NUREG-1824 EPRI 1011999

Final Report

Verification and Validation

of Selected F;ire _Models for

Nuclear Power Plant

Applications

Volume 5:

Consolidated Fire Growth and Smoke

Transport Model (CFAST)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Washington, DC 20555-0001

~U.SANRC

Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94303

RESAELECTRIC POWER

CO~rai IRESEARCH INSTITUTE
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at

http://www. nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402-0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250 -

2. The National Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA 22161-0002

www.ntis.gov

1-800-553-6847 or, locally, 703-605-6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Administration

Mail, Distribution and Messenger Team

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTIONc(,nrc.gov

Facsimile: 301-415-2289

Some publications in the NUREG series that are

posted at NRC's Web site address

http://www. nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

on a Web site bear the date the material was accessed,

the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries includeall open literature items, such as

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and

congressional reports. Such documents as theses,

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are

maintained atThe NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-2738

These standards are available in the library for

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the

originating organization or, if they are American

National Standards, fromAmerican National Standards Institute

11 West 4 2nd Street

New York, NY 10036-8002

www.ansi.org

212-642-4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated

only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including

technical specifications; or orders, not in

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed

in contractor-prepared publications in this series are

not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the

staff (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of

conferences (NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports

resulting from international agreements

(NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4) brochures

(NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal

decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic

and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors'

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations

(NUREG-0750).

'1
Verification & Validation of Selected

Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant

Applications

Volume 5: Consolidated Fire Growth and Smoke

Transport Model (CFAST)

NUREG-1824 EPRI 1011999

Final Report

May 2007

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES)

Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-2738

U.S. NRC-RES Project Manager

M. H. Salley

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

3420 Hillview Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94303

EPRI Project Manager

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 ORGANI4TION(S) BELOW, OR ANY,;PE•SON 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 (11) THAT SUCH

USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS,

INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (111) 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

NOTE

For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at

800.313.3774 or

e-mail askepri@epr.com.

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER.. SHAPING THE FUTURE OF

ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
CITATIONS

This report was prepared by

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

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) 3420 Hillview Avenue

Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike Palo Alto, CA 94303

Rockville, MD 20852-273 8 Science Applications International Corp (SAIC)

Principal Investigators: 4920 El Camino Real

K. Hill Los Altos, CA 94022

J. Dreisbach Principal Investigators:

F. Joglar

B. Najafi

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Building Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL)

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600

Principal Investigators:

K McGrattan

R. Peacock

A. Hamins

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

Volume 2, Experimental Uncertainty: A. Hamins, K. McGrattan

Volume 3, FDTS: J. Dreisbach, K. Hill

Volume 4, FIVE-Revl: F. Joglar

Volume 5, CFAST: R. Peacock, P. Reneke (NIST)

Volume 6, MAGIC: F. Joglar, B. Guatier (EdF), L. Gay (EdF), J. Texeraud (EdF)

Volume 7, FDS: 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 5: Consolidated Fire and Smoke Transport Model (CFAST), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), Rockville, MD, 2007, and Electric

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

iii

ABSTRACT

There is a movement to introduce risk-informed 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.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has used risk-informed insights as part of its

regulatory decision making since the 1990's.

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 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 NPP fire protection

community has been using risk-informed, performance-based (RI/PB) approaches and insights to

support fire protection decision-making in general.

One key tool needed to further the use of 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. Furthermore, 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 ASTM E 1355,

Standard Guide for 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.

v

FOREWORD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

postulated 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 E 1355, Standard Guide for 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 NRC 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 organizations provided specialists in the use of fire models and other FHA tools to support this work.

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 of the predictive capabilities of five fire

dynamic calculation tools, and they may also help, to identify areas where further research and analysis are needed.

Brian W. Sheron, Director

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

vii

CONTENTS

I 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 .................................................................................................................. 2-3

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

2.9 Uses and Limitations of the Model .................................................................................. 2-3

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

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

3.2 Zone Model Assumptions ................................................................................................ 3-3

3.3 Description of Sub-Models and Correlations................................................................... 3-4

3.3.1 The Fire .................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.2 Plumes ..................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.3 Ceiling Jet ................................................................................................................ 3-5

3.3.4 Vent Flow ................................................................................................................. 3-5

3.3.5 Heat Transfer ........................................................................................................... 3-5

3.3.6 Targets ................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3.7 Heat Detectors ......................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3.8 Fire Suppression via Sprinklers ............................................................................... 3-7

3.3.9 Species Concentration and Deposition ................................................................... 3-7

3.4 Review of the Theoretical Development of the Model ..................................................... 3-7

3.4.1 Assessment of the Completeness of Documentation .............................................. 3-8

ix
3.4.2 Assessment of Justification of Approaches and Assumptions ................................ 3-8

3.4.3 Assessm ent of Constants and Default Values ........................................................ 3-8

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

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

4.2 Com parison with Analytic Solutions ............................................................................ 4-1

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

4.4 Num erical Tests .............................................................................................................. 4-2

5 M O DEL SENSITIVITY .......................................................... e ................................................. 5-1

5.1 Previous Sensitivity Studies ............................................................................................ 5-1

5.2 Sensitivity to Heat Release Rate ..................................................................................... 5-3

6 M O DEL VA LIDATIO N ....................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Hot Gas Layer (HG L) Tem perature and Height ............................................................ 6-4

6.2 Ceiling Jet Tem perature ................................................................................................... 6-6

6.3 Plum e Tem perature ......................................................................................................... 6-8

6.4 Flam e Height ................................................................................................................... 6-9

6.5 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration .................................................................... 6-9

6.6 Sm oke Concentration .................................................................................................... 6-11

6.7 Com partm ent Pressure ................................................................................................. 6-13

6.8 Radiation and Total Heat Flux to Targets and Target Temperature .............................. 6-14

6.9 Surface Heat Flux and Tem perature ............................................................................. 6-17

6.10 Sum m ary ..................................................................................................................... 6-19

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

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

A.1 Hot Gas Layer Tem perature and Height ........................................................................ A-2

ICFM P BE #2 ................................................................................................................... A-3

ICFM P BE #3 ................................................................................................................... A-5

ICFM P BE #4 ................................................................................................................. A-10

ICFM P BE #5 ...................................................... ............................................ .... A-12

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

NBS M ulti-Room Test Series ......................................................................................... A-16

A.2 Ceiling Jet Tem perature ............................................................................................... A-21

X.
ICFMP BE #3 Test Series ............................................................................................. A-21

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

A.3 Plume Tem perature ..................................................................................................... A-25

A.4 Flame Height ............................................................................................................... A-26

ICFM P BE #2 ................................................................................................................. A-26

ICFMP BE #3 ................................................................................................................. A-28

A.5 Oxygen Concentration ................................................................................................. A-29

A.6 Smoke Concentration .................................................................................................. A-32

A.7 Compartm ent Pressure ................................................................................................ A-35

A.8 Target Tem perature and Heat Flux .............................................................................. A-39

ICFMP BE #3 ................................................................................................................. A-39

ICFMP BE #4 ................................................................................................................. A-68

ICFMP BE #5 ................................................................................................................. A-70

A.9 Heat Flux and Surface Temperature of Com partment W alls ....................................... A-74

ICFMP BE #3 ....... I ........................................................................... .... A-74

ICFMP BE #4 ................................................................................................................. A-91

ICFMP BE #5 ................................................................................................................. A-92

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

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

B.2 ICFMP Benchm ark Exercise #3 ................................................................................ B-5

B.3 ICFMP Benchm ark Exercise #4 ................................................................................... B-35

B.4 ICFMP Benchm ark Exercise #5 ................................................................................... B-37

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

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

xi

FIGURES

Figure 5-1. Sensitivity of Various Output Quantities to Changes in HRR ................................. 5-4

Figure 6-1. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Hot Gas Layer (HGL)

Tem perature and H eight .................................................................................................... 6-5

Figure 6-2. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Ceiling Jet Temperature ...................... 6-8

Figure 6-3. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Oxygen Concentration and

Carbon Dioxide Concentration ........................................................................................ 6-10

Figure 6-4. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration ........................ 6-12

Figure 6-5. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Compartment Pressure ..................... 6-14

Figure 6-6. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Heat Flux to Targets and Target

T em perature ..................................................................................................................... 6-15

Figure 6-7. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Surface Heat Flux and

T e m perature ..................................................................................................................... 6-18

Figure A-I. Cut-Away View of the Simulation of ICFMP BE #2, Case 2 ................. c. 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

T e sts . ................................................................................................................................ 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

T ests ................................................................................................................................. 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-1 0

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

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

Figure A-11. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4 ...... A-1 3

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

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

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

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

1 A0 A ................................................................................................................................ A -17

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

10 0 0 . .............................................................................................................................. A -1 8

xiii
Figure A-17. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test 1OOZ.... A-19

Figure A-1 8. Ceiling Jet Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ........................... A-21

Figure A-1 9. Ceiling Jet Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ............................ A-22

Figure A-20. Ceiling Jet Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests .............................. A-23

Figure A-21. Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL tests ............................................................ A-24

Figure A-22. Photographs of Heptane Pan Fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2 ............................. A-27

Figure A-23. Photograph from Simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3, as seen through the

2 m x 2 m doorw ay .......................................................................................................... A -28

Figure A-24. 02 and CO 2 Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ........................ A-30

Figure A-25. 02 and C0 2 Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests ........................... A-31

Figure A-26. Smoke Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ................................ A-33

Figure A-27. Smoke Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests .................................. A-34

Figure A-28. Compartment Pressure, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ............................. A-36

Figure A-29. Compartment Pressure, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests ................................ A-37

Figure A-30. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7 .................. A-40

Figure A-31. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8 .................. A-41

Figure A-32. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10 ................ A-42

Figure A-33. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16 .............. A-43

Figure A-34. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9 .................. A-44

Figure A-35. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14 ................ A-45

Figure A-36. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18 .............. A-46

Figure A-37. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7 .......... A-47

Figure A-38. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8 .......... A-48

Figure A-39. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10 ........ A-49

Figure A-40. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16 ...... A-50

Figure A-41. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9 .......... A-51

Figure A-42. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14 ........ A-52

Figure A-43. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18 ...... A-53

Figure A-44. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7 ....... A-54

Figure A-45. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8 ....... A-55

Figure A-46. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10..... A-56

Figure A-47. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and

1 6 . ................................................................................................................................... A -5 7

Figure A-48. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9 ....... A-58

Figure A-49. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14..... A-59

Figure A-50. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and

1 8 .................................................................................................................................... A -6 0

Figure A-51. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1

a n d 7 ................................................................................................................................ A -6 1

xiv
Figure A-52. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2

a n d 8 ............................................................................................................................... A -6 2

Figure A-53. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4

a n d 10 ............................................................................................................................. A -6 3

Figure A-54. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13

a n d 16 ............................................................................................................................. A -6 4

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

a n d 9 ............................................................................................................................... A -6 5

Figure A-56. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5

a n d 14 ............................................................................................................................. A -6 6

Figure A-57. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15

a n d 18 ............................................................................................................................. A -6 7

Figure A-58. Location of Three Slab Targets in ICFMP BE #4 .............................................. A-68

Figure A-59. Heat Flux and Surface Temperatures of Target Slabs, ICFMP BE #4,

T e st 1 ............................................................................................................................... A -6 9

Figure A-60. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4 ............ A-71

Figure A-61. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, ClosedD oor T ests ....................................................................................................................... A -7 5

Figure A-62. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, ClosedD oo r T ests ....................................................................................................................... A -76

Figure A-63. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, ClosedD oor T ests ....................................................................................................................... A -77

Figure A-64. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

T e sts ............................................................................................................................... A -7 8

Figure A-65. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, ClosedD oor T ests ....................................................................................................................... A -79

Figure A-66. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, ClosedD oor T ests ...................................................................................................... I ................ A -80

Figure A-67. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

T e sts . .............................................................................................................................. A -8 1

Figure A-68. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

T e sts ............................................................................................................................... A -8 2

Figure A-69. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door

T e sts ............................................................................................................................... A -8 3

Figure A-70. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door

T e sts ............................................................................................................................... A -8 4

Figure A-71. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

T e sts . .............................................................................................................................. A -8 5

Figure A-72. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

T e sts . .............................................................................................................................. A -8 6

Figure A-73. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door

T e sts . . ............................................................................................................................ A -8 7

Figure A-74. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door

T e sts . .............................................................................................................................. A -8 8

XV
Figure A-75. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

T e sts . .............................................................................................................................. A -8 9

Figure A-76. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

T e sts . ...... ....................................................................................................................... A -9 0

Figure A-77. Back Wall Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #4, Test 1 ................................... A-91

Figure A-78. Back and Side Wall Surface Temperatures, ICFMP BE #5, Test 1 .................. A-92

xvi
TABLES

Table 3-1. CFAST Capabilities Included in the V&V Study ...................................................... 3-2

Table A-1. Relative Differences for Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height ............. A-20

Table A-2. Relative Differences for Ceiling Jet Temperature ................................................ A-25

Table A-3. Relative Differences for Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration .................. A-32

Table A-4. Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration .................................................... A-35

Table A-5. Relative Differences for Compartment Pressure ................................................ A-38

Table A-6. Relative Differences for Radiation and Total Heat Flux to Targets and Target

T em perature .................................................................................................................. A -72

Table A-7. Relative Differences for Surface Heat Flux and Temperature ............................. A-93

xvii
I
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

Since the 1990s, when it became the policy of the NRC to use risk-informed methods to make

regulatory decisions where possible, the nuclear power industry has been moving from prescriptive

rules and practices toward the use of risk information to supplement decision-making. Several

initiatives have furthered this transition in the area of fire protection. 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 Title 10, Section 50.48(c), of the Code of Federal Regulations [ 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 often 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

" To perform V&V studies of selected fire models using a consistent methodology (ASTM I

1335)

" To investigate the specific fire modeling issue of interest to NPP fire protection applications

" To quantify fire model predictive capabilities to the extent that can be supported by

comparison with selected and available experimental data.

Approach

This project team performed V&V studies on five selected models: (1) NRC's NUREG-1805

Fire Dynamics Tools (FDTS), (2) EPRI's Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation Revision I

(FIVE-Revl), (3) National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Consolidated Model

of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport (CFAST), (4) Electricit6 de France's (EdF) MAGIC, and

(5) NIST's Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). The team based these studies on the guidelines of

the ASTM E 1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic

Fire Models. The scope of these V&V studies was limited to the capabilities of the selected fire

xix
models and did not cover certain potential fire scenarios that fall outside the capabilities of these

fire models.

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 such as plume temperature that are

important to NPP fire modeling applications. While the relative differences sometimes show

agreement, they also show both under-prediction and over-prediction in some circumstances.

These relative differences are affected by the capabilities of the models, the availability of

accurate applicable experimental data, and the experimental uncertainty of these data. The

project team used the relative differences, in 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 each 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 attributable to a combination of model capability and lack of relevant

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

second problem calls for more applicable fire experiments.

EPRI Perspective

The use of fire models to support fire protection decision-making requires a good understanding

of their limitations and predictive capabilities. While this report makes considerable progress

toward this 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 presents

challenges that should be addressed if the fire protection community is to realize the full benefit

of fire modeling and performance-based fire protection. Persisting problems require both shortterm and long-term solutions. In the short-term, users need to be educated on how the results of

this work may affect known applications of fire modeling, perhaps through pilot application of

the findings of this report and documentation of the resulting lessons learned. 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)

xx
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. Volume 2 quantifies the uncertainty of the experiments used in the V&V study of

these five fire models. Volumes 3 through 6 provide detailed discussions of the verification and

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

Volume 3 Fire Dynamics Tools (FDTS)

Volume 4 Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation, Revision 1 (FIVE-Revl)

Volume 5 Consolidated Model of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport (CFAST)

Volume 6 MAGIC

Volume 7 Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS)

xxi
'N
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 3), CFAST (Volume 5), and

FDS (Volume 7) 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 contributions to Volume 3.

In addition, we acknowledge and appreciate the extensive contributions of Electricit6 de France

(EdF) in preparing Volume 6 for MAGIC.

We thank Drs. Charles Hagwood and Matthew Bundy of NIST for the many helpful discussions

regarding Volume 2.

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 ftir Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) and Institut ftir 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. Simo Hostikka of VTT, Finland also assisted with ICFMP BE#2 by

providing pictures, tests reports, and answered various technical questions of those experiments.

We acknowledge and sincerely appreciate all of their efforts.

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

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

publishing support for this report. Lionel Watkins and Felix Gonzalez developed the graphics

for Volume 1. We also greatly appreciate Dariusz Szwarc and Alan Kouchinsky for their

assistance finalizing this report.

We wish to acknowledge the team of peer reviewers who reviewed the initial draft of this report

and provided valuable comments. The peer reviewers were Dr. Craig Beyler and Mr. Phil

DiNenno of Hughes Associates, Inc., and Dr. James Quintiere of the University of Maryland.

Finally, we would like to thank the internal and external stakeholders who took the time to

provide comments and suggestions on the initial draft of this report when it was published in the

Federal Register (71 FR 5088) on January 31, 2006. Those stakeholders who commented are

listed and acknowledged below.

Janice Bardi, ASTM International

Moonhak Jee, Korea Electric Power Research Institute

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Fire Protection

Branch

J. Greg Sanchez, New York City Transit

David Showalter, Fluent, Inc.

Douglas Carpenter, Combustion Science & Engineering, Inc.

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

Clarence Worrell, Pacific Gas & Electric

xxiv
LIST OF ACRONYMS

AGA

AHJ

ASME

ASTM

BE

BFRL

BRE

BWR

CDF

CFAST

CFD

CFR

CSR

EdF

EPRI

FDS

FDTS

FHA

FIVE-RevI

American Gas Association

Authority Having Jurisdiction

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

American Society for Testing and Materials

Benchmark Exercise

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

Building Research Establishment

Boiling-Water Reactor

Core Damage Frequency

Consolidated Fire Growth and Smoke Transport Model

Computational Fluid Dynamics

Code of Federal Regulations

Cable Spreading Room

Electricit6 de France

Electric Power Research Institute

Fire Dynamics Simulator

Fire Dynamics Tools (NUREG- 1805)

Fire Hazard Analysis

Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation, Revision 1

xxv
FM/SNL Factory Mutual & Sandia National Laboratories

FPA Foote, Pagni, and Alvares

FRA Fire Risk Analysis

GRS Gesellschaft fir Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (Germany)

HGL Hot Gas Layer

HRR Heat Release Rate

IAFSS International Association of Fire Safety Science

iBMB Institut fir Baustoffe, Massivbau und Brandschutz

ICFMP International Collaborative Fire Model Project

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IPEEE Individual Plant Examination of External Events

MCC Motor Control Center

MCR Main Control Room

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)

PMMA Polymethyl-methacrylate

PWR Pressurized Water Reactor

xxvi
RCP Reactor Coolant Pump

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (NRC)

RI/PB Risk-Informed, Performance-Based

SBDG Stand-By Diesel Generator

SDP Significance Determination Process

SFPE Society of Fire Protection Engineers

SWGR Switchgear Room

V&V Verification & Validation

xxvii

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 the CFAST Technical

Reference Guide and ASTM E 1355.

1-1
Introduction

Consistent with the CFAST Technical Reference Guide and ASTM E 1355, 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.

1-2
2

MODEL DEFINITION

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

as outlined by ASTM E 1355 [Ref. 2]. The definitive description of the CFAST model,

including its developers, equations, assumptions, inputs, and outputs can be found in the CFAST

Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1], which also follows the guidelines for ASTM E 1355.

2.1 Name and Version of the Model

This V&V study focused on Version 6.0.10 of the Consolidated Fire Growth and Smoke Transport

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

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

of the model.

2.2 Type of Model

CFAST is a two-zone fire model that predicts the fire-induced environment as a function of time

for single- or multi-compartment scenarios. CFAST subdivides each compartment into two zones

(or volumes) in order to numerically solve differential equations, and the two volumes are assumed

to be uniform in temperature and species concentration. The approximate solution of the

conservation equations for 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 include Walter Jones, Richard Peacock, Glenn Forney, Rebecca Portier,

Paul Reneke, John Hoover, and John Klote.

