NUREG-1824 EPRI 1011999

Final Report

Verification and Validation

of Selected Fire Models for

Nuclear Power Plant

Applications

Volume 7:

Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Washington, DC 20555-0001

(-i-ý.SAR

Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94303

ELECTRIC POWER

coI rai RESEARCH 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: DISTRIBUTION(5.nrc..ov

Facsimile: 301-415-2289

Some publications in the NUREG series that are

posted at NRC's Web site address htto•://www. nrc.aov/readina-rm/doc-collectionslnureoas

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all 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 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036-8002

www.ansi.org

212-642-4900

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.

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).

I
Verification & Validation of Selected

Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant

Applications

Volume 7: Fire Dynamics Simulator

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

OF ANY OF THEM:

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

IMPLIED, (I)WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS,

METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING

MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (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 askeprl@epd.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 7: Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), 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
NUREG-1824, Volume 7, has been

reproduced from the best available copy.
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 ....................................................................... 2-2

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

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

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

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

2.9 Model Limitations ............................................................................ 2-5

3 THEORETICAL BASIS FOR FDS ................................................................. 3.1

3.1 Hydrodynamic Model........................................................................ 3-2

3.2 Combustion Model........................................................................... 3-2

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

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

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

3.6 Theoretical Development of the Model.......................... .......................... 3-4

3.6.1 Assessment of the Completeness of Documentation .............................. 3-4

3.6.2 Assessment of Justification of Approaches and Assumptions..................... 3-4

3.6.3 Assessment of Constants and Default Values...................................... 3-5

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

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

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

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

4.4 Numerical Tests.............................................................................. 4-3

ix
5 M ODEL SENSITIVITY ............................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Sensitivity to Grid Size ................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Sensitivity to Radiation Parameters ............................................................................. 5-4

5.3 Sensitivity to Turbulence Param eters .......................................................................... 5-4

5.4 Sensitivity to Heat Release Rate ................................................................................. 5-5

5.5 Sensitivity to Other Physical Input Param eters ............................................................ 5-7

6 M O DEL VALIDATIO N ....................................................................................................... 6-1

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

6.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature ............................................................................................. 6-10

6.3 Plume Tem perature ................................................................................................... 6-13

6.4 Flame Height ............................................................................................................. 6-15

6.5 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration .............................................................. 6-16

6.6 Smoke Concentration ................................................................................................ 6-18

6.7 Com partm ent Pressure .............................................................................................. 6-21

6.8 Radiation and Total Heat Flux and Target Tem perature ........................................... 6-24

6.9 W all Heat Flux and Surface Tem perature .................................................................. 6-27

6.10 Sum mary ............................................................................................................... 6-29

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

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

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

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

ICFM P BE #3 .................... I .................................................................................... .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

ICFM P BE #3 ................................................................................................................. A-21

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

A.3 Plume Tem perature .................................................................................................. A-26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A.7 Compartment Pressure ............................................................................................. A-41

A.8 Target Temperature and Heat Flux ........................................................................... A-45

ICFMP BE #3 ................................................................................................................. A-45

ICFMP BE #4 ................................................................................................................. A-74

ICFMP BE #5 ................................................................................................................. A-76

A.9 Heat Flux and Surface Temperature of Com partment W alls .................................... A-81

ICFMP BE #3 ................................................................................................................. A-81

ICFMP BE #4 ................................................................................................................. A-98

ICFMP BE #5 ................................................................................................................. A-99

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

B.1 ICFM P BE #2 .............................................................................................................. B-2

B.2 ICFM P BE #3 .............................................................................................................. B-5

B.3 ICFM P BE #4 ............................................................................................................ B-13

B.4 ICFMP BE #5 ............................................................................................................ B-17

B.5 FM/SNL Test Series .................................................................................................. B-22

B.6 NBS M ulti-Room Test Series .................................................................................... B-25

xi

FIGURES

Figure 5-1: Grid Sensitivity Study for FM/SNL Test 5 ............................................................... 5-2

Figure 5-2: Fine (Left) And Coarse (Right) Simulations of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3 ..................... 5-3

Figure 5-3: ICFMP BE #3 Test 3 Results Using 200 Radiation Angles (Left) and 100

(R ig ht) ................................................................................................................................ 5-4

Figure 5-4: Sensitivity of Various Output Quantities to Changes in HRR ................................. 5-6

Figure 6-1: Summary of FDS Predictions of HGL Temperature and Depth .............................. 6-6

Figure 6-2: Summary of HGL Temperature and Depth Predictions ................... 6-7

Figure 6-3: Summary of FDS Predictions of Ceiling Jet Temperature .................................... 6-11

Figure 6-4: Snapshot of FDS Simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3 .......................................... 6-12

Figure 6-5: Summary of FDS Predictions of Plume Temperature ........................................... 6-14

Figure 6-6: Summary of FDS Predictions of Major Gas Concentrations ................................. 6-17

Figure 6-7: Summary of FDS Predictions of Smoke Concentration .................. 6-19

Figure 6-8: Smoke and Oxygen Concentration, ICFMP BE #3 Test 8 .................................... 6-20

Figure 6-9: Summary of FDS Predictions of Compartment Pressure ..................................... 6-22

Figure 6-10: Ventilation Rates and Pressures for BE #3, Tests 10 and 16 ............................ 6-23

Figure 6-11: Summary of FDS Predictions of Target Temperature ........................................ 6-25

Figure 6-12: Summary of FDS Predictions of Wall Heat Flux and Temperature .................... 6-28

Figure A-1: Cut-Away View of the Simulation of ICFMP BE #2, Case 2 .................................. A-3

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

Figure A-3: Snapshot of the 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

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

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

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

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

T e sts ................................................................................................................................. 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 of the Simulation of FM/SNL Test 5 .................................................. A-14

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

Figure A-14: Snapshot of the Simulation of NBS Multi-Room Test 10OZ .............................. A-16

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

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

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

1000 ............................................................................................................................... A -18

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

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

Figure A-18:

Figure A-19:

Figure A-20:

Figure A-21:

Figure A-22:

Figure A-23:

Figure A-24:

Figure A-25:

as seen

Figure A-26:

Figure A-27:

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ............... A-22

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ............... A-23

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1 and 3 .................. A-24

Photographs of Fire Plumes in ICFMP BE #2 ................................................... A-26

Plume Temperature, ICFMP BE #2 (Left) and the FM/SNL Series (Right) ....... A-27

Snapshots of Fire from ICFMP BE #2, Case 2 Simulation ................................ A-29

Photographs of Heptane Pan Fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2 ............................. A-30

Photograph and Simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3,

through the 2 m x 2 m doorway ........................................................................ A-31

02 and CO 2 Concentrations, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ...................... A-33

02 and CO 2 Concentrations, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests ......................... A-34

Figure A-28: Smoke Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ................................ A-37

Figure A-29: Smoke Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests .................................. A-38

Figure A-30: CO Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Closed Door (Top Four)

and Open Door (Bottom Two) Tests ............................................................................... A-40

Figure A-31: Compartment Pressure, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ............................. A-42

Figure A-32: Compartment Pressure, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests ................................ A-43

Figure A-33: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7 .................. A-46

Figure A-34: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8 .................. A-47

Figure A-35: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10 ................ A-48

Figure A-36: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16 .............. A-49

Figure A-37: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9 .............. A-50

Figure A-38: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14 ........... A-51

Figure A-39: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18 .............. A-52

Figure A-40: Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7 .......... A-53

Figure A-41: Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8 .......... A-54

Figure A-42: Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10 ........ A-55

Figure A-43: Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16 ...... A-56

Figure A-44: Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9 .......... A-57

Figure A-45: Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14 ........ A-58

Figure A-46: Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18 ...... A-59

Figure A-47: Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7 ....... A-60

xiv
Figure A-48: Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8 ....... A-61

Figure A-49: Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10 ..... A-62

Figure A-50: Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16 ... A-63

Figure A-51: Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9 ....... A-64

Figure A-52: Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14 ..... A-65

Figure A-53: Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18 ... A-66

Figure A-54: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1

a nd 7 ............................................................................................................................... A -67

Figure A-55: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2

a nd 8 ............................................................................................................................... A -68

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

a nd 10 ............................................................................................................................ A -69

Figure A-57: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4

a nd 10 ............................................................................................................................. A -70

Figure A-58: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3

a nd 9 ............................................................................................................................... A -7 1

Figure A-59: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5

a nd 14 ............................................................................................................................. A -72

Figure A-60: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15

a nd 18 ............................................................................................................................. A -73

Figure A-61: Location of Three Slab Targets in ICFMP BE #4 .............................................. A-74

Figure A-62: Heat Flux and Surface Temperatures of Target Slabs, ICFMP BE #4, Test

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

Figure A-63: Location of Targets, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4 ....................................................... A-76

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

Figure A-65: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4 ............ A-78

Figure A-66: Long-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, ClosedD oor T ests ....................................................................................................................... A -82

Figure A-67: Long-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, ClosedD oor T ests ....................................................................................................................... A -83

Figure A-68: Long-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, ClosedD oor T ests ....................................................................................................................... A -84

Figure A-69: Long-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

T ests ............................................................................................................................... A -85

Figure A-70: Short-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, ClosedD oor Tests ....................................................................................................................... A -86

Figure A-71: Short-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, ClosedD oor Tests ....................................................................................................................... A -87

Figure A-72: Short-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

T e sts ............................................................................................................................... A -88

Figure A-73: Short-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

T e sts ............................................................................................................................... A -89

xv
Figure A-74: Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door

Tests ............................................................................................................................... A-90

Figure A-75: Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door

Tests ............................................................................................................................... A-91

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

Tests ............................................................................................................................... A-92

Figure A-77: Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

Tests .......................................................................... ..................................................... A-93

Figure A-78: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door

Tests .............................................................................................................................. A-94

Figure A-79: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door

Tests ............................................................................................................................... A-95

Figure A-80: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

Tests ............................................................................................................................... A-96

Figure A-81: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

Tests ............................................................................................................................... A-97

Figure A-82: Back W all Surface Temperatures, ICFMP BE #4, Test 1 ................................. A-98

Figure A-83: Top View of Compartment, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4 ............................................ A-99

Figure A-84: Back and Side Wall Surface Temperatures, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4 ................ A-100

Xvi
TABLES

Table 3-1:

Table 6-1:

Table A-1:

Table A-2:

Table A-3:

Table A-4:

Table A-5:

Table A-6:

Table A-7:

Table A-8:

FDS Capabilities Included in the V&V Study .......................... 3-1

Summary of the Fire Experiments in Terms of Commonly Used Metrics ................ 6-4

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of Pressure Comparisons ............................... A-44

Summary of Target Heat Flux and Surface Temperature .................................... A-79

Summary of Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature ...................................... A-101

xvii
N
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 1

(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 7 provide detailed discussions of the verification and

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

Volume 3 Fire Dynamics Tools (FDT)

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
4
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 FDTV (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 fir Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) and Institut fdr 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-Revl

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 ftir Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (Germany)

HGL Hot Gas Layer

HRR Heat Release Rate

IAFSS International Association of Fire Safety Science

iBMB Institut fiir 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

I

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

that have been measured in controlled experiments.

This volume documents a V&V study for the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), a computational

fluid dynamics (CFD) model, for applications relevant to NPPs. Guidance has been provided by

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

Models [Ref. 1], including the basic structure of this report.

FDS was developed, and is maintained, by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Version 4 was officially released in July 2004, and several minor updates had been released

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

V&V study were done with Version 4.06. With support from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC), the FDS Technical Reference Guide for Version 4 [Ref. 2] was rewritten

to follow the basic outline suggested by ASTM E 1355. However, the Guide does not

specifically address NPPs. The primary purpose of this report is to document the accuracy

of FDS in predicting the results of six sets of large-scale fire experiments that are relevant to NIPPs.

These results are found in Appendix A and discussed in Chapter 6 of this report. Chapters 2

through 5 provide brief summaries of corresponding chapters within the FDS Technical

Reference Guide, which discuss the underlying theory and the numerical methods:

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

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

physics and chemistry.

Chapter 4 discusses the mathematical and numerical robustness of FDS.

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

the most important of which are the size of the numerical grid and the heat release rate.

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

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

1-1

2

MODEL DEFINITION

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

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

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

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

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

of Deterministic Fire Models.

2.1 Name and Version of the Model

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

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

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

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

Version 3 in November 2002. The present version of FDS/Smokeview is Version 4, which was

released in July 2004. Changes in the version number correspond to major changes in the physical

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

referenced according to fractions of the integer version number. Version 4.06 was used for the

current study.

2.2 Type of Model

FDS is a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of fire-driven fluid flow. The model

numerically solves a form of the Navier-Stokes equations appropriate for low-speed, thermally

driven flow with an emphasis on smoke and heat transport from fires. The partial derivatives

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

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

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

particles are used to simulate smoke movement and sprinkler sprays.

2.3 Model Developers

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

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

A substantial contribution to the development of the model was made by VTT Building and Transport

in Finland.

2-1
Model Definition

2.4 Relevant Publications

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

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

The FDS User's Guide describes how to use the model, and the Technical Reference Guide

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

and discusses the limitations of the model.

NIST has developed a public Web site to distribute FDS and Smokeview and support users

of the programs. The Web site (http://fire.nist.gov/fds/) also includes documents that describe

various parts of the model in detail.

2.5 Governing Equations and Assumptions

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

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

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

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

simulation (LES). It is possible to perform a direct numerical simulation (DNS) if the underlying

numerical grid is fine enough.

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

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

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

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

"state relations," empirical expressions arrived at by a combination of simplified analysis

and measurement.

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

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

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

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

to it is the finite volume method.

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

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

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

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

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

with empirical correlations.

2-2
Model Definition

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

using fairly simple correlations based on thermal inertia in the case of sprinklers and heat detectors,

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

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

2.6 Input Data Required To Run the Model

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

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

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

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

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

that is smaller than a single grid cell is either approximated as a single cell or rejected. The building

geometry is input as a series of rectangular obstructions. Materials are defined by their thermal

conductivity, specific heat, density, thickness, and burning behavior. There are various ways

that this information is conveyed, depending on the desired level of detail. A significant part

of the FDS input file directs the code to output various quantities in various ways. Much like

in an actual experiment, the user must decide before the calculation begins what information to save.

There is no way to recover information after the calculation is over if it was not requested at the start.

A complete description of the input parameters required by FDS can be found in the FDS

User's Guide [Ref. 3].

2.7 Property Data

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

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

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

distinguish between walls and various other solid objects, sometimes regarded as "targets"

in simpler models.

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

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

the soot and carbon monoxide (CO) yields; and the fraction of energy released in the form

of thermal radiation. The radiative fraction is not an inherent property of the fuel, but rather

a measured quantity that varies with the size and geometric configuration of the fire. It can be

computed directly by FDS, but it is often input directly because it cannot be predicted reliably

with the present form of the combustion model.

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

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

may not be readily available (especially burning behavior at different heat fluxes). A small file

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

This data are given as examples, and users should verify the accuracy and appropriateness

of the data.

2-3
Model Definition

2.8 Model Results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the following quantities:

* gas temperature

* gas velocity

* gas species concentration [water vapor, carbon dioxide (C0 2), CO, and nitrogen (N2)]

* smoke concentration and visibility estimates

* pressure

* heat release rate per unit volume

* mixture fraction (or air/fuel ratio)

* gas density

* water droplet mass per unit volume

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

gas and solid phases, including the following examples:

* surface and interior temperature

* heat flux, both radiative and convective

" burning rate

* water droplet mass per unit area

In addition, the program records the following global quantities:

* total heat release rate (HRR)

* sprinkler and detector activation times

* mass and energy fluxes through openings or solids

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

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

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

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

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

by presenting animated tracer particle flow, animated contour slices of computed gas variables

and animated surface data. Smokeview also presents contours and vector plots of static data

anywhere within a scene at a fixed time.

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

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

2-4
Model Definition

2.9 Model Limitations

Although FDS can address most fire scenarios, there are limitations in all of its various algorithms.

Some of the more prominent limitations of the model are listed here. More specific limitations

are discussed as part of the description of the governing equations in the FDS Technical

Reference Guide [Ref. 2].

Low-Speed Flow Assumption: The use of FDS is limited to low-speed' flow with an emphasis

on smoke and heat transport from fires. This assumption rules out using the model for any

scenario involving flow speeds approaching the speed of sound, such as explosions, choke flow

at nozzles, and detonations.

Rectilinear Geometry: The efficiency of FDS is attributable to the simplicity of its rectilinear

numerical grid and the use of fast, direct solvers for the pressure field. This can be a limitation

in some situations where certain geometric features do not conform to the rectangular grid,

although most building components do. There are techniques in FDS to lessen the effect

of "sawtooth" obstructions used to represent nonrectangular objects, but these cannot be

expected to produce good results if, for example, the intent of the calculation is to study

boundary layer effects. For most practical large-scale simulations, the increased grid resolution

afforded by the fast pressure solver offsets the approximation of a curved boundary by small

rectangular grid cells.

Fire Growth and Spread: FDS was originally intended for design scenarios where the heat

release rate of the fire is specified and the transport of heat and exhaust products is the principal

aim of the simulation. However, for fire scenarios where the heat release rate is predicted rather

than prescribed, the uncertainty of the model is higher. There are several reasons for this:

(1) properties of real materials and real fuels are often unknown or difficult to obtain,

(2) the physical processes of combustion, radiation, and solid phase heat transfer are more

complicated than their mathematical representations in FDS, and (3) the results of calculations

are sensitive to both the numerical and physical parameters.

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

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

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

For large-scale, well-ventilated fires, this is a good assumption. However, if a fire is in an underventilated compartment, or if a suppression agent like water mist or CO2 is introduced, fuel

and oxygen may mix but may not burn. Also, a shear layer with high strain rate separating

the fuel stream from an oxygen supply can prevent combustion from taking place. The physical

mechanisms underlying these phenomena are complex, and even simplified models still rely on

an accurate prediction of the flame temperature and local strain rate. Sub-grid scale modeling

of gas phase suppression and extinction is still an area of active research in the combustion community.

Until reliable models can be developed for building-scale fire simulations, simple empirical rules

can be used that prevent burning from taking place when the atmosphere immediately surrounding

the fire cannot sustain the combustion.

I Mach numbers less than about 0.3

2-5
Model Definition

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

transport equation for a non-scattering gray gas, and in some limited cases using a wide band model.

The equation is solved using a technique similar to finite volume methods for convective transport,

thus the name given to it is the finite volume method. There are several limitations of the model.

First, the absorption coefficient for the smoke-laden gas is a complex function of its composition

and temperature. Because of the simplified combustion model, the chemical composition

of the smoky gases, especially the soot content, can affect both the absorption and emission

of thermal radiation. Second, the radiation transport is discretized via approximately 100 solid angles.

For targets far away from a localized source of radiation, like a growing fire, the discretization

can lead to a non-uniform distribution of the radiant energy. This can be seen in the visualization

of surface temperatures, where "hot spots" show the effect of the finite number of solid angles.

The problem can be lessened by the inclusion of more solid angles, but at a price of longer

computing times. In most cases, the radiative flux to far-field targets is not as important as those

in the near-field, where coverage by the default number of angles is much better.

2-6
3

THEORETICAL BASIS FOR FDS

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

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

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

and the availability of required input data. However, not all of FDS capabilities have been

verified and validated in this study.

Table 3-1: FDS Capabilities Included in the V&V Study

Fire Phenomena Algorithm/Methodology V&V

Predicting Hot Gas Layer Temperature Large Eddy Simulation transport for

and Smoke Layer Height in a Room Fire a specified fire Yes

With Natural Ventilation Compartment

Predicting Hot Gas Layer Temperature in a LES transport with forced flow

Room Fire With Forced Ventilation boundary condition Yes

Compartment

Predicting Hot Gas Layer Temperature in a LES transport, Mixture Fraction Yes

Fire Room With Door Closed combustion model

Estimating Burning Characteristics of Liquid Mixture Fraction combustion model

Pool Fire, Heat Release Rate, Burning Yes

Duration and Flame Height

Estimating Wall Fire Flame Height, Line Fire Mixture Fraction combustion model

Flame Height Against the Wall, and Corner No

Fire Flame Height

Estimating Radiant Heat Flux From Fire to a Finite Volume Radiation Model Yes

Target

Estimating the Ignition Time of a Target Fuel One dimensional heat conduction in

solid with global one-step pyrolysis No

Estimating Burning Duration of Solid Same

Combustibles No

Estimating Centerline Temperature of a Large Eddy Simulation of a specified Yes

Buoyant Fire Plume fire

3-1
Theoretical Basis for FDS

Fire Phenomena Algorithm/Methodology V&V

Estimating Sprinkler Activation RTI/C-Factor Algorithm

No

Suppression by water spray Surface cooling or empirical

correlation No

Estimating Smoke Detector Response Time Heskestad smoke detector model

No

Predicting Compartment Flashover Mixture Fraction combustion with

local extinction No

Estimating Pressure Rise Attributable to a Fire Global conservation of mass and

in a Closed Compartment energy, plus leakage algorithm Yes

Calculating the Fire Resistance of Structural One-Dimensional conduction and

Members radiative/convective heat flux No

Estimating Visibility Through Smoke Fixed smoke yield from fire and basic Yes

LES transport

3.1 Hydrodynamic Model

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

of ideal gases in the low Mach number limit [Ref. 5]. This means that the equations do not

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

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

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

Flow turbulence is treated by large eddy simulation, specifically, Smagorinsky's method [Ref. 6].

3.2 Combustion Model

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

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

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

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

occurs at an infinitely thin "flame sheet," for which the location in the flow is dictated by

the basic stoichiometry of the reaction.

Because the mixture fraction model assumes that fuel and oxygen react readily on contact,

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

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

3-2
Theoretical Basis for FDS

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

to determine if combustion can be sustained.

3.3 Thermal Radiation Model

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

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

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

transport equation (RTE) using a finite volume numerical algorithm supplemented by

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

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

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

3.4 Thermal Boundary Conditions

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

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

and the surrounding gases. At other times, fuel surfaces are simply assumed to bum

at a prescribed rate. Some surfaces, like inert walls, do not bum at all. For an LES calculation,

FDS uses a combination of natural and forced convection correlations to determine the convective

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.5 Numerical Methods

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

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

are assigned on the face of a cell. The flow variables are updated in time with an explicit,

second-order predictor-corrector scheme. The convective terms of the mass transport equations

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

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

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

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

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

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

calculation via a "ghost" cell inside the wall, where temperatures and densities are specified

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

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

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

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

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

3-3
Theoretical Basis for FDS

This equation is an elliptic partial differential equation solved with a direct Fast Fourier

Transform (FFT) method.

3.6 Theoretical Development of the Model

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

of the model "by one or more recognized experts fully conversant with the chemistry and physics

of fire phenomenon, but not involved with the production of the model." FDS has been subjected

to independent review both internally (at NIST), and externally. NIST documents and products

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

Internal reviews have been conducted on all previous versions of the FDS Technical Reference

Guide over the last decade. Externally, the theoretical basis for the model has been published

in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings. In addition, FDS is used worldwide

by fire protection engineering firms, which validate the model for their particular applications.

Some of these firms also publish in the open literature reports documenting internal efforts

to validate the model for a particular use. Finally, FDS is referenced in the NFPA 805 standard.

3.6.1 Assessment of the Completeness of Documentation

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

and the FDS User's Guide [Ref. 3]. The Technical Reference Guide documents the governing 4

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

the Technical Reference Guide was formatted according to the outline suggested in ASTM E 1355.

It describes the fundamental governing equations of the model and how they are solved numerically,

but refers to papers and books for the full derivations of equations or numerical techniques used.

The FDS User's Guide provides details on the actual execution of the program, the input parameters,

output, and so forth.

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

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

further explanation of the documentation or to suggest clarifications.

3.6.2 Assessment of Justification of Approaches and Assumptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

identified and fixed.

3-4
Theoretical Basis for FDS

3.6.3 Assessment of Constants and Default Values

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

parameters used in FDS. Specific parameters have been tested in various V&V studies

performed at NIST and elsewhere. Numerical parameters are taken from the literature

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

of the FDS default values and change them if necessary.

3-5

4

MATHEMATICAL AND NUMERICAL ROBUSTNESS

4.1 Introduction

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

verified in accordance with the general criteria listed in ASTM E 1355:

Analytical Tests: Comparison of the computed solutions with closed-form solutions

of the governing equations.

Code Checking: Verification of the basic structure of the computer code, either manually

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

Numerical Tests: Assessment of the magnitude of the residuals from the solution

of a numerically solved system of equations (as an indicator of numerical accuracy)

and the reduction in residuals (as an indicator of numerical convergence).

4.2 Analytical Tests

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

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

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

(e.g., one-dimensional heat conduction through a solid). The developers of FDS routinely use

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

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

always be published or included in the documentation. With each new release of FDS,

a standard set of verification calculations is run to ensure that no new errors have been

introduced into the source code. Some of these include the following examples:

" heat conduction into a semi-infinite solid

" evaporation of water droplets in uniform temperature environment

" radiation heat transfer from a uniform temperature hot object

" pressure increase in a sealed or slightly leaky compartment attributable to fire or fan

" idealized reaction of fuel and oxygen in an adiabatic chamber

4-1
Mathematical and Numerical Robustness

The common thread in all of these exercises is the well-defined initial and final states, which test

the basic conservation laws. Less straightforward is the simulation of fluid motion. Rehm,

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

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

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

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

Many numerical algorithms developed up to that time were intended for high-speed flow applications

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

for meteorological models, and the techniques had to be tested to determine whether they were

appropriate for describing relatively low-speed flow within enclosures. In more recent years,

simulations of plumes, ceiling jets, and other commonly studied fire-driven flows have replaced

the analytical solutions of simplified flows because of the need to consider turbulence.

4.3 Code Checking

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

various operating systems, including UNIX®, Linux®, Microsoft Windows®, and Macintosh OSX®.

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

operating system, and compiler involves a slightly different set of compiler and run-time options.

Compliance with the FORTRAN 90 ISO/ANSI standard improves the portability of the program.

By adhering to the standard, the code is streamlined and outdated or potentially harmful code

is removed.

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

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

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

This V&V project began using Version 4.05 of FDS. As part of the V&V process, several

improvements were made and a minor bug was corrected in this version. The improvements

were mostly to expand the output options, as illustrated by the following examples:

* FDS can automatically compute hot gas layer (HGL) temperature and height. These are not

part of a CFD calculation.

" FDS can now predict thermocouple temperatures, rather than gas temperatures. Because

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

comparing FDS temperature outputs to experimental data.

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

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

is useful when comparing FDS heat flux outputs to experimental data.

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

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

to increase even after the fire was suppressed. This bug only occurred in simulations of sealed

compartments, something not commonly done with FDS to date.

4-2
Model Sensitivity

The final version of FDS used in this study is Version 4.06 and includes the changes described

above.

4.4 Numerical Tests

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

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

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

(0.04 inch) or less, the simulation becomes a direct numerical simulation (DNS), where no assumptions

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

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

in the literature a variety of small-scale fluid flow and combustion experiments that can be simulated

in great detail. Numerous comparisons between experiments and DNS solutions using FDS

[Refs. 19, 20, 21, and 22] have shown that the hydrodynamic solver is robust and without

serious flaws.

4-3

5

MODEL SENSITIVITY

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

affect the model'ss results. Input parameters can be divided into two groups, namely numerical

and physical. For a CFD model, an important numerical parameter is the size of the underlying

numerical grid. Physical parameters range from the size of the fire, wall material properties,

and product yields. Chapter 5 of the FDS Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 2] reviews sensitivity

studies of the various numerical parameters in FDS. Chapter 6 of the Reference Guide discusses

the influence of the dozens of physical parameters that are input to the model. The present chapter

considers both numerical and physical parameters, in light of the validation experiments that are

discussed in the next chapter.

5.1 Sensitivity to Grid Size

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

an approximate form of the conservation equations of mass, momentum, and energy

on a numerical grid. The error associated with the discretization of the partial derivatives

is a function of the size of the grid cells and the type of differencing used. FDS uses second-order

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

meaning that the discretization error is proportional to the square of the time step or cell size.

In theory, reducing the grid cell size by a factor of 2 reduces the discretization error by a factor

of 4. However, it also increases the computing time by a factor of 16 (a factor of 2 for the temporal

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

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

a grid sensitivity study.

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

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

of the FM/SNL series, computed on 10-cm, 7.5-cm, and 5-cm (4-inch, 3-inch, and 2-inch) grids.

The 10-cm simulation required a few hours to complete on a single 2.4-GHz Pentium processor,

whereas the 5-cm (2-inch) simulation required a few days. The prediction is noticeably better

on the 5-cm (2-inch) grid because the entrainment of air into the hot plume is described

with much greater fidelity in the 5-cm (2-inch) case. Refining the mesh further does not make

a noticeable difference in the results, even though the fidelity of the simulation continues to improve.

With any grid resolution study, a point of diminishing returns is reached when the improvement

in the quality of the results is outweighed by the "cost" of the computation. When this point

is reached depends on the application. It also depends on the quantities that are of interest.

Some quantities, like HGL temperature or height, do not typically require as fine a numerical grid

as quantities such as the heat flux to targets near the fire.

5-1
Model Sensitivity

20020-Plume Temperature

- 150 -

100

E

50 -4-- FS (10 cm Grid)

-- FDS (7.5 cm Grid)

FOS (5 cm Grid) M Experiment

0-

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Time (s)

Figure 5-1: Grid Sensitivity Study for FMI/SNL Test 5

A case in point is Test 3 of the International Collaborative Fire Model Project (ICFMP)

Benchmark Exercise (BE) #3. This simulation has been performed with a variety of different

input parameters, most notably a 10-cm grid versus a 20-cm grid (4-inch vs. 8-inch). Sample

results of the 10-cm and 20-cm grids are shown in Figure 5-2. Even on the coarse grid, the basic

conservation equations still ensure a reasonably good prediction of the average HGL temperature,

and there are no steep gradients in the selected quantities that would have been more sensitive

to the grid size. So why is the 10-cm grid chosen for the final validation study? Consider what

is not shown in Figure 5-2. The cable trays and other targets, which are difficult to resolve

even on the fine grid, are simply too small to include on the coarse grid. The door and vent

are less accurately prescribed on the coarse grid, leading to greater error in the computation

of the compartment pressure. Still worse, had the fire scenario required a prediction of the heat

release rate or flame spread along the cable trays, even the fine grid is not necessarily fine enough

to predict these parameters accurately.

Coarse grid CFD can provide reasonable predictions of certain quantities, especially those that

can be traced directly to conservation equations of mass and energy, like average temperatures

and pressures. However, the user has to be aware that the results are generally less reliable than

those obtained from a finer grid, and certain results cannot be obtained at all.

5-2
Model Sensitivity

400

S300

0.

E

100

Tree 7 Temperatures, Fine (10 cm) Grid

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

......................... E pT . 1 3T7. / S- WlcpbIOO•124 TT-1

FOS Ti,. . T-. 7.1

FOSThn.. T-. 7.10

400

300

I 200

CD100

Tree 7 Temperatures, Coarse (20 cm) Grid

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

............ .. ............ :..,.

................... - T - .... 1.. T .I EýpT'e 128 T7-5

UExp Tie 133 T-10

F. F STi.... S o 7-1

FDS Time.. Tr. 7-5

. D5T..... S .. 7-10

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (s)

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (s)

9'113 250

W0.

E

East Wall Temperatures. Fine (10 cm) Grid

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

200

150

100.

50 -EVTh..ISO5TEI-I

-Exp=...ISTE2-S

.FDSThs..TCEWWU0,

E

150

100

East Wall Temperatures, Coarse (20 cm) Grid

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

.. - Ti-.. ... 5.• TE-I

-&Ep Ti,.. IVS 502-1

.TC - EeM U.S .FD

Tk- -TC Eam L12 .FO

50

0 .

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (S)

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (s)

1 I

0

==

0=

0.

Compartment Pressure, Fine (10 cm) Grid •J• lCFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

S-1

a.

-2

-3

Compartment Pressure, Coarse (20 cm) Grid

aICFMP BE #3, Test 3

5,

. Exp Time ns 351 CompP TineS 0) Pressure .F

- Ere ~ "he. 351 CompP

.FOS Ti-s - Pressure

0 500 1000

Time (s)

1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (S)

Figure 5-2: Fine (Left) and Coarse (Right) Simulations of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

5-3
Model Sensitivity

5.2 Sensitivity to Radiation Parameters

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

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

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

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

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

a desire for both accuracy and practicality. It has been observed that the use of 100 angles

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

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

with one using the default 100 angles (see Figure 5-3). The absence of any noticeable change

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

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

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

12 12

Test 3 Floor Heat Flux Test3, FloorHeatFuxF1 Test ea ~E 3,- 4lo '-• Up Th- n 49••4• F2

10 - Tim. w, 51 F4 10 I-Exp Th w51 F4

.. FDSTm T FlooU-1 FDS T.evFlor LL 1 T- .D FbU.2- FDS TU-4vFoU-2

. .8 V..... .. *l- "U4'V '' :~FDS T- 8 I

6 6 6 '

W 4 Q 4 ..................

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

0 0~

0 500 1000 1500 2000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 5-3: ICFMP BE #3 Test 3 Results Using 200 Radiation Angles (Left) and 100 (Right)

5.3 Sensitivity to Turbulence Parameters

FDS uses the Smagorinsky form of the LES technique, in which the viscosity of the gas mixture

is modeled with a mathematical expression involving the grid cell size, the local strain rate,

and an empirical constant. The thermal conductivity and material diffusivity are related to

the modeled viscosity by way of "turbulent" Prandtl and Schmidt numbers. In all, three

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for a fairly fine numerical grid to well-resolve the 19-m (62.3-fl) high smoke plume. For one

of these cases, the Smagorinsky coefficient (the empirical constant in the expression

5-4
Model Sensitivity

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

This reduces the magnitude of the "artificial" viscosity added to the numerical solution, allowing

for a greater level of eddy formation and, thus, greater mixing. In this case, the reduction

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

closer to the experiment. While the rationale for reducing the coefficient is grounded in physics,

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

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

chosen to balance accuracy and numerical stability.

5.4 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 BE #3, Test 3) is used to demonstrate

the result of increasing and decreasing the specified heat release rate by 15%. Shown in Figure 5-4

are plots of various output quantities demonstrating their sensitivity to the change in heat release rate.

Gas and surface 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 not unexpected, and are 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.

5-5
Model Sensitivity

"AA

a

a

a

a

a

a

I

Heat Release Rate

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

1500 .15%

1000 -.

5O00

2.

a

=E

I400 Hot Gas Layer Temperature ICFMP BE #3. Test 3

300

200

100

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (mmn)

400

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Zt

x

4

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3. Test 3

3

2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

U

=E

INear-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

300 ............ '.'. 

200 ..

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0.22

0.20

'u. 0.18

E

0.16

0.14

02 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3. Test 3

1 Compartment Pressure

a

0.

a

5.

a

0.

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0o - '

-2 ;...-•7..•LI,,•';., -I.,

-3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

x

Total and Radiative Heat Rux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

6

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

4

2

Radiaton Heat Fi /

400

300

S200~

E

100

01

Control Cable B Surface Temperature ICFMP BE #3. Test 3

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

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

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

5-6

I
Model Sensitivity

5.5 Sensitivity to Other Physical Input Parameters

This chapter describes the sensitivity of FDS results to changes in the major numerical and physical

input parameters. Throughout Chapter 6 (Model Validation) and Appendix A are additional

examples that demonstrate how changes in various input parameters affect the FDS predictions,

as illustrated by the following examples:

" Figure A-13 shows how the temperature of the hot gas layer changes as a result of increased

ventilation in the FM/SNL test series.

* Figure A-15 through Figure A-17 show how the temperature of the hot gas layer changes

as a result of the opening of a door in the NBS Multi-Room test series.

* Figure A-26 and Figure A-27 show how the upper-layer oxygen and carbon dioxide

concentrations change as a result of increased ventilation in the ICFMP BE #3 test series.

" Figure A-31 and Figure A-32 show how the compartment pressure is very sensitive

to the leakage rate in the closed-door tests of the ICFMP BE #3 test series.

* Section A.8 shows how the cable surface temperature is sensitive to the surrounding

gas temperature and the diameter of the cable.

5-7

6

MODEL VALIDATION

This chapter summarizes the results of a validation study conducted for FDS, in which its

predictions are compared with measurements collected from six sets of large-scale fire

experiments. A brief description of each set of experiments is given here. Further details can be

found in Volume 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.

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 of 21.7 m high x 7.1 m long x 3.8 m wide (71.2 ft x

23.3 ft x 12.5 ft), designed to represent a variety of spaces in a NPP containing power and control

cables. The walls and ceiling are covered with two layers of marinate boards, while the floor is

covered with one layer of gypsum board on top of plywood. The room has one door with

dimensions of 2 m x 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.

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

the Institut fiir 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 (Test 1) was selected

for the present V&V study.

