NUREG-1824 EPRI 1011999

Final Report

Verification and Validation

of Selected Fire Models for

Nuclear Power Plant

Applications

Volume 6:

MAGIC

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Washington, DC 20555-0001

<~U.S.NRC

Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94303

ELECTRIC POWER

cm ~iI ELERC 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..qov/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: DISTRIBUTIONt.nrc.pov

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-collections/n ureas

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).
Verification & Validation of Selected

Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant

Applications

Volume 6: MAGIC

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 (I1l) THAT THIS DOCUMENT

IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY

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

EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH

DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR

ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED

IN THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT:

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

Science Applications International Corporation

National Institute of Standards and Technology

NOTE

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

800.313.3774 or

e-mail askepri@epri.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 20852-2738 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 6: MAGIC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Research (RES), Rockville, MD, 2007, and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto,

CA, NUREG-1824 and EPRI 1011999.

iii

ABSTRACT

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

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

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

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

regulatory decision making since the 1990's.

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

2001 Edition. In July 2004, the NRC amended its fire protection requirements in Title 10,

Section 50.48, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.48) to permit existing reactor

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

to the existing deterministic fire protection requirements. In addition, the NPP fire protection

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

support fire protection decision-making in general.

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

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

NFPA 805 requires that only fire models acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ)

shall be used in fire modeling calculations. Furthermore, Sections 2.4.1.2.2 and 2.4.1.2.3 of

NFPA 805 state that fire models shall only be applied within the limitations of the given model,

and shall be verified and validated.

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

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

guidelines that the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) set forth in ASTM E 1355,

Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models.

The results of this V&V are reported in the form of ranges of accuracies for the fire model

predictions.

v

FOREWORD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

commonly available fire modeling tools.

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

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

Models. These industry standards form the methodology and process used to perform this study. Technical

review of fire models is also necessary to ensure that those using the models can accurately assess the adequacy of

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

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

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

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

presented in the seven volumes of this report.

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

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

The analyses documented in this report represent the combined efforts of individuals from RES and EPRI.

Both organizations provided specialists in the use of fire models and other FHA tools to support this work.

The results from this combined effort do not constitute either a regulatory position or regulatory guidance.

Rather, these results are intended to provide technical analysis of the predictive capabilities of five fire

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

Brian W. Sheron, Director

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

vii

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTIO N .................................................................................................................... 1-1

2 M O DEL DEFINITION .............................................................................................................. 2-1

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

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

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

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

2.5 Governing Equations and Assum ptions .......................................................................... 2-1

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

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

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

3 THEORETICAL BASIS FO R MAGIC ..................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Theoretical Basis for MAGIC ........................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.1 Com bustion ............................................................................................................. 3-2

3.2.2 Hot Gas Layer Tem perature and Height ................................................................. 3-2

3.2.3 W alls, Ceiling, and Floor .......................................................................................... 3-2

3.2.4 Flam e Height, Fire Plum e & Ceiling Jets ................................................................. 3-3

3.2.5 Natural & Mechanical Ventilation ............................................................................. 3-3

3.2.6 Heat Transfer .......................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.7 Sm oke Concentration .............................................................................................. 3-4

3.2.8 Targets ..................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.9 Electrical Cables ...................................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.10 Sprinkler Suppression .............................................................................. . ... 3-6

3.3 Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................................... 3-6

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

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

4.2 Mathematical and Numerical Robustness Analyses for MAGIC ..................................... 4-1

4.2.1 Comparison with Analytical Solutions ...................................................................... 4-1

4.2.2 Code Checking and Code Quality ........................................................................... 4-2

4.2.3 Numerical Tests ...................................................................................................... 4-5

4.2.4 User Interface ......................................................................................................... 4-5

4.3 MAG IC Im provem ents as a Result of the V&V Process .................................................. 4-6

4.4 Concluding Rem arks ...................................................................................................... 4-6

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

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

5.2 Sensitivity Analysis ...................................................................... ................................... 5-3

5.2.1 Hot Gas Layer Tem perature and Height ................................................................. 5-4

5.2.2 Ceiling Jet Tem perature .......................................................................................... 5-5

5.2.3 Plume Tem perature ................................................................................................ 5-7

5.2.4 Flame Height ............................................... ........................................................... 5-9

5.2.5 Oxygen Concentration ............................................................................................. 5-9

5.2.6 Smoke Concentration ............................................................................................ 5-10

5.2.7 Room Pressure ...................................................................................................... 5-11

5.2.8 Target Tem perature and Heat Flux ....................................................................... 5-12

5.2.9 W all Tem perature ................................................................................................. 5-17

5.3 Concluding Rem arks ..................................................................................................... 5-20

6 M O DEL VALIDATION .................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Hot Gas Layer Tem perature and Height ........................................................................ 6-4

6.2 Ceiling Jet Tem perature .................................................................................................. 6-8

6.3 Plum e Tem perature ................................................. ...................................................... 6-10

6.4 Flam e Height ................................................................................................................. 6-12

6.5 Oxygen Concentration ................................................................................................... 6-13

6.6 Sm oke Concentration ................................................................................................... 6-15

6.7 Com partment Pressure ................................................................................................. 6-17

6.8 Target Temperature and Heat Flux ................................... 6-19

6.9 W all Heat Flux and Tem perature ................................................................................. 6-25

6.10 Sum mary ...................................................................................................................... 6-28

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

X
A TECHNICAL DETAILS FOR THE MAGIC VALIDATION STUDY ................................... A-1

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

A.1.1 ICFM P BE #2 ......................................................................................................... A-2

A.1.2 ICFM P BE #3 ......................................................................................................... A-4

A.1.3 ICFM P BE #4 ....................................................................................................... A-11

A.1.4 ICFM P BE #5 ....................................................................................................... A-12

A.1.5 FM/SNL Test Series ............................................................................................. A-13

A.1.6 The NBS M ulti-Room Test Series ........................................................................ A-16

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

A.2.1 ICFM P BE #3 ...................................................................................................... A-21

A.2.2 The FM/SNL Test Series ...................................................................................... A-25

A.3 Plume Tem perature ..................................................................................................... A-27

A.3.1 ICFM P BE #2 ....................................................................................................... A-27

A.3.2 The FM/SNL Test Series ...................................................................................... A-29

A.4 Flam e Height ............................................................................................................... A-30

A.4.1 ICFM P BE #2 ....................................................................................................... A-30

A.4.2 ICFM P BE #3 ....................................................................................................... A-32

A.5 Oxygen Concentration ................................................................................................. A-35

A.5.1 ICFM P BE #3 ....................................................................................................... A-35

A.5.2 ICFM P BE #5 ....................................................................................................... A-39

A.6 Sm oke Concentration .................................................................................................. A-40

A.6.1 ICFM P BE #3 ....................................................................................................... A-40

A.7 Com partment Pressure ................................................................................................ A-44

A.7.1 ICFM P BE #3 ....................................................................................................... A-44

A.8 Target Tem perature and Heat Flux .............................................................................. A-47

A.8.1 ICFM P BE #3 ....................................................................................................... A-4 8

A.8.2 ICFM P BE #4 ...................................................................................................... A-85

A.8.3 ICFM P BE #5 ....................................................................................................... A-87

A.9 W all Heat Flux and Tem perature ................................................................................. A-90

A.9.1 ICFM P BE #3 ....................................................................................................... A-90

A.9.2 ICFM P BE #4 ................................................................................................... A-111

A.9.3 ICFM P BE #5 ..................................................................................................... A-112

B MAGIC INPUT FILES ...................................................................................................... B-1

Xi

FIGURES

Figure 3-1: Pictorial Representation of MAGIC's Features ....................................................... 3-2

Figure 3-2: Simplified Inner Structure of an Armored Electrical Cable ..................................... 3-5

Figure 3-3: Modeling Multi-Conductor Cables in MAGIC .......................................................... 3-6

Figure 4-1: Simplified Functional Breakdown of the MAGIC Code ........................................... 4-3

Figure 4-2: V-Cycle Representation .......................................................................................... 4-5

Figure 5-1: Selected Heat Release Rate Profiles ..................................................................... 5-2

Figure 5-2: Problem Specification in MAGIC ............................................................................ 5-4

Figure 5-3: Hot Gas Layer Temperature Profiles ...................................................................... 5-5

Figure 5-4: Ceiling Jet Temperature Profiles ............................................................................ 5-6

Figure 5-5: Plume Temperature Profiles ................................................................................... 5-8

Figure 5-6: Flame Height Profiles ............................................................................................. 5-9

Figure 5-7: Oxygen Concentration Profiles ............................................................................. 5-10

Figure 5-8: Smoke Concentration Profiles ............................................................................. 5-11

Figure 5-9: Room Pressure Profiles..: ..................................................................................... 5-12

Figure 5-10: Equivalence between Cable and Targets .......................................................... 5-13

Figure 5-11: Target Temperature Profiles ................................. ...... 5-14

Figure 5-12: Target Heat Flux Profiles, 1-MW Fire ................................................................. 5-15

Figure 5-13: Target Heat Flux Profiles, 5-MW Fire ................................................. ............... 5-16

Figure 5-14: Target Temperature vs. Wall Temperature, 1-MW Fire ...................................... 5-18

Figure 5-15: Target Temperature vs. Wall Temperature, 5-MW Fire ...................................... 5-19

Figure 6-1: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Hot Gas Layer Temperature and

Height in ICFMP BE #2, #3, #4, and #5, and the Selected FM/SNL and NBS Tests

[Experimental uncertainties (EU) are 13% (HGL temp) and 9% (HGL height).] ................. 6-7

Figure 6-2: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Ceiling Jet Temperatures in ICFMP

BE #3 and the Selected FM/SNL Tests (Experimental uncertainty is 16%.) ...................... 6-9

Figure 6-3: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Plume Temperatures in ICFMP BE

#2, and the Selected FM/SNL Tests (Experimental uncertainty is 14%.) ......................... 6-11

Figure 6-4: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Oxygen Concentration in ICFMP BE

#3 and #5 (Experimental uncertainty is 9%.) ................................................................... 6-14

Figure 6-5: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration in ICFMP BE

#3 (Experimental uncertainty is 33%.) ............................................................................ 6-16

Figure 6-6: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Room Pressure in ICFMP BE #3

[Experimental uncertainties are 40% (no forced vent) and 80% (forced vent).] ............... 6-18

xiii
Figure 6-7: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Target Temperature in ICFMP BE #3

(Experimental uncertainty is 14%.) .................................................................................. 6-21

Figure 6-8: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Target Temperature in ICFMP BE #3

(Experimental uncertainty is 14%.) .................................................................................. 6-22

Figure 6-9: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Radiant Heat Flux in ICFMP BE #3

(Experimental uncertainty is 20%.) .................................................................................. 6-23

Figure 6-10: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Total Heat Flux in ICFMP BE #3

(Experimental uncertainty is 20%.) .................................................................................. 6-24

Figure 6-11: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Target Temperature

in ICFMP BE #3, #4, and #5 (Experimental uncertainty is 14%.) ..................................... 6-26

Figure 6-12: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Heat Flux in ICFMP BE#3, #4 and