2.4 Relevant Publications

Relevant publications concerning CFAST include the CFAST 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.

2-1
Model Definition

2.5 Governing Equations and Assumptions

Section 2.1.5 and Chapter 3 of the CFAST 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 uniform 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

The CFAST User's Guide [Ref. 3] provides a complete description of the required input

parameters. Some of these parameters have default values included in the model, which are

intended to be representative for a range of fire scenarios. Unless explicitly noted, default values

were used for parameters not specifically included in this validation study.

2-2
Model Definition

2.7 Property Data

Required inputs for CFAST include a number of material properties related 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.

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. These data are given as examples, and users should verify the accuracy and

appropriateness of the data.

2.8 Model Results

Once the simulation is complete, CFAST 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

2.9 Uses and Limitations of the Model

CFAST has been developed for use in solving practical fire problems in fire protection engineering,

while also providing a tool to study fundamental fire dynamics and smoke spread. It is intended

for use in system modeling of building and building components. It is not intended for detailed

study of flow within a compartment, such as is needed for smoke detector siting. It includes the

activation of sprinklers and fire suppression by water droplets.

2-3
Model Definition

The most extensive use of the model is in fire and smoke spread in complex buildings. The

efficiency and computational speed are inherent in the few computation cells needed for a zone

model implementation. The use is for design and reconstruction of time-lines for fire and smoke

spread in residential, commercial, and industrial fire applications. Some applications of the

model have been for design of smoke control systems.

Compartments: CFAST is generally limited to situations where the compartment volumes

are strongly stratified. However, in order to facilitate the use of the model for preliminary

estimates when a more sophisticated calculation is ultimately needed, there are algorithms

for corridor flow, smoke detector activation, and detailed heat conduction through solid

boundaries. This model does provide for non-rectangular compartments, although the

application is intended to be limited to relatively simple spaces. There is no intent to include

complex geometries where a complex flow field is a driving force. For these applications,

computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models are appropriate.

Gas Layers: There are also limitations inherent in the assumption of stratification of the gas

layers. The zone model concept, by definition, implies a sharp boundary between the upper

and lower layers, whereas in reality, the transition is typically over about 10% of the height

of the compartment and can be larger in weakly stratified flow. For example, a burning

cigarette in a normal room is not within the purview of a zone model. While it is possible

to make predictions within 5% of the actual temperatures of the gas layers, this is not the

optimum use of the model. It is more properly used to make estimates of fire spread

(not flame spread), smoke detection and contamination, and life safety calculations.

Heat Release Rate: There are limitations inherent in the assumptions used in application

of the empirical models. As a general guideline, the heat release should not exceed about

1 MW/mi. This is a limitation on the numerical routines attributable to the coupling between

gas flow and heat transfer through boundaries (conduction, convection, and radiation).

The inherent two-layer assumption is likely to break down well before this limit is reached.

* Radiation: Because the model includes a sophisticated radiation model and ventilation

algorithms, it has further use for studying building contamination through the ventilation

system, as well as the stack effect and the effect of wind on air circulation in buildings.

* Ventilation and Leakage: In a single compartment, the ratio of the area of vents connecting

one compartment to another to the volume of the compartment should not exceed roughly

2 in-'. This is a limitation on the plug flow assumption for vents. An important limitation

arises from the uncertainty in the scenario specification. For example, leakage in buildings

is significant, and this affects flow calculations especially when wind is present and for tall

buildings. These effects can overwhelm limitations on accuracy of the implementation

of the model. The overall accuracy of the model is closely tied to the specificity, care,

and completeness with which the data are provided.

2-4
Model Definition

Thermal Properties: The accuracy of the model predictions is limited by how well the user

can specify the thermophysical properties. For example, the fraction of fuel which ends up

as soot has an important effect on the radiation absorption of the gas layer and, therefore, the

relative convective versus radiative heating of the layers and walls, which in turn affects the

buoyancy and flow. There is a higher level of uncertainty of the predictions if the properties

of real materials and real fuels are unknown or difficult to obtain, or the physical processes

of combustion, radiation, and heat transfer are more complicated than their mathematical

representations in CFAST.

In addition, there are specific limitations and assumptions made in the development of the

algorithms. These are detailed in the discussion of each of these sub-models in the NIST

Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 11.

2-5

3

THEORETICAL BASIS FOR CFAST

This chapter presents a technical description of the CFAST model, including its 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 E 1355 guidance to "verify the appropriateness

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

Chapter 3 of the CFAST 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 Reference 1 derives the predictive

equations for zone fire models and presents a detailed explanation of those used in CFAST

[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, mass and energy are transported between the layers via 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 uniform 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. The Technical Reference Guide for CFAST [Ref. 1] provides a detailed discussion

concerning the specific derivation of these conservation laws.

For some applications, including long hallways or tall shafts, the two-zone assumption may not

be appropriate. CFAST includes empirical algorithms to simulate smoke flow and filling in long

corridors and for a single well-mixed volume in tall shafts.

3-1
Theoretical Basis for CFAST

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:

* 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

Table 3-1. CFAST Capabilities Included in the V&V Study.

Fire Phenomena Algorithm/Methodology V&V

Predicting Hot Gas Layer Temperature Two-zone control volume model

and Smoke Layer Height in a Room Fire with uniform conditions in a Yes

With Natural Ventilation Compartment zone

Predicting Hot Gas Layer Temperature in a Two-zone control volume model

Room Fire With Forced Ventilation with uniform conditions in a Yes

Compartment zone

rTemperature in a Two-zone control volume model Predicting Hot Gas Layer Teprtr na with uniform conditions in a Yes

Fire Room With Door Closed

zone

Estimating Burning Characteristics of a Fire, User-specified HRR and species. Heat Release Rate, Burning Duration and Model limits burning by

Hlamea Rel t, available oxygen. Hesketstad Yes

Flame Height flame height correlation

Estimating Gas Concentrations Resulting User-specified time varying

from a Fire species yield from fire; global Yes conservation of mass

User-specified time varying

Estimating Visibility Through Smoke smoke yield from fire; global Yes

conservation of mass

Estimating Flow Through Horizontal or Empirical correlation; ; global

Vertical Natural Flow Vents conservation of mass No

Estimating Flow Through Horizontal or global conservation of mass

Vertical Forced Flow Vents No

Point Source Radiation from

Estimating Radiant Heat Flux From Fire to a fire; four-surface radiation from

Target compartment surfaces; gray gas Yes

absorption by gas layers

(

I

I

3-2
Theoretical Basis for CFAST

Fire Phenomena Algorithm/Methodology V&V

One dimensional heat

Estimating the Ignition Time of a Target Fuel Ondionsinsl No conduction in solid No

Estimating Sprinkler Activation RTI Algorithm No

Suppression by Water Spray Empirical correlation No

Estimating Smoke and Heat Alarm Response One dimensional heat

Time conduction in solid No

Estimating Pressure Rise Attributable to a Global conservation of mass and

Fire in a Closed Compartment energy Yes

Estimating flow in a corridor Empirical algorithm based on

FDS simulations No

3.2 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 an exception for well-mixed compartments

(such as elevator shafts) that can be modeled as a single control volume. Since a real-world

upper/lower interface is not as sharply defined as the one modeled by CFAST, the model has

a spatial uncertainty of about 10% in determining the height of the hot gas layer. Uncertainty

in layer temperature and position is discussed in detail in Volume 2.

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.

Users should recognize approximate limits on the ratio of the length (L), width (W), and height

(H) of the compartment as follows. 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

3-3
Theoretical Basis for CFAST

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.

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 bums 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. Fire height is also calculated by the

model based on an available experimental correlation [Ref. 6].

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

CFAST treats each individual fire as an entirely separate entity, with no interaction with other fire

plumes.

The user must define fire growth because CFAST does not include a 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 though multiple

simulations.

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

3-4
Theoretical Basis for CFAST

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

Reference Guide [Ref. 1].

3.3.3 Ceiling Jet

CFAST uses Cooper's correlation [Ref. 8] 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. Complete details are available in Reference 8.

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. 9]

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. 10] 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 the CFAST Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1].

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

[Ref. 11]. Flow in ductwork is calculated with a mass and energy balance based on an analogy

to electrical current flow in series and parallel based on Kirchoff s law. The CFAST 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.

The CFAST Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1] provides a more complete description

of the algorithms used in CFAST.

3-5
Theoretical Basis for 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 above the fire 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 and other approximations allows CFAST to perform the radiation computation

in a reasonably efficient manner [Ref. 12].

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. 13].

3.3.5.3 Conduction

CFAST uses a finite difference scheme from Moss and Forney [Ref. 14], 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 3.3.5.1. 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 sources of heat flux to a target

are fire radiation, radiation from 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. 15] with temperatures obtained from the ceiling jet calculation [Ref. 8]. Rooms without fires

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

ceiling jet temperatures.

3-6
Theoretical Basis for CFAST

3.3.8 Fire Suppression via Sprinklers

For sprinkler suppression, CFAST uses the simple model by Madrzykowski and Vettori [Ref 16],

which is generalized for varying sprinkler spray densities according to Evans [Ref. 17].

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

The CFAST Technical Reference Manual [Ref. 1] outlines the assumptions and limitations

of this approach.

3.3.9 Species Concentration and Deposition

The combustion chemistry scheme used in CFAST is documented in the CFAST Technical

Reference Guide [Ref. 1]. The scheme is 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 percent or parts per

million (ppm) as appropriate. For hydrogen chloride, CFAST includes an empirical correlation

that 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. 18, 19, and 20], and conference proceedings

[Ref. 21 ]. 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. 22], and referenced in

specific standards including NFPA 805 [Ref. 23] and NFPA 551 [Ref. 24].

3-7
Theoretical Basis for CFAST

3.4.1 Assessment of the Completeness of Documentation

The two primary documents on CFAST are the 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

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 [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 because 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.

3-8
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 E 1355 suggests 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

Certain CFAST sub-models address phenomena that have analytical solutions, for example,

one-dimensional heat conduction through a solid or pressure increase in a sealed or slightly leaky

compartment as a result of a fire or fan. The developers of CFAST routinely use analytical

solutions to test sub-models to verify the correctness of the coding of the model as part of the

development. Such routine verification efforts are relatively simple and the results may not

always be published or included in the documentation. Two additional 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.

4-1
Mathematical and Numerical Robustness

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 the 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. Because FORTRAN and C are implemented differently for various computers,

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

The CFAST Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1] contains a detailed description of the CFAST

subroutine structure and interactions between the subroutines. A complete physical description

of the code can be found in Reference 25.

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 user

interface to improve object plotting, the target flux calculation, burning outside the room of fire

origin, and error checking for elements located outside a compartment. The updated version of

CFAST used in this study (6.0.10) 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. 26]. 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.

4-2
5

MODEL SENSITIVITY

This chapter discusses the CFAST sensitivity analysis, which ASTM E 1355 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 E 1355 [Ref. 2] provides overall guidance on typical areas of evaluation of the sensitivity

of deterministic fire models. Chapter 5 of the CFAST 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 References 27, 28, and 29.

5.1 Previous Sensitivity Studies

Khoudja studied the sensitivity of an early version of the FAST model [Ref. 30] (predecessor to

CFAST) with a fractional factorial design involving 2 levels of 16 different input parameters.

The choice of values for each input parameter represented a range for each parameter.

The analysis of the FAST model showed sensitivity to heat loss to the compartment walls

and to the number of compartments in the simulation. Without the inclusion of surface

thermophysical properties, this model treats surfaces as adiabatic for conductive heat transfer.

Thus, consistent sensitivity should be expected. Sensitivity to changes in thermal properties

of the surfaces was not explored.

5-1
Model Sensitivity

Walker [Ref. 31 ] discussed the uncertainties in components of zone models and showed how

uncertainty within user-supplied data affects the results of calculations using CFAST as an

example. The study systematically varied inputs related to the fire (heat release rate, heat of

combustion, mass loss rate, radiative fraction, and species yields) and compartment geometry

(vent size and ceiling height) ranging from ±1% to ±20% of base values for a one-compartment

scenario. Heat release rate and ceiling height are seen to be the dominant input variables in the

simulations. Upper-layer temperature changed ±-10% for a ± 10% change in heat release rate.

Typical variation of ±10 seconds in time to untenable conditions for a 20% variation was noted

in the inputs for the scenarios studied.

In addition, the CFAST 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.

Notarianni [Ref. 29] developed an iterative methodology for the treatment of uncertainty in firesafety engineering calculations to identify important model parameters for detailed study of

uncertainty. She defined a nine-step process to identify crucial model inputs and parameters,

select sampling methods appropriate for the important parameters, and evaluate the sensitivity

of the model to chosen outcomes. Both factorial designs and Latin hypercube sampling

are included in a case study involving the CFAST model. In a performance-based design

of a 16-story residential structure, the impact of model uncertainty on a chosen design and

inclusion of residential sprinklers in the design would effect the resulting safety of the design.

For a seven-compartment scenario representing one living unit in the structure, distributions

of input variables based on Latin hypercube sampling of selected ranges of the inputs were

developed and used as input for a series of 500 CFAST simulations for the scenario. The results

of the calculations are presented in a series of cumulative distribution functions, which show the

probability that a chosen criterion of the design is exceeded within a given time. Depending on

the evaluation criterion chosen, times to unacceptable designs varied by as little as 10 seconds

to as much as 470 seconds. To determine important input variables, Notarianni used

a multivariate correlation of the input and output variables to determine statistical significance

at a 95% confidence level. Input variables deemed important in the analysis included fire-related

inputs (growth rate, heat of combustion, position of the base of the fire, and generation rates

of products of combustion) and door opening sizes. Other inputs were determined to be less

important.

5-2
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

Many of the outputs of the CFAST model are quite insensitive to uncertainty in the input

parameters for a broad range of scenarios. Not surprisingly, heat release rate was consistently

seen as the most important variable in a range of simulations. Heat release rate and related

variables such as heat of combustion or generation rates of products of combustion provide

the driving force for fire-driven flows. For CFAST, all of these are user inputs. Thus, careful

selection of these fire-related variables are necessary for accurate predictions. Other variables

related to compartment geometry such as compartment height or vent sizes, while deemed

important for the model outputs, are typically more easily defined for specific design scenarios

than fire related inputs. For some scenarios, such as typical building performance design,

these vents may need to include the effects of leakage to ensure accurate predictions. For other

scenarios, such as shipboard use or nuclear power facilities, leakage (or lack thereof) may be

more easily defined and may not be an issue in the calculations.

5.2 Sensitivity to Heat Release Rate

Of all the physical input parameters, the simulation results are most sensitive to the heat release

rate. In this section, one of the validation experiments (ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #3, Test 3)

is used to demonstrate the result of increasing and decreasing the heat release rate by 15%.

Figure 5-1 shows plots of various output quantities demonstrating their sensitivity to the change

in heat release rate. Gas and surfaces temperatures, oxygen concentration, and compartment

pressure show roughly 10% diversions from baseline, whereas the heat fluxes show roughly 20%

diversions. The height of the hot gas layer is relatively insensitive to changes in the heat release

rate. These results are expected and consistent with the analysis described in Volume 2 to assess

the sensitivity of the quantities of interest to the uncertainty in the measured heat release rate.

5-3
Model Sensitivity

1500

1000

E

500

0

Heat Release Rate

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

................... - ......... 15 %

.15%

300

2 200

E

0

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

....... ...

...... ... .. 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

Ceiling Jet Temperature

iCFMP BE #3, Test 3

0r 2

1-

04-

0

0.22

0.20

. 0.18

E

0.16

0.14

0

a

E

F5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

02 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

an

n

200

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

-1........

-2 . ...... " .

-2

-3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

300

200

100-

0O . .... .. " . .

5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a47

ED

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

6

4

2

ID

ID

8

ID

I0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (s)

Figure 5-1. Sensitivity of Various Output Quantities to Changes in HRR

5-4
6

MODEL VALIDATION

CFAST has been subjected to extensive validation studies by NIST and others. Although some

differences between the model and the experiments were evident in these studies, they are

typically explained by limitations of the model and uncertainty of the experiments. Most

prominent in the studies reviewed was the over-prediction of gas temperature often attributed to

uncertainty in soot production and radiative fraction. Still, studies typically show predictions

accurate within 10% to 25% of measurements for a range of scenarios. Like all predictive

models, the best predictions come with a clear understanding of the limitations of the model

and the inputs provided to the calculations. The CFAST Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1]

includes a detailed discussion of these previous validation efforts.

This chapter summarizes the results of the current validation study conducted for the CFAST

model. This study focused on the predicted results of the CFAST fire model and did not include

an assessment of the user interface for the model. However, all input files used for the

simulations were prepared using the GUI and reviewed for correctness prior to the simulations.

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 2 and in the individual test reports.

ICFMP BE #2: Benchmark Exercise #2 consists of eight experiments, representing three 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 x 27 m long x 14 m wide (62 ft x 88.5 ft x 46 ft). Each case involved a single heptane pool

fire, ranging from 2 MW to 4 MW. All three cases, representing averaged results from the eight

tests, have been used in the current V&V effort.

ICFMP BE #3: Benchmark Exercise #3, conducted as part of the ICFMP and sponsored by the

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 high x 7.1 m long x 3.8 m wide,

designed to represent a variety of spaces in a NPP containing power and control cables. The

walls and ceiling were covered with two layers of marinate boards, each layer 0.0125 m (0.5 in)

thick. The floor was covered with one layer of 0.0125-m (0.5-in) thick gypsum board on top of a

0.0183-m (23/32-in) layer of plywood. The room has one door with dimensions of 2 mx 2 m (6.6 ft

x 6.6 ft), 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.

6-1
Model Validation

ICFMP BE #4: Benchmark Exercise #4 consists of kerosene pool fire experiments conducted at

the Institut fir Baustoffe, Massivbau und Brandschutz (iBMB) of the Braunschweig University

of Technology in Germany. The results of two experiments were contributed to the ICFMP.

These fire experiments involve relatively large fires in a relatively small [3.6 m x 3.6 m x 5.7 m

(12 ft x 12 ft x 19 ft)] concrete enclosure. Only one of the two experiments was selected for the

present V&V study (Test 1).

ICFMP BE #5: Benchmark Exercise #5 consists of fire experiments conducted with realistically

routed cable trays in the same test compartment as BE #4. The compartment was configured

slightly differently, and the height was 5.6 m (18.4 ft) in BE #5. Only Test 4 was selected for the

present evaluation, and only the first 20 minutes, during which an ethanol pool fire pre-heated

the compartment.

FM/SNL Series: The Factory Mutual & Sandia National Laboratories (FM/SNL) Test Series is a

series of 25 fire tests conducted for the NRC by Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FMRC),

under the direction of Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). The primary purpose of these tests

was to 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 Tests 4, 5 and 21 were used in the present evaluation. Test 21 involved the full-scale

mockup. All were 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 only three 100-kW

fire experiments (Test 1OA, 1000, and IOOZ) were used for the current V&V study.

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

6-2
Model Validation

* 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:

AM-AE _ (M, - Mo)-(E, -Eo)

AE (EP-ET.

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

original value (Mo), and AE is the difference between the experimental observation (Ep) and its

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 2 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 are 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 yardstick. If the numerical prediction

falls within the range of uncertainty attributable 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 well 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

6-3
Model Validation

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.

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 HGL height 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 HGL 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 shows a comparison of predicted and

measured values for HGL temperature and depth along with a summary of 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 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.

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 three 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 seconds. 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-l). CFAST predicts HGL

height to within experimental uncertainty for'the open-door tests. For the closed-door tests,

calculated CFAST values arie 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.