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 US NRC by Factory Mutual Research Corporation

6-1
Model Validation

(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 are the heat release rate, enclosure ventilation rate, and

fire location. Tests 4, 5 and 21 were used in the present evaluation. Test 21 involved the fullscale 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 (Tests 1 OOA, 1000, and I OOZ) were used for the current V&V study.

This chapter documents the comparison of FDS predictions with the experimental measurements

for the six test series. Technical details of the calculations, including output of the model

and comparison with experimental data are provided in Appendix A. The results are organized

by quantity as follows:

* hot gas layer (HGL) temperature and height

* ceiling jet temperature

" plume temperature

• flame height

* oxygen and carbon dioxide concentration

* smoke concentration

" compartment pressure

* radiation heat flux, total heat flux, and target temperature

* wall heat flux and surface temperature

The model predictions are compared to the experimental measurements in terms of the relative

difference between the maximum (or where appropriate, minimum) values of each time history:

AM-AR (M,-Mo)-(E -Eo)

AM is the difference between the peak value of the model prediction, Mp, and its original value,

M,. AE is the difference between the experimental measurement, Ep, and its original value, Eo.

A positive value of the relative difference indicates that the model over-predicted the severity

of the fire (e.g., a higher temperature, lower oxygen concentration, higher smoke concentration, etc.).

The measure of model "accuracy" used throughout this study is related to experimental uncertainty.

Volume 2 discusses this issue in detail. In brief, the accuracy of a measurement, for example,

6-2
Model Validation

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

of the modelprediction of the gas temperature is related to the simplified physical description

of the fire and the accuracy of the input parameters, especially the specified heat release rate.

Ideally, the purpose of a validation study is to determine the accuracy of the model in the absence

of any errors related to the measurement of both its inputs and outputs. Because it is impossible

to eliminate experimental uncertainty, at the very least a combination of the uncertainty

in the measurement of model inputs and output can be used as a 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 further quantify its accuracy. At this stage, it is said

that the prediction is within experimental uncertainty.

Each section in this chapter contains scatter plots that summarize the relative difference results

for all of the predictions and measurements of the quantity under consideration. Details of

the calculations, the input assumptions, and the time histories of the predicted and measured output

are included in Appendix A. Only a brief discussion of the results is included in this chapter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

the combined experimental uncertainty. The color Yellow suggests that one should exercise

caution when using the model to evaluate this quantity; consider carefully the assumptions made

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

discussion of model limitations for the quantities assigned a Yellow rating.

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

that a CFD model, unlike a zone model or empirical correlation, has the potential to produce

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

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

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

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

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

this information, and these rules have been applied in the calculations for which results

are included in Appendix A and summarized below.

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

of the compartment. The following is a brief description of the various quantities included

in Table 6-1:

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

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

In the present study, however, the heat release rate is specified, and the model is used to predict

how the fire's energy is transported throughout the compartment. A non-dimensional quantity

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

6-3
Model Validation

Q* = Q

where Q is the heat release rate, p. is the ambient density, T. is the ambient temperature,

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

for which the energy output is relatively large compared to its physical diameter, like an oil well

blowout fire. A low value describes a fire for which the energy output is relatively small

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

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

of flame height.

Table 6-1: Summary of the Fire Experiments in Terms of Commonly Used Metrics

ICFMP BE #2 1800-3600 1.0 1.2-1.6 1.2-1.6 0.13 9-12 19 12-16

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

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

ICFMP BE #5 400 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.10 7 5.6 8

FM/SNL 500 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.05 14 6.1 9

NBS Multi-Room 100 1.3 0.34 0.4 0.10 4 2.4 6

6-4
Model Validation

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

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

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

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

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

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

to model the unresolvable or "sub-grid" motion of the hot gases. The effectiveness of the technique

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

bx. In short, the greater the ratio D*/&x, the more the fire dynamics are resolved directly,

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

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

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

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

between the fire "size" and the size of the overall compartment, particularly its height, H.

The height of the compartment relative to D* indicates the relative importance of the fire plume

to the overall transport of the hot gases. Much of the mixing of fresh air and combustion products

takes place within the plume, and this dilution of the smoke and the decrease in the gas temperature

ultimately determine the hot gas layer temperature. Thus, the parameter HID* can be used

to assess the importance of the plume relative to other features of the fire-driven value of flow,

like the ceiling jet or doorway flow.

The rule of thumb about the parameter D*/bx is not a substitute for a grid resolution study.

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

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

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

and a relatively small fire. To achieve the desired level of resolution in the plume, a fine grid

was used to capture the very important entrainment of fresh air, while coarse grids were used

elsewhere. Ironically, the least challenging simulations in terms of computational effort were

the NBS Multi-Room experiments, even though they required the lowest value of D*/bx

to obtain suitably converged results. For these tests, the ceiling height was relatively low,

and the plume dynamics were not as important in dictating the average compartment quantities.

Thus, even though the burner was spanned by only four grid cells, the predicted temperatures

in all three compartments were within experimental uncertainty.

6-5
Model Validation

6.1 Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height

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

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

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

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

and the predicted temperatures are then used to derive an average HGL temperature and height

in the exact same manner as the measured temperatures. Figure 6-1 summarizes the relative

differences between the predicted and measured HGL properties for the six test series. Note that

a positive value of the relative difference means that the numerical prediction is greater than

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

the layer height. Figure 6-2 presents the same results in a different format, emphasizing

the actual values of the HGL temperature and depth.

100

FDS Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Depth

50 - __

50

0 - ... . • m •• r • 0 • - +13% a) ...--.-.......... ....._. ,.. ... O"...... - .- - - 1- - +13 %

6 0 0

a) 0 - -~- - - - . 2- -13%

4j-'

n " -5 0 ....... . . . . . . .. . ................... . . .... . . _- . ..... .. ........ .....

Points other than circles

denote locations remote from

* HGL Temperature the fire room in the NBS Multio HGL Depth Room series

-100

CqC O M M C ' I ' .A •ý A 'I 'I-t ' 1 .,.._ _ C 0

~ ~ O f l- M MN c=c ,,,V ,,, , , , ,,, j 0 0

wu-u-wzZZ

ci)

UFigure 6-1: Summary of FOS Predictions of HGL Temperature and Depth

6-6
Model Validation

800

600

40

2- 00

da 400 E

"o 200

&.

0 200 400 600

Measured Temperature Rise (C)

800

16

14

-" 12

'5-10-

0

5% 8- "o

6- °--

0- 4-

2 -

0-

FD

F)S Hot Gas Layer Depth/

+13%// X,

//////-13 %

/f////

*AJ/ l CFMP BE #2

8 CFMP BE #3 (Closed Door Tests)

0 / . lCFMP BE #3 (Open Door Tests)"

,•A ICFMP BE #4"""

v /FP E#

0 /MIN

0 NB~S Multi-Room

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Measured Layer Depth (m)

Figure 6-2: Summary of HGL Temperature and Depth Predictions

6-7
Model Validation

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

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

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

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

uncertainty.

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

uncertainty for all 15 tests.

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

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

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

in Appendix A.

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

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

in the overall shape of the temperature curves.

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

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

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

experimental uncertainty for Tests 4 and 21. Both of these tests have a low ventilation rate.

For Test 5, with a high ventilation rate, FDS over-predicts the HGL depth by 26%. However,

the uncertainty in the HGL depth measurement is about 25% for the FM/SNL series because

only five thermocouples in the vertical direction are used to assess the height of the smoke layer,

and these five TCs are relatively close to the ceiling. See Volume 2 and the FM/SNL test report

for details.

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

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

and depth have been made at four locations [one in the bum room, two in the corridor, and one

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

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

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

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

* The FDS low Mach number hydrodynamic model is appropriate for predicting compartment

temperatures and smoke filling. Note that FDS does not require the ceiling to be flat, and it

can directly incorporate ceiling obstructions like ducts, beam pockets, and cable trays so long

as they can be approximated as rectangular objects that conform to the overall numerical grid.

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

within experimental uncertainty.

6-8
Model Validation

For some of the test series, like the NBS Multi-Room experiments, the simulations require

only about half a day to complete, whereas others require several days. This is not atypical

of CFD models. Whenever FDS is used, the numerical grid should be determined

by performing a grid resolution study. A description can be found in Chapter 5.

6-9
Model Validation

6.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature

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

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

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

The results of these simulations are summarized in Figure 6-3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the grid cells stretch in the horizontal dimensions away from the plume to save

on computational cost (see Figure 6-4). In addition, the 10-cm grid spans the relatively shallow

ceiling jet with just a few grid cells. As a result, the mixing of hot and cooler gases within the jet

is slightly under-predicted and the temperature, thus, slightly over-predicted. While the slight

over-prediction of ceiling jet temperature could be considered conservative for some applications,

for scenarios involving sprinkler or heat detector activation, the increased temperature

in the ceiling jet would lead to a quicker response of the simulated sprinkler or heat detector.

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

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

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

6-10
Model Validation

100

50

0)

0

0.

C

0

0-

FDS Ceiling Jet Temperature

• o-'....--.........

- - - - - - -_ - - __-- 

- - - - ---------6---- -- 

0

-50

+16%

-16%

-50

-100- - cý* c? -

WWWLU

400

0

"- 300 -

TCu

4 200-

E

I10

*1 100

"r Cu 'T ,ý 0 V - Cý T 0): T f ?" O - 'I 'IT - < 0 N A A A 6 A A 776- -jC40 0 C

W Cw LU w w w M M~ CI L z z - 000

LA.

0

0 100 200 300 400

Measured Temperature Rise (C)

Figure 6-3: Summary of FDS Predictions of Ceiling Jet Temperature

6-11
Model Validation

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

reasons:

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

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

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

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

is a region of the flow field exhibiting relatively high levels of buoyancy and/or shearinduced turbulence. Inaccuracies in its prediction tend to be averaged out when examining

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

if the objective of the calculation is to assess the damage to or activation of some object

or device near the ceiling.

-4 1 1- 1- -- - - - - - - - - - - - -

fj

Figure 6-4: Snapshot of FDS Simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

6-12
Model Validation

6.3 Plume Temperature

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

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

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

and surrounding air takes place. Data from ICFMP BE #2 and the FM/SNL test series have been

used to assess the accuracy of plume temperature predictions. Figure 6-5 summarizes the results.

ICFMP BE #2: As previously discussed, FDS over-predicts the HGL temperature in this test series.

Not surprisingly, FDS also over-predicts the plume temperature, especially at the lower thermocouple,

6 m (19.7 ft) above the fire pan. The flame height of the fires has been estimated to vary from

4 m to 5 m (13.1 ft to 16.4 ft), whereas FDS predicts the height to vary from 5 m to 6 m (16.4 ft

to 19.7 fit). Consequently, FDS predicts higher temperatures in the region just beyond the flame tip

where the temperatures decrease rapidly with height. At the higher thermocouple location,

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

the upper edge of the experimental uncertainty range.

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

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

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

As discussed above, D*/e5x=14, a fairly high value requiring several days of computing time.

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

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

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

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

" The simulations of BE #2 and the FMISNL series are the most time-consuming of all six

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

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

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

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

the flame tip.

" There are only nine plume temperature measurements in the data set. A more definitive

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

experimental data.

6-13
Model Validation

100

CO

CD)

W)

50

0-

FDS Plume Temperature

0o0

0 0'1

* Upper Plume

0 Lower Plume

+14%

-14 %

-50o

-100 '7' 9) 0? 0 CD M W -. 0) It V LO ) W - 0 N

MMMMaaaaaMMWWWWMa)MWWWMaMQCOZ -

u400

5-

300

,.

G 200

E

I-

'0

100

CL

0

0 100 200 300

Measured Temperature Rise (C)

400

Figure 6-5: Summary of FDS Predictions of Plume Temperature

6-14
Model Validation

6.4 Flame Height

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

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

Several photographs from both test series are included in Section A.4 of Appendix A. It is

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

estimates accurate to within roughly a pan diameter.

ICFMP BE #2: The height of the visible flame in the photographs of BE #2 has been estimated

to be between 2.4 and 3 pan diameters [3.8 m to 4.8 m (12.5 ft to 15.7 ft)]. The height of the

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

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

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

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

but at the same time provides adequate resolution over the fire. In this case, the volume

of the test hall is about 6,000 m3 (200,000 ft3) while the fire occupies roughly 6 m3 (200 ft3).

The over-prediction of flame height, in this test series, contributes to the over-prediction

of plume and HGL temperature discussed above.

ICFMP BE #3: FDS correctly predicts the flame height in this test series, at least to the accuracy

of visual observations and a few photographs taken before the HGL obscures the upper part

of the flame. The experiments were not designed to measure the flame height other than through

visual observation.

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

reasons:

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

"flame sheet." Although a simple description of the combustion, the model is capable of

predicting the flame height of a well-ventilated fire.

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

FDS predicts the flame height for the BE #3 tests to an accuracy commensurate with visible

observations. The uncertainty in interpreting the photographs, videos, and eye-witness accounts

is considerable, as is the very definition of "flame height."

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

conclusions about FDS predictions of flame height.

6-15
Model Validation

6.5 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration

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

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

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

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

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

is presented in Figure 6-6.

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

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

the relative difference between FDS and measurement is about 60% for both species. This overprediction of the gases in the upper layer is most likely the result of the specification of boundary

conditions at the ventilation duct. The fan, mounted halfway up the long wall of the compartment,

blew air upward at roughly a 450 angle from the horizontal. The velocity profile was measured

before the test began, but this profile (and the flow rate) changed during the test as a result of

changing compartment conditions. As a result, both the volume flow rate and the flow direction

are subject to considerable uncertainty, and this is reflected in the results of Test 5, the only

open-door test involving the ventilation system. The large FDS over-prediction does not occur

for the closed-door tests with ventilation (Tests 4, 10, and 16).

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

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

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

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

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

and the lower-layer concentration is over-predicted by about the same percentage as the upperlayer oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations.

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

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

by about 20%, but the concentrations are relatively low (0.0 13 measured, 0.0 16 predicted).

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

reasons:

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

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

and that the fire is well-ventilated.

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

experimental uncertainty.

6-16
Model Validation

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

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

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

100

FDS Gas Concentrations

_ 50 - -

)0o

C 00 "u 3 0 __ +9%

S 0 * 4 W" 

o,

.a

(1)

W_ -50

0 Upper Oxygen

0 Upper Carbon Dioxide

O Lower Oxygen

-100

u. -uZZZ

010.12 e//• "

FDS Gas Species Concentrations //

/

.2 ._ +9% /%

C? C? ýVL /ý 

m /9 / %

~0.08 / /'-

= #~/ /

• - 0.06 •

(0 M 0( DM5E

-c12

000 //

0.1 - +9%1

-o9

o0.04

.A/2• ICFMP BE #3 Upper Layer CO 2

" . ICFMP BE #3 Upper Layer 02

0.02 / o ICFMP BE #3 Lower Layer 02

A ICFMP BE #5 Upper Layer CO 2

y ICFMP BE #5 Upper Layer 02

0.00

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12

Measured Change in Volume Fraction

Figure 6-6: Summary of FDS Predictions of Major Gas Concentrations

6-17
Model Validation

6.6 Smoke Concentration

FDS treats smoke like all other combustion products, basically a tracer gas for which the local

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

the user need only prescribe the smoke yield (that is, the fraction of the fuel mass that is

converted to smoke particulate).

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

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

in Figure 6-7. There are two obvious trends in the results: first, the predicted concentrations are

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

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

uncertainty for these measurements has been estimated to be 33% (see Volume 2). It may be possible

to explain the open-door results in terms of uncertainty in the measurement and the specified

smoke yield, but the closed-door tests cannot be explained in these terms.

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

that virtually all of the carbon atoms in the fuel are transported either by the CO2 or the soot

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

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

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

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

and the measurement uncertainty combine to cause it. Indeed, in Figure A-30 the predicted

CO concentrations, also based on a fixed yield, do not exhibit the same behavior as the smoke

predictions in either the open or closed-door tests.

The difference between model and experimental predictions of smoke concentration is far more

pronounced in the closed-door tests. Given that the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide

predictions are no worse in the closed-door tests, there is evidence that the smoke does not behave

like the other exhaust gases, or that there are flaws in the data reduction for closed-door

(i.e., under-ventilated) fires. Consider, for example, Figure 6-8, which shows the smoke

and oxygen concentrations for a closed-door test with no ventilation (Test 8). The HRR

is ramped up to 1,190 kW in 176 seconds, followed by 434 seconds of steady burning and then

a rapid shutdown of the fuel supply. Assuming a 1.5% smoke yield, no smoke loss, and a uniform

distribution of smoke throughout the compartment, the maximum smoke concentration ought to be

about 360 mg/m3. FDS does allow for smoke to escape through leakage paths; thus, it predicts

a lower peak concentration at the measurement location, about 300 mg/m3, at about 10 minutes

after ignition when the fuel is shut off. The measured smoke concentration peaks at 100 mg/m3

at about 8 minutes and then decreases. At about this same time, the oxygen concentration

near the fire drops to about 15%, at which point the fire becomes under-ventilated,

and the combustion chemistry presumably changes. Curiously, the smoke production rate

appears to decrease as the fire becomes more oxygen-starved, or possibly the optical properties

of the smoke change, leading to a misleading measurement of the smoke mass per unit volume.

6-18
Model Validation

600

400

0

0

I0

0

0

Cu

FOS Smoke Concentration

--- -- - --2- -

200 -r

0-

+33 %

-33 %

-200 4 ,- ------ -4

-400+ .

-600

wwwwuwuwj

w~ w w w w M M

¶ 0c) (0r-. () ) )

uJA A A -, C-; C-4 w ML

;; -4j- j N) 00

ILU.LL Z Z Z

400

•-- 300 E

E

200

._2

V

0.100

0

0 100 200 300 400

Measured Density (mg/m3)

Figure 6-7: Summary of FDS Predictions of Smoke Concentration

6-19
Model Validation

400Smoke Concenton 02 and CO, Concentration

ICFMP BE #3. Test 8 ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

300 .-----.. 0Oxyge oo *tion new fm

J, i'-"0.15

p200. . EW~ Tim vsS".I a.

. FDS Time w Smoke Cabnaon 0.10

-EVpTim a 02.1 :"~~E xple Tim w 02-2

100 "-p/Tie,

Z/ 0.05-FDSTftuwO2I .. ,--•......FOS Time w 022

0 z 0.00 "T ...... O24

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

Time (m[n) Time (mh)

Figure 6-8: Smoke and Oxygen Concentration, ICFMP BE #3 Test 8

Summary: FDS merits a Yellow (Caution) for predicting smoke concentration, for the following

reasons:

" FDS is capable of transporting smoke throughout a compartment, assuming that

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

exhaust products. This assumption may break down in closed-door fires, or if an appreciable

part of the flame extends into the upper layer.

" FDS over-predicts the smoke concentration in all of the BE #3 tests. For the open-door tests,

it is possible to explain the discrepancy in terms of the uncertainty of both the specified

smoke yield and the optical measurement of the smoke concentration. There is no clear

explanation for the discrepancy in the closed-door tests. FDS does not over-predict

the CO concentration, another fixed yield product of incomplete combustion, in either

the open- or closed-door tests.

* No firm conclusions can be drawn from this one data set. The measurements in the closeddoor 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.

FDS does not have a sub-model to adjust the production rate or the optical properties

of smoke, regardless of whether or not this would explain the discrepancy between

the measurements and the model predictions.

6-20
Model Validation

6.7 Compartment Pressure

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

in Section A.7 of Appendix A, and the results are summarized in Figure 6-9. 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 within 50% of the measured pressures, consistent with

the reported uncertainties in the leakage area and the ventilation rate (see Volume 2). The one

notable exception is Test 16. This experiment was performed with the door closed

and the ventilation on, and there is considerable uncertainty in the magnitude of both the supply

and exhaust flow rates. Test 16 is a 2.3-MW fire, whereas Test 10 is a 1.2-MW fire.

The measured supply velocity is greater and the measured exhaust velocity is less in Test 10,

compared to Test 16. This is probably the result of the higher pressure caused by the larger fire

in Test 16. FDS does not adjust the ventilation rate based on the compartment pressure, which is

why the specified fan velocities are comparable in Tests 10 and Test 16. This also is the most

likely explanation for the over-prediction of compartment pressure in Test 16. Figure 6-10

presents the measured (solid lines) and specified (dashed lines) air velocities 15 cm (5.9 inches)

from the lower edge of the supply duct, and 35 cm (13.8 inches) from the lower edge

of the exhaust duct, for Tests 10 and 16. Also shown are the measured (solid lines) and predicted

(dashed lines) compartment over-pressures for these tests.

6-21
Model Validation

zuu •vv I 0 FDS Compartment Pressurel

50 ..

.R

6,

4)

w

S

+40%

00 0

0 0

ol-

-50-

0

- & - - - - w - - -40%

-1UU

- NM r 0(0F.-C*0LO-WLO00 NW w 1 40In

C4 C4 04 A A A A A - - - -j g0

LL LL 3 ZZ Z

300

250

200

0.

2 150

2 100.

I.

a,

1 50

(..

.i fir

FDS Compartment e Over-Pressure /

/

U /U

/ /

/

/ . / /

/

/ /

/ .

• /

/

/ -

,/ / U ICFMP BE #3 (Closed Door Tests)

/ / o ICFMP BE #3 (Open Door Tests)

U,

-5 I.-

-5 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Measured Pressure (Pa)

I

Figure 6-9: Summary of FDS Predictions of Compartment Pressure

6-22
Model Validation

Am

>

12 Supply and Exhaust Duct Veocities

10 ICFMP BE #3, Test10

6

Iz Supply and Exhaust Duct Velocities

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

S>

6

Model 

Validation

2 FO5TbWWBP&S II Ed-Mi? .FDTbvsvOP 

2

OP Ed.M tt .FDTh.. 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rin)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

~nn150

100

50

Compawnent Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Exp TWO, , n C , i

200

150

100

IL

50

0

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3. Test 16

t

"- E, Ts vw CompP FOS Time Ws Pms

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure 6-10: Ventilation Rates and Pressures for BE #3, Tests 10 and 16

Summary: FDS merits a Green rating in predicting compartment pressure, for the following

reasons:

The basic mass and energy conservation equations solved by FDS ensure reliable predictions

of compartment pressure.

The FDS pressure predictions for BE #3 are within experimental uncertainty, with an exception

related to the behavior of a ventilation fan.

* Compartment pressure predictions are extremely sensitive to the leakage area and forced

ventilation. The fractional uncertainty in predicted pressure is roughly double that

of the leakage area or ventilation rate.

6-23
Model Validation

6.8 Radiation and Total Heat Flux and Target Temperature

Target temperature and heat flux data are available from ICFMP BE #3, #4, and #5. In BE #3,

the targets are various types of cables in various configurations - horizontal, vertical, in trays,

or free-hanging. In BE #4, the targets are three rectangular slabs of different materials

instrumented with heat flux gauges and thermocouples. In BE #5, the targets are again cables,

in this case, bundled power and control cables in a vertical ladder.

Figure 6-11 summarizes the relative differences between predicted and measured radiative

and total heat flux and surface temperature.

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

different cables that are graphed in Appendix A and summarized above. It is difficult to make

sweeping generalizations about the accuracy of FDS. At best, one can scan the graphs, tables,

and summary charts to get a sense of the overall performance. The experimental uncertainty

is about 20% for both heat flux and surface temperature. Discounting those comparisons

for which the relative difference is less than 20%, the rest need to be examined on a case-by-case

basis. Note the following trends:

" There is an overall trend toward over-prediction of radiative heat flux and under-prediction

of total heat flux. From this observation, it is assumed that the convective heat flux,

the difference between the total and the radiative heat flux, is generally under-predicted.

It is difficult to more accurately quantify this observation because the heat flux gauges

in the experiment are mounted on steel, L-shaped brackets while the convective heat flux

prediction by FDS is based on a flat plate empirical correlation. Thus, the model does not

predict, nor does the experiment measure, the true convective heat flux to the cables themselves.

" The predicted and measured cable surface temperatures are often virtually identical to

the local gas temperature (see graphs in Appendix A). Good predictions of the gas temperature

often lead to good predictions of the cable temperature, regardless of the accuracy of the heat flux.

Indeed, the scatter in the temperature predictions is less than that in the heat flux predictions.

" Most of the over-predictions of cable surface temperatures occur in Tests 4, 5, 10, and 16,

which include the ventilation fan. Cables B, D, and F are located near the supply vent,

and the air blows over the measurement locations. The fan's flow rate and direction are not

well-characterized in the test specification; thus, there is more uncertainty in these tests than

in the others. It is difficult to quantify this uncertainty, however, other than to look at similar

tests that do not have the fan turned on. Tests 2 and 8 are the same as 4 and 10, but without

the fan. Test 3 is Test 5 without the fan. Test 13 is Test 16 without the fan. The cable

surface temperatures are not over-predicted in these unventilated tests.

6-24
Model Validation

20 100

50

0-

S

2

a

2

FDS Radiation Heat Flux to Targets

a a

gil0• 0

me:e. 0 .0 o 0 "* ... ..... .

--- -- - --------

. .Cable

*Cable D A Cable F

* Cable G

209%

-20%

10

5

FDS Radiative Rux to Targets

tS///

A .

•/'C • CFMP BE 93 Cable 0

/C E# al

/C"P /,.pB E9 al

-50 1

v ý4 AAA ;j7;AAA-- UHN www z

z

04

0 5 10 15

Measured Heat Flux (kWlm2 )

20

50 100

50-

e,

a

n,

a Cable B FDS Total Heat Flux to Targets

I Cable D I CableF F

* Cable G

- - - - - - -J - - -- --

_ _ _ ,. ._ _ _

23 *.* &

* one~

0-

E

+20%

ILL

-20% ":

CL

40

30

20

FDS Total Heat Flux a /

to Targets

/

/

/

/ 0/ -/

//

/ 7 / -,

/ -

/ ,

/7

C, IcFMP BE #3 Cable ) A lC RcMPE #3Cable * ;CFMP BE #3 Cable G

* CFMP BE #,4

* IcFMPeE#5 * CFbl BE #5

-50

10

0

z zo 0 10 20 30 40

Measured Heat Flux (kWmr2)

50

8M0

100

so0-

-50-

-100

FDS Target Surface Temperature

-7 ~a *4

*Cable B

..

* k Cable CabieDF

*CameF

• ,Cable G M0 hla-vlous

+14%

-14%

600

a:2

La

c, 400

E

200

0

FDS Target Temperature

/// /

e/ ,

,0 ICM E# al

/•//

SCFMP BE #3 Cable b

"CFMP BE #3 Cabi. G

0 ICFMP BE #5 Cables

.... i;

•z TOZ 0 200 400 600

Measured Temperaturd Rise (C)

800

Figure 6-11: Summary of FDS Predictions of Target Temperature

6-25
Model Validation

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

located about I m (3.3 ft) from the fire. The trend is consistent, but it cannot be explained

solely in terms of experimental uncertainty. Part of the discrepancy appears to be attributable to

the plume lean in FDS, which leads to the significant over-prediction of heat flux to the steel target

in the back of the compartment.

ICFMP BE #5: Predictions and measurements of gas temperature, total heat flux and cable

surface temperature are available at four vertical locations along a cable tray. FDS over-predicts

the gas temperatures by about 10% at these locations, under-predicts heat flux by about 50%,

and under-predicts the cable surface temperature by 10% to 20%. Although the surface temperature

predictions are within experimental uncertainty, the heat flux predictions are not. It is possible

that in this case, two wrongs (gas temperature and heat flux) make a right (surface temperature).

However, only one test from this series has been used in the evaluation, thus, it is hard to draw

any firm conclusions. Also, given that BE #5 uses the same compartment as BE #4, it is curious

that FDS over-predicts the heat fluxes in BE #4, but under-predicts in BE #5.

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

" FDS has the appropriate radiation and solid phase models for predicting the radiative

and convective heat flux to targets, assuming the targets are relatively simple in shape.

FDS is capable of predicting the surface temperature of a target, assuming that its shape

is relatively simple and its composition fairly uniform.

" FDS predictions of heat flux and surface temperature are generally within experimental

uncertainty, but there are numerous exceptions attributable to a variety of reasons.

The accuracy of the predictions generally decreases as the targets move closer to, or go inside of,

the fire. There is not enough near-field data to challenge the model in this regard.

6-26
Model Validation

6.9 Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature

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

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

target heat flux and surface temperature (discussed above), there is a considerable amount of data

to consider. Figure 6-12 summarizes the relative differences for the wall (total) heat flux

and wall surface temperature predictions.

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

walls and ceiling to within experimental uncertainty (20%). However, the predicted floor temperatures

are as much as 90% higher than the measurements. In fact, the over-predicted surface temperatures

are almost all for the floor, both near and far-field. The predicted heat fluxes to the floor do not

indicate this level of error, which means that the material properties of the floor need to be considered.

The compartment walls and ceiling are constructed of Marinite I, an industrial-strength

insulating material for which the properties have been measured by the manufacturer

(BNZ Materials, Inc.) for the range of temperatures experienced in the tests. The floor

is constructed of one layer of ordinary gypsum board atop common construction-grade plywood.

(It is assumed in the simulations that the gypsum board is twice as thick because FDS cannot

accept two layers of materials.) The thermal properties of the gypsum board and the plywood

were not measured, and the exact composition of each batch changes depending on the supply of

raw materials. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that FDS is less accurate in predicting floor

temperatures than it is predicting wall or ceiling temperatures.

ICFMP BE #4: FDS predicted two wall surface temperatures to within 4% of the measured values.

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

(1,100 -F to 1,300 'F) above ambient. This is a curious result because FDS does not predict

the temperatures of the nearby slab targets this accurately.

ICFMP BE #5: FDS under-predicts wall temperatures at two locations in the compartment

by about 30%. However, FDS slightly over-predicts the gas temperatures at these same vertical

locations. These results are similar to those discussed above for the cable targets in BE #5.

Summary: FDS merits a Yellow (Caution) rating in this category, for reasons similar to those

for target flux and temperature (discussed above):

" FDS has the necessary radiation and solid phase sub-models for predicting the radiative

and convective heat flux to walls, and the subsequent temperature rise within the walls.

It is assumed that the composition of the wall liner is fairly uniform, and its thermal properties

are well-characterized.

" FDS predictions of heat flux and surface temperature are generally within experimental

uncertainty, but there are several exceptions attributable to a variety of reasons. As with targets,

the accuracy of the predictions typically decreases closer to the fire or plume impingement

region. Although there is no clear difference in near and far field predictions in the current

study, past experience urges caution when making near-field predictions.

6-27
Model Validation

ý: 2%ý;E vv; a- - &gag MW wwwýwwwm%% 14 A www14 A AAA..jffii2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Measured Heat Rux (kW/mn)

400

•200

IL

FDS Wagl Surface Temperature /

ag / 

00

0 E : 0 0

C M 

I/

/ BE/ a .,FIb

/ / 0 ~~BEfl~~.~.d ~0 ,.C V BEB W& o BE .3 FI:. F.VW BE - &ý W.n.

O's~VV

WWWWWO w w WW ~wwwwff 0 200 40'0 600 8C

, zz Measured Temperature pjse (C)

Figure 6-12: Summary of FDS Predictions of Wall Heat Flux and Temperature

10

6-28
Model Validation

6.10 Summary

The results presented in this chapter validate the basic hydrodynamic and radiative heat transport

algorithms within FDS. For a fire for which the heat release rate is known, FDS can reliably predict

gas temperatures, major gas species concentrations, and compartment pressures to within about 15%,

and heat fluxes and surface temperatures to within about 25%.

For the experiments considered, the FDS predictions are not significantly better than those of

the two-zone models (CFAST and MAGIC) that are also evaluated in this study. Only in

the predictions of heat flux and surface temperature is FDS noticeably better. The reason is that

the experiments used in the evaluation conform to the simple two-layer assumption that is the basis

of CFAST and MAGIC. In addition, two-zone models use well-established empirical correlations

to predict the plume, ceiling jet, and flame height; whereas FDS simply solves the basic transport

equations. In this sense, FDS truly is a predictive model. However, the cost of solving the basic

equations is substantial. The two-zone models produce answers in seconds to minutes, whereas

FDS produces comparable answers in hours to days. An obvious question to ask is why use FDS

or any CFD model? The answer is that these experiments were designed to evaluate all types

of fire models, from simple hand calculations to CFD. Rarely do real fire scenarios conform

as neatly to the simplifying assumptions inherent in the models. Fire plumes are rarely free

and clear of obstacles because fires often occur in cabinets or near walls. Ceilings are rarely flat

and unobstructed because duct work and cable trays often block the clear paths. Although twozone models can be applied in some of these instances, their accuracy cannot be ensured.

Indeed, in the present study the heat flux and surface predictions by FDS are more accurate

than those of the two-zone models because FDS computes the local temperature within the hot

gas layer, and the radiative heat flux is a function of this local temperature raised to the fourth power.

Obstructions near the ceiling create pockets of hotter gases, which can have a substantial effect

on the local heat flux to targets and walls.

Most practicing fire protection engineers use a combination of models to assess the hazards of fire.

For the fire scenarios considered in the current validation study, and for the output quantities

of interest, the two-layer models are most suitable. The hand calculations are limited in applicability,

and FDS is overly time-consuming. However, the experiments do provide a means to validate

all of the models in a consistent way. Once validated for the simple compartment geometries,

FDS can then be used to look at more complicated geometries where non-uniformities of temperature,

and non-idealized gas flows cannot be addressed by simple two-zone models.

6-29

7

REFERENCES

1. Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability ofDeterministic Fire Models, ASTM

E 1355-05a, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005.

2. "Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 4) Technical Reference Guide" (K. McGrattan, Editor),

NIST Special Publication 1018, National Institute of Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, MD, 2004.

3. McGrattan, K., and G.P. Forney, "Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 4) User's Guide,"

NIST Special Publication 1019, National Institute of Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, MD, 2005.

4. Forney, G.P., and K. McGrattan, "User's Guide for Smokeview Version 4 - A Tool

for Visualizing Fire Dynamics Simulation Data," NIST Special Publication 1017, National

Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2004.

5. Rehm, R.G., and H.R. Baum, "The Equations of Motion for Thermally Driven, Buoyant

Flows," Journal of Research of the NBS, 83:297-308, National Bureau of Standards,

Washington, DC, 1978.

6. Smagorinsky, J., "General Circulation Experiments with the Primitive Equations.

I. The Basic Experiment," Monthly Weather Review, 91(3):99-164, Weather Bureau,

Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, 1963.

7. Quintiere, J., "A Perspective on Compartment Fire Growth," Combustion Science

and Technology, 39:11-54, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York, NY, 1984.

8. Beyler, C., "Flammability Limits of Premixed and Diffusion Flames," SFPE Handbook of

Fire Protection Engineering, 3 rd Edition, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy,

Massachusetts, 2002.

9. Grosshandler, W., "RadCal: A Narrow Band Model for Radiation Calculations in a

Combustion Environment," NIST Technical Note TN 1402, National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1993.

10. Prasad, K., C. Li, K. Kailasanath, C. Ndubizu, R. Ananth, and P.A. Tatem, "Numerical

Modeling of Methanol Liquid Pool Fires," Combustion Theory and Modeling, 3:743-768,

Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, UK, 1999.

11. Atreya, A., "Pyrolysis, Ignition and Fire Spread on Horizontal Surfaces of Wood,"

NBS GCR 83-449, National Bureau of Standards (now NIST), Gaithersburg, MD, 1983.

12. Ritchie, S.J., K.D. Steckler, A. Hamins, T.G. Cleary, J.C. Yang, and T. Kashiwagi,

"The Effect of Sample Size on the Heat Release Rate of Charring Materials," Proceedings of

the 5th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, pp. 177-188, International

Association for Fire Safety Science, Melbourne, Australia, 1997.

7-1
References

13. Mell, W., K. McGrattan, and H. Baum, "Numerical Simulation of Combustion in Fire Plumes,"

Twenty-Sixth Symposium (International) on Combustion, Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh,

PA, 1996.

14. McGrattan, K., H.R. Baum, and R.G. Rehm, "Large Eddy Simulations of Smoke Movement,"

Fire Safety Journal, 30:161-178, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 1998.

15. Xin, Y., J.P. Gore, K. McGrattan, R.G. Rehm, and H.R. Baum, "Large Eddy Simulation

of Buoyant Turbulent Pool Fires," Proceedings of the 2002 Spring Technical Meeting,

Central States Section, Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, April 2002.

16. Baum, H.R., R.G. Rehm, P.D. Barnett, and D.M. Corley, "Finite Difference Calculations

of Buoyant Convection in an Enclosure, Part I: The Basic Algorithm," SIAM Journal

of Scientific and Statistical Computing, 4(1): 117-135, Society of Industrial and Applied

Mathematics, New York, NY, 1983.

17. Baum, H.R., and R.G. Rehm, "Finite Difference Solutions for Internal Waves in Enclosures,"

SIAM Journal of Scientific and Statistical Computing, 5(4):958-977, Society of Industrial

and Applied Mathematics, New York, NY, 1984.