#5 (Experimental uncertainty is 20%.) ............................................................................. 6-27

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

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

Figure A-3: Snapshot of the MAGIC Simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3 ............................... A-4

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 MAGIC Simulation of ICFMP BE #4, Test 1 ......................... A-i 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure A-15: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom Test 100A ..... A-17

Figure A-16: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom Test 1000 .... A-18

Figure A-17: Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom Test 10OZ ..... A-19

Figure A-18: Near-Ceiling Gas (Ceiling Jet) Temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door

T ests ............................................................................................................................... A -22

Figure A-19: Near-Ceiling Gas (Ceiling Jet) Temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

T e sts ............................................................................................................................... A -23

Figure A-20: Near-Ceiling Gas (Ceiling Jet) Temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1

a nd 3 ............................................................................................................................... A -2 5

Figure A-21: Fire Plumes in ICFMP BE #2 ............................................................................ A-27

Figure A-22: Near-Ceiling Gas Temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1 and 3 .................. A-28

Figure A-23: Near-Plume Temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sector 13 ................................... A-29

xiv
Figure A-24: Flame Heights for ICFMP BE #2 ....................................................................... A-30

Figure A-25: Photographs of Heptane Pan Fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2 ............................ A-31

Figure A-26: Photograph and Simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3,

as seen through the 2 m x 2 m doorway ......................................................................... A-32

Figure A-27: Near-Ceiling Gas Temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ............... A-33

Figure A-28: Flame Heights, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests ............................................. A-34

Figure A-29: Oxygen Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests .............................. A-36

Figure A-30: Oxygen Concentration ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests .................................. A-37

Figure A-31: Oxygen Concentration ICFMP BE #5, Test 4 ................................................... A-39

Figure A-32: Smoke Concentration in ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ............................. A-41

Figure A-33: Smoke Concentration in ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests ............................... A-42

Figure A-34: Compartment Pressure in ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests .......................... A-45

Figure A-35: Compartment Pressure in ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests ............................. A-46

Figure A-36: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7 .................. A-49

Figure A-37: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8 .................. A-50

Figure A-38: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10 ............ A-51

Figure A-39: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16 .............. A-52

Figure A-40: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Test 17 ............................ A-53

Figure A-41: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9 .................. A-54

Figure A-42: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14 ............ A-55

Figure A-43: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18 .............. A-56

Figure A-44: Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7 .................. A-58

Figure A-45: Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8 .................. A-59

Figure A-46: Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10 ................ A-60

Figure A-47: Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16 .............. A-61

Figure A-48: Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Test 17 ............................ A-62

Figure A-49: Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9 ................. A-63

Figure A-50: Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14 ................ A-64

Figure A-51: Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18 .............. A-65

Figure A-52: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7 .................. A-67

Figure A-53: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8 ................. A-68

Figure A-54: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10 ................ A-69

Figure A-55: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16 .............. A-70

Figure A-56: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Test 17 ............................ A-71

Figure A-57: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9 .................. A-72

Figure A-58: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14 ................ A-73

Figure A-59: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18 .............. A-74

Figure A-60: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7 .................. A-76

Figure A-61: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8 .................. A-77

xv
Figure A-62: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10 ................ A-78

Figure A-63: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16 .............. A-79

Figure A-64: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Test 17 ............................ A-80

Figure A-65: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9 .................. A-81

Figure A-66: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14 ................ A-82

Figure A-67: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18 .............. A-83

Figure A-68: Heat Flux and Surface Temperatures of Target Slabs, ICFMP BE #4, Test

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

Figure A-69: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4 ............ A-88

Figure A-70: Long-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, ClosedD o o r T ests ....................................................................................................................... A -9 1

Figure A-71: Long-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, ClosedD oo r T ests ....................................................................................................................... A -92

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

Closed- and Open-Door Tests ........................................................................................ A-93

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

T e sts ..................................................................... .......................................................... A -94

Figure A-74: Short-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, ClosedD oo r T ests ....................................................................................................................... A -9 6

Figure A-75: Short-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, ClosedD oo r T ests ....................................................................................................................... A -97

Figure A-76: Short-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3,

Closed- and Open-Door Tests ........................................................................................ A-98

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

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

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

T e sts .............................................................................................................................. A -10 1

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

T ests ............................................................................................................................. A -!02

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

T ests ........... ................................................................................................................. A -10 3

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

T ests ............................................................................................................................ A -104

Figure A-82: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door

T ests ............................................................................................................................ A -106

Figure A-83: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door

T ests ..................................................................................................... ....................... A -10707 

Figure A-84: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

Tests .................................................................. ........ A-108

Figure A-85: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door

T ests ............................................................................................................................. A -109

Figure A-86: Back Wall Surface Temperatures, ICFMP BE #4 ........................ A-111

Figure A-87: Back and Side Wall Surface Temperatures, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4 ............... A-1 12

xvi
TABLES

Table 3-1: MAGIC Capabilities Included in the V&V Study....................................................... 3-7

Table 5-1: Material Properties for Cables ................................................................................. 5-2

Table 5-2: Summary of MAGIC Simulations Selected for Sensitivity Analysis ......................... 5-3

Table A-i: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in ICFMP

B E # 2 ................................................................................................................................. A -4

Table A-2: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in ICFMP

B E # 3 ............................................................................................................................... A -10

Table A-3: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in ICFMP

B E # 4 ............................................................................................................................... A -12

Table A-4: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in ICFMP

B E # 5 ............................................................................................................................... A -13

Table A-5: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in FM/SNL

S e rie s ............................................................................................................................... A -15

Table A-6: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in NBS Tests ... A-17

Table A-7: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in NBS Tests ... A-18

Table A-8: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in NBS Tests ... A-20

Table A-9: Relative Differences for Ceiling Jet Temperature in ICFMP BE #3 ...................... A-24

Table A-10: Relative Differences for Ceiling Jet Temperature in FM/SNL Tests ................... A-26

Table A-1 1: Relative Differences for Plume Temperature in ICFMP BE #2 ........................... A-28

Table A-12: Relative Differences of Plume Temperature in FM/SNL Tests ........................... A-29

Table A-13: Relative Differences for Oxygen Concentration in ICFMP BE #3 Tests............. A-38

Table A-14: Relative Differences for Oxygen Concentration in ICFMP BE #5 Tests ............. A-39

Table A-15: Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration in ICFMP BE #3 Tests .............. A-43

Table A-16: Relative Differences for Compartment Pressure in ICFMP BE #3 Tests ........... A-47

Table A-1 7: Relative Differences for Surface Temperature of Cable B ................................. A-57

Table A-18: Relative Differences for Radiative and Total Heat Flux to Cable B .................... A-57

Table A-19: Relative Differences for Surface Temperature of Cable D ................................. A-66

Table A-20: Relative Differences for Radiative and Total Heat Flux to Cable D .................... A-66

Table A-21: Relative Differences for Surface Temperature of Cable F ................................. A-75

Table A-22: Relative Differences for Radiative and Total Heat Flux to Cable F .................... A-75

Table A-23: Relative Differences for Surface Temperature of Cable G ............... A-84

Table A-24: Relative Differences for Radiative and Total Heat Flux to Cable G .................... A-84

xvii
Table A-25: Relative Differences for Surface Temperature and Total Heat Flux to

T a rg ets ............................................................................................................................ A -86

Table A-26: Relative Differences for Surface Temperature ................................................... A-88

Table A-27: Relative Differences for Total Heat Flux ............................................................. A-89

Table A-28: Relative Differences for Temperature and Total Heat Flux

Corresponding to the Long Wall ...................................................................................... A-95

Table A-29: Relative Differences for Temperature and Total Heat Flux

Corresponding to the Short Wall ................................................................................... A-100

Table A-30: Relative Differences for Temperature and Total Heat Flux

Corresponding to the Ceiling ......................................................................................... A-105

Table A-31: Relative Differences for Temperature and Total Heat Flux

Corresponding to the Floor ...................................................................................... A-110

Table A-32: Relative Differences for Wall Temperature ...................................................... A-i 11

Table A-33: Relative Differences for Wall Temperature ...................................... ................ A-1 12

Xviii
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 thesestudies 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

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

fire models.

xix
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

the five fire models considered in this study. Volumes 3 through 7 provide detailed discussions

of the verification and validation (V&V) of the fire models:

Volume 3 Fire Dynamics Tools (FDTS)

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

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

Volume 6 MAGIC

Volume 7 Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS)

xxi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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

support from several organizations.

The verification and validation (V&V) studies for FDTs (Volume 3), CFAST (Volume 5), and

FDS (Volume 7) were conducted in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Commerce,

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

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

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

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

fire hazard analysis (FHA).

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

Engineers, Inc. for their comments and contributions to Volume 3.

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

(EdF) in preparing Volume 6 for MAGIC.

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

regarding Volume 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gesellschaft ffir Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) and Institut ffir 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 byproviding pictures, tests reports, and answered various technical questions of those experiments.

We acknowledge and sincerely appreciate all of their efforts.

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

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

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

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

assistance finalizing this report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

listed and acknowledged below.

Janice Bardi, ASTM International

Moonhak Jee, Korea Electric Power Research Institute

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

Branch

J. Greg Sanchez, New York City Transit

David Showalter, Fluent, Inc.

Douglas Carpenter, Combustion Science & Engineering, Inc.

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

Clarence Worrell, Pacific Gas & Electric

xxiv
LIST OF ACRONYMS

AGA

AHJ

ASME

ASTM

BE

BFRL

BRE

BWR

CDF

CFAST

CFD

CFR

CSR

EdF

EPRI

FDS

FDTs

FHA

FIVE-RevI

FMRC

FM/SNL

FPA

FRA

GRS

HGL

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

Factory Mutual Research Corporation

Factory Mutual & Sandia National Laboratories

Foote, Pagni, and Alvares

Fire Risk Analysis

Gesellschaft ffir Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (Germany)

Hot Gas Layer

xxv
HRR Heat Release Rate

IAFSS International Association of Fire Safety Science

iBMB Institut ffir Baustoffe, Massivbau und Brandschutz

ICFMP International Collaborative Fire Model Project

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IPEEE Individual Plant Examination of External Events

LOL Low Oxygen Limit

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)

ODE Ordinary Differential Equation

PMMA Polymethyl-methacrylate

PWR Pressurized Water Reactor

RCP Reactor Coolant Pump

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (NRC)

RIIPB Risk-Informed, Performance-Based

SBDG Stand-By Diesel Generator

SDP Significance Determination Process

SFPE Society of Fire Protection Engineers

SNL Sandia National Laboratories

SWGR Switchgear Room

V&V Verification & Validation

xxvi
I

INTRODUCTION

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

applications the importance of verification and validation (V&V) studies for these tools also

increases. V&V studies afford fire modeling analysts confidence in applying analytical tools by

quantifying and discussing the performance of the given model in predicting the fire conditions

measured in a particular experiment. The underlying assumptions, capabilities, and limitations of

the model are discussed and evaluated as part of the V&V study.