6-4
Model Validation

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-i). This is

likely because of the complicated geometry within the compartment that includes a partial height

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

800 , 16

CFAST Hot Gas Layer 6/ CFAST Hot Gas Layer Depth /

Temperature Rise/ 14 //

,,.' 7"// / /

600 er 12

2 / ,7 ///

40 /° .// , D / /

2400 /8

2' R ICFP BE 01 (Opera Door Tests) a ICFMVP BE #2

<iiý• • CFMP BE #4 ICFMP BE #4

•/'dllFMISNL ICFMP'/ BE0

•NBIS MuLO-Rooe • uliRcr

0 0 a , " " , NSMuU/~

S200 400 600 800 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Measured Temperature Rise ('C) Measured Depth (m)

100-

CFAST Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Depth

0 CFMP 6 0 0CMPE# 0 

50

Measurd Temperature Rdenote Points other than circles locations remote from

0 HGLTempathe fire room in the NBS Multi,- 100 D Room sodas

Figure 6-1 ComparisosTadRltv ifrne Hot Gas Layer(GL o TemperatureanDet

03I C 03 - .- W W to to14. a MO0o003 gnW

and Height

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

and 5. For Test 2 1, there is a 3 3% over-prediction (Figure 6-1 and Table A-l1). This is likely

because of the configuration of the fire in the test, with the fire inside a cabinet in the fire

6-5
Model Validation

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 attributable 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.

Summary: HGL Temperature and Height ( 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 attributable 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. Howe ,er, this is based on the results of a

single test series.

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

6-6
Model Validation

has the effect of increasing the convective heat transfer to ceiling surfaces. The temperature and

velocity of the ceiling jet are available from the model by placing a heat detector at the specified

location. The ceiling jet algorithm is based on the model by Cooper [Ref. 8], with details

described in the CFAST Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1 ]. The algorithm predicts gas

temperature and velocity under a flat, unconstrained ceiling above a fire source. Only two

of the six test series (ICFMP BE #3 and FM/SNL) involved relatively large flat ceilings. Figure

6-2 shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for ceiling jet temperature along with

a summary of the relative difference for the tests.

ICFMP BE #3: CFAST predicts ceiling jet temperature well within experimental uncertainty

for all of the tests in the series, with an average relative difference of 5%. For these tests, the fire

source was sufficiently large (relative to the compartment size) such that a well-defined ceiling

jet was evident in temperature measurements near ceiling level.

FM/SNL: With fire sizes comparable to the smaller fire sizes used in the tests in ICFMP BE #3

and compartment volumes significantly larger, measured temperature rise near the ceiling

in the FM/SNL tests was below 100 'C (212 'F) in all three tests. Hot gas layer temperatures for

these tests were below 70 'C (158 'F). CFAST consistently predicts higher ceiling jet

temperatures in the FM/SNL tests compared to experimental measurements. With a larger

compartment relative to the fire size, the ceiling jet for the FM/SNL tests is not nearly as welldeveloped as those in the ICFMP BE #3. The difference between the experimental ceiling jet

temperature and HGL temperature for the FM/SNL tests is less than half that observed in the

ICFMP BE #3 tests. While the over-prediction of ceiling jet temperature could be considered

conservative for some applications, for scenarios involving sprinkler or heat detector activation,

the increased temperature in the ceiling jet would lead to shorter estimates of activation times for

the simulated sprinkler or heat detector.

Summary: Ceiling Jet Temperature (YellOw+)

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

measurements, CFAST calculations of ceiling jet temperature are characterized in the Yellow+

category for the following reasons:

* For tests with a well-defined ceiling jet layer, CFAST predicts ceiling jet temperatures wellwithin experimental uncertainty.

* For tests with a less well-defined ceiling jet layer, CFAST over-predicts the ceiling jet

temperature. For the tests studies, over-predictions were noted when the HGL temperature

was below 70 'C (158 'F).

6-7
Model Validation

400 e CFAST Ceiling Jet Temperature Rise

/

/, /= ///

2300 7

-_ / -

20 / / 7

/z 7

1200/

E.-/ /

a /.

0 ICFMP BE #1 {Cosed D.o Te.U)

0 ICFMP BE #3 (Opera Door Teots)

* FMISNL

0-

0 100 200 300 400

Measured Temperature Rise (C)

.. CQFA;SIQei!ing Jet Temperature ..................

0 0 50

5- - -- - -- - - ------ 1%

.50-

-100

? ? -C? , ,C ,• '" T - 00 N

~u uZZzJ 0*

Figure 6-2. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Ceiling Jet Temperature

6.3 Plume Temperature

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

the transport 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 from this algorithm. For this reason, comparisons

of experimentally measured plume temperatures with CFAST calculations are not appropriate

and will not be included in this report.

6-8
Model Validation

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 (12.5 ft to 15.7 ft)]. From the CFAST

calculations, the estimated flame height is 4.3 m (14.1 ft).

ICFMP BE #3: CFAST estimates the peak flame height to be 2.8 m (9.2 ft), roughly consistent

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

accurate measurements of flame height.

Summary: Flame Height

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

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

because the model predicts the flame height consistent with visual observations of flame height

for the experiments. This is not surprising, given that 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 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 are available from ICFMP BE #3 and BE #5 (one test only). Figure 6-3

shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for oxygen and carbon dioxide

concentrations, along with a summary of the relative difference for the tests.

6-9
*_ Model Validation

0.12

0

a.

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

CFAST Gas Species Concentrations /

/ / // "/

S / /

/ /

4d/

u ICFMP BE #3 Upper Layer C02

e ICFMP BE #3 Upper Layer 0,

ICFMP BE #5 Upper layer C02 ICFMP BE #5 Upper Layer 02

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0

Measured Change in Volume Fraction

.12

100

50 4

C

0

0

0

0

CFAST Gas Concentrations

-..' ..% -, ....... ............ ........... ... .... ............... ......... ........ .- -me --

* Upper Oxygen

8 Upper Carbon Dioxide

0

-50

+9%

-9%

-ý I? ( - Pr (N 9 1 VU !gr( c? 12 ~ 0 ~ ;

W z . 0

Figure 6-3. Comparisons and 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 open-door Tests 9 and 14,

the magnitude of relative difference is higher, under-predicting by 22% to 25% (Figure 6-3 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 because of 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

I

6-10
Model Validation

showing a higher relative uncertainty than other closed-door tests. The cause of a higher-thanaverage 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

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, with an overall mass balance dependent

on interrelated user-specified species yields for major combustion species. To model smoke

movement, the user prescribes the smoke yield relative to the yield of carbon monoxide.

A simple combustion chemistry scheme in the model then determines the smoke particulate

concentration in the form of an optical density. Figure 6-4 shows a comparison of predicted

and measured values for smoke concentration along with a summary of the relative difference

for the tests.

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 33% (see Volume 2). 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 openand closed-door tests are consistent with the FDS predictions (see Volume 7).

6-11
Model Validation

400

•-- 300

a,

.0

E

D 200

100

0

0 100 200 300 400

Measured Density (mg/m3

)

600

400

C

a>

0,

CFAST Smoke Concentration

. ... . ..... ............ 0. . .. ...... ... ... .... .. .--..-. . ... ... . . . . .. . ! . ..... .... .. .. . . .. . . . . . .

200 .

0- +33 %

-33 %

-200-

-400-

-600

0 00T00rC 1 0 T 0 'Rý 0 0 W I 0 V 0 < 

wwwwww wý"MIwoo wooww z ý,

Figure 6-4. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration

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:

a CFAST is capable of transporting smoke throughout a compartment, assuming that

the production rate is known and its transport properties are comparable to gaseous

exhaust products.

4

4

6-12
Model Validation

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 single 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 Section A.7 of Appendix A to this volume. Figure 6-5 shows a comparison

of predicted and measured values for compartment pressure, along with a summary

of the relative difference for the tests.

For those tests in which the door to the compartment is open, the over-pressures are only a few

Pascals; however, 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 6-4 and Table A-3), which involved

a large (2.3 MW) fire with the door closed and the ventilation on. By contrast, Test 10 involved

a 1.2 MW fire with comparable geometry and ventilation. There is considerable uncertainty

in the magnitude of both the supply and return mass flow rates for Test 16. Compared to Test 16,

Test 10 involves a greater measured supply velocity and a lesser measured exhaust velocity.

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 is also the most likely explanation for the over-prediction

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 entirely

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

over-pressure.

Summary: Compartment Pressure (6D

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, CFAST predicts compartment pressures within experimental

uncertainty.

* Prediction of compartment pressure for closed-door tests is critically dependent

on correct specification of the leakage from the compartment.

6-13
Model Validation

200

ca 0. 150

co 100 0

a- 50

" 0

(.

-4 -2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Measured Pressure (Pa)

300

C

0

0

0

0

0

100

50

4,• * CFAST Compartment Pressure4

0-0

0-0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -. . . ..- 

I 0 I

+80 %

-50

-80 %

-IUU -

CNNN M ('CC)C M .... i, O ý- (ý

LLL~z

Figure 6-5. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Compartment Pressure

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 6-6 shows

a comparison of predicted and measured values for radiation, total heat flux, and target

temperature, along with a summary of the relative difference for the tests.

6-14
Model Validation

20

'E15

X

,.

