LiteConcBE4,ConcreteBE4 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,0.7,3,0,1,1.8,1.8,1,1 

MVENT,1,2,1,H,5.7,1.46,H,5.7,1.46,1.1,200,300,1 

MVENT,1,2,2,H,5.7,1.46,H,5.7,1.46,1.1,200,300,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE4 1,1,1.8,1.8,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,3.6,1.5,1.8,-1,0,0,ConcreteBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0,2.8,1.7,1,0,0,SteelBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0,1.9,1.7,1,0,0,ConcreteBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0,0.7,1.7,1,0,0,LiteConcBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,2.45,3.6,1.5,0,-1,0,GYPSUM,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,2.45,3.6,3.35,0,-1,0,GYPSUM,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-36 

Test 1, Fire Definition File

NRC BE4 1 

9,0,0,0,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.165,92,119840,0.0028,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,180,1583600,0.037,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,260,2623640,0.0613,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0,600,3197160,0.0747,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.35,822,3351240,0.0783,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

10000,870,3381200,0.079,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

1,1368,3518160,0.0822,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

1,1395,0,0,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.25 

4.28E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-37 

B.4 ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #5 

Test 4, Input File

VERSN,6,CFAST Simulation 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,2300,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,293.15,101300,0 

TAMB,293.15,101300,0,50 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,3.6,3.6,5.6,0,0,0,LiteConcBE4,LiteConcBE4,ConcreteBE4 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,0.7,3.6,1.4,1,1.8,1.8,1,1 

HVENT,1,2,2,0.6,1.4,0.7,1,1.8,1.8,2,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NRC BE5 4F,1,3.05,1.75,0.6,1,1,0,0,0,1 

OBJECT,NRC BE5 4B,1,0.6,2.1,0.4,1,1,0,0,0,1 

!! 

!!target and detector keywords 

!! 

TARGET,1,0.41,2.13,1.2,1,0,0,LiteConcBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.41,2.13,2,1,0,0,LiteConcBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.41,2.13,2.8,1,0,0,LiteConcBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.41,2.13,3.6,1,0,0,LiteConcBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.41,2.13,4.4,1,0,0,LiteConcBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.24,1.2,1,0,0,PVC_P_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.24,1.6,1,0,0,PVC_P_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.24,2,1,0,0,PVC_P_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.24,2.4,1,0,0,PVC_P_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.24,2.8,1,0,0,PVC_P_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.24,3.2,1,0,0,PVC_P_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.24,3.6,1,0,0,PVC_P_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.24,4,1,0,0,PVC_P_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.24,4.4,1,0,0,PVC_P_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.05,1.2,1,0,0,PVC_C_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.05,1.6,1,0,0,PVC_C_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.05,2,1,0,0,PVC_C_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.05,2.4,1,0,0,PVC_C_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.05,2.8,1,0,0,PVC_C_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.05,3.2,1,0,0,PVC_C_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.05,3.6,1,0,0,PVC_C_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.05,4,1,0,0,PVC_C_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-38 

TARGET,1,0.44,2.05,4.4,1,0,0,PVC_C_BE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,2.6,3.6,0.4,0,-1,0,ConcreteBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,2.6,3.6,2.8,0,-1,0,ConcreteBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,2.6,3.6,5.2,0,-1,0,ConcreteBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0,2.2,0.4,1,0,0,ConcreteBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0,2.2,2.8,1,0,0,ConcreteBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

TARGET,1,0,2.2,5.2,1,0,0,ConcreteBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE 

Test 4, Fire Definition Files

NRC BE5 4F 

12,0,0,0,0,0,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.046,60,120000,0.003921569,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,120,220000,0.007189543,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,180,280000,0.009150327,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0,240,290000,0.009477125,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.2,300,300000,0.009803922,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

10000,480,320000,0.01045752,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.7,600,330000,0.01078431,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.7,900,340000,0.01111111,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1,1800,360000,0.01176471,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

3.06E+07,2299,360000,0.01176471,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