The main objective of this report is to document a V&V study for the MAGIC zone model,

in accordance with ASTM E 1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability

of Deterministic Fire Models [Ref 1]. MAGIC is a zone model developed and maintained by

Electricit6 de France (EdF), which officially released the latest version of the model (Version

V4. 1. lb) in 2005. The MAGIC software calculates fire-generated conditions (e.g., hot gas layer

temperature, etc) in single- or multi-compartment geometries as a function of time [Refs. 2, 3,

and 4].

The MAGIC software is a classical two-zone model for fire simulations, with capabilities to

process multi-compartment problems. Each compartment is divided into two volumes, which are

assumed to have homogeneous thermo-physical properties. The solution of the mass and energy

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

conduction into the walls, results in the predicted environmental conditions generated by the fire.

Consistent with ASTM E 1355, this document is structured as follows:

* Chapter 2 provides qualitative background information about MAGIC and the V&V process.

" Chapter 3 presents a technical description of MAGIC, which includes the underlying physics

and chemistry inherent in the model. The description includes assumptions and approximations,

an assessment of whether the open literature provides sufficient scientific evidence to justify

the approaches and assumptions used, and an assessment of empirical or reference data used

for constant or default values in the context of the model. MAGIC's source code and

technical description are EdF proprietary material (available to EPRI members only);

consequently, this report provides only a technical summary of this material.

* Chapter 4 documents the mathematical and numerical robustness of MAGIC, which involves

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

" Chapter 5 presents a sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity analysis explores and discusses

the effects of variations in the input parameters on MAGIC outputs.

1-1
Introduction

* Chapter 6 presents the results of the validation study in the form of relative differences

classified by fire modeling attribute. The following attributes were selected for validation

purposes:

* hot gas layer temperature and height

* ceiling jet temperature

* plume temperature

* flame height

* oxygen concentration

* smoke concentration

* room pressure

* target surface temperature and incident radiant and total heat flux

* wall surface temperature and incident total heat flux

* Appendix A presents the technical details supporting the calculated relative differences

discussed in Chapter 6 and provides graphical comparisons of experimental measurements

and modeling results.

* Appendix B presents MAGIC input files.

1-2
2

MODEL DEFINITION

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

as suggested by ASTM E 1355.

2.1 Name and Version of the Model

This V&V study is for MAGIC Version V4.1.Ib, which EdF released in November 2005.

2.2 Type of Model

MAGIC is a two-zone fire model that predicts the environmental conditions resulting from a fire

prescribed by the user within a compartmented structure. Essentially, the space to be modeled is

subdivided into two control volumes that represent upper and lower layers. The fundamental

equations for conservation of energy and mass are solved in each control volume as the fire heat

release rate develops over time.

2.3 Model Developers

MAGIC was developed and is maintained by Electricit6 de France (EdF).

2.4 Relevant Publications

MAGIC is supported by three EdF publications, including (1) the technical manual, which provides

a mathematical description of the model [Ref. 2]; (2) the user's manual, which details how to use

the graphical interface [Ref. 3]; and (3) the validation studies, which compare MAGIC's results

with experimental measurements [Ref. 4]. These three proprietary publications are available

through EPRI to EPRI members.

2.5 Governing Equations and Assumptions

MAGIC solves the conservation equations for mass and energy. The model does not explicitly

solve the momentum equation, except for use of the Bernoulli equation for the flow velocity

at room openings. These three equations and the ideal gas law are solved to obtain firegenerated conditions in the selected control volumes.

MAGIC assumes that the room is divided in two zones (upper and lower control volumes),

in which the equations described above are solved. The upper control volume, referred to

in this report as the hot gas layer, is assumed to have uniform density and, therefore, temperature.

The same assumption applies to the lower control volume (also known as the lower layer).

Chapter 3 of this report and Reference 2 provide a complete technical description of MAGIC

algorithms and sub-models.

2-1
Model Definition

2.6 Input Data Required To Run the Model

In general, the following data are-necessary to develop the input file for MAGIC. The required

inputs for each individual analysis may vary, and depend on the characteristics and objectives

of the fire scenario under analysis.

(1) Parameters describing the compartment geometry and ventilation conditions:

" Compartment geometry (length, width, and height): The compartment (or each compartment

in a multi-room scenario) is assumed to have a rectangular floor base and flat ceiling.

* Floor, ceiling, and wall material properties (density, specific heat, and thermal conductivity):

Depending on the selected material, this information may be available in the MAGIC database.

* Natural ventilation (height and width of doors; height, width, and elevation of windows;

time to open/closed doors and windows during a fire simulation; and leakage paths).

* Mechanical ventilation (injection and extraction rates, vent elevations, and time

to start/stop the system).

(2) Parameters describing the fire characteristics:

* Fuel type and fire heat release rate profile, which is specified using the heat of

combustion and the mass loss rate of the fuel

* Fire location (elevation, near a wall, near a comer, or center of room)

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

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

* Fuel mass, irradiated fraction, and stochiometric fuel-oxygen ratio

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

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

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

three-dimensional coordinates).

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

and its response characteristics, which include activation temperature and response time index.

The MAGIC user's guide [Ref. 3] provides a complete description of the input parameters

required to run MAGIC.

2.7 Property Data

Various equations associated with the MAGIC model require the following property data:

* For walls: density, thermal conductivity, and specific heat

* For targets: density, thermal conductivity, and specific heat

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

and radiated fraction

These properties may be available in fire protection engineering handbooks or the MAGIC database.

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

2-2
Model Definition

2.8 Model Results

MAGIC has an extensive library of output values. Once a given simulation is completed,

MAGIC generates an output file with all of the solution variables. Through a "post-processor"

interface, the user selects the relevant output variables for the analysis. Typical outputs include

(but are not limited to) the following examples:

" environmental conditions in the room (such as hot gas layer temperature, oxygen

concentration, and smoke concentration)

" heat transfer-related outputs to wall and targets (such as incident, convective, radiated, and

total heat fluxes)

* oxygen effects on heat release rate and flame height

* flow velocities through vents and openings

2-3

3

THEORETICAL BASIS FOR MAGIC

3.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a brief technical summary of the MAGIC zone model to address

the ASTM E 1355 guidance to "verify the appropriateness of the theoretical basis

and assumptions used in the model." However, given the proprietary nature of the software,

readers should refer to Reference 2 for a complete technical description.

3.2 Theoretical Basis for MAGIC

MAGIC is a classical two-zone fire model. That is, a room is divided into upper and lower zones

(or layers). The upper layer (also referred to as the hot gas or smoke layer) accumulates hot gases

generated in the combustion zone and primarily transported by the fire plume. The lower layer

primarily consists of fresh air and has its own energy and mass balance.

Perhaps the most important characteristic of the two-zone model formulation is that each zone

is assumed to have homogeneous thermo-physical properties. The-gas density (and, consequently,

the temperature), oxygen concentration, and concentration of unburned gases are assumed to

remain constant throughout each layer. These properties change only as a function of time.

The resulting fire conditions are obtained by solving equations for conservation of mass, species,

and energy, together with the ideal gas law. The species equation yields the concentration

of unburned fuel and oxygen in each layer. The compartment pressure, layer temperature,

and layer heights are obtained from the mass and energy equation. Finally, the gas densities

are calculated using the ideal gas law.

MAGIC provides the following general results:

" temperatures of hot and cold zones

* concentrations of oxygen and unburned gases

* smoke migration into each room

* the mass flow rates of air and smoke through the openings and vents

* the pressures at the floor level of each room

" the temperatures at the surface of the walls

" the thermal fluxes (radiative and total) exchanged by the targets placed by the user

From a geometric point of view, MAGIC works on a set of rectangular rooms with flat ceilings,

with their edges parallel to the reference axes. These rooms communicate with each other and

the outside through horizontal or vertical openings. Figure 3-1 summarizes MAGIC's modeling

features.

3-1
Theoretical Basis For MAGIC

i,)FlarrýV Vertical opening

Obstacle

Figure 3-1: Pictorial Representation of MAGIC's Features

3.2.1 Combustion

The standard combustion model in MAGIC assumes a perfect oxidation reaction; that is, the fire

will burn at the specified heat release rate if oxygen is available. MAGIC tracks the amount

of oxygen in the fuel (in the case of a pre-mixed fuel), oxygen entrained by the fire, unburned

fuel in the environment, and the predefined fuel source in order to determine whether complete

combustion will occur. The chemical aspects of combustion are not considered. If the oxygen

entrained into the plume is at least equal to the quantity necessary to bum all of the gaseous fuels

in the plume, combustion is considered complete and controlled by the fuel flow rate. If not,

the combustion is incomplete and controlled by the available oxygen. The user can also specify

a low oxygen limit (LOL).

3.2.2 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height

Hot gas layer temperature and height result from the conservation equations of energy and mass

for the defined control volume. Properties are assumed to be homogeneous in the volume except

in the specific regions of the plume and ceiling jet. Mass balance takes into account the fire

plume flow from the lower layer, and air supplied or exhaust through vents or openings. Energy

balance takes into consideration convection and radiation to the room surfaces (walls ceiling and

floor) and to the lower layer. The radiation properties of the layer are obtained from its opacity

(based on smoke concentration resulting from the mass balance). Oxygen and unburned gas

concentrations also result from the mass and energy balances in the hot gas layer volume.

Similar conservation equations are applied to the lower layer.

3.2.3 Walls, Ceiling, and Floor

Walls, ceiling, and floor are represented using one-dimensional finite difference meshing of

conduction. Two separate calculations are made, with one for the section of wall in the upper

layer and the ceiling and a similar one for the lower layer and the floor. Boundary conditions for

walls inside a room use convection and a detailed radiation exchange. As a default, heat transfer

coefficient and wall emissivity are fixed to 15 W/m2-K and 0.9, respectively. The heat transfer

3-2
Theoretical Basis For MAGIC

coefficient can also be correlated to the temperature and the estimated velocity in the layer, as an

option. This study is based on default values.

Each wall can be constructed with multiple successive layers of a homogenous material; however,

the characteristics of each material are assumed to remain constant. The initial temperature condition

at both sides of the wall is the ambient temperature. The boundary conditions are calculated as

the simulation goes on and are based on heat exchange between surfaces and gas layers.

3.2.4 Flame Height, Fire Plume & Ceiling Jets

The fire plume in MAGIC is modeled using McCaffrey's semi-empirical correlations for fire

plume entrainment [Ref. 5], McCaffrey's correlation for temperature and velocity in the flame

region [Ref. 5], Heskestad's correlation for temperature and velocity in the plume region [Ref. 6].

The software incorporates the effects of the smoke layer on fire plume temperature [Ref. 6], and

simulates ceiling jets using the model developed by Cooper [Ref. 7] to account for hot gas layer

effects. As such, MAGIC models both confined and unconfined ceiling jets and considers the

adiabatic ceiling jet correlation and exchanges to walls from the layers' properties. In addition,

MAGIC accounts for fires located along a wall or in comers, and it estimates flame height using

Heskestad's correlation [Ref. 7].

3.2.5 Natural & Mechanical Ventilation

Horizontal Openings: The model for flows through horizontal (ceiling or floor) openings is based

on the formulation proposed by Cooper [Ref. 8]. This model addresses the issue of one- or twoway flow at the opening using experimental results. It is important to note that this model has

been developed from experimental conditions in which the horizontal opening was not directly

above the fire source. The model does not apply to configurations in which the fire plume

directly influences the flow.