g 10

5

OL

CFAST Radiative Flux to Targets

// /

/•J~./- +."• ! ICFMP CMPBE#3Cale8 BE #3 Cable G

8

0 50

0

10o0-

CFAST Radiation Heat Flux to Targets

A

~~~~~... ...... .. ...... .... ......• • ,,Cable D

a I Cable F

* a I Cabl G

0

50

0 5 10 15 2

Measured Heat Flux (kW/m2)

z -a Z

0

50

40

x30

-o 20

a

10

0

/ / CFAST Total Heat Flux to Targets /

/

/ / / /+ 7

G 

/G

/

/

/ /

:CFMP BE #3 cable B

• CFM BE #3 Cable D

lCFMP BE #3 Cable F l CFMP BE '. Cable G

0 0 CFMP BE #4

E] CFMP BE #

is7

>2

50-

1010 1

* Casle a CFAST Total Heat Flux to Targets

* Cable 0

Cable F * Cable G 0

o M isce[laneo uas . ........ ...... • .... -.. +.... ........ . .. ..

. G

= m U •-•-- - - . ,m ?

+20%

-20%

+20%

-20%

-14%

-14 %

-50-

A A A UzU6 6 A 5ýz mama amaZ 0 10 20 30 40 50

Measured Heat Flux (kW/m 2)

500

400

300-

E

200

a. 100 -

CFAST Target Temperature Rise /

///

/ /

/ // 7

/ / 7 / / /

• / /

7/

]• " • CFMP BE #3 CableD

• 1•• ;ICFMP BE #3 Ca bie F

#• ICFMP BE #3 Cable G

ICFMP BE #4 Sla1bs a• ICFMP BE #5 Cable•

504

8

0 0-

-50-

CFAST Target Surface Temperature

0

* Cablei

* Cabl:eI. • Cable F

Cable G

Omtseallneolas

0 .

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 S. ZL Z Z

Measured Temperature Rise (C)

Figure 6-6. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Heat Flux to Targets

and Target Temperature

6-15
Model Validation

ICFMP BE #3: Appendix A provides nearly 200 comparisons of heat flux and surface

temperature on four different cables. It is difficult to make sweeping generalizations about

the accuracy of CFAST. At best, one can scan the figures and associated tables to get a sense

of the overall performance, which includes the following notable trends:

" 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 an average difference of 28%

and often under-predicted. Predictions for Cables D and G are notable exceptions,

with higher uncertainties.

" 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 the values

typically measured in fire experiments.

ICFMP BE #4: CFAST over-predicts both the heat flux and surface temperature of three "slab"

targets located about 1 m (3.3 ft) 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 those for 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

difficult to draw 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:

6-16
Model Validation

Prediction of heat flux to targets and target surface temperature is largely dependent on local

conditions surrounding the target. Like any two-zone model, CFAST predicts an average

representative value of gas temperature in the upper and lower regions of a compartment.

In addition, CFAST does not directly predict plume temperature or its effects on targets

that may be within a fire plume. Thus, CFAST can be expected to under-predict values

near a fire source, and over-predict values for targets remote from a fire.

* 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,

and additional wall surface temperature measurements are available from BE #4 and BE #5.

As with target heat flux and surface temperature (discussed above), there are numerous

comparisons. Figure 6-7 shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for surface

heat flux and temperature, along with a summary of the relative difference for the tests.

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,

given that 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) 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 three-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 less

accurate than for other surfaces.

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

measured values, while the other is under-predicted by nearly 70% (Figure 6-7 and Table A-6).

The two points are presumably very close to the fire because the temperatures are 600 to 700 'C

(1100 to 1300 'F) 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.

6-17
Model Validation

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

compartment by more than 50% (Figure 6-7 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. For example, the lowest thermocouple measurement location, TW 2-1

is hidden behind the cable tray and below the level of the partial height wall. Experimentally,

this shielded the thermocouple from nearby hot surfaces and the fire resulting in only a 4 'C

(7 'F) temperature rise. With the simple geometry modeling by CFAST, a much higher rise

is understandable. Only one test from this series has been used in the evaluation; thus, it is

difficult to draw any firm conclusions.

6 CFAST Total Heat Flux to Walls /

14 14 FM BE 3 / O- T LongWaU, Short Wag, Far-qesi L-

• • •• •, Floor. Far-Fiedd ICFMP BE#/

Long Wai Far-FiNd O a -Fie

Long Walt, Near-Fied / - Long Wt, Near-Ficid hort WSel sHigh,

Fle, short Pl_.H7gh w7 Flor Naa-Fs

10 F ..,WF"-0r.F / 7-- -- - -•0

F loor. N -Fild /

Na-FaN/ F = a, IL - - - - -20% 8 - o _ _ ;• ........ -o

Z0 0 0

0 0 0 0 7 .: CFAST Wall Heat Flux

W II

0 to to t

0 

u ' Z

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Measured Heat Flux (kW/m2)

CFAST Wall Surface Temperature Rise / Long Wal, F-Rdd

0 BE #3 Long Wag. Far-FodI V ShorWa, Lo BE #3 Long Wail., Near-Foeld /o-For.F Al

o 

v BE BE 0#3 #3 Sht Short W Wall, as, L- HighLA FAST Wall Temperature 0 * Fallo, Far-Field

6 0 0 BE #3 Foor Fa-Fold / , 0 L S t W .on l, Hi

BE NFarorl 7erFl :3 Ile : BE #3 ° ,r'N ea i / o .7 "5 0 CRog, Near-Field

B BE(c3 Caig.•N/er-Fed • 0 Ca .NF

0 ICFMP BE #4 - /V 7an- V 0 Mi ..

0IFMPBE#5 / 7a

-O 400 / ' r -"..

/ / X - .--------------- - -... 14%

0 /0

4000 0 .. 0

70 0 0

o

0 o

= ----- 4 •'% T --- :--... .. r"'

o .- u tli.o t o C 

0 200 400 600 800

Measured Temperature Rise (C)

Figure 6-7. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Surface Heat Flux and Temperature

6-18
Model Validation

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 far-field 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 because

of 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:

* Ceiling Jet Temperature: YellowU+

* Plume Temperature: No color assigned

* Flame Height:

* Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration: |

* Smoke Concentration: Yellow

" Compartment Pressure:

* Radiation Heat Flux, Total Heat Flux, and Target Temperature: yellow

* Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature: Yellow

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

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

relative differences comparing the model and the experimental values 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

6-19
Model Validation

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).

" For most of the comparisons, CFAST predicts ceiling jet temperature well within

experimental uncertainty. For cases where the HGL temperature is below 70 'C (160 'F),

significant and consistent over-prediction was observed.

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

the experiments. This is not surprising, given that 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 that users should take caution

when using the model to evaluate the given quantity. This typically indicates limitations in

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

" CFAST typically over-predicts smoke concentration. Predicted concentrations for open-door

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

* With exceptions, CFAST predicts cable surface temperatures 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 predicting localized conditions (such as target temperature and heat flux) because of

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 under-predicts

the near-field measurements. This is consistent with the single representative layer

temperature assumed by zone fire models.

Plume temperature is not directly calculated nor reported in a CFAST calculation. This was not

assigned a color rating. Parameters that are not given a color rating indicate that the model

does not include output to permit evaluation of the given parameter in its as-tested version.

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

show that 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 the inputs

provided to perform the calculations.

6-20
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 6): Technical Reference Guide," NIST SP 1026, National

Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2005.

2. 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. Heskestad, G., "Fire Plumes, Flame Height, and Air Entrainment" in The SFPE Handbook of

Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd Ed., National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA,

2002.

7. McCaffrey, B.J., "Momentum Implications for Buoyant Diffusion Flames," Combustion andFlame,

52:149, Oxford, UK, 1983.

8. 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.

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

in Compartments," Fire Science and Technology, 4:1, Tokyo, Japan, 1984.

10. 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.

11. Klote, J.H., "A Computer Model of Smoke Movement by Air Conditioning Systems,"

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

12. Forney, G.P., "Computing Radiative Heat Transfer Occurring in a Zone Fire Model,"

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

13. Atreya, A., "Convection Heat Transfer," SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering,

3 Edition, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2002.

14. 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.

7-1
References

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. Evans, D.D., "Sprinkler Fire Suppression for Hazard," Technical Report 5254, National Institute

of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1993.

18. Jones, W.W., "Modeling Smoke Movement through Compartmented Structures," Journal of

Fire Sciences, 11(2):172, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1993.

19. Jones, W.W., "Multicompartment Model for the Spread of Fire, Smoke, and Toxic Gases,"

Fire Safety Journal, 9(1):55, Okford, UK, 1985.

20. Jones, W.W., and J.G. Quintiere, "Prediction of Corridor Smoke Filling by Zone Models,"

Combustion Science and Technology, 35:239, Oxfordshire, UK, 1984.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. NFPA 551, Guide for the Evaluation of Fire Risk Assessment, 2004 Edition, 2004/2005

National Fire Code, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2004.

25. Peacock, R.D., G.P. Fomey, and P.A. Reneke, R.M. Portier, and W.W. Jones, "Consolidated

Model of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport" NIST TN 1299, National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1993.

26. 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.

27. 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, Okford, UK, 1998.

28. Beard, A., "Evaluation of Fire Models: Part I - Introduction," Fire Safety Journal, 19:295-306,

Oxford, UK, 1992.

29. Notarianni, K.A., "The Role of Uncertainty in Improving Fire Protection Regulation,"

PhD Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 2000.

30. Khoudja, N., "Procedures for Quantitative Sensitivity and Performance Validation of a

Deterministic Fire Safety Model," Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, GCR-88-544,

National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, 1988.

7-2
References

31. Walker, A.M., "Uncertainty Analysis of Zone Fire Models," Fire Engineering Research

Report 97/8, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, 1997.

32. Peacock, R.D., S. Davis, and B.T. Lee, Experimental Data Set for the Accuracy Assessment

of Room Fire Model, Report NBSIR 88-3752, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg,

MD, April 1988.

7-3

A

TECHNICAL DETAILS OF CFAST VALIDATION STUDY

This appendix 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 2 includes a detailed discussion of the uncertainties associated with both

the experimental data and model predictions presented in this appendix.

A-1
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

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.

A-2
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

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 (6.6 ft) apart in the lower two-thirds of the hall, and 1 m (3.3 ft)

apart near the ceiling. Figure A-I presents a snapshot from one of the simulations.

Bh A"k..w46 ii7Z

|TJ

I

T•I .-

Figure A-1. Cut-Away View of the Simulation of ICFMP BE #2, Case 2

A-3
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

140

120

9100

280

& 60 E

I 40

20

at

I

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #2, Case 1

15

10 Etp Time vs Height

- CFAST Tmn•- HGL M.Qht 1

5 . .

0

0 2 4 6

TimA (minl

8 10 .0 2 4 6 a 10

TimA IminI

5' 100

80

a 60

E

- 40

20

0

140

120

5'100

so80

F- 60

I- 40

a

I

4 6

Time (rain)

10

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #2, Case 2

15

0 I- CFAST in, te HN Heett I

0

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

Hot Gas Layer Height

15ICFMP BE #2, Case 3

10

5

* Exp Time vs Height

-CFAST MT[%e MeIGt. HI~gtt I]

0 4

:)

1

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #2. Case 3

'9

i "

20 *Exp TImne "s T~pper - CFAST Th,., IIGt TvmI

ui

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

0 2 4 6 a 10

Time (min)

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

A-4
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

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 and 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 HGL 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.

t4

P

Uquid spray fire

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.

A-5
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

a

E=

a400 Hot Gas Layer Temperature ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

300

200

100 *o ...... •

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

300

200

100

U...CAST Timeo " HGL Tethp I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

aCM

4

Hot Gas Layer Height

" ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

3

... CFAST Time HGL HeightI

2

".. ~...... .......

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

4

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

3

-- Exp Time vs L Lye Hgh Height~vT~.ý bor ý -m)

2

.......

• ........... .. .... ""

a

a

0.

E

a

I0,

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

a

E

I200

100 . .......................

E- T. . p a

0 5 10 15 20 25 3C

Time (rmin)

400 Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

300

100

CFA.T :TimevHGL ýTerr=

M

7:

4

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

3 3 l•'•.• 1 -- E= Tim -e Laye Hetgehtabove nmr (m)

2 I• i ..... CFAT Time n HGL Height I

.... .........................

.

0-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

4

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

3 !-- ~Exp T~e vs Late, Height abom, ff•(m

, "',..............

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a

a

0.

E

a

I,-

a,

a

=

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-4. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-6
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

400

Hot Gas Layer Temperature ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

300

2._

4

3

.2

a•

..I

Hot Gas Layer Height

.-.

EiT Time .. ighlE p T k•m, Lyw M Hii. ghl aho .. floor (m)

0.

E

W

IE

I--

100

C) i0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

300

200

inn

A

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

4

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

E

v

,,3

- E~Tim.e FS . HLW HeightI~Ibefe~

/I =.=........=

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0* ..... ---- 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

4

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

3

2IA

400,

3001

2.

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

E

T(D

0. E

Ia

200 ... ""'....... ........

10 0 .. .

- Exp Time s Tel. pper .Y.. (C)

......................... CIAST Thý we lIGI Temp I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

300

200 Y "

100 ...-.A I

1-

0

4

3

. 2

01

.A :, -ý ....................

....... .............

Lol,,i, 

Hwaht 

ilbioi`ii 

floor

=T "TTI - I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

CL

E

Q

I.-

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Ti e l. ighl 1 .

10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

Figure A-5. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-7
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

40

30

20

10

0

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0

10

.- n Ti ý Te,,a uW L (C) 0 o 'z ......... .................................. .

4-

3-

E3

Z

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

...........................................................

Eý Tý. . W -ot ý fý

CFAST Tý ý HOL Hot I

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rein)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

Open-Door Tests to Follow

400 • Ann 4

E=IHot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

300

........... "............

200

100

CFSTrone onHGTerp. -. Ta9P - C

.03

-r

4 Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

3,

2

3.. .. ....... K.......

F.xp Time vs Laye Height oefoo() CFAST T-m . HGL NI.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time Time (min) (min)

5,

2

B

a

0. E

a

400 Hot Gas Layer Temperature ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

300 ... ................... .

200

100

E.,o TO. Taog ,ppo Inyol MC

4-

3

z=2

-r

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

.......................... ................................. .... 

- Eop T~men HLyr 10,igh I~o op(1

.. . ... 1 L .

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (rain)

Figure A-6. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-8
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

400

300

o.200

k

E

i - - -

01

.tt

I

'4

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

3 .

2.

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time Time (min) Imin)

40

30

2 20 0.

E

a

0- 4 Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

Z0 . ............ " ". 3

I•

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

3.

. ....................................................... .

1 -- EgTk n'.sLy Hglaoa lo m

VCFAT ..... T: HGL Temp 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

300

200 ....

100

0...CATTne•HLTm -- Exp T.Tap"y(C

U

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

E

I4

3

-E 2

,.2-

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

...................................................

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

2.9.

E

,a)

4UU Hot Gas Layer Temperature ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

300

........ ....... -..................

2 0 ...-.................

'..

200

100

/....o.AT ". GL T=7 L

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

4

Hot Gas Layer Height ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

3

.m

I

..... -... E ..p ... Tn. ........... .......... .........

Tin, o. .G4. =...hI .CFý.S

Ii L J

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-7. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-9
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

ICFMP BE #4

ICFMP BE #4 consisted of two experiments, of which one (Test 1) was chosen for validation.

Compared to the other experiments, this fire was relatively large in a relatively small

compartment. Thus, its HGL temperature was 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.

Figure A-8. Snapshot of the Simulation of ICFMP BE #4, Test I

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.

A-10
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

800

600

400

E

9 200

6

Hot Gas Layef+ieight

ICFMP BE!#4, Test 1

E

3 CFAST1-GiJH0,l1

2

• !

0

0 5 10 15 20 10 15 20 25

Time (min) Time (min)

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

30

A-1l
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

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 minutes of the test, during the

"pre-heating" stage when only the ethanol pool fire was active. The burner was lit after that

point, and the cables began to bum.

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

A-12
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

5

4,

•3

.0:

=02

Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Height

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

I T

4- Jý-- -Eýp TWh. T-U . CFASTTh,.vHGLT.,p . - E. T. g

5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20

Time (min) Time (min)

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

A-13
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

FM/SNL Test Series

Tests 4, 5, and 21 from the FM/SNL test series were selected for comparison. The HGL 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.

S

Figure A-12. Snapshot from Simulation of FMISNL Test 5

Note the following:

" The experimental HGL heights are somewhat noisy because of 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 minutes in Test 5, the effect of which was a slight

increase in the measured HGL temperature.

A-14
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

C.

E

1001

HGL Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 4 5

HGL Height" ij FM/SNL, Test 4

Cu* -. %

60 "

40 -

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (mint

100 HGL Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 5

80

9,,

E3

2

1

0

CFAST T.-~ HGI. SH02 ....

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

E,

12

6

5-

4

C3

2

IUv~

HGL Height ¶FM/SNL, Test 5

20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 0 ...........

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

120

100

HGL Temperature

FMISNL, Test 21

a

C.

E

IBU •' • %"

OU

Afl -Z

6

5

4

2

0

HGL Height

FM/SNL, Test 21 it I

CIAST Til, 11GL ".OM I

Eý Tk*79) BURN RATEý80)

F-- .- Ti- 20 T.mWO) -ý. .- UM T-T-ý---

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

Figure A-13. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, FMISNL Series

A-15
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

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 bum 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 bum 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 IOOA

and 1000, 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 [Ref. 32].

Burm room

Figure A-14. Snapshot from Simulation of NBS Multi-Room Test IOOZ

A-16
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

E=

I-.-

CL

E

a,

400 Room 1 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

300

200

100

- Exp TIME vs UP BR

...... CFAST TI..a HLTempl

0 5 10 15 2C

Time (min)

160

Tree 4 HGL Temperature 140 NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

120

100 ...

80

60 -"

A,

2.0

1.5

"t 

1

*i1.

Room 1 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

Lý1- ---- - .- 4ap- A Al.

.......",*"***" ,*",* ,* , ...... I U.u

n In

0

I I- Exp TIME as HGT BR

0 5 10 15 21

Time (min)

Tree 4 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

0

2.0

1.5

"8 1.0 -r

20 -Eap TIME.sUP 18

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

0.5

0 5 10 15 2

Time (min)

Tree 5 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A 2.0

1.5

0

160

140

120

100

80

E 60

40

20

0

160

140

120

100

C

0l

3:

10 15 20

Time (min)

0.5

Exp TIME as HGT 38

00- rAT Tmev .HGLe5 0.0

0 5 10 15 2C

Time (min)

Tree 6 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A 2.0

D

a, aE

0-

80

60.

40-

Tree 6 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

... ... .. --.... • • u = % . •

-Eat TIME asUP EI

CFAST nme ....aHý T,,Pa

3:

1.0

0.5

0.0

................

. E... TIME as HGTEXI CFAST Ta,. a. HG4. Hisl 

20

01

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

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

A-17
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

400

0

2

a

0)

a.

E

I200

inn

0

160

140

120

2 100

80

E 60

a) 40

20

Room 1 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom. Test 1......

-Emp TIME vs UP 8R

CFAST Time .... Ha). lip 1

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Tree 4 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 1000

.. ....... ..

2.0

•.1.5

8 1.0 I

0.5

0.0

--vM(

2.0

1.5

" 1.0

0.5

0.0

Room 1 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 1000

- p TIME vs UP 15

vs 10.TnT .CFASTTi, 

-- S TIM im E v$ HGT G H"Exp BR

I. `im. ....I. I CFAST v HG. 1 

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Tree 4 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 1000

-Emp TIME - HGT 18 CFAST Time. HG01 HI, 14 ....

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Tree 5 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 1000 0

- Ep TIME vs HGT 38 Time vsH Height 5 .CFAST 

114,

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

120 0

2 100

5Z 80

E 60

40

20

0

2.

Z8 1.

0.iD

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 2(

Time (min)

0

160

140

120

100

• 80

E 60 I,-

40

20

Tree 6 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 1000

.............

-EmP TIME vs UPEX CFAST Timen .... osHlG.To 1 6

2.0

1.5

1.0 "1.0

0.5

0.0

Tree 6 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 1000

- EP TIME HGTEXI Time vw HG1 H.•1h 6 

0 5 10 15 20

Time (rmin)

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Figure A-16. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test 1000

A-18
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

400

Room 1 HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

300

E

2.0

1.5

Z 1.0 x

Room 1 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

M AA rYl IJ

100 2 -EvP TIME vs UP BR

....CFAST Thme HG.TwnP1

0.5

16

14

IE

04

0 5 10 15 2(

Time (mint

10

0 Tree 4 HGL Temoerature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

20

00

80

60

40Y

20 Exp TIME vs UP 18'

SCFAST Time vs HGL Tvp4

0 0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Tree 4 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

2.0

1.5

-r

0

2-

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

160

140 Tree 5 HGL Temperature NBS Multiroom, Test 10OZ

120

100

80

60

40

20 -Exp TIME vaUP 38

0 ""-

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

160

140 Tree 8 HGL Temperature NBS Muttiroam, Test 100Z

120

100.

San

0.5 ...... _cFAS' T,% ý G. He,.

0.0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Tree 5 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z 2.0.

0

JI

0.5

SExp TIMEvs HGT 38 Tie vsHGL HgWh1 5 .CFAST 

0.0-

0 5 10 15 21

Time (min)

Tree 8 HGL Height

2.0 NBS Multiroom, Test 10OZ

0

C-)

1E

riO. "I 1.0

fEU I x

20 -x ErTIME ULP T1

0.5

0.0

- Exp TIME vs HGT TR ...... CFAST Time vw HGL Heighi 8

() 4 -

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Figure A-17. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test 1OOZ

A-19
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

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

Measurement Exp CFAST e Expe" CFAST Relferve Series Test Potn (C m

Case 1,- 55 62 4-.14 "

WU Case 2" 86 99 1,56.

Case 3. 83! 91 , 13.9' 14.9 8,

Tes _____ 1 1231 135W. 1

Test'. If __,__ .117 133 iý..3

Test.2 229 235 •2 . -" - "' °

Test8 & __ , 218 233 "

Test 4 24 22~ _______ 9 .11

Test-•10 • 198 221 •.•..

Te6st,13 ______ 290, 311

W Test 16 .. __________ 2689. 290 . 8,, ',. . .

Test1 1351 143 A )

Test 3 207 243 2.8 e.t- 204 241 18 2.9., 2.8

Tek 175:• ,5 •30 2.7198.130 Test.14 208 242 6 2.9 28

Test :1 Tet __ ______ 5 • 2101 193 242MA 24, . 1 , '2.9 2'9 2.8 2.8 - 30W:, Testl,18 .- 3,"'"4 i.••'= Y "'•• 4'1 ,•,, 193:•,•;;• 24 , 2.9, :.' 2.81 ••••••,%

BE4 TestI. ... ... .. 700 .602 ,! 42 51 21

BE5 Test44: ..... _ 151 172'.' '. ,, 4.3 3.5

Test-4 _ _ 59 69- - . .

~z Test 5 ___J_ 44. 49,t ~I'"

TesUTl _____ 6 88 . 33?`

Bum Room .259. 237 9 1.3 1.3 -

MVIO. ACorridor 18 86', 88 21 A-, < 1.2. 1.2 -%.

Cornidor 38 77 88 4 13 1.2

1Cbrdor Exit 74 , 88. • 1.2 1.2

BumRoom 312 -336,331 -336

a3 MV1000 Corridor 18 106 75 : --3."-

z Corridor 38. 99 75 ,, -2,

____Corridor Exit ~ Bum.Room 286 240 '16, 1.3 1.3. 71

MV100Z Corridor 18 67 164 1.2 1.5 Corridor 38 67 64 r 1.2 15

Target Room 37 33 - 1.4 2.1

A-20
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

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. Temperature and

velocity of the ceiling jet is available from the model by placing a heat detector at the specified

location. The ceiling jet algorithm is based on the model by Cooper [Ref. 8], with details

described in the CFAST Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1]. The algorithm predicts gas

temperature and velocity under a flat, unconstrained ceiling above a fire source. Only two of the

six test series (ICFMP BE #3 and FM/SNL) involved relatively large flat ceilings.

ICFMP BE #3 Test Series

400 400 Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

200

E

a E

a2 1UU 100

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400 -

300 -

E

100 -

Ceiling Jet Temperature lCFMP BE #3, Test 2

400

300

S200

E

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

,v 100io h .............

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400 Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

200

1 00

0

•vv

200

I-- 

lOO

300

200

a-E

i-•nn

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

•V

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-18. Ceiling Jet Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-21
4

Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

i2

E

quU

Ceiling Jet Temperature

300 ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

300 " • •

200

100

-EM. rn..n Tr- 7.10 JT

.CASUT 7-,.. C.4mg tTm 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

400

300

3 00

0. CL

E

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

CIF Tm,. s Tee .7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

300

200

E

H100

EV T- w Tý MO I

A CFASTTýnrýWV-Týp I

I . . . . . ...........................................

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

Open-Door Tests to Follow

300

2 200

E

100

400

300

200

- 100

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-19. Ceiling Jet Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

K

A-22
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

400

Ceiling Jet Temperature ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

300

200

E

'-100

-EpI • .....-

20 25 30

400

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

300

2200

a

'-100 UP... .... 1ý71 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

300

18200

E

M

100

-i

40

30

520

E

S10

0

0

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

........................... 

...........

0 .

0

[V Tmes eeTMem-1

.... :AT-P

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-20. Ceiling Jet Temperature, lCFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-23
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

FM / SNL Test Series

150 ." Ceiling Jet Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 4

IUU

1.

E ,,50

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (minl)

Ceiling Jet Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 5

150

6100

I- 50

................... ............ -------------- CFASTT1n,=n.C=•.nOQJetTe002 T oo. .dg 401 ......

- -- Enp ExpTime(15)o Tain•(151 v 1/(0,98 11/(0,98 H)H)

0ýT 1).IO H

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

Ceiling Jet Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 5 .......

150

100 0 

E

CD

CCF AST Thy.:I A(01 J.TT:- 2