18. Rehm, R.G., H.R. Baum, P.D. Barnett, and D.M. Corley, "Finite Difference Calculations

of Buoyant Convection in an Enclosure, Part II: Verification of the Nonlinear Algorithm,"

Applied Numerical Mathematics, 1:515-529, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 1985.

19. McGrattan, K., R.G. Rehm, and H.R. Baum, "Fire-Driven Flows in Enclosures," Journal

of Computational Physics, 110(2):285-292, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 1994.

20. Mell, W., and T. Kashiwagi, "Dimensional Effects on Microgravity Flame Transition,"

Twenty-Seventh Symposium (International) on Combustion, Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh,

PA, 1998.

21. Jhalani A., "A Numerical Study of Stretch in Partially Premixed Flames," Master's Thesis,

University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, 2001.

22. Hamins, A., M. Bundy, I. Puri, K.B. McGrattan, and W.C. Park, "Suppression of Low Strain

Rate Non-Premixed Flames by an Agent," Proceedings of the 6th International Microgravity

Combustion Workshop, NASA/CP-2001-210826, pp. 10 1-104, National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH, May 2001.

23. Zhang, W., A. Hamer, M. Klassen, D. Carpenter, and R. Roby, "Turbulence Statistics

in a Fire Room Model by Large Eddy Simulation," Fire Safety Journal, Elsevier, Oxford,

UK, 2002.

24. McGrattan, K., J. Floyd, G. Forney, H. Baum, and S. Hostikka, "Improved Radiation

and Combustion Routines for a Large Eddy Simulation Fire Model," Fire Safety Science -

Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium, International Association for Fire

Safety Science, Boston, MA, 2003.

7-2
A

TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE FDS VALIDATION

STUDY

Appendix A provides comparisons of FDS predictions and experimental measurements for the six

series of fire experiments under consideration. The sections to follow contain assessments

of the model predictions for the following quantities:

A. 1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height

A.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature

A.3 Plume Temperature

A.4 Flame Height

A.5 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration

A.6 Smoke Concentration

A.7 Compartment Pressure

A.8 Target Heat Flux and Surface Temperature

A.9 Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature

The model predictions are compared to the experimental measurements in terms of the relative

difference between the maximum (or where appropriate, minimum) values of each time history:

AM-A (MP-Mo)-(E,-Eo)

AE (P-.

AM is the difference between the peak value of the model prediction, Mp, and its originalvalue,

Mo. AE is the difference between the experimental measurement, EP, and its original value, E0.

A positive value of the relative difference indicates that the model has over-predicted the severity

of the fire (e.g., a higher temperature, lower oxygen concentration, higher smoke concentration, etc.).

A-1
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

A.1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height

Like any CFD model, FDS does not perform direct calculations of the HGL temperature or height.

These are constructs unique to two-zone models, like CFAST and MAGIC. Nonetheless,

FDS does make predictions of gas temperature at the same locations as the thermocouples

in the experiments, and these values can be reduced in the same manner as the experimental

measurements to produce an "average" HGL temperature and height. Regardless of the validity

of the reduction method, the FDS predictions of the HGL temperature and height ought to be

representative of the accuracy of its predictions of the individual thermocouple measurements

that are used in the HGL reduction. 0

The temperature measurements from all six test series are used to compute an HGL temperature

and height with which to compare to FDS. The same layer reduction method is used for five

of the six test series. Only the NBS Multi-Room series uses another method.

A brief description of each test series is included below, followed by graphs comparing the predicted

and measured HGL temperature and layer height. A summary table is provided at the end

of the section that displays the relative differences between predictions and measurements for all

six test series. Note that the calculation of relative difference is based on the temperature rise

above ambient, and the layer depth, that is, the distance from the ceiling to where the hot gas

layer descends. Where the model over-predicts the HGL temperature or the depth of the HGL,

the relative difference is a positive number. This convention is used throughout this appendix -

where the model over-predicts the severity of the fire, the relative difference is positive; where it

under-predicts, the relative difference is negative.

A-2
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

ICFMP BE #2

The HGL temperature and depth are calculated from the averaged gas temperatures from three

vertical thermocouple arrays using the standard reduction method. There are 10 thermocouples

in each vertical array, spaced 2 m (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. Note in

the figure that all of the obstructions, including the slanted roof and exhaust duct,

are approximated in the model as rectangular to conform with the rectilinear grid.

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

A-3
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

II120 M BE# 

06

E

9

'uu.

801

60

An .. Z4•

a

20 0 E~qTinravsTnpper

- FOS Tim "v HGI. Tamrp

0 2 4 6

Time (min)

8 10

S

a

0.

E

12

I

20

Hot Gas Layer Height 1 ICFMP BE #2, Case 1

15\

SEx Timve SHeight

S10-- FOS Timn Layer Height

5

0

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

20 Hot Gas Layer Height

15 •ICFMP BE #2, Case 2

* Exp Time vs Height

10- FIS Time vs Layer Height

5

0

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

20

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #2, Case 3

15

10

5

* EapiesHeight hh -FSTim, vs Layer Height

0 2 4 6

Time (min)

8 10

140

120

100

80

. 60

- 40

0

Hot Gas Layer Temperature ICFMP BE #2. Case 3 -_

Sap TrnmvsT pper

ci

a,

I

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

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

A-4
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

ICFMP BE #3

BE #3 consists of 15 liquid spray fire tests with different heat release rates, pan locations,

and ventilation conditions. The basic geometry, including the numerical grid, is shown in Figure

A-3. Gas temperatures were measured using seven floor-to-ceiling thermocouple arrays (or

"trees") distributed throughout the compartment. The average hot gas layer temperature

and height are calculated using thermocouple Trees 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Tree 4 is not used

because one of its thermocouples (4-9) malfunctioned during most of the experiments.

Door on West Side Control Cable B Cable Tray D Power Cable F

Figure A-3: Snapshot of the Simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

A few observations about the simulations are worthy of note:

" During Tests 4, 5, 10, and 16, a fan blew air into the compartment through a vent

in the south wall. The measured velocity profile of the fan is not uniform, with the bulk

of the air blowing from the lower third of the duct toward the ceiling at a roughly 450 angle.

The exact flow pattern is difficult to replicate in the model, thus, the results for Tests 4, 5, 10,

and 16 should be evaluated with this in mind. The effect of the fan on the hot gas layer is small,

but it does have some effect on target temperatures near the vent.

" For all of the tests involving a fan, the predicted HGL height rises after the fire is extinguished,

while the measured HGL drops. This appears to be a curious artifact of the layer reduction

algorithm. It is not included in the calculation of the relative difference.

* In the closed-door tests, the hot gas layer descends all the way to the floor. However,

the reduction method, used on both the measured and predicted temperatures, does not

account for the formation of a single layer and, therefore, does not indicate that the layer

drops all the way to the floor. This is neither a flaw in the measurements nor in FDS,

but rather in the layer reduction method.

" The HGL reduction method produces spurious results in the first few minutes of each test

because no clear layer has yet formed. These early times are not included in the relative

difference calculation.

A-5
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

200 Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

150 3..

0

4

3

1~,

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

FD Tie HGtL Height 

Up T, Heig

E

50

Ep Time w 7ý_.Pper

200

S.FDS Time " T up

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

Time (min)

200 .

e

I,-

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

150

10 0

50 42

I-Exp Time. Tý_uppe

.FOS Tim. w T up

-IV

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

4

Hot Gas Layer Height •. %ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

3

2

1 .

, - E,• pTi~me vsHaght

Thmle WHGL Height .FDS 

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

4

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

3

2

-Exp Time.,".eight

.FS Time "HGL HG igkl 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Time (min)

400

300

La 200

100

0

a,

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400 4 Hot Gas Layer Temperature

I ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

3110 4

200

E

100

0

Exp Time vs Tupper

FDS Time- ,T_-p

Hot Gas Layer Height " ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

3.

z 2

UEp Tim.e . Height

FOS Time HGI Height 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

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 the FDS Validation Study

400

Hot Gas Layer Temperature ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

300

p200

E

12100

- Exp Time vs Tupper . Fos Time vs Teu

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

di

0

I

4 Hot Gas Layer Height ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

3

- Exp Time vs Height .FOS TIMe vs HGL Height

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400 41100

E

IHot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

300

200

100

- ep Time vsTvppi .FOS Time r-up

-'

4 Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3. Test 10

3

E- p Time vs Height FOS Time vs HGL Heighi 2 __ 44

1

A I 0

0 5 10 i5 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400 m

300

200

E

100

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

.

U- Exp Time vs Tuppe. TIme .FOS vs T u.p

E

4 Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3. Test 13

3

2

1 - ..... •..

- S Time v Height

-HGL Height .F0STb•M 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3. Test 16

300

200

E

100

.P05p Time vsTePP

4

3

2

0r

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Ep T- Time vs Height i ...... PFS Time vs HGL Heigh!l

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

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

A-7
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

400

300

~200

E

100

0.

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

4

3

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Open Door Tests to Follow

S

E

9

400

Hot Gas Layer Temperature ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

300

200

100

.- - p Ti•n•. T.• upper

.Fos rime Tvs

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0)

4

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

3

2 . ......... ..... ... . . . . . . . .

-- rp T.e vs Height FDS Time vsHGL Height

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

4

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

3

2

. . .. p Tie ... . • •..

Tin.e vs HGL Heighl .F.5 

400

300

S200

E

100

0

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

....... in.... vs T .-op.

Tin.. .FOS - Tj.pe

C"

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

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

A-8
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

400

300

S200

E2o_

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

3,

I

I--- Thn, nHG0I.Height

Oha

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

lime (min)

400

300

2

E

100

0

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

F-xp Time ve T uppe Time .FDs vs T'up

4

3

Zt

•2

I

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

E-p Time vs Height

FOS Tme " HGL Height

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400 4

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3. Test 15

E

12

300

200

100

Exp Time' vs Tupper

FDS Time vs Tup

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

300

200 ... ............... ............... "

100

- E p n, TevsTpper

.FDS Time TIp

0

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

2

Ep U- Time. Height

FDS Time n HGL Height

U

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

4

S

E

E

3

Z2

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

SEvp Time vs Height FOS T ie _ HGL Height

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 the FDS Validation Study

ICFMP BE #4

ICFMP BE #4 consists 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 is considerably higher than the other fire tests under study. As shown

in Figure A-8, the compartment geometry is fairly simple, with most of the objects contained

within it being rectangular and easily conforming to the simple 10 cm uniform grid used by FDS.

The only exception is a cylindrically-shaped waste container located just behind the fire pan,

which according to the simulation, is engulfed by the fire. In the model, the cylindrical barrel

is approximated as a rectangular solid.

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

A-10
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

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 30% after that time. There appears to be an error in the reduction

of the experimental data.

800 6

Hot Gas Layer Temperature Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMPBE#4,Test 15ICFMP BE #4, Test I

600

- Eap Ti,,, -e Up, Heighl

0•""Fos Timeim n g LayeA Height

L 4000 

a 2:

E- rvpimevT ye Fos Timev Avg T~uppev

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

Time (min) Time (min)

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

A-1I
Technical Details of the FDS 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. Test 4 is the only experiment from this test

series that was used in the evaluation, and only the first 20 minutes of the test, during the "preheating" stage when only the ethanol pool fire is active. The burner was lit after that point,

and the cables began to bum.

Cable Bundles

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

A-12 I
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4 /==,i=1 ! •

Irn

200

150

EE 100 I-

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

S

Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Height

ICFMP BE #5. Test 4

4

3

2

-- Exp tvie ". Layer height

........ FoS Timne Av g Layer Height

50 I 1ap ThUe v Ta.p

.FOS rme vw Avg T_upper A

0 5 10 15 20 D 5 10 15

Time (min) Time (min)

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

20

A-13
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

FMISNL Test Series

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

temperature and height were calculated using the standard method. The thermocouple arrays

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 falls within the smoke plume.

Figure A-12: Snapshot of the Simulation of FMISNL Test 5

Note the following:

* The HGL heights, both measured and predicted, are somewhat noisy because of the effect

of ventilation ducts in the upper layer.

* The ventilation was turned off after 9 minutes in Test 5, the effect of which was a slight

increase in both the measured and predicted HGL temperatures.

The measured HGL temperature was noticeably greater than the prediction in Test 21.

This is possibly attributable to an increase in the HRR toward the end of the test.

The simulations all used fixed HRRs after the 4-minute ramp-up.

I

A-14
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

100.

80

go.

260

0

HGL Temperature

FMSNL. Test 4

1m-imn. .FOS Loyer Ten'peratur

I- E~p Tin. ýs T-.pw~

6

HGL Height 5 FM/SNL, Test 4

4

_r3

2

Time s L.yer Haeih .FDS 

Exp Tir.o v Hoeght

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

100

8o

260

2

=• 40

0

20

100

80

2 60

CL 40 E

I20

0

HGL Temperature

FM/SNL. Test 5

2

% Oop•,

S FOS Trne w Laye Temperalur

... ExpnTme. Ts "rpper

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

HGL Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 21

". "'.-... ......

FOS Time Ln Cayer Tempe.urate

. E, Ti-e in T Lpp.r

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6

•4

'3

2

HGL Height

FM/SNL, Test 21

...... FOS r... v Layer Hetht

Tipn".me n H ghl ..

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

lime (min)

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

A-15
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

NBS Multi-Room Test Series

This series of experiments consists 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 bum 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 predictions [the array in the bum room (BR), the array in the middle

of the corridor (5.5 m (18 ft) from the BR), the array at the far end of the corridor (11.6 m (38 ft)

from the BR), and the array in the target room (TR)]. In Tests 1O0A and 1000, the target room

was closed, in which case, the array in the exit (EXI) doorway was used.

The test director reduced the layer information individually for the eight thermocouple arrays

using an alternative method 2

. These results are included in the original data sets. However,

for the current validation study, the selected TC trees were reduced using the conventional

method common to all the experiments considered. The results are presented below.

Figure A-14: Snapshot of the Simulation of NBS Multi-Room Test IOOZ

2 Peacock, R.D., and V. Babrauskas, "Analysis of Large-Scale Fire Test Data," Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 17,

pp. 387-414, 1991.

A-16
Technical Details of the FDS' Validation Study

400

300

LP

200

CL

Ea

100

0

Bum Room HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

Bum Room HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

-Evp Time vs Tree I Tvppe Fos Time vs Laeyr TemP 1

0 5 10 15 2(

rime (min)

-P

x

15

1.0

0.5

-E- p Time v Tr.e I Heiht

Time " Laerm Height 1 .FDS 

TehialDtil fth D VaidtonStd

0 0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

a

LD

CL

E

12

150

120

90

30

0

Tree 4 (Central Corridor) HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test I OOA

Exp Time vs Tree 4 Tupper FOS Time vs Layer Temp 4

0 5 10 15 2

Time (min)

09

z

2.0-

1.5.

1.0-

0.5-

Tree 4 (Central Corridor) HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

Up In. va T- 4 Height

I= F , Tim , Layer Height 4

0.0

0 0 5 10 15 2

Time (min)

0

150

Tree 5 (End of Corridor) HGL Temperature

NBS Mulbroom, Test 100A

Tree 5 (End of Corridor) HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

v)n

CL

E

12

^^

30 ̧ - Exp Time vs Tree 5 T_upper

FS ...Tme vs Layer Temp 5

0*

0 5 10 15 2

Time (rmin)

50 -

1.5 I; 15 K,

Exp Tim Tree 5 Height

...... FDS rim Layer Height 5 U.IJ

nn 4-

!0 0 5 10 is 20

Time (min)

1

120

E2

90.

60

30 -

0 ý.

Tree 6 (Open Exit Doorway) HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

- Exp Time vsTree 6 Tuppoe FoS Time vsLayer Temp 6

2.0

1.5

z 1.0 x

Tree 6 (Open E)dt Doorway) HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test I OOA

Ep Tim - Tree 6 Height

Fos Tim n Laye, Height 6

0 5 10 15 20

rime (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

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

A-17
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

2

Q.

E

0=

400

300

200

100

n

Bum Room HGL Temperature]

Ea Ti.e. Tree 1 Tjepar

Tir,.." Layer Tamp 1 ¶ .FOS 

2.0

1.5

'a 1.0 I

0.5

0.0

Bum Room HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 1000

- Exp Time - Tree I Heigit FDS Tim w Layer Heigot 1

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Tree 4 (Central Corridor) HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 1000

0 0 5 10 15 2

Time (rain)

0

15

12

a-

.2

10

E

0

6•

Tree 4 (Central Corridor) HGL Temperature

NBS Mul"iroom, Test 1000

10

50

-- Ex Time vW Tree 4 T_upper ...... FOS rimnevs Layer Tamp 4

2.0

1.5

"i 1.0

0.5

0.0

0 5 10 15 21

Time (min)

1401.

0

La

0.

120

90

60-

30,

0

Tree 5 (End of Corridor) HGL Temperature

NBS Muftiroom. Test 1000

-x Er, ime vs Trees5 Taupper Fos Tim .... nLayer Tamp 5

2.0

1.5

1.0 "3"

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

Eaxp Tie vs Tree 4 HeihI ...... FOS Time vs Layer He.eht 4

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Tree 5 (End of Coridor) HGL Height NBS Multiroom, Test 1000

Exp Time va ras5 HfitM FDS Time vs Layer Height 5

......... .° .................. ...°.°.........

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

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

)

4

0.5

0.0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

ThuI

a.

E

F?

Tree 6 (Closed Exit Doorway) HGL Temperature NBS Multiroom, Test 1000

120

.. ...o.. ..............

60

30

- Exp Time vs Tree 6 Taupper .FOS ime vs Layer Temp 6 n3

X,

2.0

Tree 6 (Closed Exit Doorway) HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 1000

1.0 ,, • I -- Fap imrevs TreeeSHe~rr1

05.

0.0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Figure A-16: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multi-Room Test 1000

A-18
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

CL

400

Bum Room HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom. Test 100Z

300

........

200

100

-Exp Tin, o Tree i Tyupp

.FDS Time -s Layer Teml I

0-

0 5 10 15 21

Time (min)

150i

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Bum Room HGL Height

NBS Mulfiroom. Test 10OZ

Exp Tree I Haight

...... FDS Tim n Layer Height I

U.v

0 0 5 10 is 21

Time (min)

Tree 4 (Central Corridor) HGL Height

NBS Multimom, Test 10OZ

0

Tree 4 (Central Corridor) HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

ign

a

LO 90

.2

1!

a

•" 15 J

.- =^

i .' .

C.

30

- - ,Exp Tim. vs Tree 4 Tspper

FoS Time w Layer Tap 4

m5 10 m 2)

Time (rain)

"1- o

0

1.0

0.5

Tim Tree 4 Height F --- --= Tim Layer Hoot 4

0 5 10 is 2

Time (min)

Tree 5 (End of Corridor) HGL Height

2.0 - NBS Mulfiroom, Test 10OZ

1.51

0

4

120

e 90

60

E

30

0

150

120

Tree 5 (End of Corridor) HGL Temperature

NBS Multiroom. Test 100Z

......... ..

f Exp rime vTree 5 T uppe"

FDS Timev Layer Tamp5

0 5 10 15 21

Time (min)

Target Room HGL Temperature NBS Multiroom, Test 10OZ

z

C'

"5 1.0

0.5

0

gn

Exp Tim n Tree 5 Height

FENS Tim w Layer Haight 5

0 5 10 15 2

Time (min)

Target Room HGL Height

NBS Multiroom. Test 10OZ

P

0

Note: Target R-m TC Tree tabeted as Tree 7 In experb-dal dataset

E• SO i --------- ...........

CM

z 1.0

0.5

0.0-

In E.p Tim Tree 7 Tuppw

...... FDS Time Layer Tamp 8

Exp Time v5 Tree 7 Height

...... Fos Tim " Lay., Height 8

0

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 Multi-Room Test IOOZ

A-19
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

Table A-1: Summary of HGL Temperature and Depth Comparisons

HGL Temperature Rise HL Depth~

AE AM Diff. AE AM Diff.

*C) (*c) V/.) (m) (m) (%)

Casel 55 66 21 14.6 14.9 3

U Case2 86 102 18 14.8 15.3 4

_m Case3 83 101 23 13.9 14.1 2

Test 1 123 125 2 3.0 3.0 -1

Test 7 117 122 5 3.1 3.0 -1

Test 2 229 220 -4 3.0 2.9 -3

Test 8 218 220 1 3.0 2.9 -2

Test 4 204 214 5 3.0 2.9 -2

Test 10 198 212 7 3.2 2.9 -9

Co Test 13 291 289 -1 3.0 2.9 -2

Uj Test 16 268 275 2 2.9 2.9 -1

CO Test 17 135 143 6 3.1 3.0 -3

Test 3 207 218 5 2.9 2.8 -3

Test 9 204 216 6 2.9 2.8 -4

Test 5 176 190 8 3.0 2.7 -10

Test 14 208 218 4 2.9 2.8 -3

Test 15 211 223 6 2.9 2.8 -3 F_ Test 18 193 213 10 2.9 2.9 -2

BE #4 Test 1 700 693 -1 4.2 4.6 10

BE #5 Test 4 151 166 10 4.3 4.1 -4

Test 4 59 58 -3 3.4 3.4 1

z Test 5 47 48 3 2.3 2.9 26 Test 21 66 53 -20 3.4 3.4 -1

BR 267 253 -5 1.2 1.1 -5

18 81 82 1 1.3 1.2 -8

38 75 75 0 1.4 1.4 0

E EXI 73 77 5 1.2 1.3 4 0

o BR 313 289 -8 1.2 1.2 6

18 98 94 -4 2.1 1.9 -10

38 93 92 -1 2.2 2.1 -7

U) EXI - 92 - 2.2 2.1 -4

z BR 260 234 -10 1.2 1.1 -2

18 65 75 16 1.2 1.2 -1 38 67 68 2 1.2 1.4 13

TR 35 40 14 1.5 1.5 -1

A-20
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

A.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature

FDS is a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model and has no explicit ceiling jet model.

Rather, temperatures throughout the fire compartment are computed directly from the governing

conservation equations. Nonetheless, temperature measurements near the ceiling can be used

to evaluate the model's ability to predict the flow of hot gases across a relatively flat ceiling.

Measurements for this category are available from ICFMP BE #3 and the FM/SNL series.

ICFMP BE #3

The thermocouple nearest the ceiling in Tree 7, located toward the back of the compartment, was

chosen as a surrogate for the ceiling jet temperature. Curiously, the difference between measured

and predicted temperatures is noticeably greater for the open-door tests. Certainly, the open door

changes the flow pattern of the exhaust gases. However, the predicted HGL heights

for the open-door tests, shown in the previous section, do not show a noticeable difference

from their closed-door counterparts. The predicted HGL temperatures are only slightly less than

those measured in the open-door tests, largely because of the contribution of Tree 7 in the layer

reduction calculation.

A-21
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

200

150

100

50

0

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test I

Exp Time vs Tree 7.10 FOS Time, Tr -10

200

150

e100

50

0

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3. Test 7

...

Exp Time w Tree 7-10

FOS Te eT, Tr7-10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10

E

e2

--- Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

300

200

100

- ep Time vsTree7I

.FDSTime mTr7-l101

0

INear-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

300

200

100

- Expflmeree 7-10

Time " Tr 7.10 .FOS 

v

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

Time (min) Time (min)

400 Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet) ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

300

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

S

I4uu Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet) ICFMP BE #3. Test 10

300

200

100

FDS Time rs Tr 7.10 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Z

E

INear-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

400

300

200

100

- Exp Trme ,e Tree 7.10

.FDS Timem Tr7.10

500

400

a 300

c- 200 E

1-

100

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3. Test 16

" FOS Time ,Tree7.10

I- -. .FDPimm

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-18: Near-Ceiling Gas Temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-22
Technical Details of the EDS Validation Study

300 Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

200

10 -

2100

04

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Open Door Tests to Follow

400

.300

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

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

~I -Exp Time mTree 7-10 SFDSTi-.mTr7-10

400 Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet) ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

300

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

CL

E

02

200

100

E

W

100

zuu too 100

- Exp Tim. . T 7.1

FOS Time " Tr 7.10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

L 200 0)

E 0

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

.. .................... ... ....................... - ' -...

F E. T.i. w T -o FIS Time. . h r 7-10

300

200

E

100

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

•~ FJqp Time. h re. 7-10

........ Foe. . Tm. Tr7-1 ..... 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400 400

2D

a

12

M

E

02

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

300

200 " .

=TxpTime Tree 7-10

FDS Tim. ns Tr 7-10 n

2

I--

Near-Ceiling Gas Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

ICFMP BE #3. Test 18

300

200

100

FOS Tim.. . Tr 7.10

V v

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-19: Near-Ceiling Gas Temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-23
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

FM/SNL Test Series

The near-ceiling thermocouples in Sectors 1 and 3 were chosen as surrogates for the ceiling jet

temperature. The results are shown below. The only noticeable discrepancy is in Test 21, and it

is the same pattern that was observed in the HGL temperature comparison for this test.

E

0

120 Near Ceiling Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

100 FM/SNL, Test 4

80

60

4- ...... F=STime Sectorl Chil

20 FDS Tim ve Secor3 Chl I - Exp Time vs 11(0.98 H)

- E.xp Timevs 11/(0.98 H)

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

120 Near Ceiling Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

100 FM/SNL, Test 21

80-

60

120

100

-. 80-

0

E 40-

20O

01

Near Ceiling Temperature (Ceiling Jet)

FMISNL, Test 5

w Sc Chi 

Sodo~rSChIl .

- Sp Time vs11(0.98 H)

- Sp Timeo 11/(0.98 H)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

...... FOS Tim vs Sectorl Chl

20 J FOS Time vs Sedor3 Chl

Exp Time v 1/(0.98 H)

Exp Time "s 11/(0.98 H)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-20: Near-Ceiling Gas Temperatures, FMISNL Series, Sectors I and 3

A-24
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

Table A-2: Summary of Ceiling Jet Temperature Comparisons

Ceiling Jet Temperature Rise

AE AM Diff.

(°C) (oC) (%)

Test 1 155 148 -4

Test 7 139 145 4

Test 2 271 258 -5

Test 8 247 259 5

Test 4 229 241 5

Test 10 218 244 12

W Test 13 330 337 2

Test 16 278 303 9

Test 17 156 184 18 LL

Test 3 241 268 11

Test 9 235 264 12

Test 5 208 243 17

Test 14 241 271 13

Test 15 244 270 11

Test 18 235 269 15

Test4 Sec 1 82 88 7

. Sec 3 66 69 5

z Test Sec I 70 66 -6

Sec 3 53 50 -6

u_ Sec I 75 62 -17 Ts Sec 3 77 63 -19

A-25
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

A.3 Plume Temperature

Plume temperature measurements are available from ICFMP BE #2 and the FM/SNL series.

For all other series of experiments, the temperature above the fire was not reported, or the fire

plume leaned because of the flow pattern within the compartment, or the fire was positioned

against a wall. Only for BE #2 and the FNMSNL series are the plumes relatively free from

perturbations.

ICFMP BE #2

BE #2 consisted of liquid fuel pan fires conducted in the middle of a large fire test hall. Plume

temperatures were measured at two heights above the fire, 6 m and 12 m (19.7 ft and 39.4 ft).

The flames extended to about 4 m (13.1 ft) above the fire pan. FDS over-predicts the 6-m

measurement by 20% to 30%. This is a challenging prediction because the temperature

decreases rapidly just above the flame tip (Figure A-2 1). The 12-m measurement is less

challenging because the temperatures are not decreasing as rapidly at this height.

Figure A-21: Photographs of Fire Plumes in ICFMP BE #2

(Courtesy of Simo Hostikka, VTT Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland.)

A-26
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

The FM-SNL Test Series

In Tests 4 and 5, thermocouples were positioned near the ceiling directly over the fire pan.

In Test 21, the fire was located within an empty electrical cabinet, and the closest near ceiling

thermocouple was used to assess the "plume" temperature. Note that in Test 5, the FDS plume

temperature curve was smoothed to better assess the relative difference between the peak values

of the model and the measurement.

500

400

2 300

E 200

100

0

500

400

2 300

E 200

100

0

~A.

a)

a

2

a

I4 6

Time (min)

8 10

Plume Temperatures * Exp Time vs T G.1

ICFMP BE #2. Case 2 E. FZPTimST G2 - FDSTme T G.1

- FDS Time vs T G.2

zuu Plume Temperature

FM/SNL. Test 4

150

~.•

100

50

- Eop rma vs 281(0.98 H)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time (min)

200

Plume Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 5

150

100 . ....

50

Timev Station 13. Ch 2S .FDS - Sp T-mn v281(0.98 H)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time (min)

200

Plume Temperature

FMISNL, Test 21

1¢'n

2

E

a)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

400

2 300

E& 200

E

Plume Temperatures Eip Time vs T G..

ICFMP BE #2, Case 3 V ExPlb vvTG.2

FDS Tmem T G.1

- FOS Time T G.2

2

Ea

LD

E

9

100 +

inn

50 / FDS lm vs Sed(02 Ch) . - Sp lime vs 6/(0.98 H)

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-22: Plume Temperature, ICFMP BE #2 (Left) and the FM/SNL Series (Right)

A-27
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

Table A-3: Summary of Plume Temperature Comparisons

AE

(CC)

AM

(OC)

Diff.

(%)

T G.1 166 215 30 T G.2 77 91 18

wU Case 2 T G.1 288 362 26

Ca T G.2 128 140 9,

T G.1 252 329 31 T G.2 128 148 16

Test4 Ch 28 114 124 9

z Test 5 Ch 28 93 104 12 U) Test 21 Ch 6 78 67 -14

A-28
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

A.4 Flame Height

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

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

Similarly, flame height in FDS is assessed using the visualization program Smokeview.

There are various ways to render the fire in Smokeview. The most direct method is to show,

via three-dimensional surface plots, the volume within which the energy from the fire is being

released. The other method is to show the stoichiometric iso-surface of the mixture fraction.

FDS tracks the fuel and oxygen via a single scalar variable called the mixture fraction.

The stoichiometric iso-surface is essentially a sheet on which combustion occurs. The average

vertical extent of either the volume in which energy is being released or the stoichiometric

mixture fraction iso-surface is the FDS predicted flame height.

ICFMP BE #2

Shown in Figure A-23 are snapshots from the simulation of the 1.6-m (5.2-ft) diameter heptane

pan fire. The pan has been approximated as a square because of the requirement by FDS

of rectangular geometry. Figure A-24 contains photographs of the actual fire. The height of

the visible flame in the photographs has been estimated to be between 2.4 and 3 pan diameters

[3.8 in to 4.8 m (12.5 ft to 15.8 ft)]. The height of the simulated fire fluctuates from 5 m to 6 in

(15.4 ft to 19.7 ft) during the peak heat release rate phase.

Figure A-23: Snapshots of Fire from ICFMP BE #2, Case 2 Simulation

A-29
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

Figure A-24: Photographs of Heptane Pan Fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2

(Courtesy of Simo Hostikka, VTT Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland.)

A-30
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

ICFMP BE #3

No measurements of flame height are reported for BE #3, but numerous photographs are available.

These photographs provide at least a qualitative assessment of the FDS flame height prediction.

Figure A-25: Photograph and Simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3,

as seen through the 2 m x 2 m doorway (Photo courtesy of Francisco Joglar, SAIC.)

A-31
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

A.5 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration

FDS uses a mixture fraction combustion model, meaning that all gas species within the compartment

are assumed to be functions of a single scalar variable. FDS solves only one transport equation

for this variable, and reports gas concentrations at any given point at any given time by extracting

its value from a pre-computed "lookup" table. For the major species, like carbon dioxide

and oxygen, the predictions are essentially an indicator of how well FDS is predicting the bulk

transport of combustion products throughout the space. For minor species, like carbon monoxide

and soot, FDS Version 4 does not account for changes in combustion efficiency, relying only on

fixed yields of carbon monoxide and soot from the combustion process. In reality, the generation

rate of carbon monoxide and soot change depending on the ventilation conditions in the compartment.

The following pages present comparisons of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentration predictions

with measurement for BE #3 and BE #5. In BE #3, there are two oxygen measurements, one in

the upper layer and one in the lower layer. There is only one carbon dioxide measurement

in the upper layer. For BE #5, Test 4, a plot of upper-layer oxygen and carbon dioxide is included

along with the results for BE #3.

All of the comparisons are for single-point measurements. Unlike the HGL temperature,

there were only single-point measurements made in either the upper or lower layers

of the compartment.

A-32
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

0.25

0.20

0

O 0.15

ILL

0.10

0.05

02 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3. Test 1

- Exp Tim v 02-1 .......... I

- Exp Time vs 02-2

- Exp Timn vs C02-4

FOs Tim vs O2I

FOS Tim vs 022

FDSTmvsCO24 ..

U.' 02 and CO2 Concentration

n I ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

a

0

0.15

ILE 0.10.

.2

0.05

0.00

- ExpTimvs 02-1

- ELp Timn v" 02.2

-- Tpime vs CO2-4

FDS Tim vs 02 1

Tim n 02 2 .FOS 

... FOS Time vn CO2 4

0.00 -

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0.25 02 and CO. Concentraton

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0.20

0.15 .• A

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

C

0

t

ILL

(a

.5

0

- Evp Timens 02.1

-- Ep Ti•m vn 02-2

ExpTime vCO2-4

Fos Tim. " 02 1

. FO Tim vs 022 FoS Time vs CO2 4

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

-2

0.05

0.00

02 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

E. .T.• w o2-1

-- EpTime " 02•2

.E..pTime vs 02-4

Ti a "s02 1 .

FOS Time vs 022 FDS rm vs CO24

O.UU

0 5 10 15 20 25 3C

Time (min)

0.25

02 and CO 2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0.25

02 and CO2 Concentratior

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10 0.20

C

0 0.15

u.

0.10

0.05

0.00

0

• -w -- EUp Timev 02-1

- Exp Tim vs02.2

Exp Ti.r vs C02-4

SFDS Tim vs 2 1 FDS Tim vs O22

F.S Tm, w C02 4

0

0.10

0.05

0.00

- EFxpTimevw02.1

Exp Time vs 02.2 - Ep Time vs CO2-4 .... FoeTime s 2 I FoS TlmevsO22

FDSTe vs CO24

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0.25

a

0

E

0.25 02 and CO 2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0.20

0.15 - VEp Time vs 02.1

-E~pTim - 02.2 ..- 0 Exp Time" C02-4 0.10..................FDSTime vsO21

. FDS Tim vs 022

0.05 F..FDS Tim. " CO24

/

0.25

0.20

0.15

E0.10

"5

02 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

- Exp Time w O2.1

- Exp Time vs O2-2

--- Ep Timn vs C02-4

FDSTimvsO21

FOS Tim nvs 022 FoS Time vs CO24

0.05

n nn ,'

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-26: 02 and CO 2 Concentrations, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-33
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

0.25

0.20

0 0.15

E 0.10

0.05

0.00

0.25

0.20

0

S0.15

IL

0.10

0.05

02 and CO 2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

- Eip Time •02.1

-Ep~i-r".CO2-4

......- FoS Time vs 02 1

.FoS Timevs 02 2

... FDS Time s C02 4

0.25

0.20

0

1 0.15

ILL0.10-

0.05

02 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

-- lru Tipm GA 2-02

- Exp Time vs GA 2-C02

Time v, GA2-02 .

Time vs GA2-C02 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

02 and C02 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Tet3....

U.UU

0.25

0 5 10 15 21

Time (min)

0

- Ep Tim" v02.2

.ExpTim w C02-4

.FDSTim-w02; .F3S Tim we022 Fos ...Tim "C02 4

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.I

02 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

20

,.. ......

15Ep TIm - 02-1 - Exp Timevs 02-2 10.... Exp Tim n C02.4

FDS Time 02-1

Tma022 .FDS Time " CCO24 .FOS 

05

0.00 M

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

050 and C02 Concentration JCFMP BE #3. Test5

0 " 0 .... ..................

00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

0.1

IL

_ 0.1

00

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

5 - EV Tim ~02'1 - SEp rime" 02'2

0-SExp Time" C02-4

0 FOSrim. . 02 2 SFosTim vs 02 4

0.25

0.20

0

0.15

0.10

0.05

02 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Exp Time 02-1

- Sxp Time w 02-2

- Exp Time. C02-4

FoS Time w 021 FOS Timeve022

Tinew C024 

0ti0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

0.25 -

02 02 and CO2 Concentration

020 I B .................. .. CFM P BE #3. Te • s. t.8..

0.25

0.20

I 0.15

E 0.10

0.05

02 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

- Exp Time vs02.1 -Ep 1"lie v-s 2-2 Exp Time u 002.4

FOS Timevs 02 1

Timev .FDS 022

.FDSTimeusCO24

0.15

LL

S0.10.

0.05

0.00

-- Exp Tim• 0s2-1 - Sxp Time vs 02-2

-,p Thme vs C02-4

.... F[TmevsC02.1

FoS Time vsO22 

.... FDS Time vs 0024

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

Figure A-27: 02 and CO 2 Concentrations, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

(Note that the single test from ICFMP BE #5 is included at the upper right.)