Vertical Openings: MAGIC uses the Bernoulli equation to model flows through vertical openings

with a corresponding orifice flow coefficient. Flows are assumed to be perpendicular to the

surface of the opening.

The ventilation model used in MAGIC is represented by a fan between ducts. In each duct,

regular and singular pressure differences are considered. Upstream and downstream nozzles

make the link between rooms and vent systems. In the case of no fan, the model calculates the

mass flow through the ducts considering pressure differences.

3.2.6 Heat Transfer

Radiation: Radiation modeling is relatively complex in MAGIC. The gas layer is treated as a

semi-transparent gas. Radiation exchanges between surfaces (walls and openings), flames, and

gas layers are considered. One system is built for the upper layer and another for the lower layer.

View factors are re-evaluated for each iteration as a result of the layer interface height variations.

Specific configuration factors are also calculated for targets and cables.

Convection: For the case of convection to room surfaces, the heat transfer coefficient and wall

emissivity are fixed to 15 W/m 2-K and 0.9, respectively. The heat transfer coefficient can also

be correlated to the temperature and the estimated velocity in the layer, as an option. This study

is based on default values.

3-3
Theoretical Basis For MAGIC

In the case of targets, the convective exchanges use a variable coefficient of exchange, h. This

coefficient has two components, one of which is attributable to natural convection and the other

to forced convection. These two terms are calculated from correlations listed in Reference 2.

Conduction: Walls, ceiling, and floor are represented using one-dimensional finite difference

meshing of conduction. Two separate calculations are made, with one for the section of wall in

the upper layer and the ceiling and a similar one for the lower layer and the floor. Each wall can

be constructed with multiple successive layers of a homogenous material; however, the

characteristics of each material are assumed to remain constant. The initial temperature condition at

both sides of the wall is the ambient temperature. The boundary conditions are calculated as the

simulation goes on and are based on heat exchange between surfaces and gas layers.

This modeling approach also applies to heat conduction into cable targets. Slab thermal targets

however are specified with a single layer of material.

3.2.7 Smoke Concentration

The relevant output for smoke concentration in MAGIC is the average extinction coefficient, k,

with units of 1/m. The relevant input value governing k is the specific area, s (units of m2/g),

which is calculated using the soot yield of the fuel, y,, as follows s= yskm where km is a constant

value of 7,600 m2/g [Ref. 21 ]. The average extinction coefficient can be converted to

concentration in units of mg/m3 or visibility in units of m with relatively simple algebraic

manipulations. For the purpose of NPP applications, visibility would be the most relevant output.

Recall from reference 21 that the average extinction coefficient correlates linearly with visibility,

based on the equation S = 3/k for a light-reflecting object, or S = 8/k for a light-emitting object,

where S is the visibility distance in m.

The average extinction coefficient is converted into smoke concentration using the equation:

0 = Ykm

where v is the concentration in mg/mi3

, and km is a constant with value 0.0076 m2/mg [Ref. 21].

3.2.8 Targets

Two kinds of targets are implemented in MAGIC. The basic target is equivalent to a flux meter

(with controlled surface temperature), and the thermal target is equivalent to a one-dimensional

homogeneous material. Fire sources, gas layers, walls, and openings generate the incident heat fluxes

to the targets. Both incident convective and radiative fluxes are considered. For example,

MAGIC considers direct radiation flux from sources located in adjacent rooms, and correlates

the convective exchange to local temperature and gas velocity. The target can be located in the

plume or ceiling jet, and MAGIC calculates the target temperature using a one-dimensional finite

difference conduction model throughout the thickness of the target.

3.2.9 Electrical Cables

Electrical cables serve as both fuel and targets in NPP fire scenarios. Figure 3-2 summarizes

the modeling of electrical cables in MAGIC.

3-4
Theoretical Basis For MAGIC

Figure 3-2: Simplified Inner Structure of an Armored Electrical Cable

The cable is composed of successive layers of user-specified materials. Each layer includes a

certain number of discretization points, limited to 40 per layer. The code automatically implements

a node at the center of the cable, and the heat transfer inside the cable is considered to follow

an axial symmetry.

In the calculation, an electrical cable is divided in 20-cm (7.9-inch) segments along its length.

The total number of segments should not exceed 50. For each segment, MAGIC calculates

the thermal exchanges with the outside and the thermal heating.

The maximum surface temperature encountered on all the segments is the criterion to start

the cable ignition, from a piloted ignition threshold value or (if needed) a pyrolysis output

(introduced by the user). After the ignition, the cable behaves as a classical fuel, and its thermal

behavior is no longer modeled (that is, the surface temperature retains its last value).

An important consideration in this validation study is the treatment of multi-conductor cables.

In MAGIC, multi-conductor cables were modeled as single-conductor cables, as follows:

" The cross-sectional area of the equivalent single-conductor is Y A, , where Ai is the area i=1

of each individual conductor, and n is the total number of conductors in the cable.

* The thickness of the jacket remains the same.

" The thickness of the insulation is given by (cable thickness -jacket thickness - equivalent

conductor radius).

Figure 3.3 illustrates this process.

3-5
Theoretical Basis For MAGIC

4

Figure 3-3: ModelingMulti-Conductor Cables in MAGIC

3.2.10 Sprinkler Suppression

Modeling of sprinkler suppression is divided into three phases:

(1) Sprinkler activation determines the instant when the device is activated. Specifically,

the sprinkler is triggered when the temperature of the gas contained in the sprinkler bulb

reaches its activation temperature, which generally varies from 70 to 150'C (158 to 302 'F)

depending on the sprinkler. The model for sprinkler activation developed by Heskestad [Ref. 9]

is implemented in MAGIC.

(2) Cooling of the hot gas layer by the water spray is achieved through the interaction between

water droplets and the hot gas layer, which results in several physical and thermal

phenomena. The spray comprises a multitude of drops that have different speeds, diameters,

and directions. The thermal exchanges between the hot gases and the drops increase the

temperature of the drops and lead to partial or total evaporation and cooling of hot gases.

(3) Fire extinction takes into account the interaction between water drops and the fire. As a

conservative approach, the heat release rate will remain at the intensity it had at the time of

sprinkler activation.

3.3 Concluding Remarks

This chapter provided an overview of the modeling features of MAGIC. A complete technical

description is available in Reference 2.

MAGIC is based on a combination of macroscopic conservation equation and empirical

correlations for specific phenomena. This combination between fundamental principles and

experimental observations leads to a sound quantitative approach for its intended domain of

application. In addition to the validity of semi-empirical sub-models that may be used

independently, confidence in the predictive capabilities of the code is mainly obtained through

validation exercises, were the sub-models work together in order to provide consistent results for

the different relevant outputs in a specific scenario.

3-6
Theoretical Basis For MAGIC

Although MAGIC can be used for general fire modeling applications, it has always been

intended for nuclear power plant applications. For this reason, its validation file and some of its

sub-models (e.g., electrical cables) are specially adapted to this field.

It is necessary to stress the importance of the input parameters. The databases in MAGIC give

consistent information to the user, who can also customize with scenario specific materials.

MAGIC also provides some checks for the validity of the input values. However, typical fire

modeling studies usually involve uncertain inputs. In those cases, the analyst's expertise and

experience in the field is important for developing valid input files and obtaining consistent

conclusions from the model results.

MAGIC includes an extensive list of output values. The outputs are classified in the following

groups: Room, Wall, Targets, Source, Opening, Vents, Furniture, and Others. A number of

output options can be found within each group.

Only a selected number of output options were subjected to the V&V study. Table 3-1 lists such

output options. The outputs are labeled as "Group/output option". For example, the hot gas

layer temperature can be found in the MAGIC post-processor under "Room/Upper layer

temperature".

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

Model Capability MAGIC output V&V Comment

Other layer temperature

Hot gas layer temperature Room/Upper layer temperature options, e.g. lower layer

temperature, were not

subjected to V&V.

Hot gas layer height Room/layer interface height

Target/Gas temperature (for a target

sensor located in the fire plume)

Ceiling jet temperature Target/Gas temperature (for a target

sensor located in the ceiling jet)

Target/Gas temperature

Target temperature Target/Surface temperature of the

target

MAGIC outputs under

Wall temperature Target/Surface temperature of the WALL classifications

target were not subjected to

V&V

3-7
Theoretical Basis For MAGIC

Model Capability MAGIC output V&V Comment

Target/Incident heat flux (for

Target heat flux radiation)

Target/Total heat flux (for total heat

flux)

MAGIC outputs under

Wall heat flux Target/Total heat flux WALL classifications

were not subjected to

V&V

Room pressure Room/Pressure at the room floor

Other output options

Flame height Source/Height under the SOURCE classification were not

subjected to V&V.

Other layer extinction

n Room/Upper layer extinction coefficient options, e.g. Rooeoncntanomier llower layer extinction

n coefficient coefficient, were not

subjected to V&V.

Other layer

Oxgncnetain Room/Upper layer oxygeneg.lwrayrognconcentration options,

Oxygen concentration concentration e.g. lower layer oxygen

concentration, were not

subjected to V&V.

Fire suppression features and effects

Fire suppression in MAGIC were not subjected to

V&V.

Furniture (Obstructions) features

Furniture (Obstructions) and effects in MAGIC were not

subjected to V&V.

Fire extinction capabilities in

Fire extinction MAGIC were not subjected to

V&V.

The Cable feature in MAGIC was not subjected to V&V.

Cable heat flux The Cable feature in MAGIC was

not subjected to V&V.

I

3-8
Theoretical Basis For MAGIC

Model Capability MAGIC output V&V Comment

Vent flows modeling capabilities in

Vent flows MAGIC were not subjected to

V&V.

Vent flows modeling capabilities in

Flow velocities MAGIC were not subjected to

V&V.

3-9

4

MATHEMATICAL AND NUMERICAL ROBUSTNESS

4.1 Introduction

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

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

ASTM E 1355 suggests the following analyses to address the mathematical and numerical

robustness of models:

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

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

relatively few situations for which analytical solutions are known.

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

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

and inconsistencies within the computer code.

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

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

(as an indicator of numerical convergence).

4.2 Mathematical and Numerical Robustness Analyses for MAGIC

MAGIC consists of a user interface and a mathematical source code models. This section covers

only the second module in detail. Section 4.2.4 describes a classical quality assurance policy

for the user interface.

4.2.1 Comparison with Analytical Solutions

General analytical solutions do not exist for most fire problems. Nonetheless, it is possible

to test specific aspects of the model in typical situations. Some studies have been performed

to control the correct behavior of the following sub-models of MAGIC:

" conduction into the wall: comparison to other models and analytic solutions

* target and cable thermal behavior: consistency of the behavior in typical situations

* plumes model: comparison with the theoretical model

* vent and opening: comparison to other zone and field models

" room pressure: comparison with pressure estimated by the perfect gas law and simplified

energy equation

These studies are EdF's proprietary material.