CAST rovsCelMg ho Tem I

E.p T-.(10)~ 11(0.90 H)

0. EV T-(00.l ) 14/0.08 H)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-21. Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Tests

A-24
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

Table A-2. Relative Differiences for Ceiling, Jet Temperature

Measurement Exp CFAST Series Test Positon Di*fe.e, c,.

Test 1 155 -135

Test-7 1 391 133 -

Test 2 27t. , 235 

Test.8 "4#" 233.8

Test 4 229 .222 . ` Z'

,' Test 10.i •"" •' 218 21 j.•i:i8• " k:•.,,,• 3o<•.24 .•,••$;

Test I.....0 "3

W Test 16 :•"'• see 27. .8 29.0 , ;

Test 17 2%"

:-..::...~~56 . . .:S e3-: 7 .v143- 1. . -8 ý,V-• ;

Tet3~_______24'1 24 W~Y

. :est9 __ __ _ 235 241, 3

.Test 5 _1____ 208 l-~" 9 

Test 14. 4 d______ 4~~

TestS ________244 242

Test 186 235. -243 . ,

Test4 Sec1 82 133'. 2~' _ ___ Sec3 66,ý 102

Z) -Seci 1 0 0l"--1 bl S TestS e3 5 5 ~ 4'

Test 21 Sec 1 75 159 ~~4~~ ____ ______3SJ-3 77 12 ý~1~

A.3 Plume Temperature.

CFAST includLes aplume entrainment algorithm based on the work of McCaffrey [Ref. 7], which

models te mixing of combustio6nprodu cts released by the fre! withkair in the fire compartment

and movements of these gases intoth eupper layer.in the compartment Plume temperature is not

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

experimentally measured plume temperatures with CFAST calculations are not appropriate

and are not included in this report.

A-25
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

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 oneto make estimates accurate to

within a pan diameter.

ICFMP BE #2

Figure A-22 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 (12.5 ft

to 15.7 ft)]. From the CFAST calculations, the estimated flame height is 4.3 m (14.1 ft).

A-26
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

Figure A-22. Photographs of Heptane Pan Fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2

(Courtesy, Simo Hostikka, VTT Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland)

A-27
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

ICFMP BE #3

No measurements were made of the flame height during BE #3, but numerous photographs were

taken through the doorway, which measured 2 m x 2 m (6.6 ft x 6.6 ft). During BE #3, Test 3,

the peak flame height was estimated to be 2.8 m (9.2 ft), roughly consistent with the view

through the doorway in the figure below.

Figure A-23. Photograph and Simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3,

as seen through the 2 m x 2 m doorway (Courtesy of Francisco Joglar, SAIC)

A-28
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

A.5 Oxygen Concentration

CFAST simulates a fire as a mass of fuel that bums 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, regardless of

whether it is the transport of heat or mass.

A-29
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

0.25

0.20

0

tS 0.15

a,

E 0.10 .3

0.05

02 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

E,, Tkmevs 02.1

Exvp Time vs 02.4

CFAS Timevs021

CFAST T-e vC CO2

0.25

0.20

0

t 0.15

E 0.10

0.05

0.00

02 and CO 2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

... .... .... ....-.......

Exp Tn.e v C02-4

CFASTTie v.s021

CFAST Tie.• C021

u.uu

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0.25

02 and CO 2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a

0

0.15

LL

E 0.10

0.05

0.00

-E., TIn. v 02-1

Ti.:s~ C02.4 .Ee 

T-m 02 1 .CFAST 

.. CFAST r-sC02II

0.2

0.

4,=E 0.1

u.

0.1

0.0

02 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

-- Exp Time vs 02.1

FASTTrna vs CO2-4 .... 

0

5T - . . 2. 

PT '..2

0.0v0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0.25

0.20

0 0.15

U.0,1

E 0.10.

.3o

02 and CO2 Concentratior

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4 ................. ... 

0.25

0.20

.2

8 0.15 LE 0.10 .3M

02 and CO 2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

"'" ... • '"................................

- Exp Time vs 02.1

Time 0 G02.4 .

..... CFASTTime.vsO21

CFASTTimevSCO21

.... - -E.p sp Timne Tfm.. vs 0O2.1 002.1

.CFASTTvi-0s2l

.OFASTTI-svC021

n nnn 0 " .

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0.25

0.20

p0.15

UE 0.10

0.05

0.00

02 and CO 2 Concentration

NICFMP BE #3, Test 13

EvTmý2sSO2-4

.. 021 I .C.ASTT_ .FAST Tme . C021

0.25

0.20

0.15 UE

•= 0.10

0.05

0.00

02 and CO 2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16 "• .. ,• ....... .. ..............................................

- Ap T~me vs C02-1

CFASTTýflvsI021

CFAST Tim. C021

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-24. Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-30
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

0.25

0.20

0.15

0

E 0.10

0.05

0.00

02 and C02 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

-- Exp Time 00 2-1

FAST 02 .CF*STT.1...... 

CFAST T.-r . 021

0.25

0.20

.2

0.15 -

LiL

0.10

2

"0

02 and CO. Concentration

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

- Exp Ti-eo GA 2.02

-- .. PT-eOGA2-CO2

.. FAST Time 0021

U.U5 +

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) 0 5 10 15 2

Time (min)

025

0

0.25

a

0

12

L.

0, and CO. Concentration

0.20 :4 ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0.15

0.10 CFAT Tunev.211

0.05

fl: ,,,A.. . . : == ======== ===A=== = = === ========

0.20

0.15

0

0.05

0.00

02 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

- Exp Time v O02.1 ... EbW T-m - C02-4

CFASTTm.ns021

CFAST To .l C02 1

000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0.25

0.20

0.15

U0

E 0.10

0.05

02 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test5

-- EzpT,Tm'. v.02-I

Timoe C02-4.Ep FAST Tne v021.

.CFAST Tie v0C021

0.25 02 and CO2 Concentration

0.20 ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0.15

LL 0-- ExpTjm.o 02-1

0.10 ExpTi1 T. 002.4 ..... CFAST Time w21 .CFAST Tie: C021

0.05

0.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 3C

Time (min)

0.25

02 and CO 2 Concentration

A In • 1 ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

U.Z5 02 and CO2 Concentration

n Ln V ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

C

0

S0.15

LA.

E 0.10 .2 Tme ý C024 .Ep 

.CFSTTn,.021

IETA, V 02- j

0

S0.15

LE 0.10

0.05

0.00

i

- EXO -ExpTe_ TUlle ve .02.402.1

CFASTTme80021

CFAST Time v. C

0 2

1

U.UU

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-25. Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

(Note that the single test from ICFMP BE #5 is included at the upper right)

A-31
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

Table A-3. Relative Differences for Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration

Senes Test

Exp

:(molar

fractJon)

CFAST

(molar

I I. I, fraction) II . I - .- I -. .

Test 1 10.065 i G.076

M

Test 7- 0.064:; -,. , 0.073

Test 2 0.092., ; 0401,.

Test 8i 0.096. 0.098.

Test 4 0.079: . 0.060'

Test 10 0.079 ý: " 0.059,

Test. r13 00 .101 011 1075

Test 16 0.091 0.075,

Test 17 0.033 .0

Test3I U0052' 6.044

Test 9 0.054,, 0.042

Test 5 0.030 0.026

Test 14 A 0.055 °0.042-

Test 15.. 0.052 -. 0.042

fractidn)

0.038

" 0.038

0.054,

_0,.058

" :'0.047.

0.0471. .:M,0106if

,0..0260 0,.035

03022

&17 M 

0.0321

0.031

0.031 0.01 31

CFAST

(molar

fraction

0.044

',0.043

0.059

0.057.

0.•35

0.035

04064

0`044

0.0271.

0.027

0.027

0:027

0.012

',Test 18 0.051 ., 0.044

BE5M I Test4 . 0.023, - 0.020'ý

A.6 Smoke Concentration

CFAST treats smoke like all other combustion products, with. an overall mass balance dependent

on interrelated user'-specified species yields for major combustion species. To model smoke

movement, the user prescribes the smoke yield relative to the yield of carbon monoxide.

A simple combustion chemistry scheme in the model then determines the Smoke particulate

concentration in the form of an optical density. For BE #3, the smoke yield was specified as one

of the test parameters.

Figure A-26 and Figure A-27 contain comparisons of measured andpredicted smoke concentration

at one measuring station in the upper layer. There are two obvious trends in the figures. First,

the predicted concentrations average 22% higher than the measured in the open-door tests,

within experimental uncertainty witl a single exception for Testý 14. Second, the predicted

concentrations are roughly three time's the measured concentrations in the closed-door tests.

A-32
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

E

0

E

U)

Smoke Concentration

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

200

150

100 "

50 .

0 -"- ~ '~e•S k oe

350

Smoke Concentration If'=%AO QC W1 T- 7

E

a 250

Z' 200

150

0 100

E

50

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (mint

4-

E

M

E

Q

E

U)

50uu Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2 ...........................

400

300

200

100

0

E

E

2'

0

E

C/3

5u0 Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

4 0 0.. .... ."

200

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300 Smoke Concentration

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

E

E 200

" . CFAST Te OD I =• 150 . ' "..:.

100

0

Co 50.... . .

50

m 50 • • .......................

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

150 oa0

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

E., I- I CFAST r- ý OD I _j

0

E

u) 5

30

25

E 20

0.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0

Smoke Concentration

io ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

00 '

nr ;-

Guu

-500.

E

E 400

" 300

I 200

0

E

Co 100

0-

Smok,

ICFMIa Concentration

P BE #3, Test 13

100

E

U) 50

E, T- . &Ik. C..

CFAST Tý n W

.CFASTm o eO

5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-26. Smoke Concentration, lCFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-33
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

2U

E

41

0

E

CO

000 Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

500

000

" ...... CF.T T.. v OD

500

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Open-Door Tests to Follow

300

250

E 200

• 150 03

_2 100

E

U) rn

Smoke Concentration

LCFMP BE #3, Test 3

i

300

250

E 200

• 150

0

.210 E

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

..................................................... .....

U)

* - koOThOos Solok. Coot.

.CFAST11moODC

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) -

250O

200-

150- 00

1 50

0-

E

0

a

E

CI)

0 .5To.ODI

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

Smoke Concentration

250 .ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

200

150

150e .. ". ........ ;.................... . . . . . *... . . .

100 -

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

E

0

E

U)

300- Smoke Concentration

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

200

150

100

E- E ToTe - k ot

0.

E

E

C9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300 Smoke Concentration

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

200

150

001 .CFAST 

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-27. Smoke Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-34
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

Table A-4. Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration

Series Test Exp CFAST

Test1; 42 .321 -j.7W2-.

Test 7 55. 307 " r,""

Test 2. 128 420 228-

Test.8 100 41.1f 4 3

:::Test4,' 80 177 ; :.22 .'-

Test 1 71 177 ~1O

Test'13 224 480' >:.:'."

w ",Test 16. 1397" 204 .

Test17, 353 1590. ;.35

.,T est.3 : 11 81 14 0 .. 44-. ,'

" :Test9 !17. 139 ! .19-

Jest 5 87.- .91

Test .14 91 139 , 5 ,

Test 15 124 140 _""13-;

Test 18, 110. 140 27ý.j 1ý 

A.7 CompartmentPressure

Experimental measurements for room presue are available only frbm the ICFMP BE #3 test series.

The pressure within the compart was me at a single pointnear the floor. In the simulations

of the closed-door tests, the compartment is assumed to leak via'asmall vent near. the ceiling

with an area consistent with the measured leakage area.

Comparisons between measurement and prediction are shown in-Figure A-28 and Figure A-29.

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 oftcomparable.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.

A-35
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

80

60

40

& 20

-20

-40

-60

Compartment Pressure I BM7,E.I,, Test I

...

- E~~h,.s~o J

a

0~

2

a

0~

60

Compartment Pressure

40 A ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

20

-2=0 ....- FS rre•PelEpTm''vlCrp ......................................... t " "

-20

-40-

-60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

-Ov

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

Compartment Pressure

Al. ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

200

O. 0

-200 0-

-400

-600

C

200

100

0

-lOO

-200-

• -300 0-

-400

-500

-600

300

200

100

0

-100

a -200 0.

-300

-400

-500

Compartment Pressure

ICFAP RE #-3, Test 8

-I eC ATT4Co-=pP CFAST Tn• •Pressre 

= _-~IC~Ip

.sTrI-~p.s~~

I 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

100 Compartment Pressure

0ICFMP BE #3, Test 10 

Compartment Pressure

-) -E,pT-s~vCDmfpP Tkne VS P- 1UV .CFAST 

................ v 

. -....................... .............

aý -100

-200-

-300-

-400-

-500

CFAST Tý Pýý

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

200

Compartment Pressure 400

200

0

Compartment Pressure

-BE #9, Tet 1

ax

a)

-40

-60

-80

-100

U

'0 V _

10

10

0 -Esph, s.olpP

CFAST r- . Pr-. 1 ,I

a.

-200

-400-

-600

-1000 -E~pr-..CVSpP

CFAST TIPV In POswO I

0U 1',nn J

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

Figure A-28. Compartment Pressure, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-36
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

300

200

100

0 0

a. -100

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP RF f3i Test 17

Y I'

,F Open-Door Tests to Follow

-200

-300

-: .P

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a)

0~

2

a)

a.

.CFASTV0BE #3, Test 3

.0

0

a)

0.

-2

-3

a)

0.

a)

a)

0.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rmin)

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

-2 ........... .......................................

-2

-- E,•p r,-e ý CompP .... CFASTr .mmv P--mr i

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a)

0~

a)

a)

0.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

-2 . ---.... 

*2

- ESTa)rimO0, I

3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

-2

-Exp rime n CoP

~ -1

- E~T _oCo~P_

-3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

1-

0

-3

-2

Compartment Pressur

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

. . ...

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-29. Compartment Pressure, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-37
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

Table A-S. Relative Differences for Compartment Pressure

Series Test Exp CFASTne

(Pa) (Pa) •%

Test 1 •58 .42

Testt 7:. 46., 29 ' -3

Test2' 290 266, kt'4

Test8. 189 2133: . .. 

Test 4 57 76 x 6.

Tbest;lO , : 49,. 45 .,

Test:13, 232 336 4 .

W Test 16: .81 309. L'30-28&7r3r ...

Test,'.17 1951' 138 V':•-",. .

Teast3. -1.9 -2. 1 %4O :

Test 9 -2.0G -2Z 71'"I

Test-5 -1.8 -2.0 - ,,Q'W

Test14 -2.1 -2.1 ,

Test 15 -2.4 -2.2 • -&

Test 18 - -2.0 -2.1

I

A-38
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

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,

non-homogenous cables. CFAST assumes all cable targets 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.

A-39
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

a_

E

Z.0. Total Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

2.0

1.5

I .... .... ..

0.5

0.0

* -~n E(~n.b~iTbth

* ~CFAST TIM (B Cabb B Fhý

SCFASTTrm.s.ýb9bý

14"

E

X

2

LL

Toa HeaS t Flx oC Cntol abe

2 CM E#,Ts

N

0 =1" .....

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

150

.• 100

loo

E

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0.

E

I.-

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

150

100 • .....

5o0,

I = =i B ==z. . .-

U

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

Figure A-30. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests I and 7

A-40
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

8-

E

"4

CD

M'2

8 Total Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

E-- Eý T-w CabIe Tot Fl4. . p 

.7FCST nm.. C B Fl.

CFAST Tim ns CýdI 8 o

E,

Total Heat Flux to Control Cable B ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

6

4

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

150

E 100

50

Control Cable 8 Surface Temperature ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

• .... "~~~ ... ............................. CL

EaD

300 Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3. Test 8

250

200

150

100

O- "T[ ' I - E, Tn. . . B-T. 14 .... OFAST Time. CR.k B Temp 0AT~. ~I e

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s) Time (s)

Figure A-31. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8

A-41
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

8

6

'4

12

0

Total Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

CFAST rm vs Cads BFu

81

6-

.x4

14

-r2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Total Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

-- Exp txnxvCaxle Txte FIa

-- Euoxv Tu xcaii Bad Gadd 3

. CFSTrTmx vs Ca B FlA,

CF _SrO scs a

A

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

30

25

2.20

15

E(10

5

0

0

0

0

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

300

250

200

150

E10

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

........................... ....................

0 - ~~~~ExpT-~uB-Tlul4 - mxu .x

SCFAST m Ca B TnCFAST r Ca B T

0 a.T0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s) Time (s)

Figure A-32. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10

I

A-42
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

Total Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

L4-

E

,'" 4

2

0

E-T ECrnweu. T" Ru.J04

W o Tiaa n Cable Rod Ge4. 3

CýT T. . Cable 6 l,

CFAST rýrnoa CON B R.e

10

8

6

4

2

Total Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

-- Eeo V• -Cat R -e

TCFA-TTU . CaIbe B

Thoe.CoG.B Ra 

a

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

200

0.

E

100

0

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

.. . .. . .. . .. . . ........ ..

400

300

C-) S200

E

100

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

,Z ...............

-F. EopLoe.9T-4 - Ep,T`.I.5-TS-14

TlSCable B Tho, .CFAST 

a

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

Figure A-33. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16

A-43
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

8

6

x4

-2

0

6

"E

'4

2'

Total Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

......................

CFAST Tim- B Cdbl B Fkud

CFASTi-y CaMla B Bad

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

200-

E

100

0

400 Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

F...T... C . Ba ..

300

1 200 CL

E

100

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

& M Tamp Bx 

.............8 T0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1 Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

Figure A-34. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9

A-44
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

U.

lCFMPSBEm#3, Test

0 Wý 1w

6'-

'4

" 2

0-

Total Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

-ExV TTn. v. Cak= TO=u, F=. 4

CFAST Tm,.v Cia. B FL, CFASTT.aC~ab. 8 .4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

200

E

100

0

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

400

300

.200

E

100

0

..............

-- Erxp Tm~e vs B-Tsi 14

...... CFAST Time n. Cable B Toup]

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s) Time (s)

Figure A-35. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14

A-45
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

ou

60

x40

" 20

0-

Total Heat Flux to Control Cable B

lCFMP BE #3, Test 15

W Time w CaWeTW Fý 4

Tim, - -, - G"e" 3

CFASTn...C.ýb

CFAST Tiý ý Cabl, 0 Fýd

........................... .................................

10

8

1L4

2

rotal Heat Flux to Control Cable B

CFMP BE #3, Test 18

- Expr ca...TotaJ Fux. 4

-. E E, •{ T Tim Z Cable TTsCC.RWCý. Rtee Gauge 43

CFAST Ti-C C. . B F%,

CFS~CCa0.R.C

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

400

300

!D ,

200

a)

E

9

4

C.

E

0

400

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

200--

I VV

- Exp Tio ý B-TC-14 . - Exp Time v -Ts-14 . CFAST TIn.. CCble a Temp CFAST Time Ceale B Temp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s) Time (s)

Figure A-36. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18

A-46
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

10 Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test I

3.0 -

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

aIr

6

2

0

-CFASTrmv-c.OFI ,.ST = .. . Csb 5R

s60 a mpE2.

1.

0.

U~

0.

.5 . C-. . ý.= z

E* E~TdTOVSCtJTo Pý jx8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

400

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

300

Thaocoýpl. iwopWbab

200

E

t, 1 0 0 . .. . . . . . . .. . .. ...

. . .. . . . . . . . .

-Exp Tim D-Ts-12

...... CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0.

E

I0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

25 30

Figure A-37. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests I and 7

A-47
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

"E

- Total Heat F14 to Cable Tray D

8 lCFMP BE #3jTet 2

6 CFAST Tkne vs Cable D FW,

UAST Time w Cabl, 0 Rý

4 EXP Tm vs Cýe Tý FWx 8

Fý Tm . CebW lRad G-P I

I;

E

-r"

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

lCFMP BE #3, Test 8

a - 1

6

C ASTTk--ClWDM. 4 CFASTTkne.Cable, Red

Up Tý - Cebe Ree

2 2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tlmd (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

200

CL

E

100

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

400

300

200 0

CL

E

100 .............

-- Fxp im ovsD-Ts-12

.CFAST Time vs Cable D TespI

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

lCFMP BE #3, Test 8

................... * .............................

EpTi-13--12

CFAST Tim n Cab4. D T-p

g

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-38. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, lCFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8

A-48
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

10

8

E

n-4

"a

F Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray D ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

10 Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

CFA.T aeý. Cý 1O19" Tk- .CFAST . Ub C. D R. -Eý, Ti, " CU ToC Fba I -Eo T-o . C.0W Rad Goge 7 6

LL

CFAST n- wCýodeO Fka TkM " ,07D .CFAST 

) -, o p To,-C Coil TCd 7,

E. EoTh,.-CCý leolG.oC7

4 {

A I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300 -

200

E

100

0-

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

.......................

300

S200

E

a)

100

0

300

.• 200

CLE

p- lOO ............... * ..............

- EoPTin,ovs -Ts-12

.CFASTmn -oCbi.D0To-n

- Eop Time- O-D-Ts-12 ...... CFAST Time n_ C"be D Temp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-39. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10

A-49
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

12

10

6

4-

2

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray 0

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

IL a CFAST Time. Cab. . Wta

;. CFAST Tr, w Cak DRad

- Em Tb,, n Cab.s Tot Fkx 8

- Eý Time, Ca. . Ra Ga•. 7

12

10

x6

,-

74.

2

(7

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

, CFASTTe Ca•DFOFRt

CFAST T,.. a Cab. C Fka

-- Exp mCab. ToW Gub.8

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

A•t•

E

1!

@uu

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

300

200

100

-- Exp Time vs D-Ts-1 CFAST Time .sCbeDTm

a

EL

E

a2

30

20

40 0

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0

0 .-

0

-Ep Tim,. 88 D-Ta.12

.CFAST rT-a8Cab. D Tap]

0 1ýTI~

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

20 25 30

Figure A-40. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16

A-50
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

10

8

4

W

T

10

8

E

FL 4

"I

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

24+"-•.

0

CFAST lime Dae i

..CFAST Time CabeS DC RaC

0 TIM ==Tme 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

2 200 a)

E

12 100

0

5D

E

0T

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

Figure A-41. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9

A-51
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

10. 10 .

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE a3 Teat 14

4-

x

a

6 4-

"1"

x

64

4

2

6

4

2

0

10,

inC. C. C 0 Flux -CFAST 

CFASTT(rO.UC.M. 0 CCC -EVTrn-, CC.Total u.$

UPTi ~. CC R. G.,ý.7

... ............

2

0

CASIT Fsuho ::CC. - C'FýT D RaC~.C UP TC CCTOCFlu. 8 0 -EC.T= PdG u.o 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

2 200

E

100

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

400

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

..............

..........................

L 200

00

E

100

-x EsTbe C.O-Ts-12

.CFAST Tin, Cabl 0 T_.,]I

.................................

E~Ti- Up u.s -T.2

in .COC0Te~ .CFAST 

0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

30

Time (min)

Figure A-42. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14

A-52
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

30-

25

E 20

1 15

10

5

Total He

ICFMP aat Flux to Cable Tray D

BE #3, Test 15

CF= Tr-~. -CC= 0 I CEtST~onC b.OFao

- V =o R. C-9 7aeTtlF

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

8

"E

L. 4

2 -CFASTTUý.RCal.W0

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

........... I .................... .1ý

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

. 200

E

100

0

400

300

200

E

100

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

Figure A-43. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18

A-53
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

2.0

1.5 E

x 1.0

'0.5

00.

Total Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3 Test 1

Up Tm C eFA \ 

CFAST Ti- vs FA Flu

CFAST Tmn v C.PI F Rad

2.0

1.5 E

' 1.0

' 0.5

Total Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

•"...........

C.. ST rs. w. Cas s F Fu,

CFASTTh Wo Cabe F ,av

V.V

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

150

100

CL

E

50

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test I

...... ..... ........

..............

... ... El FT

200

150

100

a)

E

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

Figure A-44. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7

A-54
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

o Total Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

b I Total Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

4- I;,-

E

'3

IL 1- CAT-m t.FI

Tms Cale F SCFAST 

'(3

U2 CFASTT r- rWa. F Raa

F 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

rime (min)

300

250

•- 200

150

0.

100 I--

50

0

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

300

250

•- 200

150

CL

E 100

I--

50

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

r=• I" "'l ....

-Ep Tame n F.Ts-20

'n_, n Call, F T-.p] .CFAST 

-. -r. .b, F-T1-20

.... CFAS r-,n Cable F TePa

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-45. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8

A-55
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

6- Total Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Total Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10 5

132

I

-Ep~n at) T"d FW 2

CFAST Ti- v Cob) F Flu.

CFAST TO SCot) F FLO.

x

E

-r

4 -- EM EAT- T-pree -

wob.RoG. Cot). ToW F"o 2 ........ CF T wT C. cb•C F Fek

Tiwm n Co, F R.0 .CFAST 

3.

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

300

250

2- 200

150 a,

E 100

50

0

300

250

O- 200

f 150

100 I--

50

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

30

Figure A-46. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10

I

A-56
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

6

'4

- 2

0

Total Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

. CFAST TIMs Cable F Fd

CFAST T"s Cý. F eal ITotal Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

6

EM-Eql e Tb Cab lTotiFhu 2

CFAST T-, ve Cable F Fbx 2z CFASTTm.vCaebeCFRa

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

'00

150

100 I.-

50

0

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3. Test 13

8

S6

E

X 4

M 2 .......

/It" i

-EIIP Time n. F--s.20

rem. a Cable FTep .CFAST 

0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-47. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16

A-57
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

8

6

2 2

0

Total Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

E.T.. CS T, l FW. J2

Thi . Cable F Fi .CFAST . C~able F .CFAST7r8

•6

•4

" 2

0

Toa -eatFlxto Pwaber ableaF

ThCableU.F FW 

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

30 0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

30

300

250

6-200

2

150

100 I.-

50

0

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

.............

300

250

200

150 5.,

100 I50

0

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

..........

= Us Tsa, F-Ts-2

TIn..s Ca, ble F T.., .IAT 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

- PEp T-r. a, F-T`-20 Tr-s abse F Temnp .CFAS 

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

20 25 30

Figure A-48. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9

A-58
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

a

4-

8 Total Heat Flux to Power Cable F

lCFMP BE #3, Test 5

2

E- ETImvC- .a~

CFAST imn C.&WO F Fý

CFAST.-WC.I. F~h

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

E

2:

8

6 - n- Tn. 'CableToW Fin. 2

FAS T- Cým F.g 1

2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

150 CL

E 100 I50

0

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

300

250

200

150

0.

E

100

50

1,

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

- Exp Tine .s F-Ts-20 .CFAST T-.e vs Cable F Temp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

-E,.p Time . F-T.-20

Time . Cable F Temp .CFAST 

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

30

Figure A-49. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14

A-59
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

30

25

E 20-

X 15

l0-

5

rotal Heat Flux to Power Cable F

CFMP BE #3, Test 15

-U E.pTmee. Cab Teal fla

- Eep Tm.. Cab. Ra Gig I 4CFAST Tm-:a Cab F Ru, CbSTaa.Cb Re

20

E

15

LL 10

a

5

n

rotal Heat Flux to Power Cable F

CFMP BE #3, Test 18

I-E*T...CýW Wd, ;F E.pT...Cýft =1

CASTT='=FFWýT

GFAST Tý ý16

....... .. _ 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

rime (min)

800

600

2 400

a- 200

E800

600

T 400

a

' 200

IPower Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

..... ... ... .. . .

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-50. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18

A-60
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

2.0

Up EvTm usC~b sR G~qe 7

0.5 ~~CFASTTI,. sCemSGIFl.. CFAST Tim, ws CaIe G33 RM

25

2.0

S1.5

ILL 1.0

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0.5 C Tm Tim. "We.R Gag Fim

CIFAST T-i u Cab M3 Fl,

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

150

•.100

0)

E

50

0

200

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

150