A-34
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

Table A-4: Summary of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Comparisons

E GL C 2 EHOL0 2 Concentration LML 02 ConceMtratlon

Concentration Decrease Dcrease

AE Diff. AE AM Diff. AE AM Diff. (moI/ (moll (mol/ (moll (moll (moll

tmol) mol) mo) mol) ( mol) mol)

Test 1 0.038 0.044 15 0.065 0.076 16 0.055 0.067 23

Test 7 0.038 0.043 13 0.064 0.074 15 0.054 0.068 25

Test 2 0.054 0.057 4 0.092 0.097 5 - 0.084 -

Test 8 0.058 0.057 -1 0.096 0.098 2 0.079 0.086 8

Test 4 0.047 0.042 -11 0.079 0.072 -8 0.068 0.059 -14

0 Test 10 0.047 0.043 -8 0.079 0.073 -8 0.066 0.059 -11

W Test 13 0.060 0.059 -2 0.101 0.101 0 0.080 0.089 12

Test 16 0.055 0.047 -15 0.091 0.080 -12 0.078 0.069 -11

Test 17 0.022 0.022 0 0.033 0.034 1 0.028 0.024 -14

0 Test 3 0.031 0.032 4 0.052 0.055 6 0.006 0.006 13

Test 9 0.031 0.031 0 0.054 0.054 -1 0.006 0.006 1

Test 5 0.017 0.028 63 0.030 0.049 60 0.003 0.006 67

Test 14 0.032 0.034 5 0.055 0.058 5 0.006 0.005 -8

Test 15 0.031 0.034 10 0.052 0.059 14 0.006 0.006 -1

Test 18 0.031 0.033 9 0.051 0.057 13 0.004 0.004 -6

BE #5, Test 4 0.013 0.016 20 0.023 0.027 14

A-35
Technical Details of the-FDS Validation Study

A.6 Smoke Concentration

FDS treats smoke like all other combustion products, basically a tracer gas for which the mass

fraction is a function of the mixture fraction. To model smoke movement, the user need only

prescribe the smoke yield (that is, the fraction of the fuel mass that is converted to smoke particulate).

For the simulations of BE #3, the smoke yield is specified as one of the test parameters.

Figure A-28 and Figure A-29 contain comparisons of measured and predicted smoke concentration

at one measuring station in the upper layer. There are two obvious trends in the figures.

First, the predicted concentrations are about 50% higher than the measured in the open-door tests.

Second, the predicted concentrations are roughly three times the measured concentrations

in the closed-door tests.

As a contrast, Figure A-30 displays the time history of carbon monoxide concentration for six

of the BE #3 tests. Like smoke, the carbon monoxide concentration is specified in FDS

via a fixed yield, measured along with smoke and reported in the test document. The large differences

between model and measurement seen in the smoke data do not appear in the carbon monoxide data.

A-36
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

400 .v

E 30

20

OE 10 U)

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

O0 ..... D Time "• Smoke Con nta. l ..............

F- Ep Time w Smoke Conca.

0 " i .. S , . n."

tO0..".....

.....

4UU Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

E

€0

E0

U)

S sExp Tirn. Smoke Conc.ntration ............

200

100

U

40

2(

0

a)

o 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

0

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

30

O0

o " "• -'-~,.sok.oa

FoS Time . n Smoke concentmtin 0*

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

400

Time (rain)

E300

" 200

E 100

u)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

"• 200

0

~100

0

0

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

E- p Time aa Smoke Cone Time an .FOS Smoke Concentration

400

5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

2~00

IE100.

U)

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

E300

p 200

0

E 100 Ca

).

A

0 5 10 15 20 25

E 300

- 2200

E00

0

- Ca

0D

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

--- FSDp TimC s Sok. Con.

'S mo ke. oak. tatio n ..

".. F:. 

0

30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (rain)

Figure A-28: Smoke Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-37
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

C

E

wn

3000

Smoke Concentration

2500 ICFMP BE#3. Test 17

2000

1500

1000 -I ETimo Smoke Coo

FDS Time n Smite Conetration

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

.Ann.

Open Door Tests to Follow

4- 251 E

9201

151

.0 10101

0

E

Un 50

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

x-• Time w Smoke Coc. FDS Time vs Smoke Conentfreion

0

Een

!Smoke Concentration

250 ICFMP BE #3. Test 9

200

150 "1'. " '-.*..... - ....-

100 "

50 EoP Time vSmoke Co-c

Time ws Smoke Concentraton .FDS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

E

0

E

C')

300

250

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

210

150 ,.•-

300

250 E

E 200

150

100- 0

E

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3. Test 14

IUU

An . 0) S ....... - pFD Time no Smoke Cowo. Timen Smoke .FDS Con-tnkelon

n 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

h. 250 E

E 200

'M150

CD

_o 100

E

n 50

0. 0

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3. Test 15

50 I - Exp Time mo Smoke Conc. Time no Smoke Conenrelion .FOS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 3X

Time (min)

300 Smoke Concentration

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

200

150 ." .. . -............ . ... ........

100

0-- opTime ", Smoke Conc. Time ns Smoke Concentraion .FOS 

0.I

0

- E. p Time " Smoke Co, .

Time. s ...- Smoke Conr•nreion

.>,

E

C3

0

E

U)

r k

5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-29: Smoke Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-38
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

Table A-5: Summary of Smoke Concentration Comparisons

AE AM Diff.

(mg/m3) (mg/m 3) (%)

Test 1 42 283 582

Test 7 55 279 406

Test 2 128 303 137

Test 8 100 296 197

Test 4 80 230 188

= Test 10 71 231 -227

w Test 13 224 291 30

a. Test 16 139 224 61

Test 17 353 2164 513

Test 3 118 163 38

Test9 117 160 37

Test 5 87 162 86

Test 14 91 183 101

Test 15 123 163 32

Test 18 110 156 " 42

A-39
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

500

400

CCL

o 300

L. 200

E

.5

too

0

500

'400

CL

co 300

CO Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

S FDS Time ssCO 3

500

-= 400

C.

CL

300

0t. 200

E

>100.

CO Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

-p oTim~e -CO-3

CO 3 .

f

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

CO Concentration

ICFMP BE #3. Test 16

- Exp Time vs CO-3

... FOS Time vs CO

a.

a.

C

CO Concentration

ICFMP BE #3. Test 17

800

600 •

0

E

"5

200

inrn

S00

LL 400

E0

200

0

-EoplTim. s C0.3

Fos TIms-CO 3-

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

Time (min) Time (min)

rnn

-400

CL

CL

o 300

L. 200

> 100

0

CO Concentration

ICFMP BE #3. Test 15

-EF imovs CO-3

Time- CO 3 .FD 

500

400

o 300

LL 200

E

> 100

CO Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

-- Ex TknwCO-3

lm.s CO 3 .FoS 

hat'.

0. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-30: CO Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Closed Door (Top Four)

and Open Door (Bottom Two) Tests

I

A-40
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

A.7 Compartment Pressure

Experimental measurements for room pressure are only available from the ICFMP BE #3 test series.

The pressure within the compartment is measured at a single point, near the floor. In the simulations

of the closed-door tests, the compartment is assumed to leak via a small uniform flow spread

over the walls and ceiling. The flow rate is calculated based on the assumption that the leakage rate

is proportional to the measured leakage area times the square root of compartment over-pressure:

V= A, /2(p- 0p )/p.

Comparisons between measurement and prediction are shown in Figure A-31 and Figure A-32.

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

Pascals, whereas when the door is closed, the over-pressures are several hundred Pascals.

Note that in the closed-door tests, there is often a dramatic drop in the predicted compartment

pressure. This is the result of the assumption in FDS that the heat release rate was decreased to zero

in 1 second at the time in the experiment when the fuel flow was stopped for safety reasons.

In reality, the fire did not extinguish immediately because there was an excess of fuel in the pan

following the flow stoppage. For the purpose of model comparison, the peak over-pressures

are compared in the closed-door tests, and the peak (albeit small) under-pressures are compared

in the open-door tests.

A-41
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

4•

I1.

IWu Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

50

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

-50

- EVp Time vs CompP .... FOS Tim. vs Pressure -100,,

Cs

a.

0

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3. Test 7

s0

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

-50"

-Eo Time " CompP

too†7FOS Tims vs P~ssre -1,.v

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rmin)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

200

0. = 0

-200

-400

Compartment Pressure

1ý%MP BE #3. Test 2

Y Exp Time n Comp!P

FOS Tim ý Pýure

400

200

0-

-200

-400

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

- FDS Time vs CompP

vs P~ress †rsTi

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

S.

aCompartment Pressure ICFMP BE #3. Test 4

100

.rS Tim. vs Pressu.r

Cs

a.

0I

-2

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

100

-•................

too i

-Exp Time vsC=sP

vsPý.MI~ .FOSTIMe 

-200 200 "" .L

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

200

(0 o I 0

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

/

400

200 Cs

0

12 0

a.

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

-ZUU .

.4-0- -4° •I ..... FD Exp Time TiT e vs ,Pressu CompP re

_'UU1

..- EpTime CompP

-i.. FOS Time vs Prssure -400n0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rmin)

f

Figure A-31: Compartment Pressure, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-42
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

400

200

0

-400

Compartment Pressure.

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

- Exp Time Compp Time .FOS "s Presse

Open Door Tests to Follow

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

lime (min)

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

a. -2' ' .-- ..

- Exp Time s CompP

FoS Time" vsssure -3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

I0

a.

C2

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

-1

-2.

-Eep Time vs ComrpP [

Time 's Pressre .FDS 

-3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

I I

L2

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0 Lii " - -',. a;• i :

2

-- ExpTim ComlP

Time s Prssure .FOS 

0

7

(0

S-1

al.

Compartment Pressure ICFMP BE #3. Test 14

-3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Exp Time s CompP I

Time ns PressreI .FoS -3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Compartment Pressure

ICFMP BE #3. Test 18

0

.1 -A

a.

a.

Compartment Pressure .. ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

-1 .

UpTim vCcmPP

Fos TimeoPreoUe -

0

a.

0

0

-2

-3

K "" " I"'......... €... . - Exp Time vs CompP

FoS Time "s Piess:ue

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-32: Compartment Pressure, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-43
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

Table A-6: Summary of Pressure Comparisons

Compartment Prssure Rise

AE AM Diff.

(Pa) (Pa) (%)

Test 1 58 40 -31

Test 7 46 28 -38

Test 2 290 231 -20

Test 8 189 198 5

Test 4 57 45 -20

Test 10 49 22 -56

W Test 13 232 268 16

n Test 16 81 235 191

u. Test 17 195 112 -42

C) Test 3 -1.9 -2.3 22

Test 9 -2.0 -2.3 19

Test 5 -1.8 -1.5 -17

Test 14 -2.1 -2.4 15

Test 15 -2.4 -2.9 23

Test 18 -2.0 -2.7 32
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

A.8 Target Temperature and Heat Flux

Target temperature and heat flux data are available from ICFMP BE #3, BE #4, and BE #5.

In BE #3, the targets were various types of cables in various configurations - horizontal,

vertical, in trays, or free-hanging. In BE #4, the targets were three rectangular slabs of different

materials instrumented with heat flux gauges and thermocouples. In BE #5, the targets were

again cables, in this case, bundled power and control cables in a vertical ladder.

ICFMP BE #3

For each of the four cable targets considered, measurements of the local gas temperature, surface

temperature, radiative heat flux, and total heat flux are available. The following pages display

comparisons of these quantities for Control Cable B, Horizontal Cable Tray D, Power Cable F,

and Vertical Cable Tray G.

FDS does not have a detailed solid phase model that can account for the heat transfer within

the bundled, cylindrical, non-homogenous cables. For the bundled cables within horizontal

and vertical trays (Targets D and G), FDS assumes them to be rectangular slabs of thickness

comparable to the diameter of the individual cables. For the free-hanging Cables B and F,

FDS assumes them to be cylinders of uniform composition into which it computes the radial

heat transfer as a function of the heat flux to a designated location.

The superposition of gas temperature, heat flux, and surface temperature in the figures

on the following pages provides information about how cables heat up in fires. Favorable

or unfavorable predictions of cable surface temperatures can often be explained in terms of

comparable errors in the prediction of the thermal environment in the vicinity of the cable.

A-45
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

200

150

2 100

E

50

0

2.5

2.0

1.5

L 1.0

I

0.5

0.0

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test I

.

-EaP Tim.e " Tra.e- reTi, .Fos 44d

Z

IW Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

150

100

50

- Eap Time vTree 4-8

FD Ti Tr 4-8 .....

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

,)

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

-Exp Time va Cable Total Fluux 4 - Exp Time w;Cable Red Gouge3 Time va Total .Fos Flu, Gauge 4

Time ws Red .F Gauge 3

2.0

E

1.5

L 1.0

0.5

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

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

Time .UP .s Cable Total Ff.4 ...... SUP Time "s Cable Red Gauge 3

Time v" Red Gauge.Fslev 3llu~ae .FOS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

^^^

Z

E=

IuuControl Cable B Surface Temperature lCFMP BE #3, Test 1

150

1150 .'•

- Exp Time vs B-T14

0 . ..... FDS Tmee vs B T.-14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

0

.L0.=

EI

a.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200 Conlrol Cable B Surface Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

150

50

Exp_•. Time w 8-Ts-'14

FDS Time "va B T.-14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (a)

Figure A-33: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests I and 7

A-46
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

300

250

~.200

150

E0 100

50

0

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

I~o jOTm ~vs Tr4.8

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

a-., A

0. ex

E

0

1~u

100

xp Time " Treee 4-8

FDS "brne w T, 4-8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

8,

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

,r 6 E

4

"2

2

E

,T

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

lCFMP BE #3, Test 8

6 EV T a ve Cable Toted Flux 4

r:,P T: , Cable Red Gauge 3

FOS Tim, vs Total IF[= Gauge 4

Fos Tim vs Red Gauge 3

2

UJ

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

lime (min)

;.uu Control Cable B Surface Temperatures

I CFMP BE #3, Test 2 250.

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

tCFMP BE #3, Test 8

200

150

E 100

5-

50

.E"P Time w e-T.4

Tim e. 3 Te.14 .FOS 

0

ouU

200

150 "- 0.

100

0-

50

0

Is....

- Exp .nTe vs B-T.-14 FOS Time 8. e Ts.14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (a)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

Figure A-34: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8

A-47
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

300

250

• 200

150

E 100)

50

50

8

6 E

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

_ •:t.o -

~.25

I!15

EI

010

)0

50

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3. Test 10

\ý .........--

J E- I-'- -b,, Tm-5 I FOS rm." . Tr4-8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

to0 ~ ~ ~ E~~,.,r4-8 x T" 

-Tr 44 .FOSThn.v 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Total and Rad. Heat Flux to Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

-- E pThm.,.. ToI Fin 4

E.p Tb..e. CaWW Rad GC-p 3

.... FDS lb.,. To- FkR Gup 4 ...... FDS 1bme w Rod Ckp 3

8

•6

E

£4

LL

0r

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3. Test 10

[ -E* -- Eq)Th0.,.iCab!Tol~lFk. Thme C"• Rd C-9.l 4 3 - 6..... mF."ri vsT~l e ldtGau.ge

Tb,.., Tow Mb. G- Og4 .FOS ..... FDT . Rad Gu. 3

. .-....-..-. b.

"1"- 4 

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300 Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4 250

200

150

100

50 - Exp Ti.m.e e -T.-14 0...STime =.sT1-14 0, , ,

X

I/f *.:::..

n

E

IT

E

02

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300 Control Cable B Surface Temperature

25 ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

250

100

• -. Esp Tim.'.. -T.-14

Time .Sa T.-14 .FDS 

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-35: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10

(Note the influence of the fan on the gas and surface temperatures.)

A-48
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

400

300

200

0.

E

I•100

0

10

8

E

LL 4

2

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

A

400

300

5 200

S0. E

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

EopTime w Tre 4-8

FDSTime n Tr 4-8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

100

0

- Ep Time . Tree 4-8

FOS Time - Tr 4-8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

in

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

(CFMP BE #3, Test 13

UEP Time: Cable Totat Flux 4

S - EXp Time vsCable Rad Gouge 3 Time .FOS ts Total Flux Gauge 4

FoS Timev Red Gauge 3

1

'C

mE

S

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

8

6 - Exp Tim w Cable Total Flux 4 6 i E 'p ime Cable Rad Gauge 3

F05 Time "s Total Flux Gauge 4 ....... 

FOS Time v Rad Gauge 3

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 Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

Extp Time vs B-Te-14 .... FOS Ti.. vs 8 T-14-

E

1!

40U Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3. Test 16

300

200

100 B

... - ExpTimevse.BTs-14

FDS Tim, B Ts.14 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

Figure A-36: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16

(Note the influence of the fan in Test 16.)

A-49
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

400

300

S200

E

100

0

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

.

FSTewT4-8 .. .... 

400,a eprtr ea oto al

K

E

I-.

"-Gas Temperature near Control Cable 8 ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

300

20010° •' 2 0. ... ... .. .. -. . . . ... . . . . . .

100

- Exp Time " Tree 448

FDS Time " Tr 4.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

8

4-

E

8 Total and tive Heal Rux to Control Cable B 6ICFMP BE #3, es

Ex i - abe dGage3.; . .....

Tin. n Total Finn Gauge .2s 4

Time aRed Gauge 3 .FOS 

'j.

E

x

An

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

6

....... ... ...... "" '

2 - EaPTimeCableTotal Flux 4

- E•pT"meno Cable Rod Gauge 3 Time as Total Fhnx Gauge 4 .FOS 

Gauge 3 .PD~moRed 

0 0.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Ld

E

400• Control Cable B Surface Temperature ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

300

200

100F B

ETime p- a-To-11 .FOS Time avB Ts-114

400. Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

L 200

0-0

E

100-

0 .

- EpTimavag-T-14

ws BT.-14-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

rime (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

rime (s)

Figure A-37: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9

A-50
Technical Details of the EDS Validation Study

400

300

200

E

•-100

x4

L2

0

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

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

... ...

--w-T4-8 " rim. 

.FOSTInm - Tr4-8

400

300

(2

L 200 0

EIOD

100

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

- Ep Trie ,t Tree 4-8

.FOS 

Tim n Tr 4-8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

mE

.2

LL

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

6

24 ./ . .. . ..... 1 "' ......... ..... ... -............. 3 •".. 

."I- -p- nCi ,To W ý 4

TýFb.C.ge3 .FDSThU

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

S200

E

100

0

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

,,-........................... ......

~ F Tim, -e B T..14

0

I--

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

300

200

100

E rp Time B.T.14 -s 

FoS Tin, a 8s Ts.14 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

Figure A-38: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14

(Note the influence of the fan in Test 5.)

A-51
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

1000

800

S600

E & 4

200

0

.A.

Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Sp x Tie vs Tree 4.8

E

12

400 Gas Temperature near Control Cable B

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

300

200 ..

100

-Exp Time wTree 4-8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

B0 .

a

I

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable B

ICFl•lP BE #3, Test 15

60r

Exp Time w Cable Red Gauge 3 FoS Tie vsTota Flux Gauge 4

40 FoS Th.: vsRad Gaugo 3

20 -.

n

CoE

(D

X

an aitv be et sTotal Flu oCoto Ca ble B .O 

E 3,Tmevstad 18 .F0P 

0

ROfl 

• • i , , , I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

ROO

Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

400. 4 Control Cable B Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

300•

400 a

~300

E 200-

100

0-

4 .-- -,.

I T vs

Lu 200

E

100

F-os Tm .1

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

Figure A-39: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18

(Note that the cable was very close to the fire in Test 15.)

A-52 I
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

200

150

S100- CL

E

50 -

0-

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test I

-.

.FOt= me=e,,-9

200

150

J! 100

E

50O

0-

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

xSp Time v Tree 3-9

3.9 .FOSTim

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

3.0

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

.r,

mE

0A

Gauge 8 InOPM O .......

2.0

1.0 A --- ýý 1.

FoS Times Total FlwcG ugeS

0.5 . ....... FoS Time v Rod Gauge 7 l: I - Exp Time vs Cable Total Flu. 8

.0 - e Tnme w, Cable Red Gup 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3. Test 1

150

Themoeueple InoperaItm

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

50

--"Ep Tim en-.T.12 FDS TtneueDTe12

3.0

2.5

E 2.0

x 1.5

CD 1 ,0 0

0.5

0.0

200

150

100

E

Q; 50

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

....... FDST Te R I' l- Gau.e 7 1 "

/ -Exp Tim " Cable Pted Gauge 7

E

12

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

lCFMP BE #3, Test 7

• •p Timeh vsDTe-12 FOS Timvs DT&-12

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-40: Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests I and 7

A-53
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

400

300

2

• 200 a.

E

100-

0-

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray 0

ICFMP BE #3. Test 2

- Ev Time n Tree 3.9 .FD5T noevwTr3-9

* 400

300

a

La 200 a.

0

100

0

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray 0

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

. E. p T-. Tree .50Tm

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10

8

E

LL 4

2

0

Total and Radi yve Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3. lst 2

.FDSTimeh TotalFluxGaugel8

ewT .501 alRdGLoge7 -Exp Time "n Cable Total Flux 8 F- EnTi~e wCable Red Gouge 7

10

8

4.

2

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3. Test 8

FDS TinievsTotaI ShotGauge S

Tme•Nw edGauge 7 .FS 

E- xp Time vs Cable Tote Flu 8

-EiipTime neCableRod Gauge 7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

200

E

100

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

Time. .Fos anD Ts-12

400

300

200

E

100

Cable Tray 0 Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

- Sxp Tabs an O-Ts-12 FTime . D T.-12 ..

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-41: Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8

A-54
Technical Details of the EDIS Validation Study

Atm Gas Temperature near Cable Tray 0 •v!Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

300

th," C2

.

I--

1'

10-4

xp Time vS Tree 3.9 .... FOS Time nT, 3-9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

2

CIL

E

400 Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

300

200

100

- Exp Time vs" Te 3-9

FoS Time " Tr 3-9

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

1(0

8

1L47

E

2

0

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Tr- .FOS Red G-g. 7

- pThee C*I.e T(• FA. 8

-E.PTl. CNN. R ..-. 7

4-

E

I"

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

8 .FDS ThwTorR.G.Qg.S

.FOS Tm.. Red G.u.4 7

.]. ,--Ev Tý , C.M. T.W Fk. 8

6 - EPThemC6i•,RAdGMPU7

4 IF

2 -

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

•300

"200

CE

100

0

0

ICable Tray D Surface Temperature ICFMP BE #3. Test 10

300

200

100

E, Tim. - DTs.12

-FOSTime.-OTe-12 A1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-42: Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10

A-55
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

400

-300

200

C- E

100

0

14

12

~10

rL 6

S4

2

0

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

-Exp Tim~e V8 Tree 3.9

0 5 10 15 20 25 3C

Time (min)

400

300

2.

a

La200

E

100

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

- EepTimevsTree 3- 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D !CFMP BE #3. Teat 13

Fos Time vs Total Rux Gauge 8

FoS Tie vs RauGauge 7

- Exp Tim• Ca•e RTotal Fue -Ep rim vs Cable Red Gauge 7

14

12

10

04

2

0

TA

IC

otal and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

:FMP BE #3. Test 16

SAl

Timn, vs Total Flux Gaugee8 .FO

Time vs Red Gauge 7 .FOS 

- E pTime Cable Tota Flux 8

.- Ep Time vs Cable Red Gauge 7

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 13

...... .....

FSp Ti.evsO.Te-12

Fo FOT_. OTo-12

4O

30

2Q.

12E

0O Cable Tray D Surface Temperature ICFMP BE #3. Test 16

00

)0

)0

-- C Time vs D-Tw-12 Time vs 0 Te-12 .FDS 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-43: Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16

A-56
Technical Details of the EDS Validation Study

400

300

E

S2O

1 200

0

a.

6

0

=10

8

E400

300

C.

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9 ........

E

0 l-.

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

1

10

8

U- 4

I 2

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Teat 9

.F.STme.vsToa F Gauge .

FDS Time vs Red Gauge 7 - Exp Time Cable Total Fhx 8

- ExS Time vs Cable Red Gauge7

-r

FoS Time s ToRd Fi Gauge

0 r im0 nCable T 20l 2Fl 3 Exp rmv vs Cable Red Gauge?

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

200

E

100

40

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

-Exp Timse n D-Tv- Fos Time . D Te12

3(.

L 2C

E

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

O0 Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

t0

10 .... .",,..,.

0 n4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-44: Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9

A-57
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

300

L 200 0

C8

E

100

0

10

8

E

LL4

2

0

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

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

Exp rime vs Tree 3.9

FDSTime " Tr 3-9

400

300

p 200 06

E

100

0

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

s Tr 3-9 .FDri.m

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3. Test 5

Time " Red .FOS woG.,.7

-E.Pnmewcab.Tots Fho 8

-E,,prncai.R~deoge

10

8

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (ain)

400

300

200

0.=E

100

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3. Test 5

FO ._pTýs.D.T.12

0 5 10 .15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3. Test 14

300

S200

0

CL

E

E . ........... .... 100

-Exp Time -sD-Tu.12

rh." DTs-12 .Fos 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (ain)

Figure A-45: Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14

A-58
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

400

300

Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

E 1007 ý

100- UxPTime mT "ee3-9

.FOS Time w Tr3.9

400 Gas Temperature near Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

300

.2

2200

E

1 100

- Exp Time v Tree 3-S

FOS Time n Tr 3.9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

20

-15

10

" 5

Totafnd Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

lCF1 RE #3, Test 15

Raorlr7 Imperative

Fos lime "s Totld Flas Gauge a

FOS Timevs Red Gauge 7

Exp Time " Cable Total Flux 8

10

8

6C

1L 4

2-

0-

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cabte Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

.......Radiometer I Iaoperatjve

Time "s Red Gauge7 .OS 

-xi To ime vs Cable Total Flux 8

n 0. -

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

200

E

100

0

Ann1 Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

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

E--Ep Tim. D, IT.12

FOS Time v TS-12

300

200

E

100

0.

Cable Tray D Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3. Test 18

op TessosO.Ts.12

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-46: Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18

A-59
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

200

150

S100

a

C.

E

50~5O

0

2.0

1.5

E

x 1.0

.2

. 0.5

0.0

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3. Test 1

- pTim . Tree -T

.FDS Time T, 5-6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

150

• 100

E

50

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

- Exp Time vs Tm. 5-6 FoS Time vs Tr 5-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test I

-V ETbmmCinTote "RG-2

FD - M .~.~Geo.I Aw 

.-

0

X

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

1.5

1.0

0.5

-OE -. "C" Ut Fb. 2

r-. Toti A. Gft 2 .FOS 

i.Ronag FD I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a

0.

E

I--

200 Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

150

00

50-

- Exp Time n F.Ts-20

FDS Time vs F Ts-20

U

E

I200 Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

150

00

-Exp rime "s F-Ts-2

F T&.20 .FosTime" 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-47: Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests I and 7

A-60
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

30O

250

.200

0 150

E 100

50

0

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3. Test 2

I- T- -TI300

250

200

a 150

0.

100-

50-1

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

lCFMP BE #3. Test 8

- Sp Tin,." Tres5-6 Tn w T, 5.6 .FOS 

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

Time (min) Time (min)

6

5.

1c

0

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

-x EuThne ,.Cabe To(M Fka,2

-Exp Tb,,.. Cable Rod Gatg. I FOS Tb,,.., Toetl FRI- Gaulle 2 w RadGaugeI .FosTha, 

6

5

'(3

E 4

X

Total and Radiative Heat Rux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3. Test 8

Eu 5- ýbaubla 1-_F 2.g

G--"'2' 

TimnRed r", 1 .

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

Time (min) Time (min)

300

250

200

E 10o

I50

Power Cable F Surface Temperature ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

ExSp Týe no F-Ts-20 .FOSrun w F T,-20

300

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

200

10 E 100.5

- / " ...

5- Ep Timen F-T.s20

. FoS Tim - F T&2O 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

U

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-48: Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8

A-61
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

300

250

6200

S150 0

E= o C.

50

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

.ST.,wT5.6

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3. Test 10 j - i

6200

La 150 0

CL

E 100 I50 0 5 10xp 5 2 i n25 T 30

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

Time (min) Time (min)

6-

5-

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

3

3

D25

Em UP wb,. Cabs ToI FE. 2 1 - EýTm-Cý 8OG-PI .FDS r...TOWIFEGsn,.2

.PDS T-n. R~d Gug. I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

lime (min)

30Power Cable F Surface Temperature

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

200

150

100

50 - Enp Tim n. F-T.-25 . FDS Time F T.-20

0

6 Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

5 CFMP BE Q3, Test 10

.F5hnoFn,...

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (mai)

x30

300 Power I Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10 150

2.0 0 

100

250 lM- E TiBm +s F-TT-20

.FD00ime sFT.-20 0

=E

I- 9

0 5 *10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-49: Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10

I

A-62
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

300-

250

6200

S150

50

0

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

l CFMP BE #3,Testl13

300

250

~-200

2 150

E 100

5-

50

T . Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

S CFMP BE #3, Test 16

-Exp Tim,.v Tree 546

vs Tr5- .FOSTime 

P, -Exp Tim - I- -S .FDSTbvsvsTrS-e

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

4-

E

U.

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

~ CFMP BE #3, Testl13

4 ." - Exp T-. vs Cble Toet. Flux 2

- Eop Time vs Cable Red Gauge 1

To. .-.. vFDS ,s To Flux Gauge 2 FOS 1,Tm .. vs Red Gauge I

8

.- 6

E

X 4 U-.

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

-x EoTime " Cabe tTaIFlux 2

UP- EphvCable RedGauogeI

FOS Timvs Total Flux Gauge 2 .-

Tom. " Rod Gauge 1 .Fos 

2

0-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3. Test 13 25 • -I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300 Power Cable F Surface Temperature

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

200

100

50: - Exp Time vs F-Ts-20 FOS Time "s F Ts&20 0

200

• 150

E 100. I50 - Sp Time. vs F.To.25

TimsF .FOS T.-20

E

a2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-50: Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16

A-63
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

30

25

2D

15

10

5

8

6

x4

0

300

250

o 200

150

0

I50

0

0

0

0

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

VCFMP BE #3, Test 3

- E) Ex Time5Te .-...... FOS Time =- T7!',6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0

0.

IT

jWU Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

200

150

100

I - Exp Trmo,~. Tree 5-e

"llm .s T,5-6 .L....FDS 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

-x EehC"TdW%.2 r .--- N

Thnm. 5.dFDS G.,,g I

x

,IET

5I Total and Radiative Heat Rux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

6

4

2.. ..... ..... ...

-I ~Th,,.nC"ThI"h,. FO- E~TaW I ,s~R- Ga-P2

FO Tim. Rpd G-2g. 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

U

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (rain)

30

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

6200

La 150. 0

100-

50

.f. ,1"

Exp Time va F-Ts-20

F0S Time v F Ts-20 Exp Time w F-T.20

Fos Time w F Tý20

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-51: Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9

A-64
Technical Details of the FDIS Validation Study

300

250

-200

'l50

50 E

Io

so

8,

•6

x 4

"r

0

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

312

25

92.2

E

15

t0

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F 0 ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

DO~ ~ . .........- '

10

5 Exp Time " Tree 5.

FOS Tim. s Tr 5-6

-Exp Time wTree5-6 Tim. . T, 5- .FOS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Er

§i

x

Total and Radiative Heat Rux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

6 E Thme ns C_.e fTod Rux

-En ý ToW ~~G..e. Fk. 

4- TA

2. ...... F .

I

0

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

Time (min) Time (min)

300

250

2200 2o

150 -

C.

E ioo

50.

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

SExp Time w. F-TS-20

FDS Time n F Ts-20

300

250

2.200

10

E 100

50

0.

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3. Test 14

j• _or If•"

- Enp Time F-Ts-20

FOS Time F Ts-20

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

Time (min) Time (min)

Figure A-52: Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14

A-65
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

600

500

400

2.300

200-

1010

30

25

E 20

U.

100

5

0

Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

... ...... £

I!a

E

0

600 6 Gas Temperature near Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

400

300

200

100 1 Exp Time - T-e 5-M

FOS Time " Tr 5.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

'I -Eep Time "Tree "

Tim " Tr 5- .FOS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3. Test 15

301

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3. Test 18 30

-Exp Time vaCable TotalFlux2 V

-Ex,e Time vs Cable Red GaugeeI eTotal Flux Gage .Fos 2 TimewRe ado~elI .Fos 

E 25

x 15.

I-

-- Sep Time v. Cabfe Toted Flux 2

-- Sop Toe w Cable Rad Gauge 1

Tie - Tota Flux Gauge 2 .

FOS Time " Red Gauge I

o , ....... ........... • .. . ..

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

600

500

4,oo

ig300 S211

0

E 200

100

0

Power Cable F Surface Temperatu- ICFMP BE #3, Test1 ,.1 '

Power Cable F Surface Temperature

nCFMP BE #3, Test 18

- Sp Time to PTs-20

.OTimeeF Ts:!-2

6400

300

I--E 200

100

0-

/ . Exp Time , F-Ts-20 FOS Time w4 F TS,20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-53: Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18

A-66
Technical Details of the EDS Validation Study

200

150

100

E 50

0-

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

"- Ep Tme Tree 2-S

FDSTme . vs Tr 2-5

200

150

2

S100

E 50

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

-UEP Tim.. Tree 2-5 Tim vTr 2-5 .FOS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test I

2.0

.E

1.

0.5 TiemCe RdGse0

0.0

- EXp Ti.vsw Cabe Total Flux 9

--- Eup ane vs Cable Rod Gauge 10

Time vn Total .FoS Flux Gauge 9 FOS Tim w Rad Gauge 10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

150

100

E 50

0

0

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

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

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

2

IVertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

150

100

o EP TIn,. - V.-- cable -33

Fos•Time.GTs-33

X- p Time "o Vecal Cable Te-33

ime v G Ts-33 .FDST 

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

Time (rain) Time (min)

Figure A-54: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7

A-67
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

,Ann Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

250

200

150

E 100.

50

Q.

E

-p Time, . Tree 2.5

Time .FOS "s Tr 2.5

300 Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

250 ICFMP BE #3. Test 8

200 .

150

100

50 - Exp Time vs Tree 2-5

FoS Time " Ir 2-5 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a.

0 4 .-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

R

4-

E:

6

2 -Exp Tme," Coble Total Fl.9

- x rim. vaCab~le RedGage 10

Time .FOS " Total go Clls

n

,r-6242f

Total and Radiafive Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3. Test 8

-Exp Time vs Cable Tea ýF~v -Exp Time ns Cable RdGoe1 vs Toal Fw:~Gave .FDSTim we Ftd auge s10 .FOSTom 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

6200

• 150

Ea100

50

0

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

2

Q.

E

a2

300

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

200

150

100

50 Oe•- Exip Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33 0 . FDS Time vs G Ts-33

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

.... E- - Time v V Ca T

Tin,.vsG Ts-3 .P0 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-55: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8

A-68
Technical Details of the EDS Validation Study

200

150

E0 100 I5C

5C

8

x4

2

0

300-

250

200

S150

E 100-

i-0

50

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3. Test 10

5 1E1 p Time v Tre 25 3

Tim ,uw 2.5 .

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

Time (rain)

0

Time (min)

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

-Exp Time, va Code Total Flux 9

FDS Tlma w Total Flux Gauge9

in.. .FDa o Red Gauge 10

8-

4-

2-

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10 1

* - EW Time Cable Tat n.9

-v Time boCabe RadZ.ogI.1 Time, vs Total Flue Gauge 9 .FOS Time -o Red Gauge 10 I .FOS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

300

250

200

150 0.

E 100

5o

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

300

250

• 200

150o

E

100

so

0

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

-ExP Time, vs Vebtiml Cable Tz-33

FDS Tim,. wG TS33

-Exp 'rime Vwbwl0 Cabole Ts-33 oG Ta.33 .F.STime 

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

'rime (min) Time (min)

Figure A-56: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10

A-69
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

300

250

9200

:1 150

e100s.

50

0

14

12

~10

•"6

S4

2

0

Gas. Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

-Exp Tbve - Tree 2-5

.FDS Tb.. vTr 2-5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

6 200

CID

150

0

Gas emperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

A lCFMP BE N3. Test 16

•J: l--Exp Time ws Tree 2-5 .. F- Time " Tr2-5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

S........ - Exp Time v Cable Total Flux 9 - Erp Time vs Cable Red Gauge 10 FDS Time v ..TotalRFlu auge 1 The vsRodGauge .FDs 10

,1

14

12-

10-

8-

S6-

S4-

2-ý

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

i x- Time. Cable Total Flu. 9

-- EV Time vCable Rad Gauge 10 .. FDS Time Total Flux Gauge 1 Fos r ,a v Red Gauge 10

O F

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

Time (min) Time (min)

250

6200

150

E100- s50

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

- EopTlte vs Veartcal Cable Ts-33 FDS Time -s G Ts-33

300

250

200

150

CL

E 100

50

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

- Pp Time ws Vartical Cabl. Tq-33 Timew G Ts33 .FOS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-57: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10

A-70
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

300

250

200

~150

E" 100

50

0

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

300

250

9200

150

E100

50

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3. Test 9

- Sp Timae Tree 2.5

2-5 .F05rTim

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

a

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3. Test 3

E

x"4

ec p pTime " Cable = Gao:e10

DOS Time ns Total Flux, Gauge 9 Time "b.v Red Gauge 10

Toa 2 n Radiative esabteFlux t~o CbeTa

BE -CM p TesCete I,,, Re9 aa1

6-S Ti~ sTtlFs Asg

.ED...............l ......