4-1
Mathematical and Numerical Robustness

4.2.2 Code Checking and Code Quality

In general, MAGIC is structured as shown in Figure 4-1. The code reads data in a case file

(*cas, which can be accessed using any word processing software or the MAGIC interface

itself), and initializes all of the variables for the problem. To solve the system of differential

equations, the model divides time into successive intervals, and then solves the equations

recursively from instant to (where the variables are known) and by using a recurrence formula

linking instant tn to tn+±.

All the solution variables at instant t, are obtained through Array Y (temperatures, pressure,

concentrations, and gas characteristics). The 26 constituent equations related to a given room

are numbered from Y(1) to Y(26).

A subroutine calculates all of the fluxes (Y') derived from the physical model implementation

between tn and t+ I. This Array, Y', is transmitted to the solver for the calculation of tn+1.

The ordinary differential equation (ODE) solver is based on a trial-and-error process to estimate

the solution variables at tn+1-.

4-2
Mathematical and Numerical Robustness

Updating:

* Exterior variables

* State variables

Fluxes estimation for the

differential equations

Figure 4-1: Simplified Functional Breakdown of the MAGIC Code

4-3
Mathematical and Numerical Robustness

The equations of conduction inside the walls and cables, the sprinkler spray, and the equations

of transport in the ventilation system are solved independently during the calculation cycle

of transfers. All temperatures are updated at each calculation step.

The ODE system is solved using backward differential formulas (Gear method). The solver uses

a specific algorithm based on the BROYDEN approach [Refs. 10 and 11 ]. This method is interesting

because there are several distinct time scales in the resolution of the ODE. Indeed, the fire combustion

is the fastest phenomenon encountered, and the transport time scale is much slower than the fire

reaction. This is why a numerical resolution (such as Gear) with trial-and-error enables the model

to dynamically adjust the resolution time step. If the problem presents dramatic physical changes

in relatively short periods of time, the time step decreases; however, in the opposite case,

the time step increases.

In addition, the BROYDEN approach is a quasi-Newton method to process the system of

nonlinear algebraic equations. In this method, the Jacobean matrix is replaced by a series

of "approached" matrices converging toward the exact matrix at the solution point. First,

the "approached" matrix is decomposed in a product of two matrices - LU with L as the lower

triangular matrix, and U as the upper triangular matrix with 1 on the diagonal (CROUT method).

The resolution makes a first iteration with the Newton method, and three iterations with

the BROYDEN method. This solution enables the model to improve the convergence

when the problem presents dramatic physical changes in relatively short periods of time.

This method avoids recalculation of the Jacobean matrix in each iteration (thereby saving time).

The source code itself is tested with the following methods:

* First, to control robustness, the code may be compiled in several different platforms and

software applications. The MAGIC code has been compiled under Microsoft® Windows 2000®

and Windows XP®, with a variety of compilers, including Absoft Pro FORTRAN, Visual

FORTRAN, and G77. In addition, a global update of the FORTRAN sources was performed

in 2004 [Ref. 12], and aspects such as code documentation, variable glossary, and source

cleanup were addressed.

* In terms of code quality, two tools have been used to control the language:

> FORSTUDY from Cobalt Blue [Ref. 13]

> plusFORT from Polyhedron Software [Ref. 14]

These tools confirm the consistency of variables and constants (undefined and incorrectly

or redundantly declared) and use of good FORTRAN syntax.

The software quality assurance system [Ref. 15] provides a process to fix detected anomalies

concerning the interface of the code. Maintenance of MAGIC is based on observation forms,

which identify problems. Then, a modification form describes the problem analysis and

proposed solutions. Finally, a correction form explains the chosen solution and implementation

features. The project manager decides on the implementation of the correction in future

versions.

4-4
Mathematical and Numerical Robustness

4.2.3 Numerical Tests

For each new code version, a set of tests is used to ensure that the calculation is correct. These tests

come from previous case studies. The convergence and speed of the calculation is the first step

of control. Main results from the original study are then compared, and significant differences

are analyzed. These studies are EdF proprietary material.

Specific tests are performed in the maintenance process when new models are implemented into

the code, or when existing models are corrected or improved. Those tests are not systematically

conducted for new versions, but they are available in case problems arise with the model under study.

The tests are mentioned in the correction report [Ref. 15] which is kept for each code correction.

These reports are EdF proprietary material and not published.

4.2.4 User Interface

The method used is a classical V-cycle development with tests, as illustrated in Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-2: V-Cycle Representation

The code meets the corresponding specifications at each step of the cycle. The following

reference documents are available:

* Conception documentation [Ref. 16] presents the general "architecture" and input/output files,

and summarizes all of the class, function, and subroutine codes in the interface. The document

includes a brief description of objectives and parameters for each.

* Reception test framework [Ref. 17] validates all of the interface functions and enables the user

to verify consistency between the specification and software.

" User reference guide [Ref. 1] presents the various interface menus and details their uses.

4-5
Mathematical andNumerical Robustness

4.3 MAGIC Improvements as a Result of the V&V Process

Some improvements were made in MAGIC as a result of the V&V process. This highlights

the importance of the V&V process, including a rigorous comparison of code predictions

with experimental observations. MAGIC Version 4.1. lb includes the latest the improvements

resulting from the V&V. Specifically, the following MAGIC features were corrected during

the V&V process:

* improvement of the soot mass balance within the plume

* improvement of the correlation for temperature in the flame region

* correction of a problem in the flame length calculation when lower than the layer interface

The updated features are completely described in Reference 2.

4.4 Concluding Remarks

MAGIC has been developed to allow quick and robust calculations of typical fire conditions

in single- and multi-compartment building, on a standard personal computer platform.

Calculations will be very quick (a few seconds) for simple scenarios (e.g., single room with

opening and vents). Configurations with several communicating rooms (up to 24) can be

managed by the code. Calculation times however are correlated to the complexity of the

problem. The number of communicating rooms maybe the most influencing parameter.

The use of the cable model can also have a significant "cost" on calculation time.

The development and maintenance of MAGIC is performed by EdF Research and Development

(R&D). On average, a MAGIC revision is released once a year.

4-6
5

MODEL SENSITIVITY

This chapter discusses the MAGIC sensitivity analysis, which ASTM E 1355 defines as a study

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

the rate of change of the model output with respect to input variations. The purpose of this sensitivity

analysis is twofold:

1. Test MAGIC's predictive capabilities with a range of different inputs to check for consistency

in the results.

2. Compare different modeling strategies in MAGIC in support of the validation study described

in Chapter 6 and Appendix A. Specifically, the following two modeling strategies were selected

for validation:

a. use of thermic-target (slab) sub-model in MAGIC for predicting cable surface temperature

versus the use of the cable sub-model

b. use of thermic-target (slab) sub-model in MAGIC for predicting temperature and heat fluxes

to room surfaces versus the use of the wall temperature sub-model

5.1 Definition of Base Case Scenario for Sensitivity Analysis

Conducting a sensitivity analysis requires the definition of a base case scenario. Variations in

the output of the model are measured with respect to the base case scenario.

The base case scenario for this study was analyzed in Benchmark Exercise (BE) #1, as part of

an ongoing International Collaborative Fire Modeling Project (ICFMP) [Ref. 19]. This section

summarizes the technical description of the scenario. (Note that only Part I of BE #1

was selected as the base case.)

Room

" Length: 15.2 m (50 ft)

" Width: 9.1 m (30 ft)

" Height: 4.6 m (15 ft)

" Walls: 0.15 m thick concrete (6 in)

" Door: 2.4 m x 2.4 m (62 ft2)

" Mechanical ventilation: 5 air changes per hour

" Vent size: 0.5 m2 (5.4 ft2)

* Vent elevation: 2.4 m (7.9 ft)

5-1
Model Sensitivity

* Target

* Cable Tray A: 0.6 m wide, 0.08 m deep

* Elevation (cable tray A): 2.3 m, 0.9 m off the right wall of the room

* Cable Tray B: 0.6 m wide, 0.08 m deep

• Elevation (Cable Tray B): 2.3 m, along the left wall of the room

* Material properties for concrete

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

* Thermal conductivity: 1.75 W/m-K

* Density: 2200 kg/m3

" Emissivity: 0.95

" Material properties for cables (targets): See Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: Material Properties for Cables

Thermal cond Density Cp

Material [kW/mK] [kglm3] [kJ/Kg-k]

ýPE 0.00021 1375 1.566

PVC 0.000147 1380 1.469

" Ambient conditions

* Temperature: 27 'C (81 'F)

• Relative humidity: 50%

* Pressure: 101,300 Pa

* Elevation: 0

* Wind speed: 0

* Fire (heat release rate): The fire heat release rate was assumed to have a t

2 growth profile.

The fire reaches its peak intensity in 600 seconds. Two peak intensities (1.0 MW and 5.0 MW)

were selected for this sensitivity analysis, in order to explore different MAGIC features

and capabilities. For example, fire intensity capable of consuming all of the oxygen

in the enclosure allows the sensitivity analysis to explore situations that exercise MAGIC's

extinction model. Figure 5-1 illustrates the two heat release rate profiles.

Heat Release Rate Profiles

600D5000-

40001

3 200D - -_ _------ 2DOO1

1000-

0-

0 200 400 600 800 10D0 1200

Time Isecl

- 1.-0 MW --.- 5.0 MW

Figure 5-1: Selected Heat Release Rate Profiles

5-2
Model Sensitivity

5.2 Sensitivity Analysis

A total of 16 MAGIC simulations were conducted for this sensitivity analysis. A key input

parameter was modified in each run in order to explore MAGIC's capabilities and sensitivities

with respect to input parameters. Note, however, that MAGIC requires numerous input

parameters, and this study did not analyze all of those input parameters and their combinations.

Table 5-2 summarizes the 16 MAGIC fire simulations selected for sensitivity analysis.

Table 5-2: Summary of MAGIC Simulations Selected for Sensitivity Analysis

Heat Release Natural Mech. Lower Vertical Horizontal

Case Ventilation Ventilation Oxygen Fuel Type Fire Fire Rate [kW] [m 2

] [m3is] Limit [%] Position Position

1 1000 0.015 0 0 Heptane Floor Center

2 1000 0.015 0.88 0 Heptane Floor Center

3 1000 0.015 0 10 Heptane Floor Center

4 1000 0.015 0.88 10 Heptane Floor Center

5 1000 5.76 0 0 Heptane Floor Center

6 1000 5.76 0 0 Toluene Floor Center

7 1000 5.76 0 0 Heptane 0.5H Center

8 1000 5.76 0 0 Heptane Floor 0.25W

9 5000 0.015 0 0 Heptane Floor Center

10 5000 0.015 0.88 0 Heptane Floor Center

11 5000 0.015 0 10 Heptane Floor Center

12 5000 0.015 0.88 10 Heptane Floor Center

13 5000 5.76 0 0 Heptane Floor Center

14 5000 5.76 0 0 Toluene Floor Center

15 5000 5.76 0 0 Heptane 0.5H Center

16 5000 5.76 0 0 Heptane Floor 0.25W

The first eight simulations were conducted with the assumption of a peak fire intensity of 1.0 MW.

The researchers varied parameters affecting the size of the ventilation openings, the mechanical

ventilation system, the fuel type, and the fire location, in order to explore their effects on selected

results. Simulations 9-16 are identical to the first eight, but with a peak fire intensity of 5.0 MW.