~~~~~~. ........ .... ........

CL

E)

E

0) I.

- CiP Tims vvaudl Cable T,;-35

- Sp --me us veac Cabl T,-31

Timev Call 031 Temp .CFAST 

Time v C.ll G35 Temp .CFAST 

100

50

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

... ..........

.. Sp T is: vs Ve Cale s T e- p Sa esal ciov Cable Ts-31

CAT Tsm vs C.able G31 Temp

limo vs Cable G35 T-np .CFAST 

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-51. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7

A-61
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

8

-"6-

04

"2

0

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

UEp re. Cale Toa GFlux a ..- "" ..- ' -- T~o n., Cv W RaWb a Gauge IA

•.,,,' ....... FAST TA,. ,. CabW. GFlux FAST TW•o, Cable G33 Red

8-

6-

S

,..-

M 2

0

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

CEo T- n. Cable Total Mx. A

EV Tm vs Cable Wad GaJge 10

CFAST Tm,.CableA FbICFAST TWA. Cable G33 PWa

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

150

E• 100 I--

50

0

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

." .. . ... -.. W

0.

E

- Ex Tire. v Ver :I Cable Ta-35

- _F- p Ti7.e vs Verb.al Cable T5-31

CFAST . Tme vs Cable G31 Temp

.CFAST Thne Cable G35 Temp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-52. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8

I

A-62
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

8

6

aE

8. Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

-- Ea• Tiube a Cable Total FlI 9 - Eta Tette •i Cab~e Rab Gabge lb

Tine in Cable .CFAST G Flue

Tint as Cable .CFAST G33 Rlab

X

2M

2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

6 E

2

0

S

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

- Eb TinevoCalýe Ttal Fe 9

.. .TS Cable.G.Flab .CFAST 

Tvel ns Cable G33 la .CFAST 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

300

250

6- 200

150

a.

E

100

50

0

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3. Test 4

- Exp Time va Vetrlcal Cable Ts-35

V- T-p eTmvs Vemotal Cable Ts-31

.CFAST Time .s Cable G31 Tetp

.CFAST Time n Cable G35 Temp

300

250

- 200

2

150

a)

E 100 I50

0

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

o......'..

T-1Epmey VV=ua Cable T"115

r.a.im xVetba Cable T -31

floe vsCable G31 =enp .CFAST 

Taent vCable G35 Temp .CFAST 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-53. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10

A-63
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

14- Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

12 ICFMP BE #3. Test 13

I;- 10 E

S6

S4

2

0

-ExOT-~. Cabl. TW Fý

-ý Eg T,.x.Cli O G 10

l CtOSFg .EFAST 

r- . CAOIG33RWý .CFAsT 

14 Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

12 ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

4 Fa

CFAST TimeoG Flux CFAST niUn COe F RO

2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

4-40

D:" 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

" 150

E

E 100

50-

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

-- Ep "ri-e w Vertical Cabla To-35

-- Ep Tr-e go VertWl Cable Ts-31

.CFAST T-m vs Cable G31 Te-p

.CFAST T..e "o Cable G35 T-ep

300

250

O. 200

s 150

WC0

4)100

50

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 3.0

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-54. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16

I

A-64
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

10

a,

12

0

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

- ExpTS. vs C........... ¶

C ASrThlld.wCableG ft, T-. w Cable G33 R.d.OFAST 

E

,

8

6

4

2 -Eq ul 5OtsTtlFa

- EC ý sb Catis dad AOtes

C FAST rm evsCable G Fk,x

OFAST r-~ Cm. 033 bal

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

•- 200

150

100 I50

0

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3 ............

300

250

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3. Test 9

F- p r-: o Vo~lo ITl T311

.CrAST ml-. Cable 031 ls-sP

.CFAST T*-.,n Cabla 035 Tsvp

=E

I200

150

100

50

0

Sep Thý eVertical Cable T.-3

EpTime, vs Vertical Cable Ts-31

CAST TI-s,. Cable G31 To-sp

CAST Tiese vs Cable 030 Tsvp

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-55. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9

A-65
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

8

6

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

4~ AI kh%

X

u:

2 -E.P To .. Cable Total Fin

Terew.CaG SCFAST Fba

ThreoCaelG33 SCFAST Ra

12

10

x 6 E

•4

2

0

EQaT-raCabýTotaFW.

UPaeo ra. Caý Rad G='. I

CFASTT r-a. CatG Fin

CFATr Th GMC~e53 a

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

CFVP BE #3,Test 14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

150 02

E 100

I--

50

0

500

450

400

350

T 300

250

- 200

l 150

100

50

0

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperatures

ILI-M' ILb- i , iest 14 ...............................

..

- ESp 7..e s Voflio Cbl Ts-35

.Cd325osC

325 orCol 337 .Col 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-56. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14

A-66
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

8

E

4z

6

4

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

E.. u ." e.`..:C: bl Toal F., 

CFAST Tmiy Cabda G Flu,

CFAT Tm y Catie =3 Ftw

a

ID

u. Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

lCFMP BE #3, Test 18

8

-- EV r-e . Cable Tota Flu

6 -- E l-me vs Cab ,ad Gage 10 4 CFASTTimewCaGFI .....CFAST Tire • Clek G33 RLad

4 ....... ....

2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

25 30

500

450

400

350

p 300

250

(D 200

E 150

S100

50

0

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15 .......................

................

. - Pop Time e Vertical Cable TS-35

-- Ep Thee "x Vertcal Cable Ts-31

CFAST Tene vs Cable G31 Temp

CFAST Time nx Cable G35 Tamp

a

9D

E

9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

- PExp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-35

Pep Thee vs Vetcal Cable Ts-31

Tire ox Cable G31 Ternp 

Tire ox Cable G35 Temp 

10 in)

Time (mai)

Figure A-57. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18

A-67
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

ICFMP BE #4

Targets in BE #4, Test I 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-58. Location of Three Slab Targets in ICFMP BE #4

A-68
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

40

x 30

u.

• 20

10

0

60

50

. 40

30

Li.

• 20

10

0

60

50

• 40

" 30

u-

• 20

10

0

600

500

•- 400

300

a 200 I100

0

15

Time (min) Time (s)

600

Concrete Surface Temperature

500 ICFMP BE #4, Test 1

400

300

~200

100

0C-... T T ,. T..)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

a)

C.

E

I30 10 15

Time (min) Time (min)

Figure A-59. Heat Flux and Surface Temperatures of Target Slabs, ICFMP BE #4, Test I

A-69
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

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, and the other containing control

cables). The following pages present plots of the gas temperature, heat flux, and cable surface

temperatures at three vertical locations along the tray.

A-70
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

•4

x 3

U.

LL

2

10

Time (min)

200

150

. 100

200

Power Cable Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

150

Ioo

E

50

Contro.lS Caal Surac Temperature

I.CFAS BE #C, Test 4

........ CO37 *a.. 

E

a h,.TCO r- 1-3

.CFAST Tim TCCOOI7 T-np

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

0

0 5 10

Time (min)

15 20

Figure A-60. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

A-71
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

Table A-6. Relative Differences for Radiation and Total Heat Flux to Targets and Target Temperature

Test Cable Exp CFAST Ex CFAST "Ojffy" E p CFAST O"if f

.. (k/m MA KE' %k/m kWm 7WiT J L (C)

BE3 B, 1. 1 1:5 •!.37 -'• 1.9 1.7 •:.1. ~1 106 103 I•;; -•3':,•

Test 1 1.4 1 6~zI~~uIzi P ', ____

F O09, T.4, ~ 1j 18~ -2 83 { 68

G33 1.5. 1.6. Rh QR ~ 4 £Q#~ -~

B, 1.2 1.5 248 18 1.6 . -2 109 102 -7

Test7 D 1.3 16 .0 .I 2.5 .1.7 87-33•i, B7 102 I .

F 0. 8 1.4 . ,2 1.5 1.7 13, 90 73 ,..,,:

MG33 1.5 1.6 '1 -1.9 17' .... 78. 93 19

B .9 4 35,!,, .5.3 4Z6 --1Z 176 144 •--8

Test 2 D 4.2- . 4.3 . 4 9.8 4*8 -52 ,, 126 146

F. 2.0 3.9 •96- . 4.8 46 ! . l4t 129 112 .l

G33ý 6.0 4,3 X 7.. . .. 107 138

'B .9 4.1, ..'.6 5.6 46 41 183 142 -23w

T t 8'3.6 4.3 _ 8.5 4•'..4.7 - 150 143 '2,- -4 ,4 :

F! 1.9 3.8 1⁄29& Y 4.9 45 . 131 110 'w

G33 . 6.0 4.3: 29 6.0 :46 •-2, 107 136 27- B' . 9 3156 3 9 ,, 5. 4,1 -, ,-2 149 15 "' ". 

Test U, 4 33.3 7.2 4.3, '.:-41, 113 157 $-(39

.-otr- 6 8 5.0 4.2 _'1T' 149 115 _ __

G33 6.0& 4.0 ) '-:,, 6.4 42 K-34, . 125 149 ,19, B 2.7. 349 .13 41 1;7• 144 162 

Test D 2.9 4,0. ý!-.. Y6.. 674.2 £;3 , 132 164 24

10 F:- 1.9' 3.6 ••.,u.i86 ' 4.4 4.0 -7 .. 150 129 -.

G33 5A4 4.0Q •-t27 6.2 4.2 " ' 3ZI•X"> 148 149

78.3 .4.8 84 8A 2 186 165 ,,1

Test D. - .6.6 8.0 -22 .. 112 • 8.7 .- 22.' !- :173 169 -. 13 F 2.9 7.2' . 7 7.3 3 8.,11. 143 143

G33:..G3 10.1 . 8.0- ' u. '12.2 18.6 - .. 133 164 23, B,4.1 65 59; 8.4 72 • -1• A .. 160, 166 3 Te t ..-' 4.1 ' " %. "6 .8 ýi : -W " .4 "71"'• ••'

Test D-4.8 68.>,, K ,11.7 7.4 . .... 156 170 -

16 F. 2.8 60 " .,,, 6 . 68 l11!) 168, 148 .Z2 I

_ :__ G33 12.0 ' 6.8 ,, ' 12.2. 73 .•,0,• 169 150. 1

B. 1.3 21 60¶ 2.4 '26 " 10 .- ,-

Test .. 0: - 1.5 2.2 45N. . 3.3 2.7"-$1 ' "" ____ _-____ ___ ....

17 FP 0.9 1 1 .9 24______

G33 '2.4 , , T23 3.1 72-7- _____ _____ -,

.13,9 "1• 7.1 449' ,.-31 226 221

,Dt .9.5 5.1 46; 210 223 6 Test 3 D .. "•,,:: ::e , ;..,,;', :">.•• " t •. !

Fr 3.0 45 -53 ,, 5.5 ., 49 -..' 195 160 -18

G33 5.4 5.5 "1 .6. 5Z5 1169 224.':"•

B 4.3 47 9- 6.6 48 -28 228 218 -4

Test9 4.9 05.3 - • 9.1 49 . 220 219 -1 . Test 9 D 53 .

Fý 2.7 4.3 '"- ;-'.'*""59`,,,, . 5.1 4.7 '-. 7 . 195 156 -20

G33 5.2 5.3 2• 6.4 5.3 47 t 166 221 .33

Test 5 B. -3.9 .3.6 . 6.9 &7 3.6 7 .. .150 183 22 D: 4.8 3.7 ___2, 8.5 3.8 "5 -1 132 184 1'39

2.6 3.3 1,:1251 .1 6.4 1 3.6 4 1175 11281 *2., ,2

A-72
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

Test Cable Ex CFAST Duffi FT Exb p CFAST ,Diff x CFAST . Diff; .

_k____l__ _;- (kW/mr) -kWCm) 0 k:.( 0 .,.J.

G33 5.4 4.2 •6.7 :3-W 4.2 161 190".."

B 2.,8 4.1 c 6 3.8 4.3 1 199 207 - 4

Test D-.. ________ ____.__ 6.1 4.4 . , . 178 208 .

14 F. 2.1 3.9 3 .3.55 4.3 "1'K2• 171, 145 •156;:"

'-__ G33 10.5 7,3 *t--3 10.9 7.3 --33-), 270 262 '-3, B 46.5 3.9 , 577 40 ,' •-3- : 416 207 .. ...

Test D 20.9 42 .-. 243 209 .14.k 15 F 18.3 36 1 -& O. 239 40 !83•i 669_ 155 -77.

S G33. 3.7 7.0 W-51 0 .37. ! 16.1 263 63

B' 5.2 51 3 76 5.1 -,33 236 227 -

Test " ,D_- __"_ " . 7.8." 5'0 217 221.

18 F,1 5.2 57. 8.7 5.9 -32- 232 188 .•-1,

:,G33 2.8 44 54•i 4.4 4Z5 _____

BE4 WS2 27.2 365 ". 4, 356 360 '

Test I WS,33 . 46.6 37.3 -20.. 308 412 34 .

-_ WS 4 32.4 35.8: •,3.A,-' '489 514 _,., _

BE5 WS,2/TCO 1-3 3.6 17.7'-6787 67 -23

TCO.2-3 .'.,r_. 112 85 . . .

WS3/TC -5 4 96.9 2.2 .,'98- 110 88. 2

Test 4 TCO'2-5 . , 146 115 .2

WS4 /TCO 1-7 5.7 2,2 .!•!2: 107 87 4'r,18.

_____TCO 2-7 .. __... 140 114 ... i ..

A-73
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

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," with the exception that the focus here is on compartment walls,

ceilings, 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. More than 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 are 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.

A-74
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

2.0-

1.5-

04 1.0

0• 5

100

E

g50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

1.5

14 1.0 E

1.0

Z0.5

100

M

CL

E 050

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6 200 Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

4-1

E

-X

- ETm, V oNot U-1

-Eoo11. T- S-MW 11-

.CFAST T, N U.1 Flo

3 CFAST ToowoS U4Ok~

2 . E

0

1

0 1/I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6-

5-

E~ 4-

o3

D2

0

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

.CAT rn... -I. FI- Ten,. vsN z.4Fo .CFAST 

200

150I

.100

50

0

Long Wall Temperatures

l CFMP BE #3, Test 8

EV0 T~enw TC NOrM -.12

EVo metton TC No.1 442

Tote yeN 0- Teon 

Ti.. Ne I. T.,r 

/1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-61. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-75
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

6-

5-

U-"•2

1'

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

20

15

10

E

9-5

0

Long Wall Temperatures ICFMP BE #3, Test,,

0

0

-E:. Tte vs TC NývLt -2

- =.iTtivsCNyaU-2-

-nNLMTCr .CFAST 

U0 N T

* . CFATT-tuvNU-I Rv Tm,. .CFST NUI-I Fu.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6

5

.3

U10

150

2 100

E

so

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

9An

8

"E

L 4

2

0

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

FttRt Gauge tnop-.iUvo

ACFST T- . :.N U-F

Tm .CFAST vNU-4 Fl

C.,

a

a

Ea

ILong Wall Temperatures

200 ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

150

100

50 -Q ETýM nTC N'5SU-1-21

Tm. vs N U-I Teni SOFAST 

T~i~eIsNU- Týn SCFST 

n3 I I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

8.

6 E

x4

2

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

F-ux Gag.W r,.h

is I

AST ...Ti.. .C N..I.F. • • ..... CFAST TftI N " NUI.

250

200

a 150

•-100

50 -

&tp T-m. TC N-tt U-v.2

CFAST TymovhNU-1 Tmp

CFUST Time vN Ui4 Tn 5

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-62. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests I

A-76
I Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 17 2.5

E 2.0

x 1.5

1.0

0.5

E

12

Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

50

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

00 A

50

0 • .....-- E?,Tro CFAST • Tým TC I• N U*I U-12 T-p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

ExpT Ti,. sNa i .4

-CFAST Tý N U-4 FW

00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Open-Door Tests to Follow

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3 n Long Wall Temperatures ICFMP BE #3, Test3 9110(. .

X 3

762

0

6

5

•3

U--•2

Tu..N Mi. So .CFAST 

TOM v U.SF. .EFAST 

150

E100

I- 50 E.rvTC apT NoetU.1-

M W -AreP 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

.......... I .....................

250

200

T 150

a

La

C100

50

5.0

Long Wall Temperatures

lCFMP BE #3. Test 9.

-EST Tm vstN SSLI T

.CFASTTu

1 *

0.

Tangw .CFAST N U.? Fýy

.CFASTTi-,VNU.4F0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-63. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-77
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

in

I

4-

EC

x

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

8 EZp *re n Nýrt U-1

Tie•NUI UFS FI

6 CFASTTimnN U-4FI4

2 .- ..... .

Wus • Long Wall Temperatures

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

200

150 ... ... ...... 

100

.ý. Ev-- 50 Ev r-m. ml TC hmmt1 U-.2

CFAST Tme : N U-1 TMp CFAST "Te . N U-4 Temp

0 r

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

I

^

E

M

,M

U Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

8

6

4

2 -- -

- EAp Tm..e NonE U.4

Long Wall Temperatures ICFMP RF 91 Teat 14

200

.150

0

250 [ . . .r. . . .. . 1... 

t -~ ET-enTC Nope U.1.2

- EmT- p TC NoOOUP2 

nNU.iTý

=~e 1.4N TemP 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a

I

0

8

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

250-

200 -

2 150

0. 100

E 5-

50.