METHANE,2300,0,0,0,0,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

NRC BE5 4B 

7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.165,1200,0,0,0,0,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,1201,50000,0.001168224,0,0.09,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,2100,50000,0.001168224,0,0.09,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0,2120,100000,0.002336449,0,0.09,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.35,2280,100000,0.002336449,0,0.09,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

10000,2300,0,0,0,0,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.3 

0.3 

0.4 

4.28E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-39 

B.5 FM / SNL Test Series 

Test 4, Input File

VERSN,6,FM Test 4 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1200,-50,0,10,1 

EAMB,288.15,101300,0 

TAMB,288.15,101300,0,50 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,18.3,12.2,6.1,0,0,0,MariniteFM,ConcreteFM,MariniteFM 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

VVENT,2,1,1.08,2,1 

MVENT,2,1,1,H,4.9,0.66,H,4.9,0.66,0.38,200,300,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,FM SNL 4,1,12,6.1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

Test 4, Fire Definition File

FM SNL 4 

11,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,30,7968.75,0.0001770833,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,60,31875,0.0007083333,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,90,71718.75,0.00159375,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0,120,127500,0.002833333,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.35,150,199218.8,0.004427084,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

10000,180,286875,0.006375,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

1,210,390468.8,0.008677085,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

1,240,510000,0.01133333,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.25,600,510000,0.01133333,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

4.5E+07,601,0,0,0,0,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-40 

Test 5, Input File

VERSN,6,FM Test 5 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,900,-50,0,10,1 

EAMB,293.15,101300,0 

TAMB,293.15,101300,0,50 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,18.3,12.2,6.1,0,0,0,MariniteFM,ConcreteFM,MariniteFM 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

VVENT,2,1,1.08,2,1 

MVENT,2,1,1,H,4.9,0.66,H,4.9,0.66,3.78,200,300,1 

EVENT,M,2,1,1,540,0,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,FM SNL 5,1,12,6.1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

Test 5, Fire Definition File

FM SNL 5 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,240,480000,0.01066667,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,540,480000,0.01066667,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,541,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.35 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-41 

Test 21, Input File

VERSN,6,FM Test 21 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1800,-50,0,10,1 

EAMB,288.15,101300,0 

TAMB,288.15,101300,0,50 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Compartment 1,18.3,12.2,6.1,0,0,0,MariniteFM,ConcreteFM,MariniteFM 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

VVENT,2,1,1.08,2,1 

MVENT,2,1,1,H,4.9,0.66,H,4.9,0.66,0.38,200,300,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,FM SNL 21,1,12,6.1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

Test 21, Fire Definition File

FM SNL 21 

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0.1002,240,470000,0.01044444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

395.15,1140,470000,0.01044444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

295.15,1141,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0 

0 

0.35 

10000 

1 

1 

0.25 

4.5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-42 

B.6 NBS Test Series 

Test MV100A, Input File

VERSN,6,"NBS Test MV100A, Open Corridor Door, No Target Room" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1500,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,296.15,101300,0 

TAMB,296.15,101300,0,45 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Fire Room,2.34,2.34,2.16,9.85,0,0,CeramicNBS,FireBrickNBS,CeramicNBS 

COMPA,Entry to Fire 

Room,1.03,1.02,2,11.16,2.34,0,MariniteNBS,GypsumNBS,MariniteNBS 

COMPA,Corridor,12.19,2.44,2.44,0,3.36,0,MariniteNBS,GypsumNBS,MariniteNBS 

COMPA,Target Room,2.22,2.24,2.43,2.07,0.33,0,GypsumNBS,ConcreteNBS,GypsumNBS 

COMPA,Entry to Target 

Room,0.94,0.79,2.04,2.07,2.57,0,GypsumNBS,ConcreteNBS,GypsumNBS 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,0.81,1.6,0,1,1.42,0,3,1 

HVENT,2,3,1,0.81,1.6,0,1,0.11,0,3,1 

HVENT,3,6,1,0.76,2.03,0,1,0.84,0,4,1 

HVENT,3,5,1,0.79,2.04,0,1,2.14,0,1,0 

HVENT,4,5,1,0.79,2.04,0,1,0.075,0,3,0 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NBS MV100A,1,1.17,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