Targets of both PVC and XPE material were specified in the computational domain. Therefore,

sensitivities to thermo-physical properties of targets can be explored in each of the analyzed cases.

Figure 5-2 provides a pictorial representation of the fire scenario selected for sensitivity analysis,

as defined in MAGIC.

5-3
Model Sensitivity

Ceiling Jet Temp

Targets %

Wall Target PVC Target

PVC Cable

Mechanical ventilation

Figure 5-2: Problem Specification in MAGIC

The sensitivity analysis and its results are classified by relevant fire modeling attributes selected

for this V&V study, as presented in the following sections.

5.2.1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height

The hot gas layer temperature is perhaps the single most important output of a zone model,

because it is the direct result of the energy and mass balance in the upper control volume.

In general, the hot gas layer temperature is affected by the fire intensity, natural and mechanical

ventilation characteristics, and material properties of the room. This study analyzed the effect

of the first three groups of inputs on the hot gas layer temperature. The properties of the wall

were not evaluated, because most NPP rooms have concrete floors, ceilings, and walls.

Figure 5-3 summarizes the hot gas layer temperature profiles for selected cases in the sensitivity

analysis. The first group of profiles (Cases 1, 2, and 5) was associated with a heat release rate

of 1.0 MW, and the predicted hot gas layer temperature was just below 140 'C (284 'F). Notice

that the temperature profile is similar to the heat release rate. That is, once the fire reaches steadystate at 600 seconds, the temperature profile is almost steady.

The second group of profiles (Cases 9, 10, and 13) reached temperatures just below 350 'C

(662 'F). Notice that the profiles for Cases 9 and 10 show decay after 600 seconds, which is

attributed to a reduction in the heat release rate as a result of low oxygen concentration. Recall

that only air leakages were assumed in these two simulations. Notice that Case 13 was not

affected by the amount of oxygen because the door was open and fresh air was constantly

moving into the enclosure.

5-4
Model Sensitivity

In summary, although it is generally obvious that the heat release rate affects the hot gas layer

temperature, higher fire intensities consume additional oxygen, which may prevent the fire

from burning at its specified heat release rate.

The hot gas layer height output is directly associated with the hot gas layer temperature, as it is

also a direct output of the energy and mass balance in the upper control volume. This output result

is also generally affected by the same input parameters as the hot gas layer temperature. Figure 5-3

also illustrates a selected set of hot gas layer heights. Notice two distinctive sets of results.

First, the profiles for Cases 1, 2, 9, and 10 reached the floor of the room. Those cases consist of

fire simulations that assume a small leakage area below the door (closed door simulation).

In Cases 5 and 13, the hot gas layer did not reach the floor, because the door was assumed to be

open. As expected, the layer interface in Case 13 leveled lower than the one in Case 5, because

of the higher heat release rate.

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

E(

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

5

.8:1:

4.5

4

3.5

3-

2.51

2

1.5-

Hot Gas Layer Height

-casel J -~- 

-Caset

Time (rnn)

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

350

300

- 250 E

- - Case 9

- -Case 10

- Case 13 dF1

05 10 15 20

Tme (smn)

Hot Gas Layer Height

5

4.5 -- case 9

4 -o Case !0

3.5 Case 13 3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

I I- 200 1

1 50 

/

1001

50

0

0 5 10

Time (mrn)

15 20 0 5 10

Time (min)

15 20

Figure 5-3: Hot Gas Layer Temperature Profiles

5.2.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature

Two sensors were specified in MAGIC's computational domain to record the gas temperature

at the specified locations. Figure 5-4 illustrates selected ceiling jet temperature profiles.

5-5
Model Sensitivity

Ceiling Jet Temperature Ceiing Jet Tenrpeature

200 ... . .... 800

---- Case 1, R=n mn 2 80=s 

250 --- Case 1, RR24

7 00

200 • C ase 1, R = 4 m . .. . . ... . = --- -C ase 13, R = 24 m Q

-C a s e 5 . R =4 mr4 -" C a s e 1 3.-- --- -4

500

00

40 00 . . .. . ... . ... . . . .. ... .. .

0 5 10 15 200 5 10 20

Time (rm,) Tne (rnin)

Ceiling Jet Temrperature Ceiling Jet Temperature 400 800 . ..... . ... . . .. ......... ..-..

400 .700

300- 6 0..Case.R=4m ....-- - ----- Case15 R= 4

40

0 0i

0 s 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

Tie (rnin) Tre (rnin)

Figure 5-4: Ceiling Jet Temperature Profiles

MAGIC performed as expected. First, for each case, the temperature at a longer radial distance, R,

was lower than at a shorter R. Second, the ceiling jet temperature was higher than the predicted

hot gas layer temperatures for the respective cases. For example, at a relatively large radial distance

from the fire, R = 4 m (13.1 ft), the ceiling jet temperature was just above 150 'C (302 'F)

in Case 5. Recall that the predicted hot gas layer temperature for Case 5 was below 150 'C

(302 'F). Another interesting observation is that the ceiling jet temperatures are higher in the

closed room simulation (Case 1), compared to the open room simulation (Case 5). This behavior

was also observed in the corresponding simulations with a 5-MW heat release rate. Consider,

for example, the ceiling jet temperature profiles for Case 9. In this case, with an input heat

release rate of 5.0 MW, the peak ceiling jet temperatures were above 600 'C (1,112 'F).

The decaying nature of the heat release rate profile (resulting from an oxygen-limited environment)

is also reflected, similar to the one observed for hot gas layer temperature.

Finally, Cases 7 and 15 are also relevant to the ceiling jet temperature. In this case, the input

parameter of interest is the fire elevation (as opposed to the horizontal radial distance and heat

release rate). For a fire located 2.3 m (7.6 ft) above the floor, the ceiling jet temperatures were

above 250 'C (482 'F). Case 5, which had identical conditions but with a floor base fire, resulted

in temperatures more than 50 "C (90 'F) lower. Figure 5-4 illustrates the temperature profiles

for the ceiling jet in Cases 7 and 15.

5-6
Model Sensitivity

5.2.3 Plume Temperature

Three plume temperature sensors were specified in MAGIC's computational domain,

as illustrated in Figure 5-3. The input parameters included in the sensitivity analysis were

the elevation of the sensor above the fire and fire intensity. MAGIC again performed as expected.

Specifically, plume temperatures were lower as the elevation above the fire increased,

temperatures were higher for higher heat release rate profiles, and temperatures were higher than

the corresponding hot gas layer temperatures for evaluated cases. Figures 5-5 illustrates

the plume temperature profiles for Cases 1 and 9, respectively.

Two important observations can be made regarding Figure 5-5. First, the plume temperature for

the lowest sensor (z = 2.5 m) in Case 1 reached values above 700 'C (1,292 'F). This is a clear

indication that the sensor is just outside the steady-flame region of the fire. In Case 9, however,

where the fire intensity was 5.0 MW, all peak plume temperatures were above 1,000 'C (1,832 'F).

These values should be interpreted as sensors immersed in flames.

In the case of a fire elevated 2.3 m (7.6 ft) from the floor, MAGIC predicted plume temperatures

on the order of thousands of degrees for the lowest two sensors. Peak flame temperatures are

generally on the order of 1,500 'C (2,732 'F).- This is also an indication of sensors inside the flame.

5-7
Model Sensitivity

E)

Rumr Tenp

800

700 - se 1,s H=32.5m H=Case 

- Case 1, H = 3.5 m

600 -

-Case 1, H=4.5m

500

300

2 0 .. .... .. . .... . . . . . . 200

0 5 10 15 20

Tne (nin)

Rums Temp

400400 Case 5. H = 2.5 m - "t

350 -Ce5H3S

300-35e - ,se =H 3 5 m

Cas 5,Hz .

250

100

50.

0 5 10 15 20

Tuim (rin)

E

2000

1500

- Case 9. H = 2.5 m

- - Case9.H=3.5m

-Case 0. H =4.5 m

Rum Tenrp

5C00

0 5 15 20

T`r

10

(rrmn)

Rums Terrp

1600 - --

1400 --- Case 13, H = 2.5 m

-Case 13, H= 3.5 m

-s--Case 13, H=4Sm .5

800---------

600-

E) E

0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (rain)

Rumr Tersp

Li

E

C,

0 5 10

Tere (nrin)

15 20 0 5 10 15 20

Tim (irin)

Figure 5-5: Plume Temperature Profiles

5-8
Model Sensitivity

5.2.4 Flame Height

The flame height results illustrated in Figure 5-6 suggest two observations. First, the flame

presents a linear growth during the t

2 growth period of the fire. Flame height is constant during

the steady-buming period. Second, notice that MAGIC predicted flame heights above the ceiling

height of 4.6 m (15.2 ft) in Cases 9 and 13. This is a clear indication that flames are reaching

the ceiling.

FLaým Height Flame Height

-.- Case 9

2.

-- *--Cse 13

2. . ... ........... .5•a e51 ; ACase. _1.5 E___/_

I3

-Case 71

0Z

a 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

Tire (rrin) Trme (min)

Figure 5-6: Flame Height Profiles

5.2.5 Oxygen Concentration

Two important aspects of modeling oxygen concentrations in commercial NPP scenarios

are the amount of oxygen available for combustion in the room and the lower oxygen limit (LOL).

These two aspects are, of course, closely related. In terms of the oxygen available for combustion,

the fire consumes whatever oxygen is available. As long as there is oxygen above the LOL,

the fire will bum at its specified heat release rate. The higher the heat release rate, the greater

the amount of the consumed oxygen. Natural and mechanical ventilation conditions will affect

the amount of oxygen available. The LOL is a user input, and the most conservative value

is 0%. That is, the fire will bum with an intensity governed by the amount of oxygen or fuel

until the oxygen in the room has been consumed. Increasing the LOL to a higher value, let's say

10%, will indicate that the fire will not be able to bum if the oxygen concentration is below 10%.

Figure 5-7 illustrates the oxygen concentration profile for Cases 5 and 13, which are simulations

with one open door. Notice that the concentration was well above 10 percent. As expected,

Case 13 showed a lower oxygen concentration because of the higher heat release rate.

The mechanical ventilation effects in oxygen concentration profiles can be observed in Figure 5-7.

Notice that there is more oxygen in Cases 2 and 10, in which the mechanical ventilation system

(both injection and extraction) was operating.

5-9
Model Sensitivity

The effects of low oxygen concentration on the heat release rate can be observed in simulations

with closed doors (specifically Cases 9 and 11). Figure 5-7 compiles the results. Notice that in

Case 9, where the LOL is 0%, the heat release rate begins to decay when the oxygen concentration

is 0%. In Case 11, where the LOL is 10%, the heat release rate begins to decay at 550 seconds,

when the oxygen concentration is 10%. It is interesting to note that the two oxygen concentration

profiles are identical up to 10%. At that point, the fire in Case 9 maintains its original intensity

and, therefore, consumes more oxygen than the fire in Case 11.