4 11

Long Wall Temperatures

ECTu Tm SC UT3-2 . ....... CFAS" T-r . S U-1 Tý

2 -EmlT............ -=

:pL .FST~mUlb U-3 Fba .FASTTU1nS 

u n4[ .

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10 Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

8

6-

.. ........... ... A . . ..........

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

I

400

350

300

250

200

E 150

100

50

0

2 -Fý lný T- S O-lý

04

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-64. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-78
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

20'

01

0

.0

5 -r.. Tim.-F-eIU-1

150(

'. 100

E

50

U.U

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

2.0

"E1.5

1.0

0 0.5

0.0

6-

5

E~ 4-

1

I

0

150

~-100

02

g50

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

.....

-EV Ti-VOVITC Eai932

-EVPTIOVITCE U2.2

TiO. E U-3 ToMP .CAT 

Time E-2 TVWP .CFAST 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

Short Wall Temperatures

5CFMP BE #3, Teat 2

150

-E.tP Tim.nte Eati u-1

-ESS Time -s Ea.% .1- .CFASTT mSE .IPFN,

.CFAST Ti,- E.2F,

0Z

- 50

0

-- Fxp "me TC Ent U-1-2

- UEP Timw VTE Ent U,2-2

Tim E U-1 Temp 

Toll, E U-2 Tep 

.1... -

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

5 Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

A LI.

E 3

E- ETimOOEastU-1

C Vp Tim: IS East U-2 CFASTrhlllVEU 1 FL.

EkEAS2TTOE U-2 F250

200

2 150

.2 100

0

50

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

... ... 

- VT~m llTCEas ~.2 T-" WE UTemp .CFAST 

.CFAST Time EU-2Tep

2-

F..

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

lime (min)

Figure A-65. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-79
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

U-

=2

0

t

SoftWl etFu

-- P E#3 es hort Wall Heat Flux

CFMP BE #3, Teat 4

- UEP T~m -a U-i

.CF0TTon.nEU.1F0 Tkn.VSEu.2 FW .CFAST 

200 Short Wall Temperatures ICFMP BE #3, Test.+'.4..

150•

a

. ........... .............

E

50

0

- Eta r.n~v TO Eat U-1-2

... E TFAST Te s U4-2 0. 

T= - IEU-1 TImP .CFAST 

.EFAST T_ Es U-2 T-,p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6 Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

SShort Wall Temperatures

200

x3

QD2

I

0

P T ý Eý W

FEU r= :-2

CF TT !-E UCFýAST T= E ý2 ýFý

-- -- ---------- . ... ...

a

2 150

E

50 Up r-Es .mnTC E~t.1

UEp Thn. TC ESAU.2-

r-t, -s 1 0. T p .FAST 

T"tSE -2 TOý .CFAST 

0 5 10 .15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

rime (min)

9•t• 10 .

"E

a.

1"

- Short Wall Heat Flux ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

8

6

4 -- --V.. - E 11F 4 /.......CFASTT .EU-F..

2 n

E

a

Short Wall Temperatures

2ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

- ExpTm, TC East U.1-2

u- EXp T•e vSTC East U-42

150 J\ -CWATr-T- E U-1 Tnp

100

50

U

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

250 -

E

,..-

a"

Short Wall Heat Flux ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

6

4 f

CFAST Ti- E U-1 FluO

2 CFAST T- E U-2 Fh

M

a

a

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

200

1 5 -Esp rt ns TC Ea U-2-2

Tm Es U-1 Tten SOFAST 

TOTI SE W. TOTV SOFAST 

100

50

10 ,AATieE'Tm

0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-66. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-80
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

a.U Short Wall Heat Flux

2.5 ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

2.0[

Short Walt Temperatures

A ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

E

a= 1.5 u.

0.5

0.0

•/• l -~- ESU•TUMSir v tU.t - Eap Time Us East U-2

... FAST Tr-n EU-3 Fit

.. CFasT Tim .. E U-2 F....................................... .

El

E

60

40

20 - sp T-. aTC a .

.EFSTTI~sE--Sn~

Tir nu -UTn .EVAST 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

Open-Door Tests to Follow

6

5

E 4

x 3

I

1-

Short Wall Heat Flux

IlCFMP BE #3, Test 3

.......

.... ....

250

200

2 150

ECL100

50

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3 ""

•.... .'. .

- mTime1TCEsU--

TMsE U-1 Tom I .CFAST 

T.e . E U-2 TomI .EFAST 

- E xp T i oe E vs a st U -1

- Eap Tesa "East U-2

Tie E U-.1 "I" .CFAST CFAST Two vs E U-2 Fm

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Z

5

E 4

x3.2

"-t-a

Short Wall Heat Flux - EMpTim a East U-3

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9 EM Tim"Easst U-4 CFAST Time . E U-3 Fit

CFASTFiime . EtaUr4 F-ur

6%at -gsll E U4 -4 I wast• ........-.

.. ....

0)

at

DUVShort Wall Temperatures

20 CFMP BE #3, Test 9 .......

200 ..~~~......... ".......... "-.

15010 •ii •'" "....•"" '

5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-67. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-81
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

6i Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5 5

- Exp Time .sEast U-1 E 4 - Exp Tim vEast U-2 Tt-r • E U-.1 .CFAS Fl 

U-2 .CFASTTtýtC A.

×3

.2

0

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

...................... \

200

2 150

100

50-

... .. ... .. .. ... ..

Tb,. WE U-1 Tm,, .CFAS

Tb,. WE .12 Tmp .CFAS

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

ID

6 Short Wall Heat Flux

5 ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

4.

3-

250

200

2 150

E 100

50

Short Wall Temperatures ICFMP BE #3, Test 14 ... ,...-""..

2

1

n

A - EspTim~ets-sstb

-Ep Timeaist U-2 .Cot3V5WC ItA

-- Cop Tm a TC E U-3.2 :.t 

SEa T_ . W TC East U-2-2

-1 CMI345 .... Cot 325W Cot 344 ....

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

rime (min)

K1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

5-

E4

x3

-I1-

0-

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15 250

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3. Test 15

Upý1- E-pimt. ub3

-Eip Time " Enst U-2 U:3 Fin .CFASTr..WE r.. E U 2 Fbi .CFAST 

E

a

50U ~

100

50 -ZstaTC U? fttt1t2ý

PPTPp Tm.iFT_ TCEat12. .CFST'oI

m

0 CFAFT.aCF I WEU.2TT 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

E

I

6

5

Short Wall Heat Flux ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

3 .

2 ..... ..

- C~T-m V E-sU-3

1~~~~ ,pim- T~ ~East U-2

Ij.CFAST Tim.,. E 11.3 FI.

.FASTiI.: .E 11.2 Fbi,

E

Lou Short Wall Temperatures

200 -"....... ICFMP BE #3, Test 18 '

150 . -

Inn

50 -CP Tm. a TC E&t1 U-3-2

- I CT_ t. TC Ea-t U-2.2 CFAST T- E -3 Temp

CFASTir- WE 112 T-mp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

Figure A-68. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-82
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

E

x2

.-

0

250

200

2 150

100

50

0

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

......... E, T1m-v TOCain9 P.1.

ETImeI* UP TO CuIkg 0.4-2

r-m vi 0.1 Ten.p SOFAST 

TImv nC-4 Temp SOFAST 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

2.0

E

-i250

200

B 150

100 E

50

0

-eiling Temperatures

CFMP BE #3, Test 7

.......... ... ,

EýW "im=v' TCCedng U12

r-v 0 1 T em .CFAST 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

to

1 Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

E IA

.-

-- Evi' Te~e vi 04m U-1 - Ep Tmow v Cuig L24

.CFAST Time V.0.4 Flu

5 ........................

E

B

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP B#3, Test 2

300 Cp Time v TC Cetng U-1.2

U- Ep Time v TC Oeng 0"4.2

.CFAST T-• v -1 Temp

.OFASTTamneviT..

200

100

U

0

v

5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

15

10

5

400

300

E 200

ao

Ceiling Temperatures

lCFMP B

,ýýst 

8

Up Twn. TC Ceýg ý1-2

" Time TC Cýg Cý2

ýT '_ - ý-' - 4 T

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-69. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-83
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

10

8

E

" 4

"1

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

::ue Tenon - Cpa- U-I' -- £xp Tree Cexg ul-1

.CFASTTm -sC-1 Flux

.CFASTT-C", Flux

300

200

E

4 100

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

- upTim -sTO Ceaing U-1.2

Se~p Time v TC Ceing C.4.2

T.-SCA Tmnp .CFST 

Tr- v C- Temp .OFAT 

2

I1A.. 0 4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10 Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

8

Gauge U4 I opeme

04

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

E

u. 4

.1-

0

2-

Ep Tm. vs 0.1U,

% EeP Tnme v Cdea" U4

Te mxsp- Fda .CFAST 

rmevsw Fle .CFAST 

200

10

0E

E 100

0.-

0

Ceiling Temperatures

lCFMP BE #3, Test 10

r'- TC ýWft U 1.2

A.. EV T- TC C.UM Cý.2

ýZST T'-P

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10-

8

f 6-

U: 4

2

0

RGtn

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

F dGauge Ineperles

i i

I CFAST Tý C.7 F.u7 •% CF~AST Tm " •Fw

I Ceiling Temperatures

1 An . ICFMP BE #3, Test 1."

A

B

E

0

-- Exn To° s TC Ce!ing C-7-2 -- Pop Timex, TC Ceix, n0 .5-2

300..FAST Timex. C-7 Temp

ýme.s C-5 Tp .CFAST 

200

100 / / o:" • •

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

8

6 E

x4

'2

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Flux Gauge npeom

............................ .......

500

400

, 300

0

L 200 E

I100

0

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

T_ - Te Cv•s . e 7Te 2

/ ~ ~ ~ ........... Cý Tens T-,\ vm s 0 TenO- 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rmin)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-70. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-84
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

E

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

3

2

0FAST T C

S

E

I300

ICeiling Temperatures

lCFMP. B #3, Test 17

200

0T TC

....CFA.ST Time w C-1 Tamp

100. .. .. ......

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Open-Door Tests to Follow

E

X2- Ceiling Heat Flux

0 lCFMP BE #3, Test 3

8-

400

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

C-) .SUU1-

2

0

.- Ep Ten v Ceang U-I

U- Tmn. vs C.An" U-A

.CFAST Tin,. . C. FIt.

.CFAST Tim,,.n C4A Ff1

,-I.-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

20-

15

x 10-

5-

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

- Lp Ti_~v Cang 71

U- xp Time v Cemi U-4

.CFATT-C- I.2

.CFAST Tim. vs C4 F!iR

....... CATTm*C4F

E

100

0

400

300

C.

E 200

1

100

/ ~...... .... ....

-- enT V i TC C.i g U-1-2M

• 7....CFAST Tmah vs C-c• Tam

CFAST Than " C- Tampa

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Ceiling Temperatures -

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

-

5

p Timm vs TC CfIno C-2.

T-n vC-2Tam~p 

TunevaC4 Tamp 

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-71. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-85
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

E

x4

- 2

0

400 Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

300

- 200

E

100 *. - E~~n~TC I CeflhgU-1,1

- E~pT-rev TC Calins C-.52

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Ei

AI

-Ceiling Heat Flux

8

6

2- Up EzT~ C.Iing U-I

EM EeTom Celrg U-5

CU35 .Col 370

400

300

5200

E

0 r

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10

8-

"E

6.

I. 4

M

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

-- E -PT.iv C=gU-l -- EC Time v Cedrlg U1-4

FAST Tien .... vs C-1 Fda,

CFASTTine .. sC-4 FL,

Gaues npasge

400

300

200

E

9

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

z

0=

0 5 10 15 20 25 3X

Time (min)

10

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

8-

6 Gug. U Inow e e

4.

iuu • -

I , -E . Tme TC Camg iu-1-2

-Ev Tim n TC CýM C-4-2

. CFAST T, C-ITemp .... CFT n= " "T-4Tm

0 5 10 15 20 25 3a

Time (min)

101

UE

8

E

u- 4

2

0

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

SBJOS U- Ilona

- EýP Tm- Ce~nn U-1

- Ep Timn CedAg U4

C-1 FLux .CFASTTime

CFAST~anv C-4 C FT 

2 -- Ep Time n Ceding U-I

- E.P Time . Ceding UTim.e CýC F-1u .CFAST 

....CFAST Tim. . C4 Flux

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-72. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-86
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

3.0

2.5

E 2.0

U6 1.0

0.5

1!0

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test

E

9

10Floor Temperatures Time vs TC Floor -1-2

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1 -- rim. T io TC Flo U-2

. CFAST TimCe w F-1 Temp

. CFAST Tim. s F-4 Tenp

100

50 /I ~5

-- Tip rme F oor U-I

Cp "- Time vs Fioor U-4

Ta.o .CFAST F- i Flu o .FASTTime 4s2.4F0

U

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

3.0

2.5

E 2.0

X 1.5 U-,

W 1.0

0.5

0.0

10

8

U-4

I

200

CD,

aL

E

aD

Floor Temperatures ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

150 - Exp Time C Floor U-1-2

.... CFAST Time vii F.4 Tapmp

100

s0

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

6" 200

E 150 M0-

100

50

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2 - Eop Toevs TCiFlor u1-2

- Eop Time . TC Flor U2-4-2

Ti•m• Fv .Temp .CFAST 

Tim• F-4 Temp .CFAST 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

1U Floor Heat Flux CFMP #3, Test 8

L4

a

2

0

- Lop TOe Fe r u-.1 LEp Timeos FlOOr 03-4

.CFAST Time - F-1 FIl

*.-*• . CFASTime FA Fin

S-. 200

150 a.S100 CL0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 ,ou , 0

Time (min) Time (min)

Figure A-73. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-87
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

4- 4

zI

200

2 150

B100

5-

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

10 300

"-

0T

IZ

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

8

6 0

-- EpTmes FT Wu,-1

o~ ~ .~~ .......2 ~~~~~FS ........... .CFASTTime• :/ .F- FIx

C-,

0

0

0.

B

0

I0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

1

"E

.2

10

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13 8-

Flux Gauge lrnperbf

6- :

4.

300 -

250

S. 200

150 0

CL

0E 100

so

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3. Test 13

2 CF A Tim F F-C I l,

• •. -- Exp Time wTC loor U-1-2

- EXP Time . TC Floor U-2.2

. CFAST Time as F-i Temp

-o.• .... OFAST Tm. v F-2 Tmp

U4 ,.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

"-

6-

' 4

2-

0-

-loor Heat Flux

CFMP BE #3, Test 16

,• Flue Guege InupeelsU'e Ti

A FF-i Flux

[FA51 TT Tme --- -- F4 --Flu.

Floor Temperatures I.F:MP RP U.3 Test 16 250 - ' -- '-' ' --- -

E

0

200 E[- AThiTC FWU-1-2

- E.P Timeu TC Fl-n LI-C-C

5CFAST Times F- 1Temp

150 CFAST Time wF-2 Tmp

100

.. ZI/ g

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-74. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-88
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

2.0 100 Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

E

M

2 60

O40

20 - E ".ý T, Za TC FU Pl

0.0 0

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

25 30

Open-Door Tests to Follow

5

4

3

0

0

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

300

250

6200

150

E 100

Floor Temperatures ICFMP BE #3. Test 3

- ý -op -ie FlrU-i

r-o .CFsT FlpI Flu, rmienF.2 .CFAST FWx

iz" --

5

50 ***** Sa E.vs .TCF aO U- 2- '

0 5 10 I11

5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0

Time (min)

4-

Floor Heat Flux ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

8

6[-E"p T': " F=oo U-1

.CFAST Tý VS F-I Fm

.CFASTTe VSF-2 Fk

C.L

E

a2

Floor Temperatures 25 lCFMP BE #3, Test 9 [- E,= T-- cou-I-2 20- Eý T-. O TC FRoo U-2-2

200.CF .F-1 .STTmoe Terni

150 100o

2

0

aU

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-75. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-89
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

x6

LL

2

0

Time (min)

200

150

100

50

0

300

250

•- 200

150

E 100

a 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

4-a

4 Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

2

1

0

* ~ -oTineoFiowp.Z : 

* ~CFAST Timt n F-I Fi.

CFAST Time n F-2 Flu.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

5

E4

x3

2

0

3.5

3.0

.' 2.5

12.

S1.

0.5

0

300

250-

200 -

CLS150

E 100

50

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15 L- F E Time mTC F-FrU -2-2

EopfmevTC floo U-2-2

T-o F-I Tem .CFA

ron. -P Tem .CFA

0

5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Floor Heat Flux

ICFQMP BE #3. Test !8 .. ,

S/ I-- prime. FlT=rý- -I

-... FATner FloIr 2

.. CFAST Tim . F-I Firm .. CFAST Tomner F-P FIrm

300,

250

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18 -- FpTpu FoprTne o o !- TCF Fl-r1 ooU-2-2 =,r- 

. CFAST T-1e o F-I Temp

.CFAST T.r o F-2 Temp

200

150 -

E 100

o50

u.u00 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

Figure A-76. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-90
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

ICFMP BE #4

Thermocouples are positioned against the back wall of the compartment. Because the fire leans

toward the back wall, temperatures measured by the thermocouples are considerably higher than

those in other tests and higher than those predicted by the CFAST model that does not include

the effects of an non-symmetric, wind-aided plume.

800 Wall Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #4, Test I

600

CL

400 2 -EM M 9

20T-0 20

CFFASTAS rTio M20 Tep

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-77. Back Wall Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #4, Test I

A-91
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

ICFMP BE #5

Wall surface temperatures are measured in two locations in the BE #5 test series. The

thermocouples labeled TW 1 -x (Wall Chain 1) are against the back wall; those labeled TW 2-x

(Wall Chain 2) are behind the vertical cable tray. Seven thermocouples are in each chain, spaced

0.8 m (2.6 ft) apart. In Figure A-78, the lowest (1), middle (4), and highest (7) locations are used

for comparison.

1

E

M25 Back Wall Temperature

100 -ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

75

50

25 ... Elp Tml •• 1-7

CFAST r`n v, TWe-1 Tap

CFAST T- TW1e Tamp

CFAST T-me . IWI-7 T-p

n,

0 5 10

Time (min)

15 20

125

a)

M5

E

I125

Side Wall Temperature (behind cables)

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

100 EV T 1 2-1

- E. i v

1

- 0 

21 Ep T vsTW 2-7 75 CFASTimeTs1w2-1 Tem-

.CFAST ime . TW2_4 Temp

CFAST Time W TW2-7 Temp

25

25 ......... ................

0

0 5 10

Time (min)

15 20

Figure A-78. Back and Side Wall Surface Temperatures, ICFMP BE #5, Test I

A-92
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

Table A-7. Relative Differences. for Surface Heat Flux and Temperature

Series Test Measurement Exp CFAST •Djff Exp CFAST '" •D....

PositionW(

BE3 Test 1 Long Wall 1.4A 1.7 54, 89 1 1 64, ý ý,i

1.8. 1.7 68 89 J31

Short Wall 1.3 1.7 55 89 602,32!' 1.7 .1.7 1."3'2¢ 71 89 L 26

Floor 0.9 J 1.4 " 38 71 'A.....

2.4. 1.3 jý- -- 77 69 12-1-

Ceiling 1.,9 1.7 81 92

3.8 1 .7 f 176. 91 -49

Test 7 'Long Wall 1.4 1.6 ',19?;• 53 87 " 63

1, .9 1-14 70 87 2

Short Wall 1.2 1.6:%~ 4 58 58!ý

.1.8 1.6. ,.9[ .70 87 24

*Floor 0.9 13 36 69 ___

2.3. 1.3 .- 44 78 67 -. 4 -

Ceiling, 1.9 1.7 80! 89 ..: 2.

______ __________ ______ ~191 88

Test 2 Long Wall 3.8 44 t 96:. 96 150 ....

4.5' 43 .__._._1 • 120 151 261"•

Short Wall 3.6 44 . 4. 2i't' 110 150

_.___.,_ 4.6 4.4 . 125 - 202151 

Floor 2.6. 37 , 4i. . 74 127. _ 71 "

-_8.9. 3.5 . 156 124* .- 21

Ceiling 5.6 4& 4,5 5 14 154 ,. . __.145 4 ,0 4 308 152 J -5.