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

150

Es100

50

n

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

300

250

2. 200

150

E 100

50

0-

- xp Time vVertial Cable T--33 Time GTs-33 

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3. Test 9

I E Time vs Veecel Cabl T&33

Time a. GT&M3 .FOS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-58: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9

A-71
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

300

250

200

150

M

E 100

50

0

8-

6-

'4-

LL

2D

W

0

12

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

300

100

100 - xTie Tree 2-5

....F-7s T'iev T, 2-5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

14

12

t10-

S6

•4

01

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3. Test 14

Sxp i,e CI Cble Total Fblu ExPTiolaw bla Remd G8:10~

FOS Timmao r~otal

MS5 Tim t ed ate¶

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

2 150

E 100 IVertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

400

300

E 200

=E

I.- 100

01

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

-- Exp Time vs Veflical Cable Te-33

.... FDS Time w€ G Ta-W

Irnl

I/ Exp Time VS Vertical Cable Ts-33 Time G T-33 .FOS 

171

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-59: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14

N

A-72
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

300

250

200

150

E

O 100

50

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

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

- Exp Time vs Tree 2-5 ....... FOS Time ... "s Tr 2.5

Gas Temperature near Vertical Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

Z- 2U.... -

E.

Is 1 o

100

so.

0

E xp Time vs Tree 2-5

FOS Time vs Tr 2-5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6

5

E 4-

m3-

S2

1-

0-

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

-ExrpTime vs Cable Ttal F"m9 Exp Tme -Cable Red Gauge 1

Time w Total Fl., Ges .FOS 9

Timre Red Geu.g 10 .FOS 

4"

E

4

3. .......

2

Exp Time vs Cable Tolal Flux 9

- Exp Time vs Ceble Red Geuge 19 FDS Time vs To. Flux Geoge ....... 

Timm Red G.qeo 10 .FOS 

;3

0 I ....

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

150

E

Q 100- I50

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

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

.....

- Ep lme vs Vedklee Ceble T..33

-G Ts33 .FDSTitme 

250

200

150O

ES100

501

01

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

- Sxp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-33

FOS Time vs G Te33 .----- 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-60: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18

A-73
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

ICFMP BE #4

The targets in BE #4, Test 1 are three material probes made of concrete, aerated (light) concrete,

and steel. Figure A-61 displays a snapshot from FDS, showing the fire and the locations

of the three targets.

Figure A-61: Location of Three Slab Targets in ICFMP BE #4

A-74
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

E

E

60 Heat Flux to Steel Plate

50 ICFMP BE #4, Test I

40 

V

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

60

Heat Flux to Concrete

ICFMP BE #4, Test I

40

30 w-5;

20

10 * -ExTim. mWS 3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (indn)

600

500

Steel Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #4, Test 1

2 300

200

i . . - -

100

0

600

500

E

200

100

0

-Exp Tm "M 34

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

Concrete Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #4, Test 1

-EXP rimM33

Time " M33 .FOS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

bu . bug Heat Flux to Light Concrete

ICFMP BE #4K Test 1 Light Concrete Surface Temperature CFMPBE#4. Test 1

50

E•40

x 30

n1 0

0.r

A ........

Y400

La300

0

CL

~200-

.100-

0

-Eeln..WS4 FDSrimv "WS4 E- ETimesM 29

Tim-.~ - I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-62: Heat Flux and Surface Temperatures of Target Slabs, ICFMP BE #4, Test I

A-75
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

ICFMP BE #5

A vertical cable tray was positioned near a wall opposite the fire. Heat flux gauges were located

in between two bundles of cables, one containing power cables, and the other containing control

cables. On the following pages are plots of the gas temperature, heat flux, and cable surface

temperatures at four vertical locations above the floor:

200 cm (Gas Temperature TR 5-3, Heat Flux WS 2, Cable Temperature TCO 1-3 and TCO 3.3)

280 cm (TR 5-4, WS 3, TCO 1-5 and TCO 3-5)

360 cm (TR 5-5, WS 4, TCO 1-7 and TCO 3-7)

440 cm (TR 5-6, WS 5, TCO 1-9 and TCO 3-9)

360 cm

! Ii.'..

280c mr

200 cm~

Figure A-63: Location of Targets, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

A-76
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

250

200

L 150

2

Gas Temperature near Cables at 200 cm ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

250

200

150

CL100

IGas Temperature near Cables at 280 cm ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

E

12 100 • • -• ,.: ... .

50

- Ep Tim TR 5-3 . FoS Time -n TRS-3

0 5 10 15 21

Time (min)

6 Heat Flux to Cable Tray at 200 cm

ICFMP BE #5. Test 4 5.

4

3

I-

/ ;)

0

- Exp Time TR 5-4 V... I FDS Time ¢ Tk_5.4

0 5 10 15 2

Time (min)

Heat Flux to Cable Tray at 280 cm ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

f II IA

0

4-

E4

3

PI~ VP Wit vv' J I y Vt

1

0

3

PF..'• IF...... -- ---- ,m s • I ...... Enp FDS Tin. Time ne w WS2 WS_2

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

D -w. .. ............. "............."... "........... .

..... ........-. °.......

" -- ~E-,p Time w W.S3

.... FoS Time "s INS3

0 5 10 is 20

Time (min)

250

Cable Surface Temperatures at 280 cm

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

200

150 . .........

100 ....

251

0.

E

0=

Cable Surface Temperatures at 200 cm ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

200 - Exp Time vw TCO 1-3 1 - Sp Tin.. v TCO 3-3 FOSTimevs TC0_1-3 ..... TmevS TCO.3-3 .5'....FOS 

S

2

2

Ilo .

n . . .. _. .... 50 -V E.Time nTCO 1-5 -E..plTlm wTCO 3-5 inn vTCO_1.5 

vsTCO3-5 

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Figure A-64: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

A-77
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

PrA 250 25n Gas Temperature near Cables at 360 cm

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Gas Temperature near Cables at 440 cm ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

E

0

LI.

IIrf," a.

E

1!

50 5E Fxp Time' ,• TR 5-5

FOS Time " TR_.5-

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

6 6Heat Flux to Cable Tray at 360 cm

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

4. .... AI w j' L ,

2 .......... o.......o...o..... o--.... ...... ....

1 / .. " •Exp Tirne "WS4

0 [.-" ...... FDS Timers WS-4

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

250

Cable Surface Temperatures at 360 cmn 1CFMP BE #5, Test 4

200

150 "-----

,in. I -------

150

100

50 -- Time wi TR 56 S....FDS rýl "s TR_5-

0 5 10 15 2

Time (min)

) 0

Heat Flux to Cable Tray at 440 cr ,,n

lCFMPBE#5. Test4 4i1t aIII.A

X

3 A

1 "-S'I. -ExP Trime " WS5

FO Timw WS.5 ...

0 5 10 15 20

Time (rain)

250

Cable Surface Temperatures at 440 cm ICFMP BE #5. Test 4

200

150-

inn ..

i

Q.

E

a

50 -5.P'n'v"sT.C0 1-?

-EaT. eaT ~3-7 FOS Tim'. aTCO 1-7

Time "TCO73.7 -Fos 

50 ............ 

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

Exp Time w TCO I

Exp Tim vs TCO 3-9

FOS Time - TCQ_1-9

Fos Time w TCO_3-9

0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (rain)

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Figure A-65: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

A-78
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

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

Raditio t luxTotl He Hat lux Surface Temperature

AE AM Diff. AE AM Diff. AE AM Diff.

(kW/m2 ) (kW/m2) (%) (kW/m2 ) (kW/m 2) (%) (°C) (OC) (%)

Cable B 1.12 1.26 13 1.85 1.72 -7 106 112 5

Cable D 1.44 1.59 11 - 2.30 -- - 78 -

Cable F 0.87 1.04 20 1.60 1.57 -2 83 84 2

Cable G 1.51 1.47 -3 - 1.99 -- 64 71 11

Cable B 1.20 1.24 3 1.84 1.69 -8 109 110 1

Z Cable D 1.35 1.55 15 2.52 2.21 -12 87 81 -7

Cable F 0.82 1.02 24 1.51 1.51 0 90 88 -2

Cable G 1.47 1.45 -2 1.89 1.94 3 78 75 -4

Cable B 2.88 3.20 11 5.26 4.32 -18 176 172 -2

m, ., Cable D 4.16 4.36 5 9.83 5.90 -40 126 134 6

U Cable F 1.99 2.58 29 4.77 3.82 -20 129 116 -10

M Cable G 5.97 4.05 -32 - 5.16 - 107 123 15

a. Cable B 2.91 3.22 11 5.58 4.39 -21 183 170 -7

u-. Cable D 3.55 4.33 22 8.51 5.88 -31 150 133 -11

Q' Cable F 1.93 2.56 33 4.93 3.82 -22 131 114 -13

Cable G 6.03 4.22 -30 5.98 5.34 -11 107 123 15

Cable B 2.92 3.37 15 5.52 4.21 -24 149 197 32

Cable D 3.26 4.14 27 7.23 5.66 -22 113 141 24

Cable F 2.02 2.74 35 5.02 3.97 -21 149 139 -7

Cable G 6.00 4.56 -24 6.42 5.45 -15 125 140 12

o Cable B 2.69 3.44 28 4.91 4.33 -12 144 198 38

Cable D 2.91 4.32 48 6.71 5.68 -15 132 147 11

", Cable F 1.93 2.74 42 4.36 3.95 -9 150 150 0

- Cable G 5.42 4.78 -12 6.20 5.49 -12 148 150 1

c-) Cable B 4.77 5.53 16 8.26 7.31 -12 186 195 5

Cable D 6.58 7.90 20 11.22 10.22 -9 173 172 -1

Cable F 2.90 4.26 47 7.28 6.10 -16 143 128 -11

Cable G 10.06 7.51 -25 12.12 8.95 -27 133 163 22

Cable B 4.12 4.83 17 8.37 6.03 -28 160 206 28

- Cable D 4.83 6.86 42 11.67 9.10 -22 156 172 11

Cable F 2.76 4.12 50 6.13 6.11 0 168 141 -16

Cable G 11.96 9.37 -22 12.23 10.73 -12 169 191 13

Cable B 1.30 1.68 29 2.36 2.57 9 - 70 -

V Cable D 1.52 2.35 55 3.29 3.40 4 - 59 -

W a Cable F 0.88 1.28 45 1.85 2.05 11 46

Cable G 2.42 2.09 -14 3.07 2.66 -13 - 51 -

Cable B 4.45 4.36 -2 7.10 4.97 -30 226 226 0 L

_ ., Cable D - 5.63 -- 9.45 6.77 -28 210 197 -6

Cable F 2.95 3.48 18 5.55 4.38 -21 195 185 -5

Cable G 5.36 5.67 6 6.45 6.18 -4 169 191 13

Cable B 4.29 4.22 -2 6.58 4.85 -26 228 225 -1

Cable D 5.26 5.49 4 9.06 6.70 -26 220 195 -11

I- Cable F 2.73 3.36 23 5.08 4.25 -16 195 183 -6

Cable G 5.15 5.42 5 6.37 5.92 -7 166 187 12

to Cable B 3.88 3.28 -15 6.86 4.03 -41 150 195 30 Cable D 4.78 4.55 -5 8.52 5.61 -34 132 169 28

ý- Cable F 2.65 2.56 -3 6.45 3.70 -43 175 159 -9

A-79
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

Cable G 5.45 5.70 5 6.69 6.37 -5 161 189 17

., Cable B 2.84 3.00 6 3.82 4.13 8 199 194 -2

Cable D 3.32 3.61 9 6.07 5.16 -15 178 ý151 -15

Cable F 2.12 2.33 10 3.46 3.57 3 171 152 -11

- Cable G 10.50 10.45 -1 10.90 11.61 6 270 286 6

w Ut Cable B 46.49 60.77 31 57.72 68.82 19 416 445 7

M -Cable D - 8.17 - 20.87 9.16 -56 243 267 10

m D Cable F 18.29 15.42 -16 23.94 17.03 -29 669 400 -40

Cable G 3.73 3.17 -15 5.12 4.18 -18 161 144 -11 0 CO Cable B 5.23 5.37 3 7.61 6.47 -15 236 239 1

- Cable D - 4.95 - 7.83 6.20 -21 217 182 -16

6 Cable F 5.18 5.04 -3 8.74 5.97 -32 232 233 1

F Cable G 2.85 3.26 15 4.45 4.25 -5 109 133 22

Total Heat Flux Surface Surface Temperature:

Tern 3rature Rise Rise F if Exp FDS Diff. Exp FDS Diff. Exp FDS Diff.

(kW/M2) (kW/m2) (%) (C) (CC) (%) (°C (OC) I N

Steel 27.2 47.1 73 356 454 28

w Concrete 33 42.0 27 308 413 34

W Lt. Concrete 26 32.4 25 489 537 10

200 cm 2.9 1.7 -42 87 71 -19 112 95 -15

W 280 cm 4 2.0 -50 110 97 -11 146 121 -17

w 360 cm 4.5 2.1 -53 107 102 -5 140 126 -10

440 cm 4.5 2.4 -47 114 104 -9 142 130 -8

A-80
Technical Details of the FDS 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. Wall temperatures are also available from BE #4 and BE #5. This category

is similar to that of the previous section, "Target Heat Flux and Surface Temperature,"

with the exception that the focus here is on compartment walls, ceiling, and floors, which some

models treat differently than "targets." FDS makes no distinction.

ICFMP BE #3

Thirty-six heat flux gauges were positioned at various locations on all four walls of the compartment,

as well as the ceiling and floor. Comparisons between measured and predicted heat fluxes

and surface temperatures are shown on the following pages for a selected number of locations.

Over half of the measurement points are in roughly the same relative location to the fire and,

hence, the measurements and predictions are similar. For this reason, data for the east and north

walls are shown because the data from the south and west walls are comparable. Data from

the south wall is used in cases where the corresponding instrument on the north wall failed,

or in cases where the fire was positioned close to the south wall.

For each test, eight locations are used for comparison, two on the long (mainly north) wall,

two on the short (east) wall, two on the floor, and two on the ceiling. Of the two locations

for each panel, one is considered in the far-field, relatively remote from the fire, and one is

in the near-field, relatively close to the fire. How close or far varies from test to test, depending

on the availability of working flux gauges. The two short wall locations are equally remote from

the fire; thus, one location is in the lower layer, and one is in the upper layer. Table A-8 lists

the locations for each test.

The heat flux gauges used on the compartment walls measured the net, not total, heat flux.

FDS predicts the net heat flux, but this prediction cannot be compared directly with the measured

net heat flux because the predicted and measured wall temperatures can differ, and this affects

the net heat flux. In a sense, the net heat flux and surface temperature are coupled, and it is

difficult to assess the accuracy of the models if the two quantities cannot be decoupled.

For the purpose of comparing predictions and measurements, the following correction has been

applied to both the measured and predicted net heat fluxes:

q" = q" + a(T4-T4)+h(T,-T

T, is the temperature of the surface. A constant convective heat transfer coefficient is assumed

(5 W/m2

/K) and an emissivity of 1. After applying the correction, it is easier to compare total

heat fluxes that are independent of the surface temperature.

A-81
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

E

Z.U Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

1.5

0.

"I 0.5'

150

- OII b,. Wn Nofh U-1Ui

FoEx Time -s Su U-4

100

0.

E 50 I0

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3. Test 1

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

-Ep Time s TC North -1-.2 ...... FOSTime "s TC Sot U-4.

rim:v- TC N U-1 .""- 

FDTime TC S U-4 ..

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

Time (min) Time (min)

2.0

1.5 E

x 1.0 .2

I 0.5

0.0

1bU' Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

a

oi 5D I-

- Evp TInMeTC South U-4-2

F- rvivmevsTC N hU-1 rim vTC SU-4 

4

I..

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6. Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

E4

'.3

"0-

6

-E~p rim North U-1 -ExpTime weSaouth U4

Tim eSN U-4 .FOS 

200

150

100

0. E

1"50

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

-Exp Time - TC North U-1-2

- Exp Tim " TC Soh U-4-2 FDS Time vs TC N U-1 .... FDS Timne - TC S U-4

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 8

UE

5

3

2

-- Exp rime ri; North U*I

-- Exp Time v North UL-4

.... FDS Time.v N U-1

.... FOS Time v•N U-4

200

150

IRD

100

E

I,- 50-

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

Ep U- Time vs TC North U-1-2

- Eop Ti:n vs TC North U-4-2 Tim. vs TC N U-1 .FOS 

FDS Tim vs TC N U-4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-66: Long-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-82
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

1 Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

Win

X

0

I0

4

2

-Exp TimevsNea 11.1

I .P -pTime n North U-4

.Fos T- N U-1

.FDs Tne N U.4

E

0

E

ILong Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

1150

100

50 eS)Ep Time vs TC North U-1-2

- Exp Time vs TC North 1.-4-2

Thm- vs TC N U-1 .FWS 

Time vsTC N U-4 .FOS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6 Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 10

4

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

Long Wall Temperatuj,

lh CFMP BE#3e~Q

IL

m0

I

S100

E

a25 Exp Time vs TC North U.1.2

- Exp Time vs TC North L-4-2 .... FDS rime :" TC N U-I

.... FDSrTme vsTC N U-4

0]

-Ep Time vs North LU-1

- Exp Tim. vs North U14 FDS Time vs N U-1

Trmev N U-4 .eFDS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13 8

E ..

6 .

rLL

"1- 4

. FOS Tim. vs N U-1 . FOS Time vsN U-4 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 16

8

6- .E 

LL 4

2

FO Timevs N U-4

0 E

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300,.

Long Watt Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13 250

200

150

100

50-

0

- ExpTi vs TC North U-1-2

Exp Tme vs TC North U-4.2

FOS Tmvs TC N U-1

FOS Time vsTC N U-4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

120

0

0L

E

Long Wall Temperatures

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

200

150

200

so.

50

0

- E,,Time vs TC North U-1-2

- Exp Time vs TC North U-4-2 .... FoS Tim-v TC N U-1 FOS Time vsTC N U-4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-67: Long-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-83
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

3.u Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 17

E 9N

1.5

1.0 -Eplesw Ui

.F=SNorthsNU-1

.FOSTIM-vN"- nfls

150

-100

.50

0

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

- -- EXp EXP Time Time vs vs TC TC North North U-4-2 L-1-2

Time vs TC N U-1 .FOS 

DSTime " TCN U-4 .F 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

25 30

Open Door Tests to Follow

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

EJ

LL

4

3 . .............

1 ~Exp Time vsNrth LJ.4

FOS Time n N U-l

FOS Time vs N U-4

250

200

L 150

E 100 E

1!

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6-

5.

41

3.

2-

Tim vs TC North L-4.2 50 Exp Time ws TC North U-4-2

FDS Time wTC N U-1 FOS Time vsTC N U-4

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

250

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3. Test 9

200 .

15

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

E.

12

-ExP rirrvNorth U-1

- hp Timev Nafth

U-4 .FOSTimn"sN 

50. -- EpTime vs TC North U.1.2

- Exp Time ", TC North U-4-2

FODS Time TC N U-I FOS Time " TC N U4

(J-4 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-68: Long-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-84
Technical Details of the EDIS Validation Study

10

8

4--

2

0

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5 - i h - Ep Tim s North U-4

.F0Stime" NorhU-4 .... FOS TIme v" N U-1 .... FDS Thme .s N U-4_

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

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

.z

Te 

hd

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3. Test 5

2200 2o

S150.

E 1005-

50- -Exp Tim, ,TC North U-1-2

Tt- .vTC NU-1 

Tm TC NU 4 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

4-

E

M

Long Walt Heat Flux

lCFMP BE #3. Teat 14

6

4

EV T&M nNorthU.I

FD5 ~mN U.1

FOS Ti-,.NU.

300

250

200

E100

IT

50

0

Long Wall Temperatures

BE #3. Test 14 . .CFMP 

-- Exp Time " TC North U.1.2

Exp Tmne vn TC Nort L14-2

FDS Ti-me TC N rT

.... FDS Time "s TC N U-4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10

8

6 "ý 4

-I2

0

400 Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

310-

eE 200

E

100.

0-

- E~Th- . ~TC Soeuffi 12

-q ETý TC S U-3-.2

" TC S L3 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10

8

E

,T 4

"I"

Long Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 18

....FOS Tim - S --.

4

2

E.

I-.

Long Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

00

-l CqTi- .TC So.,U J-2

-V ETý ,TC o.LM2

M..T Su., .aS 

T,. TC S U .FOS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-69: Long-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-85
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

2.0

1.5 E

1.0

it.

- 0.5

0.0

150

E

IShort Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

100

50

,-0 STim -sTC East U-1-2 - Exp Tim sa TC East LU-2-2

Time TC E U-1 .FOS Tim sTC E U-2 .FoS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

2.0 Short Wall Heat Rux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 7

150

E

'D

X

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0.

S ................ .

-- Ep Time - U-3 1E.s3 -- Exp Trnm. .5 East U-2

FDS .Tim. s E U-3 .FOS Tim v E U-2

100

C.

E so IShort Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

.E.p Tien. TC Eas U-3-2

-Exp irse wTC East U-2-2 .TC EU-3 .FDsTi

Tim anTCE U-2 .FOS 

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6 Short Wall Heat Rux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

5

A 3.

200

E(DI'_

50 ~ Exp Time wTC Easl U-1-2

Tim va TC EU-1 .FOS 

.FOSTim-TC

0l

- Exp Timers East U-1

EUP Tim. - East U-2 mwEU-1 .FDSTin 

FDS Tim. w E U-2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 3C

Time (min)

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

6r Short Wall Heat Rux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 8

14'

ID

5-

4

3

2 ~- ExpTimn"aas1asLti

1 -Exp Tim "~East U-2 FOS Tim. " E L11 FOS 'ms v. E U1.2

20O

C,

2

2

E

IT

100

50 "-l Esp Time v TC East U-1-2

FDs TinmnTC E L.1

Tl3e asTC E U-2 .FoS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-70: Short-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-86
Technical Details of the EDS Validation Study

6 Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 4

4'-

E

5

4

3 .

2

- Efp ýTin, Enst U-I

1 - ap in.,as ~stU-2

.F6STiml w E U-1 .FOS TimavsE U-2

0n

200

150

B 100

E

1 50

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

- ExpTime "sTCEasW U-1-2

- ExP T=nes TC East U-2-2 Tis, -TC E U-1 -FOS 

F1S Time "s TC E U-2

V

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

Time (min) Time (min)

6-

5-

E4.

2 -'

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 10

-EapT=ea, U-3

-Ea. T. asEas U-2

U-3 .F6STimaaE Timn aE U-2 .FO 

200

150

100

0-E

50 -

0.

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

- E.P Thm vasTC East U42 - UP Ti- -_TC EastU-2-2

Timer vTC E U .FDS 

TC E U.2 .FosTime" 

1

LLit

-a

0 "

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10 Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

8

6 /

4

2•

.FOS TireaEU-4

0

150

100

E

G)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

- ExP Time vas TC East U-1-2 - Exp T. vs TC East U.4.2

FDS Tim s TC E U-I Fo5 Ta vas TC E U-4

w I

0

Ui

"a

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 16

8

6

4

2 .

FOS TinýaE U.I .FOS Pmn eE L12

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

B

0.

E

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

IOU

inn)

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3. Test 16

EP Time as TC Easl U-1-2

- Exp Timn as TC Easl U-2-2 •/ ...... FOxS Ti-e - TC E U-1 FOS Time vsTC E U-2

50

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-71: Short-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-87
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

3.0

2.5

E 2.0

x, 1.5

*6 1.0 I

0.5

0.0

.. A

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

-ExapfTime w East U-3 - Exp Time s Ea U-2 FDS Time vs E U-3 Time " E U-2 .FOS 

1

E

I100 Short Wall Temperatures ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

so .

20

0

- Exp Thie w TC East U3-2

- Exp T=~ "s TC Eas.l U-,-2

FOS Time w TC E U-3

Time we TC E U-2 

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

Time (min) Time (min)

Open Door Tests to Follow

6

5

a3

L2

Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 3

. F.. Timea vs E U- .... Frn .East U-2 FOS Timet E U-1 aE U-2 .FosTime 

200

150

loo

100

E

50

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3 Test 3

. Sp Time vs TC Ead U-1-2 ap Time vas TC East U-2-2 Fos Thi .. TC Eu-1 Fos Tims a TC E L-2

04 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

lime (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6-

5

4'

mE4

X 3 .2

1-

0

200 Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 9

Flux G auge inoperative ,'"'" .'" ..,

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

........ ... .. .,

....... . !i E ::" ••"" -Ea Time p a EasttU-3

"- sp Tine Vs East U-4

sEU-4.FDSTime 

S

IShort Wall Temperatures ...........

ICFMP BE #3. Test 9

150

100

50 - Exp Tne vs TC East U-3-2

E-p Time , TC east U-4-2 FoS Tim. sTC E U-3 FOS Time s TC E U4

U

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

rime (min)

Figure A-72: Short-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-88
Technical Details of the EDS Validation Study

6

Short Wall Heat Flux ICFMP BE #3, Test 5 Pb I

I

200

S150

=E5.

50

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

SEp Time wTC East U-1-2

E- Timevs TC East U-2-2

FOS Ti- sTC E U-I

FDS Tim vsTC E U-2

j2

.U-1 .ES~,. EastU.2 .OTh0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6

5

E 4

'3

IZ2

-0

200

Short Wail Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 14

. ............ Ev Tim. vs East 5.3

EM- E siT,..atl .2

.FOS n.. EL.2

3.

0.

Ea

I-.

1200

100

50 -Esp Timte wTC East U-32

-Exp Time "s TC East U5-2.2

Tim TC E U-3 .Fos 

Tim TC E L2 .Fos 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

'rime (min)

6-

5

E 4

'53

Li.

1-

Short Wall Heat Rux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

.FDS~ha.t. . E U-2 .FDST.. 

200

150

100

0.

E

so

0-

Short Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE#3, Testi15

• " ..- •Epq Tr-. vs TC East U-3-2

U-Ep Ti.. .= TC East U-2-2 .... FDS Tim. we TC E U-3 .... FOS Time "s TC E U-2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6-

5

(3.

1

0-

Short Wall Heat Rux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

F .1- E'1T.,E sU2

200

150-

100

E

I-so~

T

-E~p Tim.a ýs TC East 15-3.2

iv Esp Ti..a vs TC East U-.2-2

T' meTCE U-3 

TimsTCE U-2 

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-73: Short-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-89
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

ar

E

5 Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

4

2 - .... ..

-ExpTimneeCeiling U-1 - Exp Time " Ceiling U-4

.FDSTien nC U-I .FOS Time - C C-4

2bu Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3. Test 1

a. o

E

50-

0.

-- Tinm. eTC Ceiling U-1-2

Exp Time n TC Cejing C-4-2

Tim. TC C U-1 

.... FDS Time vs TC C C-4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

5

Ceiling Net Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 7

4

GaLge Irmpese e ...

3 ....

2 . ,'' .• •

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

x

14

250

200

e 150

E

J

501

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3. Test 7

-= 'xfm. en TC Ceiling U-11.2 - Exp Time .s TC CeiUng C-4-2

FOS Time n TC C L-I ....... 

FOS Time v TC C C4

1- E"p Time en Ceiling U i

Exp Time. Ceiling U-4

FOS Time " C U-1

....... FDS Time n C C-4

0 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

(

A• 20

Ceiling Temperatures ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

,1- 15

5

10

LL

5

0

20-

15 E

S10

0-

Time (min)

2 200

E

100

0

400

300

S200

E

100

-Exp Time "n TC Ceiling U-1-2 -Exp Time vi; TC Ceiling C-4-2 Tim." TC C U-1 .FOS 

Time - TC CC04 .FOS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

.. , . %

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

1 Eep Time en Ceiling U-1 - Exp Time en Ceiiýng U-4

FDS Timn,.e C U-1 .... FOS Tim. C C-4

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3. Test 8

...e..F Time nTC Ceing U-12

%; T-ime.e T-C C-eiiing C.4-2

FOS Time" TC; C U-i

FOS Timen en TC C CA

(14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-74: Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-90
Technical Details of the EDS Validation Study

20

15

'< 10 r

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 4

-E.V Tim,. Cs Ch LiI - ET. x CfhnU-4

FOS Tinmev C U-1

.FOSTime W CC-4

400

300

200

E

100

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

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

F Exp Time vs TC Ceiling U-1-2

"-V s Tin. vTC Ceiling C4-2 TimSe TC CU-1 .FD 

.FO5 Tim~evTC CC-4

0

0 5 10 15 20 26 30

Time (rain)

Z0

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

2 400

--

E

10-

•5

0-

- Evp Tene"C Con,s 9 U - Enp Tim.ev Ceihnso UUA

rimevC .FOS U-1 FOS Tm wesC C-4

Grnge Inopendr-v

~300

a

1!200

E

100-

0-

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

Enp Tim. vs TC Ceiling U-1-2

Exp Time vs TC Ceiling C-4-2

FOS Tine vs TC C U-I

FOS mli. vs TC C C-4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

L

-4-

S..Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

15

10

5

FDS Time vsC C-7

F Ti vsC C-6

6

0D

ICeiling Temperatures

0 A, ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

400

300

100-

0

-Exa Tinmev TC Cejing C-7-2

-EnpTimensTC Ceii ng C-5-2

T!" TCC C-7 -

FOS Timn TC C C-5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (main)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

.15

mE

10

15

0

ICeiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

Gauges Coreed W,2 MW Test

600

500

400

I!300

E200

100

0

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

- _ " A

I

S....... FOS Tmew Time v" C C-5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

-Exp Tinm: vs TC Ceffing C-7.2

-Exp TimnaevTC CAing C-5.2

FOS Time - TCC C-I

TCC C-5 -FDSTimens 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

Figure A-75: Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-91
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

12

10

E a

4

Ceiling Heat Rux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

q'u Ceiling Temperatures

tCFMP BE #3, Test 17

200

0.

Gauges Inoperalive 100

-. :. FOS Time vs CU-1 ...... FDS Tim . -s C U-1ý .C0

5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

-Ep Time n TC CeiingU-1.2

Exp Time aTC Cei~ling 04.2

Tim . TC CU-1 .

Tim - TC CC-4 .

2

0

0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

30

Oven Door Tests to Follow

I

I;

12 Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

10

6-

.'-' .. .--..

e

.uu Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

300

200 ......... ..

2

-ET sCeiling U-I

FOS~r TimV Ceilms U1.4

Tim:noCC u41 .FOS 

E

100

0

- ,EP Tinm -~ TC Ceiling U1.1.2

-Exp Tim, ws TC Ceiling C-4-2

ý TC C L1 .

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

12 Ceiling Heat Rux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9 10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

E

,T

400

300

S200

E

100

Ceiling Temperatures

lCFMP BE #3, Test 9

. Fp Tim. vs TC Ceiling C.42 Tim -TCC C-2 .

.VTCC C-4 

4

2

0

k.-.

- Esp Tim. vs Ceiling U-4.

F- S Time vs C C-2

FOS Time vs C C4

I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-76: Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-92
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

12

10

4

2

0

30

25

E20

15

to

5

0

)

3

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

-W Timenrwemwdkg U-1

* .~E E Tinm .Cdftu.

SFDSTlin-MvCC.S

400

•300

12 200 a

E

100

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Ceiling Heat Flux

.CFMP BE #3. Test 14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

500 Ceiling Temperatures

CFMP BE #3, Test 14 .. . . .. ... ... .

- ýT. C." LLI

MDS Tm LI. U- FOMU-eeCC-S

2

2

a

0. B

a

I400.

200

:::::FTkne.eTCCUeeC1.

U .FOST- nmTC C .S

0.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

IL

IJ

1U

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

8- *. Gauges ial " -. ... ........... .....

4 A.. .., ..... ,

400

300

2o

200 Q

0.

E

1! .--.

2

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

-" " - Ep Tine. Ceiling U.1

*' ..: - Exp Time ns Ceiling U-4

Tim .FOS w C -l

...... FOS Time C C-4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10

8

u. 4-

2

0

Ceiling Heat Flux ICFMP BE #3. Test 18

Gauge Inoperate e

Exp lime vs Ceilig U-1

Exp Time vs Ceiling U-4

FOS Timen C U.1 .... FOS Timev C C-4

400

300

E

o200

I- 1001

0

Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3. Test 18

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

- Ep Times TC Ceiling U-1.2

- Exp ime TC Ceiling C-42 Time vs TC CU-I -FOS .FDSTim s TC C C4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-77: Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-93
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

3.0

2.5

E 2.0

' 1.5

0I 

0.5

0.0

3.0

2.5

E 2.0

• 1.5

• 1.0

0.5

E

F0

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

50 ...... ................. ,--"-"..

00. ".....

50 ':"" ............. . .........

...... _ . .......

.-............................ " ...... 4-

. ... ---.- FDS Time v=TC F U-I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 7

200

150

100

50

0.ý

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

..... . .. ..... o.......... '-.......

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

." .......... E. T= Tme Tram•T Fký U44- vSTC F 1UTi- vTC F U. .FDS 

- EvThvs D Fle 11.

SFOSTb- vFUJ4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10

8

6

2

2

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

S-- Exp Time o Floo U-1

J;ý ExP Time wz or U-4 FoS Time vs F U-i

FDS Time vF U-4

-luu Floor Temperatures

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

6 25O

20

150

s.

50 Ex Tim: vsTC Fkw U.1-2

T' me -TCF U-4 .

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10 Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 8

6 7

a.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

u300

250

6 200

150

a) 100

50

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3. Test 8

2

0

E,,p Time vs Floor U-1

Fop Tim. vs Floor U-4 FDS Time vs FU-1 .....

FDS Time vsF U-4 .....

- Eop Time vs TC Foor U-4-2

-.. Fo Time vs rC F U-1

.FDS Time TC F U-4

0 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-78: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A

A-94
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

Er .2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

2 150

E 100

50

0

300

250

~.200

12 150

E

100

50.

0.

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE Q3, Test 4

E.Too~FboorU-1-2 C - Sp TmOn TC Flm U-4-2

Tim - TC FU-4 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10

8

E

-4-

2-

0-

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

- Eop Time .o Floor U-

.. Sp Time ve Fo- U-4

Timn .FOS F U-I Tim~eFU.L4 .FDs 

i

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

I *~....

-x rM anTC w loorU-1-2

-Exp Tim wTC F=U-4-2

Fos FOTim..wTC F U4

Th- w TC FU-4 .FOS 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10

8

E

" 4

2

0

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 13

- ~Goauge Inoporotive

SFosTim nF - U-1

S.. .... Tin.. ,nFos - U-2

300

250

6 200

2 150 0.

E 100

50

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

- Sp Tim" n TC Floo U-1.2

- Sp rime. o TC Floo L-2.2

Tim.,TC F LLI- 

nTC FU.2 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 16 8

Er

LL 4 "

Gauges Inoperative

2 . Fo Ti Fos 1•.,

. FDSTimeo F U-2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a

E

W

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

lime (min)

300 Floor Temperatures

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

200

150 •

100

-- Exp Time -o TC Floor U-1-2

50 U Sp Ti•ne n TC Floor U-2-2 FoS Tim " TC F U-1 FDS Tim vs TC F U-2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

. Time (min)

Figure A-79: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-95
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

2.0

1.5

u.10

0.5

0n

Floor Heat Ftux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

- Exp Time "s Floor U-I

- Exp Time Floor U-2

.FS Time F U-I

FoS Time . F U-2

E

IT

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

80

60

40

--. Ti me n TC Floor U-1-2 20 - Pp Tmov n TC Floor U-2-2

FOS Time . TC F U-1 FoS Time " TC F U-2

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

LL-2

0r1

Floor Net Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

Exp Time vs Floor U-1

Eop Time vs Floor U-2

FoS Time vs F U-2

300

250

200

a 150

E 100 1-

50

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

20 25 30

5

4

E

LL 2

"Z

Floor Host Flux lCFMP BE #3. Test 9

........

- Exp Time vs Floor U-2 FoS Time v F U-1 Time vs F U-2 .FOS 

250

200

L 150

Elo

g100

.FOS 

Ttr- .TC FU"l 711-TC F U.2 .FM 

.......

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

1

0

50

0-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-80: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

J

A-96
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

12

10

S4

2

0.