Oxygen Concentration

0.25

*8,

0.2

0.15

a

I

0.1

10

Tixe (rn)

15 20

Heat Release Rate

1200

1000

800

600

400 - Case 1

-00 Case 2

Case 5

0

0 5 10 15 21

Time (min)

Heat Release Rate

6000

Case 9

5000 - -Case 10

-- Casel3 1 4000.- - Case 11

3000

2000

1000

0

0

Oxygen Concentration

V

it

I

0 0 5 10

Tnim (emn)

15 20 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Figure 5-7: Oxygen Concentration Profiles

5.2.6 Smoke Concentration

The relevant output for smoke concentration in MAGIC is the average extinction coefficient, k,

with units of 1/m. The relevant input value governing k is the specific area [Ref. 20], s (with

units of m2/g), which is calculated using the soot yield of the fuel, y,, as follows s= yskm, where

km is a constant value of 7600 m2/g [Ref. 21]. The average extinction coefficient can be

converted to concentration in units of mg/m3 or visibility in units of m with relatively simple

algebraic manipulations. For the purpose of NPP applications, visibility would be the most

relevant output. Recall from Reference 21 that the average extinction coefficient correlates

linearly with visibility, based on the equation S = 3/k for a light-reflecting object, or S = 8/k

for a light-emitting object, where S is the visibility distance in m.

5-10
Model Sensitivity

In this sensitivity analysis, Cases 5, 6, 13 and 14 are relevant to visibility. In those cases, the fuel

was varied from heptane to toluene in order to explore the effects on the average extinction

coefficient. The MAGIC input governing the average extinction coefficient is the specific area,

s, which has units of m2/kg. The specific area for heptane is 106.4 m2/kg, while the value for

toluene is 1482 m2/kg. Figure 5-8 summarizes the average extinction coefficient results already

transformed to units of concentration (mg/m3). The direct output from the model was converted

to mg/m3 using the following equation:

Ykm

where v is the concentration in mg/mr3, and km is a constant with value 0.0076 m2/mg [Ref. 21].

Cases 5 and 6 are associated with a 1.0-MW fire, while Cases 13 and 14 are associated with

a 5.0-MW fire. As expected, the highest extinction coefficient resulted from the toluene fuel

burning at an intensity of 5.0 MW.

Smoke Coren 'ato centration 1800 s3500

1600 -- ,--Case6 -.- Case 14

-- Case 13

1200 -- - Ca l 2500 e

.100 2 85W ____ ____ ___

0 Bo100

600 L)

400 - ----- 000

200 Soo

051

0 5 10 202 5 0 5 10 15 20

Trne (rmn) Tire (rin)

Figure 5-8: Smoke Concentration Profiles

5.2.7 Room Pressure

In addition to the variations in heat release rate, the room openings varied from a leakage path

of 0.015 m2 (0.16 ft2) to a 5.76-M2 (62-fl2) open door in order to explore the impact on room

pressure. Figure 5-9 illustrates the pressure profiles for Cases 1, 5, 9, and 13, which were

simulations with closed doors (only leakage paths) and open doors for the two heat release rates

selected for the study. Given the differences in magnitude, profiles for Cases 5 and 13 should be

read on the right y-axis.

In open door simulations (Cases 5 and 13) the pressure at the floor was negative, indicating that

fresh air was moving into the enclosure. Recall that the hot gas layer in these simulations did not

reach the floor. The region below this hot gas layer interface is associated with the negative

pressure profiles in Figure 5-9. In terms of sensitivity to heat release rate, the 5.0-MW fire

(Case 13) resulted in higher negative pressure, indicating that aii would move into the room

at higher velocities than in the case of the 1.0-MW fire. It is interesting to note that

the pressurization levels are on the order of Pascals.

5-11
Model Sensitivity

By contrast, for rooms with only leakage paths, the pressure profiles were positive (for the most part)

and on the order of thousands of Pascals. This is an indication that flows are moving out of the

room through the leakage paths. In addition, notice that Case 9 had a negative pressure spike

after 600 seconds. As shown in Figure 5-9, this is the time when the heat release rate suddenly

decays as a result of an oxygen-limited environment. This pressure spike is attributable to

sudden change in heat release rate. At this point, the heat lost to the boundaries -is greater than

the heat generated by the fire. After this spike, air begins to move into the enclosure through

the leakage paths, and the fire is able to burn with an intensity governed by the amount of air

drawn into the room. This spike was not observed in Case 1 because the fire had enough oxygen

to burn at its specified intensity.

Room Pressure Room Pressure

8000 0.5

6000 -- ----- '-Casel 0

Case 9 -0" 0-- 15 ..

4000 _

" 2000 -" -1.5-......

5 -2 - .

0

& -. 2000I _ 5 - . ..... 10 152D . -

-4000 ..--- .. .. -.. - -

-8000 -4000

-2.5

-3

-3.5 _ __ .4. -Case 5 -4

-4.5 -Case 13

-5

Tfrfm rnin) Time (rain)

Figure 5-9: Room Pressure Profiles

5.2.8 Target Temperature and Heat Flux

Of primary interest in NPP applications are the effects of the cable's thermo-physical properties

on the predicted surface temperature. As illustrated in Figure 5-2, this analysis included two

types of cables (XPE and PVC). The two cables have different material properties. The effects

of the material properties were explored by comparing surface temperature results for Cases 1

and 9. The only difference between these two cases was the fire heat release rate. As depicted

in Figure 5-11, the selected material properties did not have a significant impact on the surface

temperature profile. Notice that the profiles are almost identical for the XPE and PVC targets

in both cases. However, the damage or ignition temperature was an important distinction.

Another important aspect of evaluating target response in NPP fire scenarios is the difference

between gas temperatures at the location of the target and the surface temperature of that target.

MAGIC provides both results as part of its output library, and Figure 5-11 illustrates this comparison.

In Case 9, the gas temperature was higher than the surface temperature for the first 800 seconds

of the simulation, and the highest temperature difference was just above 100 'C. The temperatures

then converged when the fire was well into its decay stage. By contrast, the gas temperature

was always higher than the surface temperature throughout the simulation in Case 1

and the temperature difference was approximately 50 'C.

5-12
Model Sensitivity

MAGIC offers two modeling alternatives for predicting cable temperature, which include

modeling the cable as (1) a thermal target or (2) a cable. This section compares the two

alternatives. The fundamental difference between the two alternatives is that a cable is treated

as a cylinder, while a thermal target is treated as a slab. This shape difference requires

the following computational distinctions:

* numerical resolution one-dimensional plane for targets and one-dimensional cylinder for cables

* convective heat exchange coefficient on a plane or cylindrical surface

* configuration factors for the radiative flux calculation

In the following example, a cable is compared to a target. The target is considered similar

because the thickness of the target (1) is equal to the radius of the cable, and (2) is calculated

conserving the same surface-to-volume ratio. Figure 5-10 illustrates the relationship between the

cable and target.

e

D

/

/1

L

Cable Target

Surface Area irDL DL

Volume 7-- L DLe

4

Figure 5-10: Equivalence between Cable and Targets

D

The surface-to-volume ratio gives a thickness target value of e = D . Figure 5-11 includes 4

temperature profiles with targets with thicknesses D/4 and D/2. Targets with thickness D/4

resulted with the highest surface temperature.

5-13
Model Sensitivity

XPL Target Termperature - Case 1 XRL Target Tempaerature - Case 9 160 -4500____

140-. Gas --------- Te350 - Gas Temp

-- Target d/4- a

1200 . .--. .

0- ...... 5 1 15.. 200 5.10. . .2

- ~ Target Tedea/2e 30e10CTrgtTrgrtae-Cs

.. .... 400 Tage d2 -- 

1200

4 1100

20 --------- 50

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

5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

Tim (nin) TUTU (tn)

PVC Target Teperature - Case 1P e

160 e t TTarget. Th0at isthe i

140 x -fl Gas Taprp ro4i 

Gas Tem.p 1 4 . . The.thickness.of

e do t s arget t350 Targe 30d/2gt/

-i 100 hea flux ty. Target d/2

t g 80 r t Cable Modet

40 10.

05 1,0 1,5 20 0 51 52

Trne (n~n)Timr (rrin)

Figure 5-11: Target Temperature Profiles

In terms of heat flux, MAGIC's "Total Heat Flux" and "Incident Heat Flux" output options are

relevant in this study. The former is the total radiative and convective heat flux contributions to

the target. The latter is total radiative heat flux received by the target. That is, the incident flux

is the radiation flux received from the environment. It is normally positive because it is not

a balance. At the beginning of the simulation conditions are ambient. Therefore, the incident

heat flux is approximately t 1 o mb Figr(5.67E - an X293d 5 0.4 kWIm . The thickness of

the target does not affect these output options.

As illustrated in Figure 5-2, PVC and XPE targets were located 3.55 mn (11.65 ft) away from

the fire, and the elevation of both targets was 2.3 mn (7.6 ft). In MAGIC, these targets serve as

sensors• and record thermal conditions in their specified location. Each case study exhibited the

identical predicted heat flux to each target type. That is, given the symmetrical arrangement of

targets relative to the fire source, both XPE and PVC targets receive the same radiated heat flux

in each case. As expected, the total heat flux is higher than the incident heat flux attributable to

the contribution of the convective heat transfer.

Finally, the fuel type appears to have some effect on thermal radiation levels. According to

the results, the simulations conducted with heptane fires produced higher heat fluxes than the

corresponding simulations conducted with toluene fires (Cases 6 & 14), although the magnitude

differences were less than I kW/m2. Figures •5-12 and 5-13 compile the graphical results.

5-14
Model Sensitivity

XRL Target Float Rux - Case 1 PVC Target Heat Flux - Case 1 3,- 3 ____________________

2.5 - -TotalF 'Total -F

I ikln N 2.5 --- ___

0.5 - - -0

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

T"rre (rin) Tne (rain)

XFL Target Heat Flux - Case 5 PVCTarget I-hat Flux - Case 5

3 3-

Total IF --- Total -FF

2.5

-licident FI-F iket

0

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

Time (nin) Tuee (cin)

XPL Target I-eat Flux - Case 6 PVC Target Fleat Flux - Case 6

2.5 T-. 2.5 .................

2 2 - cdm I-•I Incident 

E 1.5 __

0.5,,----- 0.5---

011

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

Tim (mn) Tom (emb)

Figure 5-12: Target Heat Flux Profiles, 1-MW Fire

5-15
Model Sensitivity

XPL Target Heat Fux -Case 9 14

PVC Target Heat fux - Case 9 14 ________

12-- -.- Total HF

10 I--"ncident W.

6;

0 5 10

Tam (iri)

XR. Target Feat Rux -Case 13

15 20 5 10

Trre (mrn) -

PVCTarget Heat Flux -Case 13

15 20

E

0 5 10

Time (rnim)

15 20 5 10 15

Trime (rin)

PVC Target Heat Rux. - Case 14

20

12

Total -F 10i S Incident Hi=

8

6

4.