Test 8 Long Wall 3.8 4.3 .• 13 95 149 . 5.

3.3 4.3 i 3.'J 132 149 13

Short Wall 2.5 4.3 '76i V 109 148 "36. ' 

________. 4.7 4.3 - : -8. 125 149 r i

Floor 2.6. 3.6 , .. 71125.. ..

8.6 3;5 o,$6 ,. 148 121 ".8-.

Ceiling 6.1 4.4 , ; 148 153 _._' 612: 4,34 ..i -7:•• 

___ 12.9 .4327,, 325 150 -54

Test 4 Long Wall 3.4 4.0 >i6 97 150' 54,

__ _ 13.5 4.0 . .!3 146 152 4

Short Wall 3.3 4.0 "'".!21. 106 149 41

4.0 3.9 .' -1: 121 150 24

Floor 2.5 3.3 15 " -, -7':'• 76 130 

8.5 3.2 -62k 152 127 -16

Ceiling 5.1 4.0 - 147 153 4

6.0 4.0 . .-3 180 153 -15

Test 10 Long Wall 3.3 3.9 94 150 59 I. 4-I . 4 4

3.5 •3.9 13 163 151

Short Wall 3.1 3.9 -26 I 106 149 '41

A-93
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

Series Test Measurement, Exp CFAST Exp CFAST D,,.: Position*)

____-/r) _______ iW/¶1iY (CC) (*0) 0__Y

3.9 3.9 1.17 150 28

Floor 2.3 3.3 ,, , 1 ,30 8i _ 7.9 3.2 -,•j5 j 127, [ -2O

Ceiling ,4.8 4.0 7" 138 153 11 ~ 4 I!*~.... 4 9. 221 153

Test 13 Long Wall '_ _____ .110 195 ___ ___ _______ • •-• ! 199 198 - . Short Wall _.,__ -1277 194 ____53_',T

_______ 2'~ 145 :196 5

Floor _____-__ , 89 166 87, ________ _____149 161 ___

Ceiling ___ <f 319 197 -38

____________ ________ 498 197:. -60:

Test 16 Long Wall ____107 175 64,,'0'

S217: 180 -. 1717

Short Wall ______., '., 123 '175 ' "42

.141-.:' 176 24 Floor. _______ , 80 148 85-,.

146 144 -1

Ceiling! ",- . , 284 178 -37'

,_____________% ;W 441 180 -59

Test 17 Long Wall 1.5 2.1 :" ,45". 39 53 36.

0.9, 2.3"3 !,8w-kU 82, 65 -2,.

Short Wall 1.6 7-271-, •35! 56 52 <i-9= ____________ 1.9 2.1 ýý4I;:, 61 -54 ~ 1~

Floor 0.9 1.4 .',2-,, 24 34 $ 4O:\

1.5 1.3 .I it1K,.1 527 33 ___-.__

Ceiling *.Ži,/f. ' 69 58 -16

230230 -65 -72__

Test 3 LongWall 3.5 4.5 "14 , 4 2- :';j• 187 `264

.4.3 1 5.0 .172 - 203 18

Short Wall '2.5 &36- Iv4:': , - 87 152.A 74

4.4 4.6 i ''3. - " .- 146 191 - ,.- Floor 2.0 3.2' z y62,.2 54 143 _,___,,

4.1 3.1 2 119 139 . Ceiling 4.6. 4.7 . . 155 194 2

9.9 4.8 ' .- 287 197 31.

Test 9 Long Wall 3.4 4.3 25.~ 113 184 63

4.2 4.8 .178 200 .12,'

Short Wall 2.4 3.4 42 88 148 68 '1 .__ "_____ ___ .______ : 135 188 J '39

Floor 1.9 3.0 ' 59 53 139 '161 _______ 3.9 2.9 •"25 122 135 Ij 10

Ceiling 5.5 4.5 204 191 -ý6: I I'. -~.. -- I

A 9.4 .1 __________ 4-.6 I 290 194 -33 _________

A-94
Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

Series Test Measurement Exp. J CFAST Erff•,xp;.'. CFAST IT',Dlff;,•'-ý'

Position..___°cc

_____ ________ kW/ii2 ýk(~/a)'. (OC) (OC) (4

Test 5 Long Wall 2.7.7 3. 1 -,,/. 4,1i4 I, 94 146 5 5!< I I I I . . . .. .

3.8 3.7 I;:. 155 168 9~

Short Wall 2.0, 2.5 2 71 116 L.62z, _ 3.3 3.1 118 •148 , 26

Floor 1.4 22 ,56• ' 42. 107 L

• i._10.1 . 1 -19: 171 104 _.3__.

I Ceiling 3.4 _ I 3.2 2, , 125. 151 2 . ,

667.." 3.4 I.•49,, 263 .159% 40..

Test 14 Long Wall 4.3 613:5 , 114 1 84 6,

.... 8.1 ' " . 255 2 222-4. 25.7. ....

Short Wall 2.4 3.5. • • 8 .-149. ,, - -4.5 4. ",' 148 14895 &9- __-

Floor 1.9 3.1 64,,'46 52, 141 ' 16.

3.0: 3.0: . 1 104 137 3.,

Ceiling 4.7 4.5 , -.-- 3,1 158 192 22•,,;:,.,,,

9.0 4.8 4, ;-46 , 352 200

Test 15 Long Wall 3.6 . 4.1 ,, , 220: 183 - -17 .

T_______,_ 7.5 '4.2 - - 205 188

Short Wall 2.6 3.3 . 96 145 .,50

4.7". 4.2. 510,• 151 -187 . 2,•

Floor .29. - 61.9. - ' 52. 137 T, f61

. ._'5.2 2.8 • 132 132

Ceiling:. -1 22, __..... __............__,_ *287 . 186

Test 18 Long Wall 3.4, '4.3 118 185 I '1.7. I - 4 :tt- -,. • 312- 248 I',' ' 2 r . `

Short-Wall 2.6 3.5 :,3 .:¶ 94. 154' 84

-4.7 [ 4.5 . .153 . 190- ,24&-

Floor 1.8 3.1 . , 4, 50 141

3.1 3. - 107 137 29

Ceiling 4.5 A .;5 145 193 K', 3W týZ` 4. I~ 7~71. 4 . +

250 194 * -23k

BE4 Test I M19 . ' 59.546.

_____._.___ M20 _ _ 7___ 7 722 238 2,-67£".

BE5 TestA4 TW 1-1 '__-_.__ , 56 37 -34

TW 2-1 .4 24 4 1

TW1-4 ______ 87 36 -58

TW 2-4 ____,__ .--.,_68 35 -' -49

TW 1-7 .... '": 83

TW 2-7 - : 72 37 -49%

A-95

B

CFAST INPUT FILES

This appendix includes the CFAST input files used for the simulations in this V&V study.

They are organized by test series, as follows:

B. I ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #2

B.2 ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #3

B.3 ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #4

B.4 ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #5

B.5 FM /SNL Test Series

B.6 NBS Test Series

B-1
CFAST Input Files

B.1 ICFMP 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

I t

!!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 i i

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

I i

!!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

B-2
CFAST Input Files

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 iII

!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.O049,o,0,o

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.o01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0

0.25

4.46E+07

METHANE

B-3
CFAST Input Files

Case 3, Input File

VERSN,6,ICFMP 3 Test 3 Leakage vents and mechanical ventilation I1

!!Environmental Keywords 11

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

II

!!Compartment keywords II

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 11

!!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 11

!!fire keywords I1

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

B-4
CFAST Input Files

B.2 ICFMP 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 iI

COMPA, Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 II

!!vent keywords ii

HVENT,1,2,1,8.47,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1

ii

!!fire keywords II

OBJECT,NRC BE3 1,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 iI

!!target and detector keywords

TARGET, 1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,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,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,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,-I,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-I,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,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

B-5
CFAST Input Files

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

B-6
CFAST Input Files

Test 2, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 2, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV Off"

!!Environmental Keywords It

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 II

!!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,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICITPDE

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,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,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,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-IMARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-IMARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-l,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,I,GYPBE3,IMPLICITPDE

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, I,l0.85,2,3.2,0,0,-l,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,I,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-I,XLP C BE3,IMPLICITPDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-l,XLP P BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, I,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

B-7
CFAST Input Files

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

B-8
CFAST Input Files

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

LIM02,10

WIND, 0,10,0.16

CJET,WALLS

ii

!!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,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,I,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. 15,0,21.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,I,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0, 0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0, -I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, ,130.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,I1,GYPBE3,IMPLICITPDE

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,-I,XLPC CBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE TARGET,I, 10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-I,PVCCBE3,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,-I,XLP P BE3,IMPLICITPDE

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLPC_BE3,IMPLICITPDE

B-9
CFAST Input Files

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

B-10
CFAST Input Files

Test 4, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 4, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV On" II

!!Environmental Keywords 'I

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

iI

!!Compartment keywords I?

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3

!!vent keywords 'I

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 II

OBJECT,NRC BE3 4,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1

!!target and detector keywords

1 1

TARGET, 1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,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,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0, 0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,I,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,,-I,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDE TARGET,1I,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-I,XLPCBE3, 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

B-1I
CFAST Input Files

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

B-12
CFAST Input Files

Test 5, Input File

VERSN, 6,"BE 3, Test 5, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV On" II

!!Environmental Keywords

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1

EAMB,301.15,101300,0

TAMB,301.15,101300,0,37

LIM02,10

WIND, 0,10,0.16

CJET,WALLS

!!Compartment keywords I1

COMPACompartment 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

MVENTI,2,2,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,1.7,200,300,1

II

!!fire keywords

OBJECTNRC BE3 5,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1

!!target and detector keywords

TARGET,l13.91,7.04,1.49,0,-i, 0MARIBE3,IMPLICITPDE

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICITPDE

TARGETI,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGETI,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0, 0MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-i,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, I,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-iMARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-i MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGETI,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICITPDE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,9.11,2,0,0,0,I,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3, IMPLICITPDE

TARGET, I,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-IXLP C BE3,IMPLICITPDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-IPVC C BE3,IMPLICITPDE

TARGET, 1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-IXLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP P BE3,IMPLICITPDE

TARGET, I,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

B-13
CFAST Input Files

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

'1

B-14
CFAST Input Files

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

ii

!!Compartment keywords

COMPACompartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3

i,

!!vent keywords

HVENT, 1,2,1,10.17,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1

I,

!!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,-I,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

TARGETI,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-l,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,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,I,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,I,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-I,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,-I,PVC P BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,I,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

B-15
CFAST Input Files '

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

B-16
CFAST Input Files

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 II

HVENT,I,2,1,9.21,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1

!!fire keywords ii

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,I,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,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,-I,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,-l,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-l,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,-l,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-l,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,l,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,I,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-l,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,I,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-l,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,I,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-l,XLP P BE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-l,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

B-17
CFAST Input Files

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

B-18
CFAST Input Files

Test 9, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 9, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV Off"

!I

!!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 I I

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NRC BE3 9,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1

!!target and detector keywords

1I

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,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,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0, 0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-I,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,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,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,-I,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,-I,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-I,XLPPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

B-19
CFAST Input Files

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

B-20
CFAST Input Files

Test 10, Input File

1VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 10, PVC Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV On" 'i

!!Environmental Keywords iI

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

I,

!!Compartment keywords

COMPA, Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 it

!!vent keywords

HVENT, 1,2,1,10.17,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1

MVENT,2,1,I,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,0.9,200,300,1

MVENT,I,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,IMPLICITPDE

TARGET, 1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,I,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICITPDE

TARGETI,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGETI,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGETI,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICITPDE

TARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3, IMPLICITPDE

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,I,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,I,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-I,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,-I,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

B-21
CFAST Input Files

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

B-22
CFAST Input Files

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 II

HVENT,1,2,1,11.9,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1

II

!!fire keywords it

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,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,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,-i,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,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,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-l,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,I,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,-I,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,-i,XLPCBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,l,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-I,XLP P BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLPCBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

B-23
CFAST Input Files

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

B-_24
CFAST Input Files

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

I?

!!Compartment keywords II

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 11

!!vent keywords

HVENT, 1,2,1,2,2,0,1,2.58,0,4,1 1I

!!fire keywords II

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,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,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,-I,0,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,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,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,I,9.11,2,0,0,0,I,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,-I,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-I,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,I,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP P BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, I,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

B-25
CFAST Input Files

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

B-26
CFAST Input Files

Test 15, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 15, Test 3, PVC Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV Off" it

!!Environmental Keywords It

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 ii

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3

!!vent keywords 11

HVENT, 1,2,1,2,2,0,1,2.58,0,4,1

!!fire keywords I1

OBJECT,NRC BE3 15,1,10.83,5.21,0,1,1,0,0,0,1 11

!!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,-I,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,-I,0,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-i,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-IMARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,9.11,2,0,0,0,I,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,-I,PVC C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-I,PVCCBE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,I,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-I,PVC P BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICITPDE

B-27
CFAST Input Files

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

B-28
CFAST Input Files

Test 16, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 16, PVC Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV On" 1I

!!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 ii

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 1I

!!target and detector keywords

1 1

TARGET, 1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,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,-i,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,I,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,I,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,I,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, I,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,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,I,l0.85,2,3.2,0,0,-l,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,-I,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-I,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

B-29
CFAST Input Files

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

B-30
CFAST Input Files

Test 17, Input File

VERSN, 6,"BE 3, Test 17, PVC Cable, Toluene, Door Closed, MV Off"

!!Environmental Keywords It

TIMES, 1800,-10,0,10,1

EAMB, 300.15,101300,0

TAMB, 300.15,101300,0,40

LIMO2,10

WIND, 0,10,0.16

CJETWALLS

ii

!!Compartment keywords I1

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 II

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NRC BE3 17,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1

!!target and detector keywords

TI

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,I,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,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,-I,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,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-l,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-l,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,1GYPBE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,I,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,I,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,0,-I,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,PVCCBE3, 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,-l,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

B-31
CFAST Input Files

Test 17, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 17, ,,,,,,,,,,

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.022,0.058,0,0,0

0.0921,181,1160000,0.02577778,0,1,0,0.19,0.022,0.058,0,0,0

395.15,272,1160000,0.02577778,0,1,0,0.19,0.022,0.058,0,0,0

295.15,273,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.022,0.058,0,0,0

0,,,,,,,1,,,,

0.44,,,,,,,,,,,,

10000, , , , , , , , , , ,

0.25,,,,,, ......

4.50E+07,,,,,,,,,,,,

METHANE,,,,,,,,,,,,

B-32
CFAST Input Files

Test 18, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 18, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV Off"

I,

!!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 I?

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3 II

!!vent keywords II

HVENT, 1,2,1,2,2,0,1,2.58,0,4,1 it

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NRC BE3 18,1,12.33,1.55,0,1,1,0,0,0,1

!!target and detector keywords

II

TARGET, 1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, I,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,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,,0MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0, 0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0, -I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICITPDE

TARGET,I1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0, -I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, POE

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

TARGETI,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICITPDE

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,IMPLICITPDE

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,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

B-33
CFAST Input Files

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

B-34
CFAST Input Files

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 I !

!!target and detector keywords

TARGET,1,3.6, 1.5,1.8,-i, 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

B-35
CFAST Input Files

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

B-36
CFAST Input Files

B.4 ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #5

Test 4, Input File

VERSN, 6,CFAST Simulation ii

!!Environmental Keywords I1

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

i,

!!Compartment keywords ii

COMPA,Compartment 1,3.6,3.6,5.6,0,0,0,LiteConcBE4,LiteConcBE4,ConcreteBE 4

!!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 II

OBJECT,NRC BE5 4F,I,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 II

!!target and detector keywords

1 1

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,I,0.41,2.13,4.4,1,0,0,LiteConcBE4,IMPLICITPDE

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,PVCPBE4,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,I,0.44,2.24,4,1,0,0,PVCPBE4,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,IMPLICITPDE

TARGET, 1,0.44,2.05,2,1,0,0,PVC C BE4,IMPLICITPDE

TARGET,1,0.44,2.05,2.4,1,0,0,PVC C BE4,IMPLICITPDE

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,PVCCBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,I,0.44,2.05,4,1,0,0,PVCCBE4, IMPLICIT,PDE

B-37
CFAST Input Files

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

B-38
CFAST Input Files

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,ConcreteFMMariniteFM

!!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 I t

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,i,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+07,601,0,0,0,0,0,0.19,0.002 6

,O .OO4 9 ,0,0,0

METHANE

B-39
CFAST Input Files

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

B-40
CFAST Input Files

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, i01300, 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

0.1002,240,47ý0000,0.01044444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0

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

B-41
CFAST Input Files

B.6 NBS Test Series

Test MVI00A, Input File

VERSN,6,"NBS Test MV100A, Open Corridor Door, No Target Room"

!!Environmental Keywords

TIMES, 1500,-i0,0,10,1

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 MVI00A,I,I.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

B-42
CFAST Input Files

5E+07

METHANE

B-43
CFAST Input Files

Test MV 1000, Input File

VERSN,6,"NBS Test MV1000, 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

LIM02,10

WIND, 0,10,0.16

CJET,WALLS

!!Compartment keywords Iii

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

I I

! !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 I i

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NBS MV1000,1,1.17,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1

Test MV1000, Fire Definition File

NBS MV1000

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

B-44
CFAST Input Files

Test MV1OOZ, Input File

VERSN,6,"NBS Test MVI0OZ, 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 I !

!!Compartment keywords

COMPAFire 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,GypsumNBSMariniteNBS

COMPACorridor,12.19,2.44,2.44,0,3.36,0,MariniteNBS,GypsumNBSMariniteNBS

COMPATarget Room,2.22,2.24,2.43,2.07,0.33,0,GypsumNBSConcreteNBS,GypsumNBS

COMPA,Entry to Target

Room,0.94,0.79,2.04,2.07,2.57,0,GypsumNBS,ConcreteNBS,GypsumNBS

!!vent keywords

1i

HVENT, 1, 2,1i,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,i,2.14,0,1,1

HVENT, 4,5,1,0.79,2.04,0,1,0.075,0,3,1 i 1

! !fire keywords

OBJECTNBS MV100Z,II.17,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1

Test MVIOOZ, Fire Definition File

NBS MV100Z

4,0,0,0,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0

0.016,10,1i0000,0.0022,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0

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

B-45

NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

(9-2004) (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

NRCMD 3.7 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse) NUREG-1824

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

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

Volume 5: CFAST

May 2007

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

R. Peacock (NIST), P. Reneke (NIST) Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (if NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

provide name and mailing address.)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Regulatory Research (RES), Washington, DC 20555-0001

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

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST/BFRL), 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (if NRC, type 'Same as above'; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

and mailing address.)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Regulatory Research (RES), Washington, DC 20555-0001

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 8412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

There is a movement to introduce risk-informed and performance-base analyses into fire protection engineering practice, both

domestically and worldwide. The move towards risk-informed decision-making in nuclear power regulation was directed by the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

One key tool needed to support risk-informed, performance-based fire protection is the availability of verified and validated fire

models that can accurately predict the consequences of fires. Section 2.4.1.2. of NFPA 805, Performance-Base Standard for

Fire Protection for Light-Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants, 2001 Edition requires that only fire models acceptable to the

Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) shall be used in fire modeling calculations. Futhermore, Sections 2.4.1.2.2. and 2.4.1.2.3.

of NFPA 805 state that fire models shall 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 models that are commomly used in nuclear

power plant applications. The project was performed in accordance with the guidelines that the American Society for Testing

and Materials (ASTM) set forth in ASTM E 1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive capability of Deterministic Fire

Models. The results of this V&V are reported in the form of color codes describing the accuracies for the model predictions.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

fire, fire modeling, verification, validation, performance-based, risk-informed, firehazards analyses, unlimited

V&V, FHA, CFAST, FDS, MAGIC, FIVE, FDTs 14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Federal Recycling Program

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

OFFICIAL BUSINESS