4

-3 E

x. 2

C

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

a I Mk LAýýý

EVThm. EM Time . RW U4 P_ U-1

FOS Time . F U-1

FOS Tb- . F U-4

10

E

)T

,uu Floor Temperatures

250 ICFMP BE #3, TestS

200

50 E~TkI. UP -TC FlU- W2 - 5.sft x w ~TC Fl- 4.2 F~l3 

T,. .TCFUA- 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14 ................

Exp Tim* w F

Exp Ti"m vs Flow U-2

FOS Tm.- F U-1

FOS Tme. vs F U3-2

200

150

J!100

C. E 50

0

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

. ,........-.''

,.- TimeTCF1orU-1.2

- ETime x TC F1OmLJ-2-2 Time TCF U-1 .FOS Time TC FU-2 .FOS 

U I , .

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0

I

6 Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15 ,

4

3

200

2.

E 150

E 100 E

0

Floor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

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

.FOv- ,TCFUOWl2-

TCFU.2 .FOSTime. 

2 ...................

- v Th bU

FOS Tme . F 33-I

0 or

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6 Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

4

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

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

!

y

250

200

2150

E 100

50

I

rFloor Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3. Test 18

,.. .......... -.....

,.................

-v r T..3cFb IC U .2.-

FOSTim wTCFULM Timo mTCF U-2 .MS 

-I1

01

-...... ~...~.m.

-EpFTi~m. Fboo332

Th,.mF UIt .FDS Th.mF U-2 .FOS 

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-81: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-97
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

ICFMP BE #4

Three thermocouples were positioned on the back wall of the compartment. Because the fire

leaned toward the back wall, the temperatures measured by the thermocouples are considerably

hotter than most of the other wall surface points considered in this report.

I

Wall Surface Temperatures

BE #4, Test 1 .CFMP 

200 - • E-- vr- M 19

FDS Tif W M19

J .... FD g5"'ma vs M20

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tmie (min)

Figure A-82: Back Wall Surface Temperatures, ICFMP BE #4, Test 1

(Note that the smoke has been artificially lightened in the picture on the right.)

A-98
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

ICFMP BE #5

Wall surface temperatures were measured in two locations in the BE #5 test series.

The thermocouples labeled TW 1-x (Wall Chain 1) were against the back wall; those labeled TW

2-x (Wall Chain 2) were behind the vertical cable tray. Seven thermocouples were in each chain,

spaced 80 cm (31.5 inches) apart. In Figure A-84, the lowest (1), middle (4), and highest (7)

locations are used for comparison. Nearby gas temperature comparisons have been added

for reference.

Figure A-83: Top View of Compartment, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

A-99
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

300

250

2. 200

100

50

0 ISO

Gas Temperatures near Back Wall

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

300 Gas Temperatures near Side Wall

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

J& A ,T..T

* vtf~l

.7'1

6 200

150

E 100

50

0.

.- .... ...... 1

-E*pTbkCTR5. &~PTi~..-TR 5.7

Tk--~ TRS.4 

Tk- - TR_5.7 

0 5 10 15 2'

Time (min)

Back Wall Temperatures

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

0 0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

E

02

100

50

0

*v EqThm .TW 1.7

Th,.*".TW_1-1 SFOS 

150

100

E. 50

Side Wall Temperatures (Behind Cables)

ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Exp Time w TW 2-1

-- Exp Time w TW 2-4

EV-xThm vTW 2-7

FO-.-RS Time TW_2-1 o"

.......be•I ~~~~ FD - -' ...... ............

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Figure A-84: Back and Side Wall Surface Temperatures, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

A-100
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

Table A-8: Summary of Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature L Total Heat Flux Surface Temperature RigsI AE AM 1_Diff. A E IAM Di). (kW/m) (kW/m ) M% (°C) (CC) (%)

Long Wall, Far (N1) 1.38 1.43 3 54 66 21

ILong Wall, Near (S4) 1.77 1.66 -6 68 75 11

Short Wall, Low (El) 1.26 1.30 3 55 59 6

Short Wall, High (E2) 1.72 1.74 1 71 79 11.

Floor, Far (F1) 0.92 1.19 28 38 53 40

Floor, Near (F4) 2.38 2.68 12 77 117 51

Ceiling, Far (C1) d 1.93 2.04 6 1 81 89 11

Ceiling, Near (C4) 3.75 3.53 -6 176 142 -19

CV)

:t: LU

CO

Long Wall, Far (N1) 1.38 1.41 2 53 64 20

Long Wall, Near (S4) 1.88 1.62 -14 70 74 5

Short Wall, Low (E3) 1.22 1.25 2 55 57 5

Short Wall, High (E2) 1.79 1.71 -4 70 77 9

Floor, Far (F1) 0.90 1.17 29 36 52 44

Floor, Near (F4) 2.32 2.63 13 78 114 46

Ceiling, Far (Cl) 1.94 2.00 3 80 87 9

Ceiling, Near (C4) - 3.43 - 191 138 -28

Long Wall, Far (N1) 3.78 3.33 -12 96 110 15

Long Wall, Near (S4) 4.51 3.85 -15 120 131 9

Short Wall, Low (El) 3.62 2.95 -19 110 98 -11

Short Wall, High (E2) 4.62 4.24 -8 125 138 10

Floor, Far (Fl) 2.59 2.78 7 74 91 23

Floor, Near (F4) 8.90 6.54 -27 156 203 30

Ceiling, Far (Cl) 5.65 5.18 -8 148 163 11

Ceiling, Near (C4) 14.51 11.05 -24 308 281 -9

Long Wall, Far (N1) 3.84 3.25 -15 95 108 14

Long Wall, Near (N4) 3.26 4.20 29 132 140 6

Short Wall, Low (El) 2.46 3.07 25 109 97 -11

Short Wall, High (E2) 4.70 4.12 -12 125 135 8

Floor, Far (F1) 2.56 2.75 8 71 89 26

Floor, Near (F4) 8.63 6.49 -25 148 203 37

Ceiling, Far (C1) 6.14 5.09 -17 148 161 9

Ceiling, Near (C4) 12.92 10.37 -20 325 270 -17

Long Wall, Far (N1) 3.41 3.36 -1 97 118 22

Long Wall, Near (N4) 3.51 3.92 12 146 141 -3

Short Wall, Low (El) 3.26 2.99 -8 106 106 0

Short Wall, High (E2) 3.97 3.92 -1 121 137 14

Floor, Far (F1) 2.47 2.91 18 76 103 35

Floor, Near (F4) 8.51 6.61 -22 152 205 35

Ceiling, Far (C1) 5.08 4.63 -9 147 157 6

Ceiling, Near (C4) 6.02 7.55 25 180 224 24

Lona Wall. Far (NI) 3.35 3.35 0 94 119 26

C

I--

Long Wall, Near (N4) 3.48 4.01 15 163 142 -13

Short Wall, Low (E3) 3.12 2.98 -5 106 104 -2

Short Wall, High (E2) 3.88 3.99 3 117 138 18

Floor, Far (Fl) 2.27 2.94 29 71 104 46

Floor, Near (F4) 7.89 6.78 -14 158 209 32

Ceiling, Far (Cl) 4.79 4.63 -3 138 156 13

A-101
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

Total Heat Flux iSurface Temnerature Rise

AE

(kW/m21

AM

(kW/m2)

Diff.

M%'

AE

(0C)

AM

(

0C)

Diff. M%

Ceiling, Near (C4) 7.68 221 225 2

Long Wall, Far (N1) - 5.22 110 134 21

Long Wall, Near (N4) - 6.78 - 199 183 -8

Cf Short Wall, Low (EI) - 4.56 - 127 116 -8

Short Wall, High (E4) - 6.61 - 145 168 16

Floor, Far (F 1) 4.41 - 89 112 25

Floor, Near (F2) - 6.14 - 149 171 15

Ceiling, Far (C7) - 11.83 - 319 269 -16

Ceiling, Near (C5) - 20.54 -- 498 365 -27

Long Wall, Far (N1) - 5.02 - 107 131 23

Long Wall, Near (N4) - 7.00 - 217 185 -15

Short Wall, Low (El) 4.78 - 123 120 -2

Short Wall, High (E2) - 5.96 - 141 158 12

Floor, Far (F1) - 4.19 - 80 110 37

Floor, Near (F2) - 7.61 - 146 187 28

Ceiling, Far (C7) - 9.04 - 284 223 -21

Ceiling, Near (C5) -- 19.34 - 441 348 -21

Long Wall, Far (N1) 1.46 1.63 11 39 40 4

Long Wall, Near (N4) 0.93 2.08 124 82 57 -31

Short Wall, Low (E3) 1.56 1.42 -9 56 33 -41 Short Wall, High (E2) 1.90 2.48 31 61 62 2

Q Floor, Far (Fl) 0.86 0.95 11 24 25 3

Floor, Near (F2) 1.50 1.91 28 52 54 5

Ceiling, Far (C1) - 3.25 - 69 81 17

Ceiling, Near (C4) -- 8.68 - 230 195 -15

Long Wall, Far (N1) 3.50 3.15 -10 114 128 12

Long Wall, Near (N4) 4.32 5.09 18 172 186 8

Short Wall, Low (El) 2.53 2.36 -7 87 100 14

Short Wall, High (E2) 4.45 4.50 1 146 169 16

Q Floor, Far (Fl) 1.97 2.31 17 54 98 83

Floor, Near (F2) 4.07 4.17 2 119 161 36

Ceiling, Far (Cl) 4.62 4.85 5 155 181 16

Ceiling, Near (C4) 9.88 9.73 -1 287 285 -1

Long Wall, Far (N1) 3.42 3.02 -11 113 125 11

Long Wall, Near (N4) 4.20 4.90 17 178 183 3

Short Wall, Low (E3) 2.42 2.21 -9 88 95 8

O) Short Wall, High (E4) - 4.29 - 135 165 23

Q Floor, Far (Fl) 1.91 2.21 15 53 95 79

Floor, Near (F2) 3.89 4.03 4 122 158 30

Ceiling, Far (C2) 5.45 6.57 21 203 223 10

Ceiling, Near (C4) 9.41 9.48 1 290 282 -3

Lona Wall, Far (N1) 2.68 2.24 -16 94 97 3

IILong Wall, Near (N4) 3.81 4.66 22 155 175 13

Short Wall, Low (El) 2.00 1.84 -8 71 80 12

Short Wall, High (E2) 3.29 3.62 10 118 145 23

Floor, Far (F1) 1.40 1.67 19 42 75 79

Floor, Near (F4) 10.06 7.36 -27 171 241 41

Ceiling, Far (Cl) 3.37 3.77 12 125 150 19

Ceilina. Near (C5M 6.74 8.25 22 263 256 -3

A-102
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

TMnI'Haat FItsv K RawFarm TBmnor~t~,ra RZi~a Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study Total HaatFlxiTmaaur ip,

AE

(kW/M2')

AM

(kW/M2)

Diff. M% AE

(OC)

AM

(°C)

Diff.

Long Wall, Far (N1) 3.50 3.08 -12 114 127 11

Long Wall, Near (N4) 8.10 7.82 -3 255 251 -1

Short Wall, Low (E3) 2.35 2.30 -2 87 98 13

Short Wall, High (E2) 4.47 4.54 2 148 172 17

. Floor, Far (Fl) 1.89 2.37 25 52 101 93

Floor, Near (F2) 2.97 3.42 15 104 138 33

Ceiling, Far (Cl) 4.69 4.94 5 158 183 16

Ceiling, Near (C5) 8.99 41.91 366 352 499 42

Long Wall, Far (SI) 3.64 2.90 -20 124 124 0

Long Wall, Near (S3) 7.46 6.13 -18 220 221 1

O Short Wall, Low (E3) 2.61 2.14 -18 96 95 -2

Short Wall, High (E2) 4.65 4.27 -8' 151 167 10

Q Floor, Far (FI) 1.95 2.16 11 p 52 96 83

Floor, Near (F2) 5.23 4.85 -7 132 187 42

Ceiling, Far (Cl) - 4.75 - 157 184 18

Ceiling, Near (C4) - 9.10 - 287 281 -2

Lona Wall. Far (Sl~ 3.40 2.96 -13 118 123 4

CO

Long Wall, Near (S4) - 10.19 - 312 298 -5

Short Wall, Low (E3) 2.58 2.39 -8 94 101 7

Short Wall, High (E2) 4.67 4.40 -6 153 166 9

Floor, Far (Fl) 1.79 2.27 27 50 97 96

Floor, Near (F2) 3.06 3.75 23 107 149 39

Ceiling, Far (Cl) 4.48 1 4.76 6 145 180 24

Ceilina. Near (C4) 7.68 250 248 -1 * A A AI - 248 . -1

Wall Te peratu Rise EWl FmpeDaturefRlse

AE AM Duff. Exp. FDS Duff.

BE__ #4_ _ J9± (%) M M

BE#4M 19; M 20 596 573 -4 722 695 -4

Test 1

O • It TW 1-1; TW 2-1 56 62 11 4 4 -18

w TW 1-4; TW 2-4 87 59 -32 68 44 -35

CO - TW 1-7; TW 2-7 86 63 -27 72 57 -21

A-103

B

FDS INPUT FILES

This appendix lists the FDS input files for all six test series. For those series with multiple tests,

a single input file has been compiled that contains all of the input parameters used in the entire

series. The data structure used by FDS (FORTRAN NAMELIST) allows one to "comment out"

unwanted input parameters by replacing the first character of the input line. For example,

the fires for ICFMP BE #2 are specified by the following lines:

Fires for Cases 1, 2 and 3

&OBST XB=15.4,16.6, 6.6, 7.8, 0.0, 1.0,SURF_IDS='FIRE1','STEEL', 'STEEL' /

cOBST XB=15.2,16.8, 6.4, 8.0, 0.0, 1.0,SURFIDS='FIRE2','STEEL','STEEL' /

cOBST XB=15.2,16.8, 6.4, 8.0, 0.0, 1.0,SURFIDS='FIRE3', 'STEEL', 'STEEL' /

The "c" at the start of the last two lines, used for BE #2 Cases 2 and 3, means that these lines

are currently inactive. The "&" character indicates that the line is active. Turning on fans,

opening doors, selecting fires, etc., are accomplished simply by commenting the appropriate

lines in or out.

Note that electronic versions of the input files are available. It is not recommended that the lines

of input below be "cut and pasted" into electronic form. FDS text input files are often corrupted

by characters introduced by word processing software like Microsoft Wore.

B-1
FDS Input Files

B.1 ICFMP BE #2

&HEAD CHID='ICFMP2 composite',TITLE='NRC Benchmark Exercise #2' /

&GRID

&PDIM

&GRID

&PDIM

&GRID

&PDIM

&GRID

&PDIM

&GRID

&PDIM

IBAR=32,JBAR=32,KBAR='144 /

XBAR0=14.0,XBAR=18.0,YBARO= 5.2,YBAR= 9.2,ZBARO=

IBAR=72,JBAR=18,KBAR=60 /

XBARO= O.O,XBAP.27.0,YBARO= 0.0,YBAR= 5.2,ZBARO=

IBAR=72,JBAR-15,KBAR=60 /

XBAR0= G0.,XBAR7=27.0,YBARO= 9.2,YBAR=13.8,ZBARO=

IBAR=48,JBAR=15,KBAR=60 /

XBAR0= 0.0,XBAR=14.0,YBARO= 5.2,YBAR= 9.2,ZBARO=

IBAR=30,JBAR=15,KBAR=60 /

XBAR0~=18.0,XBAR=27.0,YBAR0= 5.2,YBAR= 9.2,ZBARO=

0.O,ZBAPR=19.0 /

0.O,ZBAR~=19.0 /

0.0,ZBAR~=19.0 /

0.0,ZBAR=-19.0/

0.0,ZBAR~=19.0/

&TIME TWFIN=600.,SYNCHRONIZE=.TRUE. /

&MISC REACTION='HEPTANE',SURFDEFAULT-'STEEL' /

&SURF ID='SUCK',VOLUME_FLUX=11.0,RGB=1.0,0.0,0.0 /

&SURF ID

FYI

DELTA

C P

EMISSIVITY

KS

RGB

&SURF ID

FYI

DELTA

C P

EMISSIVITY

KS

RGB

'CONCRETE'

'Specified in ICFMP exercise'

0.1

0.90

0.95

2.0

0.7,0.7,0.7 /

'STEEL'

'Specified in ICFMP exercise'

0.001

0.425

0.95

54.

0.4,0.4,0.4 /

&SURF

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&SURF

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&SURF

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

&RAMP

ID='FIREI ',HRRPUA=1290.,RAMP_Q='fireI',RGB=1.0,1.0,0.0 /

ID='firel',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

ID='firel',T= 13.,F=0.67 /

ID='firel',T= 90.,F=0.92 /

ID='fire1',T=288.,F=1.00 /

ID='firel',T=327.,F=0.96 /

ID='firel',T=409.,F=0.73 /

ID='fire1',T=438.,F=0.00 /

ID='FIRE2',HRRPUA=1273.,RAMPQ='fire2',RGB=1.0,1.0,0.0 /

ID='fire2',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

ID='fire2',T= 14.,F-0.66 /

ID='fire2',T= 30.,F=0.78 /

ID='fire2',T= 91.,F=0.94 /

ID='fire2',T=193.,F=1.00 /

ID='fire2',T=282.,F-0.96 /

ID='fire2',T=340.,F=0.84 /

ID='fire2',T=372.,F-0.07 /

ID='fire2',T-395.,F=0.00 /

ID='FIRE3' ,HRRPUA=1421.,RAMP Q='fire3',RGB=1.0,l.0,0.0 /

ID='fire3',T= 0.,F-0.0 /

ID='fire3' ,T= 13.,F=0.67 /

ID='fire3 ,T= 63.,F=0.88 /

ID='fire3 ,T=66.,F=0.99 /

ID='fire3' T=256.,F=1.00 /

ID='fire3 ,T=292.,F=0.95 /

ID='fire3 ,T=330.,F=0.07 /

ID='fire3 ,T=345.,F=0.00 /

B-2
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

&REAC ID='HEPTANE'

FYI='Heptane, C_7 H_16'

DTSAM= 10.

MWFUEL=100.

NU 02=11.

NU C02=7.

NU H20=8.

SOOT YIELD=0.015 /

Fires

&OBST

cOBST

cOBST

for Cases 1, 2 and 3

XB=15.4,16.6, 6.6, 7.8,

XB=15.2,16.8, 6.4, 8.0,

XB=15.2,16.8, 6.4, 8.0,

0.0, .1.0,SURFIDS='FIREl','STEEL','STEEL' /

0.0, 1.0,SURFIDS='FIRE2', 'STEEL','STEEL' /

0.0, 1.0,SURFIDS='FIRE3','STEEL','STEEL' /

&OBST XB= 1.2, 6.2,

&OBST XB=18.0,25.0,

&OBST XB=I0.0,11.0,

Case 3 Ventilation

cOBST XB=10.0,11.0,

&OBST XB=10.0,27.0,

9.7,12.5, 0.0, 9.4,BLOCKCOLOR='GREEN' / Obstruction

9.7,12.5, 0.0, 4.0,BLOCK COLOR='CYAN' / Obstruction

6.4, 7.4,12.0,16.1,SURFIDS='STEEL','STEEL','STEEL' /

6.4, 7.4,12.0,16.1,SURF IDS='STEEL','STEEL','SUCK' /

6.4, 7.4,16.1,17.1 / Horizontal Part of Exhaust Duct

Leakac

&VENT

&VENT

&VENT

&VENT

cVENT

cVENT

&VENT

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

ge

XE

XE

XE

XE

XP

PB

3= 0.0, 0.0,

3= 0.0. 0.0,

3=27.0,27.0,

3=27.0,27.0,

6.6, 7.2, 0.2, 1.0,SURFID='OPEN',VENTCOLOR='RED'

6.6, 7.2,11.8,12.4,SURFID='OPEN',VENTCOLOR='RED'

6.6, 7.2, 0.2, 1.0, SURF ID='OPEN',VENTCOLOR='RED'

6.6, 7.2,11.8,12.4,SURFID='OPEN',VENTCOLOR='RED'

I

I

/

I

3= 0.0. 0.0, 8.9, 9.7, 0.0, 4.0,SURF ID='OPEN'

B=27.0,27.0, 8.9, 9.7, 0.0, 4.0,SURFID='OPEN'

3Z=0.0,SURFID='CONCRETE' / Concrete Floor

/ Open Door, Case 3

/ Open Door, Case 3

XYZ=1.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Tl.l',DTSAM=10. /

XYZ=1.5,6.9, 4.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='TI.2' /

XYZ=1.5,6.9, 6.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Tl.3' /

XYZ=1.5,6.9, 8.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Tl.4' /

XYZ=1.5,6.9,10.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Tl.5' /

XYZ=1.5,6.9,12.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='TI.6' /

XYZ=1.5,6.9,14.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Tl.7' /

XYZ=1.5,6.9,16.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Tl.8' /

XYZ=1.5,6.9,17.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='TI.9' /

XYZ=1.5,6.9,18.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='T1.10' /

XYZ=6.5, 6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.1' /

XYZ=6.5,6.9, 4.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.2' I

XYZ=6.5, 6.9, 6.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.3' /

XYZ=6.5,6.9, 8.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.4' /

XYZ=6.5, 6.9,10.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.5' /

XYZ=6.5, 6.9,12.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='T2.6' /

XYZ=6.5,6.9,14.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T2.7' I

XYZ=6.5, 6.9,16.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='T2.8' /

XYZ=6.5,6.9,17.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='T2.9' /

XYZ=6.5,6.9,18.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='T2.10' I

XYZ=20.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.1' /

XYZ=20.5,6.9, 4.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.2' /

XYZ=20.5, 6.9, 6.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.3' /

XYZ=20.5,6.9, 8.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.4' /

XYZ=20.5,6.9,10.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.5' /

XYZ=20.5, 6.9,12.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.6' /

XYZ=20.5, 6.9,14.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.7' /

XYZ=20.5, 6.9,16.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.8' /

XYZ=20.5,6.9,17.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.9' /

XYZ=20.5,6.9,18.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='T3.10' /

&THCP XYZ=16.0,7.2, 7.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TG.1' /

&THCP XYZ=16.0,7.2,13.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TG.2' /

&THCP XYZ= 1.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='HGL Height 1' /

&THCP XYZ= 1.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='HGL Temp 1' /

&THCP XYZ= 6.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='HGL Height 2' /

&THCP XYZ= 6.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='HGL Temp 2' /

B-3
FDS Input Files

&THCP XYZ=20.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='HGL Height 3' /

&THCP XYZ=20.5,6.9, 2.0,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='HGL Temp 3' /

&SLCF PBY=7.2,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. /

&SLCF PBY=7.2,QUANTITY='HRRPUV' /

&SLCF PBY=7.2,QUANTITY='MIXTURE FRACTION' /

&SLCF PBX=16.,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. /

&SLCF PBX=16.,QUANTITY='HRRPUV' /

&SLCF PBX=16.,QUANTITY='MIXTURE_FRACTION' /

&BNDF QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE' /

&BNDF QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEATFLUX' /

Roof Approximation

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 0.3,12.1,12.4,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH-.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,13.5,13.8,12.1,12.4,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 0.5,12.4,12.7,SURFID='STEEL' ,SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,13.3,13.8,12.4,12.7,SURFID='STEEL',SAWTOOTHý.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 0.8,12.7,12.9,SURFID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH-.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,13.0,13.8,12.7,12.9,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH-.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 1.0,12.9,13.2,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,12.8,13.8,12.9,13.2,SURF_ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 1.3,13.2,13.5,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,12.5,13.8,13.2,13.5,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 1.5,13.5,13.7,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,12.3,13.8,13.5,13.7,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 1.8,13.7,14.0,SURFID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,12.0,13.8,13.7,14.0,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 2.0,14.0,14.3,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,11.8,13.8,14.0,14.3,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 2.3,14.3,14.5,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,11.5,13.8,14.3,14.5,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 2.6,14.5,14.8,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,11.2,13.8,14.5,14.8,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 2.8,14.8,15.0,SURF ID='STEELISAWTOOTH-.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,11.0,13.8,14.8,15.0,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 3.1,15.0,15.3,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,10.7,13.8,15.0,15.3,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 3.3,15.3,15.6,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,10.5,13.8,15.3,15.6,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH-.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 3.6,15.6,15.8,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH-.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,10.2,13.8,15.6,15.8,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 3.8,15.8,16.1,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0,10.0,13.8,15.8,16.1,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 4.1,16.1,16.4,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTHý.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 9.7,13.8,16.1,16.4,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 4.3,16.4,16.6,SURF ID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 9.5,13.8,16.4,16.6,SURFID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 4.6,16.6,16.9,SURFID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 9.2,13.8,16.6,16.9,SURFID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 0.0, 4.9,16.9,19.0,SURFID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

&OBST XB= 0.0,27.0, 8.9,13.8,16.9,19.0,SURFID='STEEL',SAWTOOTH=.FALSE. /

b-4
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

B.2 ICFMP BE #3

&HEAD CHID-'ICFMP3 composite',TITLE='NRC ICFMP Benchmark Exercise 3/

Numerical grid with stretching to put finer grid over fire

&GRID IBAR=100,JBAR=36,KBAR=32 /

&PDIM XBAR-21.7,YBAR=7.04,ZBAR=3.82 /

&TRNX IDERIV=0,CC=I0.8,PC=10.8 /

&TRNX IDERIV1I,CC=10.8,PC=0.5 /

&TRNY IDERIV=O,CC= 3.58,PC=3.58 / Comment out for Tests 14, 15 and 18

&TRNY IDERIV=1,CC= 3.58,PC=0.5 / Comment out for Tests 14, 15 and 18

&TIME TWFIN=1800. /

&MISC TMPA=30.,SURF_DEFAULT='MARINITE',NFRAMES=1800,REACTION='HEPTANE' /

&REAC ID='HEPTANE'

FYi='Heptane, C_7 H_16'

DTSAM=10.

MW FUEL=100.

NU o2=11.

NUC02=7.

NUH20=8.

CO YIELD=0.006

SOOT YIELD=0.015 /

cREAC ID='TOLUENE'

FYI='Toluene, C_7 H_8, Test 17 only'

MWFUEL=92.

NUo2=9.

NUC02=7.

NU H20=4.

SOOT YIELD=0.195 /

Definitions of fan and extraction duct

&SURF ID='INFLOW' ,VOLUMEFLUX=-0.90,RGB=1,0,0,VEL T=0.0,4.0,PARTICLES=.TRUE.

&SURF ID='OUTFLOW',VOLUME_FLUX= 1.70,RGB=I,I,0,RAMP_V='exhaust' /

&RAMP ID='exhaust',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='exhaust',T= 1.,F=0.6 /

&RAMP ID='exhaust',T=180.,F=l.0 /

&RAMP ID='exhaust',T=400.,F=0.9 /

Definitions of cables. Note that RADIUS tells FDS to do

a 1-D heat transfer calc into a cylinder instead of a slab.

&SURF ID='PVC TRAY CONTROL', RAMPKS='k-pvc',RAMPCP='cppvc',DENSITY=1380.,

EMISSIVITY=0.95,RGB=1,0,0,DELTA=0.01 /

&SURF ID='PVC SINGLE CONTROL',RAMP_KS='k_pvc',RAMP C P='cppvc',DENSITY=1380.,

EMISSIVITY=0.95,RGB=1,0,0,RADIUS=0.005 /

&SURF ID='PVC SINGLE POWER', RAMPKS='k-pvc',RAMP C P='cppvc',DENSITY=1380.,

EMISSIVITY=0.95,RGB=I,0,O,RADIUS=0.008 /

&RAMP ID='k_pvc',T= 23.,F=0.192 /

&RAMP ID='K pvc',T= 50.,F=0.175 /

&RAMP ID='k_pvc',T= 75.,F=0.172 /

&RAMP ID='k pvc',T=100.,F=0.147 /

&RAMP ID='k_pvc',T=125.,F=0.141 /

&RAMP ID='Kpvc',T=150.,F=0.134 /

&RAMP ID='Cppvc',T= 23.,F=1.289 /

&RAMP ID='Cp pvc',T= 50.,F=1.353 /

&RAMP ID=Icppvc',T= 75.,F=1.407 /

&RAMP ID='cppvc',T=100.,F=l.469 /

&RAMP ID='cp pvc',T=125.,F=l.530 /

&RAMP ID='cppvc',T=150.,F=l.586 /

&SURF ID='XLP TRAY CONTROL', RAMP KS='k_xlp',RAMP CP='cp_xlp',DENSITY=1374.,

EMISSIVITY=0.95,RGB=0,1,0,DELTA=0.01 /

&SURF ID='XLP SINGLE CONTROL',RAMPKS='k_xlp',RAMP C P='cpxlp',DENSITY=1374.,

B-5
FDS Input Files

EMISSIVITY=0.95,RGB=0,1,O,RADIUS=0.005 /

&SURF ID='XLP SINGLE POWER', RAMPKS='k xlp',RAMPCP='cp xlp',DENSITY=1374.,

EMISSIVITY=0.95,RGB=0,1,0,RADIUS=0.0095 /

&RAMP ID='k xlp',T= 23.,F=0.235 /

&RAMP ID='k xlp',T= 50.,F=0.232 /

&RAMP ID='k xlp',T= 75.,F=0.223 /

&RAMP ID='k xlp',T=100.,F=0.210 /

&RAMP ID='k xlp',T=125.,F=0.190 /

&RAMP ID='k xlp',T=150.,F=0.192 /

&RAMP ID='cp xlp',T= 23.,F=1.390 /

&RAMP ID='cp xlp',T= 50.,F=1.476 /

&RAMP ID='cpxlp',T= 75.,F=1.526 /

&RAMP ID='cp xlp',T=100.,F=1.560 /

&RAMP ID='cpxlp',T=125.,F=1.585 /

&RAMP ID='cp_xlp',T=150.,F=1.607 /

&SURF ID = 'STEEL SHEET'

RGB = 0.20,0.20,0.20

CDELTARHO = 28.

BACKING = 'EXPOSED'

DELTA = 0.00635 /

&SURF ID = 'FERALOY'

RGB = 0.40,0.40,0.40

CDELTARHO = 25.

BACKING. = 'EXPOSED'

DELTA = 0.007 /

&SURF ID='FIREI',HRRPUA=410.,RGB=I,1,0,RAMPQ='FIRE1_RAMP' /

&RAMP ID='FIRE1_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE1_RAMP',T= 148.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREl RAMP',T=1350.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRElRAMP',T=1500.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='FIRE2',HRRPUA=1190.,RGB=I,1,0,RAMPQ='FIRE2_RAMP' /

&RAMP ID='FIRE2 RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE2_RAMP',T= 180.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE2_RAMP',T= 625.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE2_RAMP',T= 626.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='FIRE3',HRRPUA=1190.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE3_RAMP' /

&RAMP ID='FIRE3 RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE3_RAMP',T= 180.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE3_RAMP',T=l380.,F=l.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE3_RAMP',T=1560.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='FIRE4',HRRPUA=1200.,RGB=I,I,O,RAMPQ='FIRE4_RAMP' /

&RAMP ID='FIRE4 RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE4_RAMP',T= 180.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE4 RAMP',T= 816.,F=l.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE4 RAMP',T= 817.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='FIRE5',HRRPUA=1l90.,RGB=I,I,0,RAMPQ='FIRE5_RAMP' /

&RAMP ID='FIRE5 RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE5_RAMP',T= 180.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE5_RAMP',T=1380.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE5_RAMP',T=1560.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='FIRE7',HRRPUA=400.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMPQ='FIRE7_RAMP' /

&RAMP ID='FIRE7 RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE7 RAMP',T= 129.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE7 RAMP',T=1332.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE7 RAMP',T=l515.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='FIRES',HRRPUA=1190.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMPQ='FIRE8 RAMP' /

&RAMP ID='FIRE8 RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE8 RAMP',T= 176.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE8 RAMP',T= 610.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE8_RAMP',T= 611.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='FIRE9',HRRPUA=1I70.,RGB=I,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE9 RAMP' /

B-6
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

&RAMP ID='FIRE9_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRESRAMP',T= 175.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRESRAMP',T=1376.,F=l.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE9_RAMP',T=1560.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='FIREIO',HRRPUA=1I90.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMPQ='FIRE10_RAMP' /

&RAMP ID='FIREI0_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREI0_RAMP',T= 176.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREI0 RAMP',T= 826.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREl0 RAMP',T= 827.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='FIRE13',HRRPUA=2330.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMPQ='FIREI3_RAMP' /

&RAMP ID='FIRE13 RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREl3_RAMP',T= 177.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREI3_RAMP',T= 364.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREl3_RAMP',T= 365.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='FIREI4',HRRPUA=1180.,RGB=1,1,0,RAMP_Q='FIRE14_RAMP' /

&RAMP ID='FIRE14_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREl4_RAMP',T= 176.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREl4 RAMP',T=1381.,F=I.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREl4_RAMP',T=1567.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='FIREl5',HRRPUA=1180.,RGB=l,1,0,RAMPQ='FIREl5_RAMP' /

&RAMP ID='FIREl5 RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREl5 RAMP',T= 180.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE15-RAMP',T=1380.,F=I.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREl5-RAMP',T=1567.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='FIREl6',HRRPUA=2300.,RGB=l,1,0,RAMPQ='FIREl6_RAMP' /

&RAMP ID='FIREl6_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREl6_RAMP',T= 177.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREl6_RAMP',T= 382.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE16_RAMP',T= 383.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='FIREl7',HRRPUA=1160.,RGB=1,l,0,RAMPQ='FIRE17 RAMP' /

&RAMP ID='FIREl7_RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREl7 RAMP',T= 181.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREI7 RAMP',T= 272.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRE17_RAMP',T= 273.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='FIREl8',HRRPUA=1180.,RGB=1,l,0,RAMPQ='FIRE18RAMP' /

&RAMP ID='FIRE18 RAMP',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREI8 RAMP',T= 178.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIREl8 RAMP',T=1380.,F=l.0 /

&RAMP ID='FIRElSRAMP',T=1567.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='MARINITE'

FYI='BNZ Materials, Marinite I'

RGB = 0.70,0.70,0.70

BACKING = 'EXPOSED'

EMISSIVITY=0.8

LEAKING=.TRUE.

DENSITY = 737.

RAMP C P=t'rampcp'

RAMP KS='rampks'

DELTA=0.0254 /

&RAMP ID='rampks',T= 24.,F=0.13 /

&RAMP ID='rampks',T=149.,F=0.12 /

&RAMP ID='rampks',T=538.,F=0.12 /

&RAMP ID='rampcp',T= 93.,F=l.172 /

&RAMP ID='rampcp',T=205.,F=l.255 /

&RAMP ID='rampcp',T=316.,F=l.339 /

&RAMP ID='rampcp',T=425.,F=1.423 /

&SURF ID = 'GYPSUM BOARD'

FYI = 'NIST SP 1013-1'

RGB = 0.80,0.80,0.70

KS = 0.16

C P =0.9

DENSITY = 790.