Test MV100A, Fire Definition File

NBS MV100A 

4,0,0,0,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0 

0.016,10,110000,0.0022,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0 

493,890,110000,0.0022,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0 

300,900,0,0,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0 

0 

0.2 

5 

0.4 

0.4 

0.65 
CFAST Input Files 

B-43 

5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-44 

Test MV100O, Input File

VERSN,6,"NBS Test MV100O, Closed Corridor Door, No Target Room" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1500,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,293.15,101300,0 

TAMB,293.15,101300,0,45 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Fire Room,2.34,2.34,2.16,9.85,0,0,CeramicNBS,FireBrickNBS,CeramicNBS 

COMPA,Entry to Fire 

Room,1.03,1.02,2,11.16,2.34,0,MariniteNBS,GypsumNBS,MariniteNBS 

COMPA,Corridor,12.19,2.44,2.44,0,3.36,0,MariniteNBS,GypsumNBS,MariniteNBS 

COMPA,Target Room,2.22,2.24,2.43,2.07,0.33,0,GypsumNBS,ConcreteNBS,GypsumNBS 

COMPA,Entry to Target 

Room,0.94,0.79,2.04,2.07,2.57,0,GypsumNBS,ConcreteNBS,GypsumNBS 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,0.81,1.6,0,1,1.42,0,3,1 

HVENT,2,3,1,0.81,1.6,0,1,0.11,0,3,1 

HVENT,3,6,1,0.76,2.44,2.43,1,0.84,0,4,1 

HVENT,3,5,1,0.79,2.04,0,1,2.14,0,1,0 

HVENT,4,5,1,0.79,2.04,0,1,0.075,0,3,0 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NBS MV100O,1,1.17,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

Test MV100O, Fire Definition File

NBS MV100O 

4,0,0,0,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0 

0.016,10,110000,0.0022,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0 

493,890,110000,0.0022,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0 

300,900,0,0,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0 

0 

0.3 

5 

0.4 

0.4 

0.65 

5E+07 

METHANE 
CFAST Input Files 

B-45 

Test MV100Z, Input File

VERSN,6,"NBS Test MV100Z, Open Corridor Door, Open Target Room" 

!! 

!!Environmental Keywords 

!! 

TIMES,1500,-10,0,10,1 

EAMB,295.15,101300,0 

TAMB,295.15,101300,0,62 

LIMO2,10 

WIND,0,10,0.16 

CJET,WALLS 

!! 

!!Compartment keywords 

!! 

COMPA,Fire Room,2.34,2.34,2.16,9.85,0,0,CeramicNBS,FireBrickNBS,CeramicNBS 

COMPA,Entry to Fire 

Room,1.03,1.02,2,11.16,2.34,0,MariniteNBS,GypsumNBS,MariniteNBS 

COMPA,Corridor,12.19,2.44,2.44,0,3.36,0,MariniteNBS,GypsumNBS,MariniteNBS 

COMPA,Target Room,2.22,2.24,2.43,2.07,0.33,0,GypsumNBS,ConcreteNBS,GypsumNBS 

COMPA,Entry to Target 

Room,0.94,0.79,2.04,2.07,2.57,0,GypsumNBS,ConcreteNBS,GypsumNBS 

!! 

!!vent keywords 

!! 

HVENT,1,2,1,0.81,1.6,0,1,1.42,0,3,1 

HVENT,2,3,1,0.81,1.6,0,1,0.11,0,3,1 

HVENT,3,6,1,0.76,2.03,0,1,0.84,0,4,1 

HVENT,3,5,1,0.79,2.04,0,1,2.14,0,1,1 

HVENT,4,5,1,0.79,2.04,0,1,0.075,0,3,1 

!! 

!!fire keywords 

!! 

OBJECT,NBS MV100Z,1,1.17,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 

Test MV100Z, Fire Definition File

NBS MV100Z 

4,0,0,0,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0 

0.016,10,110000,0.0022,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0 

493,890,110000,0.0022,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0 

300,900,0,0,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0 

0 

0.3 

5 

0.4 

0.4 

0.65 

5E+07 

METHANE