B-7
FDS Input Files

DELTA = 0.0254 /

The fire pan, assumed to be 1 m by I m

&OBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF IDS='FIREl' 'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF IDS='FIRE2' 'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

cOBST XB=I0.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF IDS='FIRE3' 'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

cOBST XB=I0.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF IDS='FIRE4' 'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF IDS='FIRE5' 'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

cOBST XB=l0.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURFIDS='FIRE7' 'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF IDS='FIRE8' 'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURF IDS='FIRE9' 'STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SSURF IDS='FIREIO','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

cOBST XB=l0.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURFIDS='FIREl3','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

cOBST XB=I0.30,11.30,4.74,5.74,0.00,0.20,SURFIDS='FIREI4','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

cOBST XB=I0.30,11.30,0.75,1.75,0.00,0.20,SURFIDS='FIRE15','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

cOBST XB=10.30,11.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURFIDS='FIREI6','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

cOBST XB=I0.30,1I.30,3.08,4.08,0.00,0.20,SURFIDS='FIRE17','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

cOBST XB=I1.80,12.80,1.00,2.00,0.00,0.20,SURFIDS='FIRE18','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

Cables are defined as rectangular objects, but heat transfer controlled by SURF

&OBST XB= 5.85,15.85,1.90,2.10,3.20,3.30,SURFIDS='XLP TRAY CONTROL','STEEL SHEET','XLP TRAY

CONTROL' / Cable Tray D

&OBST XB=I0.70,11.00,1.10,1.30,2.70,2.90,SURFID='PVC SINGLE CONTROL' / Slab Target E

&OBST XB=l0.40,10.70,1.10,1.30,2.70,2.90,SURFID='XLP SINGLE CONTROL' / Control Cable B

&OBST XB= 5.80,15.80,0.40,0.60,2.20,2.30,SURFID='XLP SINGLE POWER' / Power Cable F

&OBST XB=l0.58,10.88,6.80,7.04,0.00,3.82,SURFID='XLP TRAY CONTROL' / Vertical Ladder Tray G

&OBST XB=17.55,17.85,3.37,3.67,3.72,3.82,SURFID='FERALOY' / Junction Box

&VENT CB='ZBARO',SURF ID='GYPSUM BOARD' / Floor

&VENT XB= 0.00, 0.00,2.51,4.51,0.00,2.00,SURFID='OPEN' / Open Door

cVENT XB=I0.88,11.58,0.00,0.00,2.05,2.40,SURFID='INFLOW' / Supply

cVENT XB=I0.88,11.58,7.04,7.04,2.05,2.76, SURFID='OUTFLOW' / Exhaust

&SLCF PBY=3.5,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. /

&SLCF PBY=3.5,QUANTITY='HRRPUV' /

&SLCF PBY=3.5,QUANTITY='MIXTURE_FRACTION' /

&SLCF PBX=I0.8,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. /

&SLCF PBX=I0.8,QUANTITY='HRRPUV' /

&SLCF PBX=10.8,QUANTITY='MIXTURE_FRACTION' /

&SLCF XB= 0.00, 0.00,2.60,4.60,0.00,2.00,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. /

&BNDF QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE' /

&BNDF QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEATFLUX' /

&PL3D DTSAM=60. /

Gas Phase TC Trees

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 0.35,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr l-1',DTSAM=10. /

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 0,70,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-2' /

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 1.05,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-3' /

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-4' /

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 1.75,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-5' /

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 2.10,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-6' /

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 2.45,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-7' /

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 2.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-8' /

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 3.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-9' /

&THCP XYZ= 5.00, 3.58, 3.50,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 1-10'/

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 0.35,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-1' /

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 0.70,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-2' /

&THCP XYZ=I0.85, 6.48, 1.05,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-3' /

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-4' /

&THCP XYZ=I0.85, 6.48, 1.75,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-5' /

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 2.10,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-6' /

&THCP XYZ=I0.85, 6.48, 2.45,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-7' /

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 2.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-8' /

&THCP XYZ=I0.85, 6.48, 3.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-9' /

B-8
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 6.48, 3.50,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 2-10'/

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

xYZ=10.85,

xYZ=10.85,

xYZ=10 .85,

xYz=10 85,

xYz=10 85,

xYz=10 .85,

xYz=10 .85,

xYz=10 85,

xYz=10. 85,

xYz=10 85,

xYz=1o. 85,

xyz=10. 85,

xYz=10. 85,

xYZ=10 .85,

xyz=10.85,

xyz=10 .85,

xYz=10 .85,

XYZ=10. 85,

xYz=10.85,

xYz=1o.85,

xYZ=10.85,

xYz=10.85,

xYz=10 .85,

xYz=10.85,

xYz=10.85,

xYz=10.85,

xYZ=10.85,

XYZ=10.85,

xyz=10.85,

xYZ=10.85,

XYZ=I1I.95,

xyz=I1I.95,

xYZ=I .95,

xYz=I1I.95.

xyz=1. 95,

xYZ=I1 .95,

xyZ=11. 95,

xYZ=11.95,

XYZ=11.95,

xYZ=I1I.95,

2.20,

2.20,

2.20,

2.20,

2.20,

2.20,

2.20,

2.20,

2.20,

2.20,

1.35,

1.35,

1.35,

1.35,

1.35,

1.35,

1.35,

1.35,

1.35,

1.35,

0.55,

0.55,

0.55,

0.55,

0.55,

0.55,

0.55,

0.55,

0.55,

0.55,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

3.58,

0.35,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE', LABEL='Tr

0.70,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

1.05,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE', LABEL='Tr

1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

1.75,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

2.10, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE', LABEL='Tr

2.45,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

2.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

3.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

3.50,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

3-l'

3-2'

3-3'

3-4' /

3-5' /

3-6' /

3-7' /

3-8' /

3-9' /

3-10'/

0.35,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-1' /

0.70,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-2' /

1.05,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-3' /

1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-4' /

1.75,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-5' /

2.10,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-6'

2.45,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-7'

2.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-8'

3.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-9'

3.50,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr 4-10'/

0.35,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

0.70,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

1. 05,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE', LABEL='Tr

1. 75,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

2. 10,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

2.45, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

2.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

3.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr

3.50,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

0.35,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr

0.70,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr

1.05,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr

1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr

1.75,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

2.10,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

2.45,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

2.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

3.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE', LABEL='Tr

3.50,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE', LABEL='Tr

0.35,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

0.70,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' LABEL='Tr

1.05,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE', LABEL='Tr

1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='Tr

1.75,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr

2.10,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr

2.45,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr

2.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr

3.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='Tr

3.50,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE', LABEL='Tr

5-11 /

5-2'

5-3'

5-4'

5-5'

5-6' /

5-7' /

5-8' /

5-9' /

5-10'/

6-1' /

6-2' /

6-3' /

6-4' /

6-5' /

6-6' /

6-7' /

6-8' /

6-9' /

6-10'/

7-1' /

7-2' /

7-3' /

7-4' /

7-5' /

7-6' /

7-7' /

7-8' /

7-9' /

7-10'/

&THCP xYZ=16.70,

&THCP xYZ=16.70,

&THCP XYZ=16.70,

&THCP XYZ=16.70,

&THCP XYZ=16.70,

&THCP XYZ=16.70,

&THCP XYZ=16.70,

&THCP XYZ=16.70,

&THCP XYZ=16.70,

&THCP XYZ=16.70,

Wall TCs

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

xYZ= 3.91,

Xyz= 3.91,

xYZ= 9.55,

xYZ=12.15,

XYZ=I7.79,

xYZ=17.79,

7.04,

7.04,

7.04,

7.04,

7.04,

7.04,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

1.49,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=-2,LABEL='TC

3.72,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=-2,LABEL='TC

1.87,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=-2,LABEL='TC

1.87,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-2, LABEL='TC

1.50,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=-2,LABEL='TC

3.73,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-2, LABEL='TC

N

N

N

N

N

N

U-i'/

U-2'/

U-3'/

U-4'/

U-5'/

U-6'/

&THCP XYZ= 3.91,

&THCP xYz= 3.91,

&THCP XYZ= 9.55,

&THCP XYZ=12.15,

&THCP XYZ=17.79,

1.49,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=

3.72,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=

1.87,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=

1.87,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=

1.50,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=

2,LABEL='TC S U-1'/

2,LABEL='TC S U-2'/

2,LABEL='TC S U-3'/

2,LABEL='TC S U-4'/

2,LABEL='TC S U-5'/

B-9
FDS Input Files

&THCP XYZ=17.79, 0.00, 3.73,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR= 2,LABEL='TC S U-6'/

&THCP XYZ=21.70, 1.59, 1.12,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=-1,LABEL='TC E U-I'!

&THCP XYZ=21.70, 1.59, 2.43,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-l,LABEL='TC E U-2'/

&THCP XYZ=21.70, 5.76, 1.12,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-1,LABEL='TC E U-3'/

&THCP XYZ=21.70, 5.76, 2.43,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-1,LABEL='TC E U-4'/

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

&THCP XYZ= 3.04,

&THCP XYZ= 9.11,

&THCP XYZ= 9.11,

&THCP XYZ=10.85,

&THCP XYZ=10.85,

&THCP xYZ=13.02,

&THCP XYZ=13.02,

&THCP XYZ=18.66,

1.59,

1.59,

5.76,

5.76,

3.59,

2.00,

5.97,

2.39,

5.17,

2.00,

5.97,

3.59,

3.59,

2.00,

5.97,

2.39,

5.17,

2.00,

5.97,

3.59,

1.12,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=

2.43,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=

1.12,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=

2.43,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=

0.00,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=

0.00,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=

0.00,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=

0.00,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=

0.00,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=

0.00,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=

0.00,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=

0.00,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=

1,LABEL='TC

1,LABEL='TC

1,LABEL='TC

1,LABEL='TC

3,LABEL='TC

3,LABEL='TC

3,LABEL='TC

3,LABEL='TC

3,LABEL='TC

3,LABEL='TC

3,LABEL='TC

3,LABEL='TC

W

W

W

W

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

U-11/

U-2'/

0-3'/

0-4'!

U-l'/

U-2'/

0-3'/

U-4'/

C-5'/

U-6'/

U-7'/

U-8'/

U-i'/

C-2'/

C-3'/ C-4'/

C-5'/

C-6'/

C-7'/

0-8'/

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

XYZ= 3.04,

XYZ= 9.11,

XYZ= 9.11,

XYZ=10.85,

XYZ=10. 85,

XYZ=13.02,

XYZ=13.02,

XYZ=18.66,

3.82,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C

3.82,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C

3.82,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C

3.82,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C

3.82,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C

3.82,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C

3.82,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C

3.82,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='TC C

Bidirectional Probe TCs

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ=11.35,

&THCP XYZ=11.35,

&THCP XYZ= 0.00,

2.81, 0.20,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

2.81, 0.60,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

2.81, 1.00,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

2.81, 1.20,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

2.81, 1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

2.81, 1.60,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

2.81, 1.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

2.81, 1.90,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

3.61, 0.20,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

3.61, 0.60,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

3.61, 1.00,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

3.61, 1.20,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

3.61, 1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

3.61, 1.60,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

3.61, 1.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

3.61, 1. 90,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

4.21, 0.20,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

4.21, 0.60,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

4.21, 1.00,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

4.21, 1.20,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

4.21, 1.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

4.21, 1.60,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

4.21, 1.80,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

4.21, 1.90,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

0.00, 2.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

7.04, 2.40,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

0.30, 0.08,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

Door 1'/

Door 2'/

Door 3'/

Door 4'/

Door 5'/

Door 6'/

Door 7'/

Door 8'/

Door 9'/

Door 10'/

Door 11'/

Door 12'/

Door 13'/

Door 14'/

Door 15'/

Door 16'/

Door 17'/

Door 18'/

Door 19'/

Door 20'/

Door 21'/

Door 22'/

Door 23'/

Door 24'/

Supply 25'/

Exhaust 26'/

Leak 27'/

Cable TCs

&THCP XYZ=10.55,

&THCP XYZ=10.55,

15',DEPTH=0.0012

&THCP XYZ=l0.85,

&THCP XYZ=10.85,

&THCP XYZ=10.85,

&THCP XYZ=10.85,

17',DEPTH=0.0025

&THCP XYZ=10.85,

1.30,

1.30,

2.00,

1.25,

1.25,

1.25,

2.80,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='B Ts-14'/

2.80,QUANTITY='INSIDEWALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='B Tc3.20,QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='D Ts-12'/

2.70,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='E Ts-16'/

2.85,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR= 3,LABEL='E Ts-16p'/

2.70,QUANTITY='INSIDEWALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='E Tc0.50, 2.20,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='F Ts-20'/

4 B-10
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

XYZ=14.85,

XYZ=14.85,

XYZ=10. 80,

XYZ=i0. 80,

XYZ=10.80,

XYZ=10. 80,

XYZ=10. 80,

XYZ=17. 70,

XYZ=17.70,

XYZ=17. 55,

2.00,

0.50,

6.80,

6.80,

6.80,

6.80,

6.80,

3.58,

3.58,

3.52,

3.61,

3.61,

3.61,

7.04,

0.55,

0.55,

3.20,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE', IOR=-3,LABEL='D Ts-26'/

2.20,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='F Ts-30'/

0.35,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE', IOR=-2,LABEL='G Ts-31'/

0.70,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE', IOR=-2,LABEL='G Ts-32'/

1.75,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE', IOR=-2,LABEL='G Ts-33'/

2.45,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE', IOR=-2,LABEL='G TS-35'/

3.15,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE', IOR=-2,LABEL='G Ts-36'/

3.72,QUANTITY='BACKWALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='Junction Box TC-37'/

3.72,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-3,LABEL='Junction Box Ts-38'/

3.77,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',IOR=-I,LABEL='Junction Box Ts-39'/

Aspirated TCs

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ=1I.35,

&THCP XYZ=10.85,

&THCP XYZ=I0.85,

Wall Flux Gauges

0.20,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='ATC

1.00,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='ATC

1.80,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='ATC

2.40,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='ATC

1.05, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='ATC

2.80,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='ATC

Door 1'/

Door 2'/

Door 3'/

Exhaust 4'/

5'/

6'/

&THCP XYZ= 3.91,

&THCP XYZ= 3.91,

&THCP XYZ= 9.55,

&THCP XYZ=12.15,

&THCP XYZ=17.79,

&THCP XYZ=17.79,

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

XYZ= 3.91,

XYZ= 3.91,

XYZ= 9.55,

XYZ=12.15,

XYZ=17.79,

XYZ=17.79,

XYZ=21. 70,

XYZ=21.70,

XYZ=21.70,

XYZ=21. 70,

XYZ= 0.00,

XYZ= 0.00,

XYZ= 0.00,

XYZ=. 0.00,

7.04,

7.04,

7.04,

7.04,

7.04,

7.04,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

1.59,

1.59,

5.76,

5.76,

1.59,

1.59,

5.76,

5.76,

3.59,

2.00,

5.97,

2.39,

5.17,

2.00,

5.97,

3.59,

1.49,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX', IOR=-2,LABEL='N

3.72,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=-2,LABEL='N

1.87,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX', IOR=-2,LABEL='N

1.87,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX', IOR=-2,LABEL='N

1.50,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX', IOR=-2,LABEL='N

3.73,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=-2,LABEL='N

1.49,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=

3.72,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=

1.87,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=

1.87,QUANTITY='HEAT FLUX',IOR=

1. 50,QUANTITY='HEAT FLUX',IOR=

3.73,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX-,IOR=

2, LABEL='S

2, LABEL=' S

2, LABEL='S

2,LABEL='S

2, LABEL='S

2, LABEL='S

1.12,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=-1,LABEL='E

2.43,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=-1,LABEL='E

1.12,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=-1,LABEL='E

2.43,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=-1,LABEL='E

U-i'/

U-2'/

U-3'/

U-4'/

U-5' /

U-6'/

U-i' /

U-2 '/

U-3'/

U-4 /

U-5 / u-61/

U-I1/

U-2'/

u-3'/

U-4'/

U-I'/

u-2'I/

U-3'/

U-4'/

O-l'/

U-2'/

U-4'/

C-5'/

U-6'7

U-7'/

U-8'/

&THCP XYZ= 3.04,

&THCP XYZ= 9.11,

&THCP XYZ= 9.11,

&THCP XYZ=10.85,

&THCP XYZ=10.85,

&THCP XYZ=13.02,

&THCP XYZ=13.02,

&THCP XYZ=18.66,

&THCP XYZ= 3.04,

&THCP XYZ= 9.11,

&THCP XYZ= 9.11,

&THCP XYZ=10.85,

&THCP XYZ=I0.85,

&THCP XYZ=I3.02,

&THCP XYZ=13.02,

&THCP XYZ=18.66,

1.12,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=

2.43,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=

1.12,QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX',IOR=

2.43,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=

0.00,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=

0.00,QUANTITY='HEAT FLUX',IOR=

0.00,QUANTITY='HEAT FLUX',IOR=

0.00,QUANTITY='HEAT FLUX',IOR=

0.00, QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=

0.00,QUANTITY='HEAT FLUX',IOR=

0.00,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=

0.00,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=

1,LABEL='W

1, LABEL='W

1, LABEL='W

1, LABEL='W

3, LABEL='F

3, LABEL=' F

3, LABEL='F

3, LABEL='F

3,LABEL='F

3, LABEL='F

3,LABEL='F

3, LABEL='F

3.59,

2.00,

5.97,

2.39,

5.17,

2.00,

5.97,

3.59,

3.82,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C

3.82,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C

3.82,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C

3.82,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C

3.82,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C

3.82,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C

3.82,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C

3.82,QUANTITY='HEATFLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='C

U-i ' /

c-2'/

C-3'/

C-4'/

C-5'/

c-6' /

C-7'/

U-8 '/

Rad and Total Flux Gauges

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

XYZ=10.87,

XYZ=I0.87,

XYZ=I0.87,

XYZ=10.87,

XYZ=10.81,

0.50,

1.25,

1.30,

2.00,

6.80,

2.20,QUANTITY='GAUGEHEAT_FLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='Total Flux Gauge 2'/

2.70,QUANTITY='GAUGEHEAT_FLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='Total Flux Gauge 4'/

2.80,QUANTITY='GAUGEHEATFLUX',IOR= 2,LABEL='Total Flux Gauge 6'/

3.20,QUANTITY='GAUGEHEATFLUX',IOR=-3,LABEL='Total Flux Gauge 8'/

1.75,QUANTITY='GAUGEHEATFLUX',IOR=-2,LABEL='Total Flux Gauge 9'/

B-I1
FDS Input Files

&THCP XYZ=10.87,

&THCP XYZ=10.87,

&THCP XYZ=l0.87,

&THCP XYZ=10.87,

&THCP XYZ=10.81,

Gaseous Sampling

0.50,

1.25,

1.30,

2.00,

6.80,

3.48,

3.48,

3.48,

3.48,

2.20,QUANTITY='RADIOMETER',IOR=-3,LABEL='Rad Gauge

2.70,QUANTITY='RADIOMETER',IOR=-3,LABEL='Rad Gauge

2.80,QUANTITY='RADIOMETER',IOR= 2,LABEL='Rad Gauge

3.20,QUANTITY='RADIOMETER',IOR=-3,LABEL='Rad Gauge

1.75,QUANTITY='RADIOMETER',IOR=-2,LABEL='Rad Gauge

3.22,QUANTITY='oxygen', LABEL='02 1'/

0.50,QUANTITY='oxygen', LABEL='02 2'/

3.22,QUANTITY='carbon monoxide',LABEL='CO 3'/

3.22,QUANTITY='carbon dioxide' ,LABEL='C02 4'/

1'/

3'/

5'/

7'/

10'/

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

6.85,

6.85,

6.85,

6.85,

Bidirectional Probes

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ= 0.10,

&THCP XYZ=11.35,

&THCP XYZ=11.35,

&THCP XYZ= 0.00,

2.71,

2.71,

2.71,

2.71,

2.71,

3.51,

3.51,

3.51,

3.51,

3.51,

4.31,

4.31,

4.31,

4.31,

4.31,

0.00,

7.04,

0.30,

0.20,QUANTITY='VELOCITY'

0.60,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

1.00,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

1.40,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

1.80,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

0.20,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

0.60,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

1.00,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

1.40,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

1.80,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

0.20,QUANTITY='VELOCITY'

0.60,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

1.00,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

1.40,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

1.80,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

2.40,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

2.40,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

0.08,QUANTITY='VELOCITY',

LABEL='BP Door 1'/

LABEL='BP Door 2'/

LABEL='BP Door 3'/

LABEL='BP Door 4'/

LABEL='BP Door 5'/

LABEL='BP Door 6'/

LABEL='BP Door 7'/

LABEL='BP Door 8'/

LABEL='BP Door 9'/

LABEL='BP Door 10'/

LABEL='BP Door 11'/

LABEL='BP Door 12'!

LABEL='BP Door 13'/

LABEL='BP Door 14'/

LABEL='BP Door 15'/

LABEL='BP Supply 16'!

LABEL='BP Exhaust 17'V

LABEL='BP Leak 18'/

Smoke Obscuration/Concentration

&THCP XYZ=21.10, 0.50, 3.60,QUANTITY='soot density', LABEL='Smoke Concentration'/

Compartment Pressure

&THCP XYZ=10.85, 0.10, 0.10,QUANTITY='PRESSURE', LABEL='Pressure'/

Integrated Quantities

&THCP XB= 0.00, 0.00,2.51,4.51,0.00,2.00,QUANTITY='MASS FLOW',LABEL='Door Mass FLOW' /

&THCP XB= 0.00, 0.00,2.51,4.51,0.00,2.00,QUANTITY='HEAT FLOW',LABEL='E-FLOW' /

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 3.00,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height' /

XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 3.00,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='HGL Temp' /

XYZ=16.70, 3.58, 3.00,QUANTITY='LOWER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='LGL Temp' /

B-12
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

B.3 ICFMP BE #4

&HEAD CHID='ICFMP4_01',TITLE-'NRC ICFMP Benchmark Exercise 4, Test 1' /

&GRID IBAR=36,JBAR=72,KBAR=56 /

&PDIM XBARO=0.0,XBAR=3.6,YBARO=-3.6,YBAR=3.6,ZBAR=5.7 /

&TIME TWFIN=1800. /

&MISC TMPA=19.,SURFDEFAULT='LIGHT CONCRETE ,NFRAMES=1800, REACTION='DODECANE' /

&REAC ID='DODECANE'

FYI='C 11.64 H_25.29'

MW FUEL=165.0

NU O02=17.96

NU C02=11.64

NU H20=12.65

EPUM02=12736-

DTSAM= 15.

CO YIELD=0.012

SOOT YIELD=0.042 /

&SURF ID='BURNER',HRRPUA=1000.,RAMP_Q='el',RGB = 0.40,0.40,0.40,TMPWAL=216. /

&RAMP ID='el',T= 0.0, F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='el',T= 92.0, F=0.11984 /

&RAMP ID='el',T= 180.0, F=1.5836 /

&RAMP ID='el',T= 260.0, F=2.62364 /

&RAMP ID='el',T= 600.0, F=3.19716 /

&RAMP ID='el',T= 822.0, F=3.35124 /

&RAMP ID='e1',T= 870.0, F=3.3812 /

&RAMP ID='eI',T=1368.0, F=3.51816 /

&RAMP ID='el',T=1395.0, F=0.0 /

&SURF ID = 'CONCRETE'

RGB = 0.66,0.66,0.66

CFP =0.88

DENSITY = 2400.

KS = 2.1

DELTA = 0.25

BACKING=' INSULATED' /

&SURF ID = 'CONCRETE TARGET'

RGB = 0.76,0.76,0.76

CFP = 0.88

DENSITY = 2400.

KS = 2.1

DELTA = 0.10

BACKING=' INSULATED' /

&SURF ID = 'AERATED CONCRETE'

RGB = 0.46,0.46,0.46

C P = 1.35

DENSITY = 420.

KS = 0.11

DELTA = 0.10

BACKING=' INSULATED' /

&SURF ID = 'LIGHT CONCRETE'

RGB = 0.76,0.76,0.76

C P =0.84

DENSITY = 1500.

KS = 0.75

DELTA = 0.25

BACKING=' INSULATED' /

&SURF ID = 'STEEL SHEET'

RGB = 0.20,0.20,0.20

B-13
FDS Input Files

C_DELTARHO = 28.

BACKING = 'EXPOSED'

DELTA = 0.00635 /

&SURF ID = 'STEEL PLATE'

RGB = 0.20,0.20,0.20

C P =0.48

DENSITY = 7743.

KS = 44.5

BACKING = 'INSULATED'

DELTA = 0.02 /

&SURF ID='HOOD',VOLUME_FLUX=I.O,RGB=O,O,I,RAMPV='HOODI' /

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 0.,F=2.12 /

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 15.,F=2.24 /

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 30.,F=2.41 /

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 45.,F=2.26 /

&RAMP ID='HOOD1I,T= 195.,F=2.55 /

&RAMP ID='HOOD1I,T= 210.,F=3.20 /

&RAMP ID='HOODlI,T= 225.,F=3.08 /

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 240.,F=3.20 /

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 255.,F=3.26 /

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T= 405.,F=3.30 /

&RAMP ID='HOODI',T= 886.,F=3.51 /

&RAMP ID='HOODI',T=1449.,F=3.66 /

&RAMP ID='HOOD1',T=1711.,F=2.65 /

&RAMP ID='HOODI',T=1755.,F=3.03 /

&RAMP ID='HOODI',T=1770.,F=2.68 /

&RAMP ID='HOODI',T=1785.,F=2.86 /

&RAMP ID='HOODI',T=1800.,F=2.82 I

&SURF ID='FUCHS',VOLUMEFLUX=0.5,RGB=0,1,1,RAMP V='FUCHS1' /

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1,T= 0.,F=0.00 /

&RAMP ID='FUCHSI',T= 150.,F=0.00 I

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 165.,F=0.08 /

&RAMP ID='FUCHSI',T= 180.,F=0.44 /

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 195.,F=0.83 /

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 210.,F=1.32 /

&RAMP ID='FUCHSI',T= 225.,F=1.41 /

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 551.,F=2.18 /

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 615.,F=2.17 /

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 666.,F=2.13 /

&RAMP ID='FUCHSI',T= 720.,F=2.25 /

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T= 859.,F=1.92 /

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T=1011.,F=1.57 I

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T=I245.,F=l.09 /

&RAMP ID='FUCHS1',T=1405.,F=0.43 I

&RAMP ID='FUCHSI',T=1650.,F=0.14 /

&RAMP ID='FUCHSI',T=1800.,F=0.06 /

&OBST XB= 1.30, 1.30, 1.30, 2.30, 0.60, 0.70,SURF_ ID='STEEL SHEET' /

&OBST XB= 2.30, 2.30, 1.30, 2.30, 0.60, 0.70,SURFID='STEEL SHEET' /

&OBST XB= 1.30, 2.30, 1.30, 1.30, 0.60, 0.70,SURF ID='STEEL SHEET' /

&OBST XB= 1.30, 2.30, 2.30, 2.30, 0.60, 0.70,SURFID='STEEL SHEET' /

&OBST XB= 1.30, 2.30, 1.30, 2.30, 0.50, 0.60,SURFIDS='BURNER','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

&OBST XB= 0.00, 3.60, 0.00, 0.80, 0.00, 0.60,SURF ID='AERATED CONCRETE' / Floor

&OBST XB= 0.00, 3.60, 2.80, 3.60, 0.00, 0.60,SURFID='AERATED CONCRETE' /

&OBST XB= 0.00, 0.80, 0.80, 2.80, 0.00, 0.60,SURF ID='AERATED CONCRETE' /

&OBST XB= 2.80, 3.60, 0.80, 2.80, 0.00, 0.60,SURF ID='AERATED CONCRETE' /

&OBST XB= 0.80, 2.80, 0.80, 2.80, 0.00, 0.40,SURFID='CONCRETE' /

&OBST XB= 0.00, 1.45, -. 25, 0.00, 0.00, 5.70,SURFID='CONCRETE' / Wall with door

&OBST XB- 2.15, 3.60, -. 25, 0.00, 0.00, 5.70,SURFID='CONCRETE' /

&OBST XB- 1.45, 2.15, -. 25, 0.00, 3.60, 5.70,SURFID='CONCRETE' /

&OBST XB= 1.50, 2.10, 2.90, 3.50, 0.60, 1.60,SURF ID='CONCRETE TARGET' / Barrel

&HOLE XB- 1.60, 2.00, 3.00, 3.40, 0.60, 1.50 / Hollow interior of Barrel

B-14
Technical Details of the EDS Validation Study

&OBST XB= 0.35,

&OBST XB= 3.25,

&OBST XB= 0.35,

&OBST XB= 0.35,

&OBST XB= 2.30,

&OBST XB= 1.30,

&OBST XB= 1.30,

&OBST XB= 1.30,

Exhaust

0.35,-2.90,-0.25,

3.25,-2.90,-0.25,

3.25,-2.90,-2. 90,

1.30,-2.90,-0.25,

3.25,-2.90,-0.25,

2.30,-2.90,-1 95,

2.30,-0.95,-0.25,

2.30,-1.95,-0.95,

2.60,

2.60,

2.60,

4.60,

4.60,

4.60,

4.60,

4.60,

4.60,SURF ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood

4.60,SURF ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood

4.60,SURF ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood

4.60,SURF ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood

4.60,SURF ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood

4.60,SURF ID='STEEL SHEET' I Hood

4.60,SURF ID='STEEL SHEET' I Hood

5.60, SURF IDS='STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET','HOOD' /

&OBST XB= 0.00, 0.10, 0.50, 0.80,

target

1.55, 1.85,SURFID='AERATED CONCRETE' / Aerated concrete

&OBST

&VENT

XB= 0.00, 0.10, 1.75, 2.05, 1.55, 1.85,SURFID='CONCRETE TARGET' / Concrete target

XB= 0.00, 0.00, 2.65, 2.95, 1.55, 1.85,SURFID='STEEL PLATE' / Steel target

&VENT

&VENT

&VENT

&VENT

&VENT

&VENT

XB= 0.00,

XB= 0.00,

XB= 3.18,

3.60, 0.00, 3.60,

0.42, 0.13, 3.60,

3.60, 0.13, 3.60,

5.70,

5.70,

5.70,

5.70,SURF ID='CONCRETE'

5.70,SURFID='FUCHS' /

5.70,SURFID='FUCHS' /

/ Ceiling

FUCHS fanl

FUCHS fan2

XB= 0.00, 0.00,-3.60,-0.25,

XB= 3.60, 3.60,-3.60,-0.25,

CB='YBARO',SURF ID='OPEN' /

0.00, 5.70,SURF_ID='OPEN' /

0.00, 5.70,SURFID='OPEN' /

&SLCF PBX=1.8,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. /

&SLCF PBX=1.8,QUANTITY='HRRPUV' /

&SLCF PBX=1.8,QUANTITY='MIXTUREFRACTION' /

&BNDF

&BNDF

&BNDF

&BNDF

&BNDF

&BNDF

&BNDF

QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE' /

QUANTITY='GAUGE HEAT FLUX' /

QUANTITY='INCIDENTHEATFLUX' /

QUANTITY='HEATFLUX' /

QUANTITY='CONVECTIVE FLUX' /

QUANTITY='RADIATIVEFLUX' /

QUANTITY='BURNING RATE' /

&PL3D DTSAM=300. /

TC Trees

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

XYZ=

XYZ=

XYZ=

XYZ=

XYZ=

XYZ=

1.75,

1.75,

1.75,

1.75,

1.75,

1.75,

XYZ= 2.75,

XYZ= 2.45,

XYZ= 0.95,

XYZ= 0.90,

1.95,

1.95,

1.95,

1.95,

1.95,

1.95,

0.85,

3.45,

0.60,

2.80,

0.85,

3.45,

0.60,

2.80,

0.85,

3.45,

0.60,

2.80,

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

2.75,

2.45,

0.95,

0.90,

1.00,

1.50,

2.40,

3.35,

4.30,

5.20,

1.50,

1.50,

1.50,

1.50,

3.35,

3.35,

3.35,

3.35,

5.20,

5.20,

5.20,

5.20,

4.00,

4.00,

4.00,

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Ml1'

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='MI2'

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='MI3'

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M14'

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='MI5'

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Ml6'

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='MI7'

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='MI8'

/

I

I

I

I

I

I

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE', LABEL='Ml', DTSAM=15. /

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M2' /

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='M3' /

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='M4' /

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='M5' /

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='M6' /

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M7' /

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M8' /

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M9' /

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='MIO' /

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

XYZ= 2.75,

XYZ= 2.45,

XYZ= 0.95,

XYZ= 0.90,

XYZ= 1.80, 1.80,

XYZ= 1.80, 1.80,

XYz= 1.80, 1.80,

QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Tup' I

QUANTITY='LOWER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Tlow' /

QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer height' /

XYz= 2.45, 3.60, 1.50, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='MI9',IOR=-2 /

XYZ= 2.45, 3.60, 3.35, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M20',IOR=-2 /

XYZ= 0.00, 1.90, 1.70, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M21',IOR= 1 /

&THCP XYZ= 2.45, 3.60, 1.50, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='M22',IOR=-2 /

B-15
FDS Input Files

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

2.45,

0.00,

1.80,

0.10,

0.10,

0.10,

0.10,

0.10,

0.10,

0.10,

0.10,

0.00,

0.00,

1.80,

1.80,

1.80,

1.80,

1.80,

1.80,

3.60,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

1.80,

1.75,

1.75,

1.80,

1.80,

1.80,

1.80,

1.80,

1.80,

0.10,

0.10,

0.10,

3.60,

1 .90,

1.80,

0.65,

0.65,

0.65,

0.65,

1.90,

1.90,

1.90,

1. 90,

2.80,

2.80,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

1.50,

2.80,

1.90,

0.70,

1.80,

1.95,

1.95,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

1.90,

1.90,

1.90,

3.35,

1.70,

0.60,

1.70,

1.70,

1.70,

1.70,

1.70,

1.70,

1.70,

1.70,

1.70,

1.70,

0.80,

1.40,

1.80,

2.40,

2.80,

3.40,

1.80,

1.70,

1.70,

1.70,

0.60,

1.50,

3.35,

0.80,

1.40,

1.80,

2.40,

2.80,

3.40,

3.80,

3.80,

3.80,

4.50,

4.50,

4.50,

5.40,

QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='M23',IOR=-2 /

QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='M24',IOR= 1 /

QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M25',IOR= 3 /

QUANTITY='INSIDEWALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M26',IOR'=

QUANTITY=' INSIDEWALLTEMPERATURE', LABEL='M27', IOR=

QUANTITY='INSIDE WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='M28',IOR=

QUANTITY='INSIDEWALLTEMPERATURE', LABEL='M29', IOR=

QUANTITY='INSIDE WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='M30',IOR=

QUANTITY='INSIDE WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='M31',IOR=

QUANTITY='INSIDEWALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='M32',IOR=

QUANTITY='INSIDEWALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='M33',IOR=

QUANTITY='INSIDE WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='M34',IOR=

QUANTITY='INSIDEWALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='M35',IOR=

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M54' /

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M55' /

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE', LABEL='M56' /

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M57' /

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M58' /

QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='M59' /

QUANTITY='GAUGE HEATFLUX',LABEL='WS1',IOR=-I /

QUANTITY='GAUGEHEATFLUX', LABEL= 'WS2' , IOR= 1 /

QUANTITY='GAUGEHEATFLUX',LABEL='WS3',IOR= 1 /

QUANTITY='GAUGEHEATFLUX',LABEL='WS4',IOR= 1 /

QUANTITY='MASSLOSS',LABEL='GVI',IOR= 3 I

QUANTITY='VELOCITY',LABEL='V1' /

QUANTITY='VELOCITY',LABEL='V2' /

QUANTITY='VELOCITY' ,LABEL='V3' /

QUANTITY='VELOCITY' ,LABEL-'V4' /

QUANTITY='VELOCITY' ,LABEL='V5' /

QUANTITY='VELOCITY' ,LABEL='V6' /

QUANTITY='VELOCITY' ,LABEL='V7' /

QUANTITY='VELOCITY' ,LABEL='V8' /

QUANTITY-'oxygen', LABEL='GAI-02' /

QUANTITY='carbon monoxide',LABEL='GAl-CO' /

QUANTITY='carbon dioxide', LABEL='GAl-C02' /

QUANTITY-'oxygen', LABEL='GA2-02' /

QUANTITY='carbon monoxide',LABEL='GA2-CO' /

QUANTITY-'carbon dioxide', LABEL='GA2-C02' /

QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='PI' /

1,DEPTH=0.02

1,DEPTH=0.05

1,DEPTH=0.08

1,DEPTH=0.00

1,DEPTH=0.02

1,DEPTH=0.05

1,DEPTH=0.08

1,DEPTH=0.00

1,DEPTH=0.00

1,DEPTH=0.02

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

XYZ=

XYZ=

XYZ=

XYZ=

1.80,-1.45,

1.80,-1.45,

1.80,-1.45,

1.10, 2.40,

&THCP XYZ= 0.30, 2.00, 2.80, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='P2' /

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

XB=

XB=

XB=

XB=

1.45, 2.15,

0.00, 3.60,

1.45, 2.15,

0.00, 3.60,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00,

0.00, 0.60, 3.60,QUANTITY='MASS FLOW',LABEL='Gin+Gout(Door)' /

3.60, 5.70, 5.70,QUANTITY='MASS FLOW',LABEL='Gout(FUCHS)' /

0.00, 0.60, 3.60,QUANTITY='HEAT FLOW',LABEL='HeatFlow(Door)' /

3.60, 5.70, 5.70,QUANTITY='HEAT FLOW',LABEL='HeatFlow(FUCHS)' /

I

B-16
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

B.4 ICFMP BE #5

&HEAD CHID='ICFMP5_04',TITLE='NRC Benchmark Exercise 5, Test 4' /

&GRID IBAR=36,JBAR=72,KBAR=56 /

&PDIM XBARO=0.O,XBAR=3.6,YBARO=-3.6,YBAR=3.6,ZBAR=5.6 /

&TIME TWFIN=1800. /

&MISC TMPA=18.,SURFDEFAULT='LIGHT CONCRETE',NFRAMES=1800,REACTION='ETHANOL' /

&REAC ID= 'ETHANOL'

FYI='Ethanol, C_2 H_6 0'

EPUMO2=12842-

DTSAM= 10.

SOOT YIELD=0.

COYIELD=0.

MWFUEL-46.

NU 02=3.

NU H20=3.

NU C02=2-

RADIATIVEFRACTION=0.20 /

&SURF ID='FIRE',HRRPUA=2041.,RAMP_Q='ramp_e',RGB=1,1,0,TMPWAL=78. /

&RAMP ID='ramp-e',T= 0.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='rampe',T= 60.,F=0.12 /

&RAMP ID='ramp e',T= 120.,F=0.22 /

&RAMP ID='rampe',T= 180.,F=0.28 /

&RAMP ID='rampe',T= 240.,F=0.29 /

&RAMP ID='ramp_e',T= 300.,F=0.30 /

&RAMP ID='ramp e',T= 480.,F=0.32 /

&RAMP ID='rampe',T= 600.,F=0.33 /

&RAMP ID='rampe',T= 900.,F=0.34 /

&RAMP ID='ramp_e',T=1800.,F=0.36 /

&SURF ID='BURNER',HRRPUA=1111.1,RGB=1,0,0,RAMP_Q='ramp4'

&RAMP ID='ramp4 ',T= O.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='ramp4',T=1200.,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='ramp4',T=1201.,F=0.5 /

&RAMP ID='ramp4',T=2100.,F=0.5 /

&RAMP ID='ramp4',T=2 1

2 0.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='ramp4',T=2280.,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='ramp4',T=2300.,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID = 'CONCRETE'

RGB = 0.66,0.66,0.66

CFP = 0.88

DENSITY = 2400.

KS = 2.1

EMISSIVITY=0.75

DELTA = 0.25 /

&SURF ID = 'LIGHT CONCRETE'

RGB = 0.76,0.76,0.76

C P =0.84

DENSITY = 1500.

KS = 0.75

EMISSIVITY=0.75

DELTA = 0.25 /

&SURF ID = 'AERATED CONCRETE'

RGB = 0.46,0.46,0.46

C P = 1.35

DENSITY = 420.

B-17
FDS Input Files

KS = 0.11

EMISSIVITY=0.75

DELTA = 0.20 /

&SURF ID = 'PVC IC'

RGB = 1,0,0

TMPIGN= 314.

HEAT OF COMBUSTION=11200.

HEAT OF VAPORIZATION=3910.

RADIUS=0. 007

EMISSIVITY=0.8

RAMP KS='kPvc'

RAMP CP=' cppvc'

DENSITY=1380. /

&SURF ID = 'PVC POWER'

RGB = 0,1,0

TMPIGN= 313.

HEAT OF COMBUSTION=18100.

HEAT OF VAPORIZATION=4930.

RADIUS=0.015

EMISSIVITY=0 .8

RAMP_KS='k_pvc'

RAMP C_P='cp_pvc'

EMISSIVITY=0 .8

DENSITY=1380. /

&RAMP ID='k pvc',T= 23.,F=0.192 /

&RAMP ID='k pvc',T= 50.,F=0.175 /

&RAMP ID='kpvc',T= 75.,F=0.172 /

&RAMP ID='kpvc',T=100.,F=0.147 /

&RAMP ID='k pvc',T=125.,F=0.141 /

&RAMP ID='kpvc',T=150.,F=0.134 /

&RAMP ID='cpýpvc',T= 23.,F=1.289 /

&RAMP ID='cppvc',T= 50.,F=1.353 /

&RAMP ID='cppvc',T= 75.,F=1.407 /

&RAMP ID='cp-pvc',T=100.,F=1.469 /

&RAMP ID='cppvc',T=125.,F=1.530 /

&RAMP ID='cp pvc',T=150.,F=1.586 I

&SURF ID = 'STEEL SHEET'

RGB = 0.20,0.20,0.20

C DELTARHO = 28.

BACKING = 'EXPOSED'

DELTA = 0.00635 /

&SURF ID='HOOD',VOLUMEFLUX=2.76,RGB=0,0, 1 /

&OBST XB= 2.60, 3.30, 1.50, 2.20, 0.30, 0.70,SURF IDS='FIRE','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

&OBST XB= 2.35, 3.60, 1.10, 2.60, 0.00, 0.30,SURFID='AERATED CONCRETE' / Base for fire pan

&OBST XB= 2.15, 2.35, 0.00, 3.60, 0.00, 1.40,SURFID='AERATED CONCRETE' / 1.4 m high Divider

&OBST XB= 0.35, 0.35, 1.80, 2.40, 0.50, 4.50,SURF ID='STEEL SHEET' / Cable Tray

&OBST XB= 0.30, 0.40, 1.80, 1.80, 0.50, 4.50,SURF ID='STEEL SHEET' /

&OBST XB= 0.30, 0.40, 2.40, 2.40, 0.50, 4.50,SURFID='STEEL SHEET' /

&OBST XB= 0.35, 0.45, 1.95, 2.05, 0.50, 4.50,SSURF ID='PVC IC' / Cables

&OBST XB= 0.35, 0.45, 2.15, 2.25, 0.50, 4.50,SURFID='PVC POWER' /

Burner

&OBST XB= 0.45, 0.75, 1.95, 2.25, 0.00, 0.40,SSURFIDS='BURNER','STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET' /

&OBST XB= 0.00, 1.45, -. 25, 0.00, 0.00, 5.60,SURFID='LIGHT CONCRETE' / Walls surrounding door

&OBST XB= 2.15, 3.60, -. 25, 0.00, 0.00, 5.60,SURF ID='LIGHT CONCRETE' /

&OBST XB= 1.45, 2.15, -. 25, 0.00, 3.60, 5.60,SURF ID='LIGHT CONCRETE' /

&OBST XB= 1.45, 2.15, -. 10, 0.00, 0.00, 1.40,SSURFID='AERATED CONCRETE' / Door Blocker

&OBST XB= 0.35, 0.35,-2.90,-0.25, 2.60, 4.60,SURF ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood

&OBST XB= 3.25, 3.25,-2.90,-0.25, 2.60, 4.60,SURF ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood

&OBST XB= 0.35, 3.25,-2.90,-2.90, 2.60, 4.60,SURFID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood

B-18
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

&OBST XB= 0.35, 1.30,-2.90,-0.25, 4.60, 4.60,SURF_ID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood

&OBST XB= 2.30, 3.25,-2.90,-0.25, 4.60, 4.60,SURFID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood

&OBST XB= 1.30, 2.30,-2.90,-1.95, 4.60, 4.60,SURFID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood

&OBST XB- 1.30, 2.30,-0.95,-0.25, 4.60, 4.60,SURFID='STEEL SHEET' / Hood

&OBST XB= 1.30, 2.30,-1.95,-0.95, 4.60, 5.60,SURFIDS='STEEL SHEET','STEEL SHEET','HOOD' /

Exhaust

&VENT XB= 0.00, 0.00,-3.60,-0.25, 0.00, 5.60,SURF ID='OPEN' /

&VENT XBr 3.60, 3.60,-3.60,-0.25, 0.00, 5.60,SURF_ID='OPEN' /

&VENT CB='YBAR0',SURF ID='OPEN' /

&VENT CB='ZBAR0',SURFID='CONCRETE' / Floor

&SLCF PBX=I.8,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. /

&SLCF PBX=1.8,QUANTITY='HRRPUV' /

&SLCF PBX=1.8,QUANTITY='MIXTUREFRACTION' /

&SLCF PBY=2.1,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. /

&SLCF PBY=2.1,QUANTITY='HRRPUV' /

&SLCF PBY=2.1,QUANTITY='MIXTURE_FRACTION' /

&BNDF QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE' /

&BNDF QUANTITY='GAUGEHEAT FLUX' /

&BNDF QUANTITY='INCIDENTHEATFLUX' /

&BNDF QUANTITY='HEAT_FLUX' /

&BNDF QUANTITY='CONVECTIVEFLUX' /

&BNDF QUANTITY='RADIATIVEFLUX' /

&BNDF QUANTITY='BURNINGRATE' /

&PL3D DTSAM=60. /

TC Trees

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 0.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TP 1', DTSAM=10. /

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 1.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Tp 2' /

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 2.00, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TP 3' /

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 2.80, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TP4' /

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 3.60, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TP5' /

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 4.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TP6' /

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TP7' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 0.60, 0.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR I-1' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 0.60, 1.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 1-2' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 0.60, 2.00, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 1-3' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 0.60, 2.80, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 1-4' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 0.60, 3.60, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 1-5' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 0.60, 4.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 1-6' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 0.60, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 1-7' /

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 0.60, 0.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 2-1' /

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 0.60, 1.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 2-2' /

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 0.60, 2.00, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 2-3' /

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 0.60, 2.80, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 2-4' /

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 0.60, 3.60, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 2-5' /

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 0.60, 4.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 2-6' /

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 0.60, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 2-7' /

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 3.00, 0.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_3-1' /

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 3.00, 1.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 3-2' /

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 3.00, 2.00, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 3-3' /

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 3.00, 2.80, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 3-4' /

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 3.00, 3.60, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 3-5' /

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 3.00, 4.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 3-6' I

&THCP XYZ= 3.00, 3.00, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 3-7' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 3.00, 0.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 4-1' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 3.00, 1.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 4-2' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 3.00, 2.00, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 4-3' /

&THCP XYZ= 0;60, 3.00, 2.80, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 4-4' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 3.00, 3.60, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR.4-5' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 3.00, 4.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_4-6' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.60, 3.00, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR_4-7' /

B-19
FDS Input Files

&THCP XYZ= 0.85, 2.20, 0.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 5-1' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.85, 2.20, 1.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 5-2' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.85, 2.20, 2.00, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 5-3' I

&THCP XYZ= 0.85, 2.20, 2.80, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR5-4' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.85, 2.20, 3.60, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 5-5 I

&THCP XYZ= 0.85, 2.20, 4.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 5-6' /

&THCP XYZ= 0.85, 2.20, 5.20, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TR 5-7' /

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 0.40, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_1-1',IOR=-2 /

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 1.20, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_1-2',IOR=-2 /

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 2.00, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW 1-3',IOR=-2 /

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 2.80, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_1-4',IOR=-2 /

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 3.60, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_1-5',IOR=-2 /

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 4.40, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW 1-6',IOR=-2 /

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 5.20, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_1-7',IOR=-2 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 0.40, QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW 2-1',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 1.20, QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW 2-2',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 2.00, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW 2-3',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 2.80, QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW 2-4',IOR=1 /

&THCP xYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 3.60, QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW 2-5',IOR=I /

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 4.40, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW 2-6',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 5.20, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TW_2-7',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 3.10, 1.60, 0.70, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='T E',IOR=3 /

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 1.60, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TB 2-1' /

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 2.05, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TB 2-2' /

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 2.50, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TB 2-3' /

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 2.95, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TB 2-4' /

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 3.40, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TB 2-5' /

&THCP XYZ= 3.59, 2.15, 1.05, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TB 3' /

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-1.80, 4.50, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TB_4' /

&THCP XYZ= 2.60, 3.60, 1.20, QUANTITY='BACK WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TWO_1',IOR=-2

&THCP XYZ= 0.00, 2.20, 1.20, QUANTITY='BACKWALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TWO_2',IOR= 1

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 1.20, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO 1-1',IOR=I /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 1.60, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO-1-2',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 2.00, QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO 1-3',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 2.40, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO 1-4',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 2.80, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO 1-5',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 3.20, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO-1-6', IOR= /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 3.60, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO 1-7',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 4.00, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO-1-8',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.24, 4.40, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO_1-9',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 1.20, QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO 3-1',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 1.60, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO 3-2',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 2.00, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO 3-3',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 2.40, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL-'TCO 3-4',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 2.80, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO 3-5'IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 3.20, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO 3-6',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 3.60, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABELý'TCO 3-7',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 4.00, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO 3-8',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.44, 2.05, 4.40, QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TCO 3-9',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.41, 2.13, 1.20, QUANTITY='GAUGE_HEATFLUX',LABEL='WS_1',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.41, 2.13, 2.00, QUANTITY='GAUGEHEATFLUX',LABEL='WS_2',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.41, 2.13, 2.80, QUANTITY='GAUGE HEATFLUX',LABEL='WS 3',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.41, 2.13, 3.60, QUANTITY='GAUGEHEATFLUX',LABEL='WS_4',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 0.41, 2.13, 4.40, QUANTITY='GAUGEHEATFLUX',LABEL='WS_5',IOR=1 /

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 1.20, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP 1-1' /

&THCF XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 2.80, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='Dp1-2' /

&THCP XYZ= 2.90, 1.80, 4.40, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP 1-3' /

&THCP XYZ= 1.80,-0.15, 1.60, QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP 2-1' /

B-20
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

1.80,-0.15,

1.80,-0.15,

1.80,-0.15,

1.80,-0.15,

3.59, 2.15,

1.80,-1.80,

0.10, 0.65,

0.10, 0.65,

0.10, 0.65,

0.30, 2.10,

0.30, 2.10,

0.30, 2.10,

0.30, 2.10,

0.30, 2.10,

0.30, 2.10,

2.05,

2.50,

2.95,

3.40,

1.05,

4.50,

0.55,

2.75,

4.95,

2.00,

2.00,

2.00,

4.40,

4.40,

4.40,

QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP 2-2' /

QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP 2-3' /

QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP 2-4' /

QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP-2-5' /

QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP_3' /

QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP_4' /

QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP 5-1' /

QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP 5-2' /

QUANTITY='PRESSURE',LABEL='DP 5-3' /

QUANTITY='oxygen', LABEL='GAI-02' /

QUANTITY='carbon monoxide',LABEL='GAi-CO' /

QUANTITY='carbon dioxide', LABEL='GAl-C02' /

QUANTITY='oxygen', LABEL='GA2-02' /

QUANTITY='carbon monoxide',LABEL='GA2-CO' /

QUANTITY='carbon dioxide', LABEL='GA2-CO2' /

&THCP XB= 1.45, 2.15, 0.00, 0.00, 1.40, 3.60,QUANTITY='MASS FLOW',LABEL='Gin + Gout(Door)' /

&THCP XB= 1.45, 2.15, 0.00, 0.00, 1.40, 3.60,QUANTITY='HEAT FLOW',LABEL='Heat Flow(Door)' /

B-21
FDS Input Files

B.5 FM/SNL Test Series

&HEAD CHID='FMSNL composite',TITLE='FM-SNL Test Series' /

&GRID IBAR=48,JBAR=48,KBAR=120 /

&PDIM XBARO=11.0,XBAR=13.4,YBARO=4.9,YBAR=7.3,ZBAR=6.1 /

&GRID IBAR=64,JBAR=24,KBAR=32 /

&PDIM XBARO= 0.0,XBAR=13.4,YBARO=0.0,YBAR=4.9,ZBAR=6.1 /

&GRID IBAR=54,JBAR=12,KBAR=32 /

&PDIM XBAR0= 0.0,XBAR=11.0,YBARO=4.9,YBAR= 7.3,ZBAR=6.1 /

&GRID IBAR=64,JBAR=24,KBAR=32 /

&PDIM XBARO= 0.0,XBAR=13.4,YBARO=7.3,YBAR=12.2,ZBAR=6.1 /

&GRID IBAR=24,JBAR=64,KBAR=32 /

&PDIM XBARO=13.4,XBAR=18.3,YBARO=O.0,YBAR=12.2,ZBAR=6.1 /

&TIME TWFIN=900.,SYNCHRONIZE=.TRUE. / 1800 s for Test 21

&MISC TMPA=21.,SURFDEFAULT='MARINITE',REACTION='PROPENE'

&REAC ID='PROPENE'

FYI='Propylene, C_3 H 6'

MW FUEL=42

NU 02=4.5

NU C02-3.

NU H20=3.

DTSAM=5.

SOOT YIELD=0.02 /

&SURF ID='MARINITE',DENSITY=1000.,CP=1.16,KS=0.23,DELTA=0.025,RGB=.7,.7,.7

&SURF ID='burner4',HRRPUA=806.,RAMPQ='fire',RGB=1,0,0 /

&SURF ID='burner5',HRRPUA=806.,RAMPQ='fire',RGB=1,0,0 /

&RAMP ID='fire',T= 0.0,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='fire',T= 60.0,F=0.0625 /

&RAMP ID='fire',T=120.0,F=0.25 /

&RAMP ID='fire',T=180.0,F=0.5625 /

&RAMP ID='fire',T=240.0,F=l.0 /

&RAMP ID='fire',T=600.0,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='fire',T=601.0,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='burner2l',HRRPUA=734.,RAMP Q='fire2l',RGB=1,0,0 /

&RAMP ID='fire2l',T= 0.0,F=0.0 /

&RAMP ID='fire21',T= 60.0,F=0.0625 /

&RAMP ID='fire2l',T= 120.0,F=0.25 /

&RAMP ID='fire2l',T= 180.0,F=0.5625 /

&RAMP ID='fire2l',T= 240.0,F=1.0 /

&RAMP ID='fire21',T=1140.0,F=l.0 /

&RAMP ID='fire21',T=ll41.0,F=0.0 /

&SURF ID='duct4',VOLUMEFLUX=-0.11,RGB=0,0,1 I

&SURF ID='duct5',VOLUMEFLUX=-0.76,RGB=0,0,1,RAMPV='ductramp5' /

&RAMP ID='ductramp5',T= 0.,F=0. /

&RAMP ID='ductramp5',T= 1.,F=I. /

&RAMP ID='ductramp5',T=540.,F=l. /

&RAMP ID='ductramp5',T=541.,F=0. /

&OBST XB=11.8,12.6, 5.7,6.5,0.0,0.2,SURFIDS='burner4', 'MARINITE','MARINITE' /sand burner

cOBST XB=11.8,12.6, 5.7,6.5,0.0,0.2,SURFIDS='burner5', 'MARINITE','MARINITE' /sand burner

cOBST XB= 8.7, 9.5, 7.4,8.2,0.0,0.2,SURFIDS='burner2l','MARINITE','MARINITE' /sand burner

cOBST XB= 8.5, 9.7, 8.8,8.8,0.0,2.4,SURFID='STEEL''/ cabinet back panel

cOBST XB= 8.5, 8.5, 6.8,8.8,0.0,2.4,SURFID='STEEL' / cabinet side panel

COBST XB= 9.7, 9.7, 6.8,8.8,0.0,2.4,SURF ID='STEEL' / cabinet side panel

cOBST XB= 8.5, 9.7, 6.8,8.8,2.4,2.4,SURFID='STEEL' / cabinet top panel

&OBST XB= 2.8, 3.4, 2.8, 3.4, 4.9, 6.1, SURFIDS='MARINITE','MARINITE','duct' /#i injection duct

13-22
Technical Details -of the FDS Validation Study

&OBST XB= 2.8, 3.4, 2.8, 3.4, 4.6, 4.6 / deflector plate

&OBST XB= 8.9, 9.5, 2.8, 3.4, 4.9, 6.1, SURFIDS='MARINITE','MARINITE','duct' /#2 injection duct

&OBST XB= 8.9, 9.5, 2.8, 3.4, 4.6, 4.6 / deflector plate

&OBST XB=15.0,15.6, 2.8, 3.4, 4.9, 6.1, SURFIDS='MARINITE','MARINITE','duct' /#3 injection duct

&OBST XB=15.0,15.6, 2.8, 3.4, 4.6, 4.6 / deflector plate

&OBST XB= 2.8, 3.4, 8.9, 9.5, 4.9, 6.1, SURFIDS='MARINITE','MARINITE','duct' /#4 injection duct

&OBST XB= 2.8, 3.4, 8.9, 9.5, 4.6, 4.6 / deflector plate

&OBST XB= 8.9, 9.5, 8.9, 9.5, 4.9, 6.1, SURFIDS='MARINITE','MARINITE','duct' /#5 injection duct

&OBST XB= 8.9, 9.5, 8.9, 9.5, 4.6, 4.6 / deflector plate

&OBST XB=15.0,15.6, 8.9, 9.5, 4.9, 6.1, SURFIDS='MARINITE','MARINITE','duct' /#6 injection duct

&OBST XB=15.0,15.6, 8.9, 9.5, 4.6, 4.6 / deflector plate

&VENT XB= 0.0, 0.6, 5.2, 7.0, 6.1, 6.1, SURFID='OPEN' / exhaust vent

&SLCF PBY=6.1,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. /

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,

&THCP XYZ= 9.15,

&THCP XYZ= 9.15,

&THCP XYZ= 9.15,

&THCP XYZ= 9.15,

&THCP XYZ= 9.15,

&THCP XYZ=15.25,

&THCP XYZ=15.25,

&THCP XYZ=15.25,

&THCP XYZ=15.25,

&THCP XYZ=15.25,

&THCP XYZ=15.25,

&THCP XYZ=15.25,

&THCP XYZ=15.25,

&THCP XYZ=15.25,

&THCP XYZ=15.25,

&THCP XYZ= 9.14,

&THCP XYZ= 9.14,

&THCP XYZ= 9.14,

&THCP XYZ= 9.14,

&THCP XYZ= 9.14,

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,

&THCP XYZ=.3.05,

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,

&THCP XYZ=12.19,

&THCP XYZ=12.19,

&THCP XYZ=12.19,

&THCP XYZ=12.19,

&THCP XYZ=12.19,

&THCP XYZ= 6.10,

&THCP XYZ= 6.10,

&THCP XYZ= 6.10,

&THCP XYZ= 6.10,

&THCP XYZ= 6.10,

&THCP XYZ=12.19,

&THCP XYZ=12.19,

&THCP XYZ=12.19,

&THCP XYZ=12.19,

&THCP XYZ=12.19,

&THCP XYZ= 6.10,

&THCP XYZ= 6.10,

&THCP XYZ= 6.10,

&THCP XYZ= 6.10,

&THCP XYZ= 6.10,

6.10,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector3

6.10,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Sector3

6.10,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Sector3

6.10,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Sector3

6.10,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Sector3

6.10,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector2

6.10,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Sector2

6.10,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Sector2

6.10,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sector2

6.10,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Sector2

6.10,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Sectorl

6.10,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sectorl

6.10,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Sectorl

6.10,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Sectorl

6.10,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Sectorl

1.52,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Stationl

1.52,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Stationl

1.52,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Stationl

1.52,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Stationl

1.52,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Stationl

1.52,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station2

1.52,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station2

1.52,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station2

1.52,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station2

1.52,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station2

1.52,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station3

1.52,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station3

1.52,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Station3

1.52,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station3

1.52,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station3

3.05,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station4

3.05,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station4

3.05,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Station4

3.05,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Station4

3.05,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station4

3.05,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station5

3.05,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station5

3.05,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station5

3.05,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station5

3.05,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station5

9.14,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station6

9.14,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station6

9.14,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station6

9.14,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station6

9.14,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station6

9.14,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Station7

9.14,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station7

9.14,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station7

9.14,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station7

9.14,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Station7

Chll',DTSAM=5 /

Chl2' /

Chl3' /

Chl4' /

Chl5' /

Ch6' /

Chl' /

Ch8' /

Ch9' /

Chl0' /

Chl' /

Ch2' /

Ch3' /

Ch4' /

Ch5' /

Chl6' /

Ch4l' /

Ch42' /

Ch43' /

Ch44' /

Chl7' /

Ch45' /

Ch46' /

Ch47' /

Ch48' /

Chl8' /

Ch49' /

ChSO' /

Ch5l' /

Ch52' /

Chl9' /

Ch53' /

Ch54' /

Ch55' /

Ch56' /

Ch20' /

Ch57' /

Ch58' /

Ch59' /

Ch60' /

Ch2l' /

Ch6l' /

Ch62' /

Ch63' /

Ch64' /

Ch22' /

Ch65' /

Ch66' /

Ch67' /

Ch68' /

B-23
FDS Input Files

&THCP XYZ'45.24, 1O.67,5.98,QUANTITY='.TEMPERATURE I LABEL=' Station8

&THCP XYZ=15.24,1O.67, 5.49,QUANT ITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL~='Station8

&THCP XYZ=15.24, 10.67, 4.27,QUANTITY=TEMPERATtJRE ILABEL=' Station8

&THCP XYZ=15.24,1O.67, 3.05,QUANT ITY='TEMPERATURE' ,LABE~L='Station8

&THCP XYZ=15.24, 10.67, 1.83,QUANT ITY= TEMPERATURE ILABEL='Station8

&THCP XYZ= 9.14,10.67, 5.98, QUANTITY='ITEMPERATURE' LABEL='Station9

&THCP XYZ= 9.14,10.67,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Station9

&THCP XYZ= 9.14,10.67,4.27, QUANTITY=' TEMPERATURE' LABEL=' Station9

&THCP XYZ= 9.14, 10.67,3.05,QUANTITY='TEMPERATtJRE, LABEL='Station9

&THCP XYZ= 9.14, 10. 67,1.83, QUANTITY=' TEMPERATURE' LABEL='Station9

&THCP XYZ= 3.05, 10.67,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATtJRE' LABEL='StationlO

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,10.67,5.49,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Stationl0

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,3.0,67,4.27,QUANTITY='TEMPERATEJRE ,LABEL='Stationl0

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,10.67,3.05,QUANTITY=TEMPERATUREI,LABEL=StationlO

&THCP XYZ= 3.05,1O.67,1.83,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Stationl0)

&THCP XYZ=16.76, 4.57,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Stationll

&THCP XYZ= 1.52, 4.57,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Stationl2

&THCP XYZ=12.19, 6.10,5.98,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Stationl3

&THCP XYZ= 6.10, 6.10,5.98,QUANTITY=TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Stationl4

&THCP XYZ=16.76, 7.62,5.98,QUANTITY=TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Stationl5

&THCP XYZ= 1.52, 7.62,5.98,QUANTITY=TEMPERATtJRE',LABEL='Stationl6

Ch23'

Ch69'

Ch70'

Ch71'

Ch72

Ch24'

Ch73'

Ch74

Ch75'

Ch76'

Ch25'

Ch77'

Ch78'

Ch79'

Ch8O'

Ch26'

Ch27'

Ch28'

Ch29'

Ch30'

Ch3l'

I

/

/

/

/

I

I

/

I

/

I

/

/

/

/

/

/

I

/

(Centerline Plume)

B-24
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

B.6 NBS Multi-Room Test Series

&HEAD CHID='NBS composite',TITLE='NBS Multiroom Tests' /

&GRID IBAR=24,JBAR=34,KBAR=22 /

&PDIM XBAR0= 9.8,XBAR=12.2,YBARO=0.0,YBAR=3.4,ZBAR=2.2 /

&GRID IBAR=122,JBAR=24,KBAR=24 /

&PDIM XBARO= 0.0,XBAR=12.2,YBARO=3.4,YBAR=5.8,ZBAR=2.4 /

cGRID IBAR=122,JBAR=24,KBAR=24 /

cPDIM XBAR0= 2.4,XBAR= 4.6,YBAR0=0.0,YBAR=3.4,ZBAR=2.4 /

&TIME TWFIN=1200. /

&MISC TMPA=23.,NFRAMES=2400,SURFDEFAULT='GYPSUM BOARD',REACTION='METHANE' /

&SURF ID='burner',HRRPUA=1222.,RGB=1,0,0,RAMPQ='burnerramp' I

&RAMP ID='burner_ramp',T= 0.,F=0. /

&RAMP ID='burnerramp',T= 1.,F=I. /

&RAMP ID='burnerramp',T=900.,F=1. /

&RAMP ID='burner_ramp',T=901.,F=0. /

&SURF ID = 'GYPSUM BOARD'

FYI = 'NBSIR 88-3752'

RGB = 0.80,0.80,0.70

KS = 0.17

C P = 1.09

DENSITY= 930.

DELTA 0.013 /

&SURF ID = 'CALCIUM SILICATE'

FYI = 'NBSIR 88-3752'

RGB = 0.70,0.70,0.70

KS = 0.12

C P =1.25

DENSITY= 720.

EMISSIVITY = 0.83

DELTA = 0.013 /

&SURF ID = 'CERAMIC FIBER'

FYI = 'NBSIR 88-3752'

RGB = 0.40,0.40,0.40

KS = 0.09

C P = 1.04

DENSITY= 128.

EMISSIVITY = 0.97

DELTA = 0.050 /

&SURF ID = 'FIRE BRICK'

FYI = 'NBSIR 88-3752'

RGB = 0.90,0.60,0.60

KS = 0.36

C P = 1.04

DENSITY= 750.

EMISSIVITY = 0.80

DELTA = 0.113 /

&SURF ID = 'CONCRETE'

FYI = 'NBSIR 88-3752'

RGB = 0.60,0.60,0.60

KS = 1.8

C P = 1.04

DENSITY= 2280.

DELTA = 0.102 /

&SURF ID = 'STEEL'

B-25
FDS Input Files

RGB

C_DELTARHO

DELTA

= 0.20,0.20,0.20

= 20.

= 0.005 /

&REAC ID 'IMETHANE'

FYI='Methane, C H_4'

MW FUEL=16

NU 02=2.

NU C02=1.

NU H20=2.

DTSAM = 10.

RADIATIVEFRACTION=0.20

SOOTYIELD=0.005 /

&OBST

&OBST

&OBST

&OBST

&OBST

&OBST

&OBST

&VENT

&VENT

&VENT

&VENT

&VENT

&VENT

&VENT

XB=10.9,11.2, 0.0, 0.3,

XB- 9.8,11.1, 2.3, 3.4,

'GYPSUM BOARD','CERAMIC

XB11.1,l1.2, 3.3, 3.4,

XB=12.0,12.2, 3.3, 3.4,

XB=11.2,12.0, 3.3, 3.4,

XB= 3.2, 4.6, 2.2, 3.4,

XB= 2.4, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4,

0.4, 0.5,SURF IDS='burner','STEEL','STEEL' / Burner

0.0, 2.2,SURF ID6='CERAMIC FIBER','CERAMIC FIBER','CERAMIC FIBER',

FIBER','CERAMIC FIBER' / Room 1 cut-out

0.0, 2.2 / Door jamb (Room i)

0.0, 2.2 / Door jamb (Room 1)

1.6, 2.2 / Door Sill (Room 1)

0.0, 2.4 / Room 3 cut-out

2.0, 2.4 / Door Sill (Room 3)

XB= 0.0, 0.0,

XB= 9.8,12.2,

XB= 9.8,12.2,

XB= 9.8, 9.8,

XB=12.2,12.2,

XB= 9.8,12.2,

XB= 2.4, 4.6,

4.2,

0.0,

0.0,

0.0,

0.0,

0.0,

0.0,

5.0,

3.4,

3.4,

3.4,

3.4,

0.0,

3.4,

0.0,

0.0,

2.2,

0.0,

0.0,

0.0,

0.0,

2.0,SURF ID='OPEN' / Open Door at end of hallway

0.0,SURF ID='FIRE BRICK' / Floor of Room 1

2.2,SURF ID='CERAMIC FIBER' / Ceiling of Room 1

2.2,SURF ID='CERAMIC FIBER' / Wall of Room 1

2.2,SURFID='CERAMIC FIBER' / Wall of Room 1

2.2,SURF ID='CERAMIC FIBER' / Wall of Room 1

0.0,SURF ID='CONCRETE' / Floor of Room 3

&BNDF QUANTITY='GAUGEHEAT FLUX' /

&BNDF QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE' /

&SLCF

&SLCF

&SLCF

&SLCF

PBY= 4.6,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / Hallway (Room 2)

PBZ= 2.0,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / Ceiling

PBX=1l.7,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / Room 1

PBX= 2.8,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE',VECTOR=.TRUE. / Room 3

&THCP XYZ=I0.0,

&THCP XYZ=10.0,

&THCP XYZ=10.0,

&THCP XYZ=I0.0,

&THCP XYZ=10.0,

&THCP XYZ=10.0,

&THCP XYZ=10.0,

&THCP XYZ=10.0,

&THCP XYZ=10.0,

2.0,

2.0,

2.0,

2.0,

2.0,

2.0,

2.0,

2.0,

2.0,

0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

0.36,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

0.66,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

0.97,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

1.27,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

1.57,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

1.88,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

2.03,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

2.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

0.30,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

0.61,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

0.91,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

1.22,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

1.52,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

1-l',DTSAM=I0. I

1-2' /

1-3' /

1-4' /

1-5' /

1-6' /

1-7' /

1-8' /

1-9' /

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

XYZ=1I.7,

XYZ=1I.7,

XYZ=I1I.7,

XYZ=11.7,

XYZ=I1I.7,

XYZ=11. 7,

XYZ=10. 8,

XYZ=10.8,

XYZ=10. 8,

XYZ=10. 8,

XYZ=I0 .8,

XYZ=10.8,

XYZ=I0. 8,

XYZ=10. 8,

XYZ=I0 .8,

XYZ=10 .8,

2.3,

2.3,

2.3,

2.3,

2.3,

2.3,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

2-1'

2-2'

2-3'

2-4'

2-5'

2-6'

/

I

/

/

/

/

0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-1' /

0.30,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-2' /

0.61,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-3' /

0.91,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-4' /

1.22,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-5' /

1.52,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-6' /

1.83,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-7' /

2.13,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-8' /

2.29,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 3-9' /

2.40,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TC 3-10',IOR=-3 /

&THCP XYZ= 6.7,

&THCP XYZ= 6.7,

&THCP XYZ= 6.7,

&THCP XYZ= 6.7,

4.6, 0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

4.6, 0.30,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

4.6, 0.61,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

4.6, 0.91,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

4-1' /

4-2' /

4-3' /

4-4' /

B-26
Technical Details of the FDS Validation Study

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

XYZ=

XYZ=

XYZ=

XYZXYZ=

XYZ=

6.7,

6.7,

6.7,

6.7,

6.7,

6.7,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

1.22,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 4-5' /

1.52,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 4-6' /

1.83,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 4-7' /

2.13,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 4-8' /

2.29,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 4-9' /

2.40,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TC 4-10',IOR=-3 /

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

0.5,

0.5,

0.5,

0.5,

0.5,

0.5,

0.5,

0.5,

0.5,

0.5,

0.1,

0.1,

0.1,

0.1,

0.1,

0.1,

0.1,

0.1,

2.8,

2.8,

2.8,

2.8,

2.8,

2.8,

2.8,

2.8,

4.4,

4.4,

4.4,

4.4,

4.4,

4.4,

4.4,

4.4,

4.4,

4.4,

5.5,

5.5,

5.5,

5.5,

5.5,

5.5,

5.5,

5.5,

5.5,

5.5,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

2.8,

2.8,

2.8,

2.8,

2.8,

2.8,

2.8,

2.8,

2.0,

2.0,

2.0,

2.0,

2.0,

2.0,

2.0,

2.0,

2.0,

2.0,

0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-1'

0.30,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-2'

0.61,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-3'

0.91,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-4'

1.22,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-5'

1.52,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-6'

1.83,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-7'

2.13,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-8'

2.29,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 5-9'

2.40,QUANTITY='WALLTEMPERATURE',LABEL='TC

0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

0.30,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

0.61,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

0.91,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

1.22,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

1.52,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

1.83,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

2.13,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

0.61,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

0.91,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

1.07,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

1.22,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

1.52,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC

1.83,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

1.93,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE' ,LABEL='TC

6-1'

6-2'

6-3'

6-4'

6-5'

6-6'

6-7'

6-8'

7-1'

7-2'

7-3'

7-4'

7-5'

7-6'

7-7'

7-8'

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

5-10', IOR=-3 1

/

/

/

/

/

I

/

I

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

XYZ=

XYZ=

XYZ=

XYZ=

XYZ=

XYZ=

XYZ=

XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

&THCP XYZ=

0.15,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-1 /

0.61,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-2 /

0.91,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-3' /

1.07,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-4' /

1.22,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-5' /

1.52,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-6'

1.83,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-7' /

2.13,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-8' /

2.29,QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE',LABEL='TC 8-9' /

2.40,QUANTITY='WALL_TEMPERATURE',LABEL='TC 8-10',IOR=-3 /

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

&THCP

XYZ=10.0,

XYz=10.0,

XYZ=11.7,

XYZ=11.7,

XYZ=10.8,

XYZ=10. 8,

XYZ= 6.7,

XYZ= 6.7,

XYZ= 0.5,

XYZ= 0.5,

XYZ= 0.1,

XYZ= 0.1,

XYZ= 2.8,

XYZ= 2.8,

XYZ= 4.4,

XYZ= 4.4,

2.0,

2.0,

2.3,

2.3,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

4.6,

5.5,

5.5,

4.6,

4.6,

2.8,

2.8,

2.0,

2.0,

0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height 1'

0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE', LABEL='Layer Temp

0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height 2'

0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Layer Temp

0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT', LABEL='Layer Height 3'

0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE', LABEL='Layer Temp

0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height 4'

0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE', LABEL='Layer Temp

0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height 5'

0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE', LABEL='Layer Temp

0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height 6'

0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE',LABEL='Layer Temp

0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT', LABEL='Layer Height 7'

0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE' ,LABEL='Layer Temp

0.15,QUANTITY='LAYER HEIGHT',LABEL='Layer Height 8'

0.15,QUANTITY='UPPER TEMPERATURE', LABEL='Layer Temp

/

1' /

/

2'/ /

3' /

/

4'/

/

5' / /

6'/ /

7' /

/

8' /

B-27

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 7: FDS May 2007

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

K. McGrattan (NIST) Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (II NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; ffcontractor,

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, Wype '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), 3412 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

NR OM35(-04 RITDOeECdE AE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Federal Recycling Program

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

OFFICIAL BUSINESS