10 15 20 0

0 5 10 15 20

Tfrm (mnt) Tam (mn)

Figure 5-13: Target Heat Flux Profiles, 5-MW Fire

5-16
Model Sensitivity

5.2.9 WaHl Temperature

Figures 5-14 and 5-15 summarize a comparison between the use of MAGIC's "Wall Temperature"

and "Surface Temperature of the Target" output options. The "Wall Temperature" output results

from a one-dimensional finite difference calculation of conduction into the walls. The internal

boundary conditions are the thermal properties of the gas in contact with the particular wall surface

(upper or lower gas layer). The "Surface Temperature of the Target" output option results from

a calculation of conduction into a slab with a thickness similar to that of the wall.

This comparison is important because the validation study described in Chapter 6 for wall

temperature was developed using the latter option. That is, virtual sensors in MAGIC

(e.g., targets) were specified in the same location as the wall thermocouples in the experimental

series. The targets were specified with the same thermo-physical properties and thickness

as the walls. The only difference in the specification is the emissivity. The targets had

an emmisivity of 0.95 and MAGIC does not require emissivity as a wall property input.

Results suggests that the use of the "Target" feature in MAGIC for predicting wall surface

temperature can produce higher temperatures, with the exception of the floor surface in opendoor tests. In the cases run with a 1-MW fire, the temperature difference between both modeling

strategies is approximately 10 'C. In cases run with a 5-MW fire, the temperature difference

is between 40 'C and 60 'C.

5-17
Model Sensitivity

WaR Termperature - Case I WaW Temperature - Case 5

U

E

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

r -

Wall Temp

Target Temp

-I

0 5 10 15 20

Tme.(mmn)

0 5 10 15 20

Ton C(nin)

L)

1;

E-

-;

E

Floor Temperature - Case 1

70 ,

60 - --- Wall Terrp

So Target Termp

40

30+--- ____-------

20

toi

10

0 5 10 15 20

Tirre (min)

C•ding Temperature - Case 1

80,

I--- Wall Termp

EFloor Temperature - Case 5

-a- Target Temp

40 -

20

10o

0!

0 5 10 15 20

Trme (man)

Ceding Temperature - Case 5 70 -

6050 - Wal Ternp

.0 - Target Temp

2 401

30 _

70 ---- Wall Ten-p

60 -0-Target Temp

40 -----

20 t

10

0l

20

101

0 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

Twoe (rrm) Time (min)

Figure 5-14: Target Temperature vs. Wall Temperature, 1-MW Fire

5-18
Model Sensitivity

Wag Terlperature - Case 9

160

140

120

100

E s0

E

WaB Terrperature - Case 13

200

14 .o~Target Terrp

640

420

20 - -------- - -- ..- -

40 -----.-- . --.- ,---

0 5 10 15 20

Torre (nin)

0 5 10 15

Thfe (rin)

20

140

120

100

80

60

E

Floor Temperature - C~ase 9

- Wal Temrp ......

&

6

IFloor Tenperature - Case 13

180 -.. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ..-

160 1 --- WagITemp

140 1. TargetTem-p

120 . . ... . ..... ... ........

100 •------ -- ---- 

40, 40

20

0 5 10 15 20

lirme (nin)

zuF

0 -- .------------- ' ----.-- I

0 5 10 15 2(

Tme (rma)

Ceang Tenperature - Case 13

O

Ceing Terrperature - Case 9

160 120

160

140

- WaiTeryp

- Target Tenp

S

U

6

a- 60

60

40

20

0

0 5 10 15 20 0 10 15

Trme (oin)

12

20

irre (nin)

Figure 5-15: Target Temperature vs. Wall Temperature, 5-MW Fire

5-19
Model Sensitivity

5.3 Concluding Remarks

This chapter illustrates the effect of the most important parameters in fire modeling with the

MAGIC code. The set of models included in MAGIC are intended to translate the impact of those

parameters on the fire-generated conditions in a compartment. Therefore, it is important to understand

the effects of the input parameters on the predicted fire conditions, considering that the simulation

results are simplifications and idealizations of real fire-induced temperatures and flows.

It is difficult to generalize which input parameters are more important than others because

it depends on specific applications, and most (if not all) of the parameters are mathematically

related. As illustrated in this chapter, different parameters are important for different sub-models.

In most applications, the fire modeling analyst will need to determine which outputs are relevant

for the scenario under evaluation, which parameters will affect those outputs, and how variations

in those parameters will impact the conclusions made from the simulation results.

5-20
6

MODEL VALIDATION

This chapter summarizes the results of a validation study conducted for the zone model MAGIC,

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 in 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 compartmentwith dimensions of 21.7 m x 7.1 m x 3.8 m (71 ftx 23 ft x 12.5 ft),

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

and ceiling are covered with two layers of marinate boards, while the floor is covered with two

layers of gypsum boards. 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 fir Baustoffe, Massivbau und Brandschutz (iBMB) of the Braunschweig University

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

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

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

compartment.

6-1
Model Validation

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

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

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

was to provide data with which to validate computer models for various types of NPP compartments.

The experiments were conducted in an enclosure measuring 60 ft long x 40 ft wide x 20 ft high

(18 m x 12 m x 6 in), constructed at the FMRC fire test facility in Rhode Island. All of the tests

involved forced ventilation to simulate typical NPP installation practices. The fires consist of

a simple gas burner, a heptane pool, a methanol pool, or a polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA)

solid fire. Four of these tests were conducted with a full-scale control room mockup in place.

Parameters varied during testing are the heat release rate, enclosure ventilation rate, and fire location.

Only three of these tests (Tests 4, 5 and 21) were used in the present evaluation. Test 21

involved the full-scale mockup. All were gas burner fires.

NBS Multi-Room Series: The National Bureau of Standards (NBS, now the National Institute of

Standards and Technology, NIST) Multi-Compartment Test Series consists of 45 fire tests

representing 9 different sets of conditions, with multiple replicates of each'set, which were

conducted in a three-room suite. The suite consists of two relatively small rooms, connected via

a relatively long corridor. The fire source, a gas burner, is located against the rear wall of one of

the small compartments. Fire tests of 100, 300, and 500 kW were conducted, but only three

100-kW fire experiments (Test 1OA, 1000, and 100Z) were used for the current V&V study.

Technical details of the calculations, including output of the model and comparison with

experimental data are provided in Appendix A. The results are organized by quantity as follows:

* Section 6.1: Hot Gas Layer Temperature And Height

" Section 6.2: Ceiling Jet Temperature

" Section 6.3: Plume Temperature

* Section 6.4: Flame Height

* Section 6.5: Oxygen Concentration

* Section 6.6: Smoke Concentration

* Section 6.7: Compartment Pressure

* Section 6.8: Target Temperatureand Heat Flux

* Section 6.9: Wall Heat Flux and 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-AE _ (M, -Mo )-(E -Eo)

AE(E-Eo

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

Mo. 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.).

6-2
Model Validation

Each section in this chapter contains a scatter plot that summarizes the relative difference results

for all of the predictions and measurements of the quantity under consideration. The details

of the calculations, input assumptions, and 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 category, indicating,

in a very broad sense, how well the model treats that particular quantity. Colors are assigned

based on the following criteria. Once the user determines that the validation results reported here

are applicable (see Volume 1), the user must determine the predictive capability of the fire models.

The following two criteria are used to characterize the predictive capability of the model:

Criterion 1: Are the physics of the model appropriate for the calculation being made?

This criterion reflects an evaluation of the underlying physics described by the model

and the physics of the fire scenario. Generally, the scope of this study is limited to the fire scenarios

that are within the stated capability of the selected fire models (e.g., this study does not address

the fire scenarios that involve flame spread within single and multiple cable trays).

Criterion 2: Are there calculated relative differences outside the experimental and model input

uncertainty? This criterion is used as an indication of the accuracy of the model prediction.

Because fire experiments are used as a way of establishing confidence in model prediction,

the confidence can only be as good as our experiments and the model inputs derived from

experiments. Therefore, if model predictions fall within the ranges of these combined

uncertainties, the predictions are determined to be as accurate as the experiments and data.

Section 2.6.3 and Volume 2 of this report provide an introduction and technical details

for the uncertainty analysis.

The predictive capability of the model is characterized as follows based on the above criteria:

: If both criteria are satisfied (i.e., the model physics are appropriate for the calculation

being made, and the calculated relative differences are within or very near experimental

uncertainty), the V&V team concludes that the fire model prediction is accurate for the ranges

of experiments in this study, as described in Tables 2-4 and 2-5 in Volume I of this report. A

grade of Green indicates that the model can be used with confidence to calculate the specific

attribute. The user should recognize, however, that the accuracy of the model prediction is still

somewhat uncertain and, for some attributes (such as smoke concentration and room pressure),

these uncertainties may be rather large. It is important to note that a grade of Green indicates

validation only in the parameter space defined by the test series used in this study. That is, the

model is validated when it is used within the ranges of the parameters defined by the

experiments.

LLOW : If the first criterion is satisfied, and the calculated relative differences are outside

the experimental uncertainty but indicate a consistent pattern of model over-prediction or underprediction, the model's predictive capability is characterized as Yellow+ for over-prediction,

and Yellow- for under-prediction. The model prediction for the specific attribute may be useful

within the ranges of experiments in this study, and as described in Tables 2-4 and 2-5 in Volume

1, but users should use caution when interpreting the model's results. A complete understanding

of model assumptions and scenario applicability to these V&V results is necessary. The model

may be used if the grade is Yellow+ when the user ensures that model over-prediction reflects

conservatism. The user must exercise caution when using models with capabilities characterized

as Yellow+.

6-3
Model Validation

LLO: If the first criterion is satisfied, and the calculated relative differences are outside

experimental uncertainty with no consistent pattern of over- or under-prediction, the model's

predictive capability is characterized as Yellow. A Yellow classification is also used despite

a consistent pattern of under- or over-prediction if the experimental data set is limited. Caution

should be exercised when using a fire model for predicting these attributes. In this case, users

are referred to the details of the experimental conditions and validation results documented in

Volumes 2 through 6. Users are advised to review and understand the model assumptions

and inputs, as well as the conditions and results, to determine and justify the appropriateness

of the model's prediction for the fire scenario for which it is being used.

]M: If the first criterion is not met, the particular fire model's capability should not be used.

No color: This V&V study did not investigate this capability. This may be attributable to one or

more factors, including unavailability of appropriate data or lack of model, sub-model, or output.

As suggested in the criteria above, there is a level of engineering judgment in the classification

of fire model predictive capabilities. Specifically, the V&V project team exercised engineering

judgment in the following two areas:

1. Evaluation of the modeling capabilities of the particular tool if the model physics are

appropriate.

2. Evaluation of the magnitude of relative differences when compared to the experimental

uncertainty. Judgment in this area impacts the determination of Green versus Yellow color.

The team included fire model developers, nuclear power plant fire modeling experts, and code

users. In general, a Green or Yellow classification suggests that the V&V team determined

that the model physics are appropriate for the calculation been made, within the assumptions

of the specific model. The difference between the colors is attributable to the magnitude

of the calculated relative differences. Judgment considerations include general experimental

conditions, experimental data quality, and the characterization of the experimental uncertainty.

6.1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height

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

After all, the impact of the fire is often assessed not only a function of the heat release rate,

but also as a function of the compartment temperature. A good prediction of the height

of the hot gas layer is largely a consequence of a good prediction of its temperature because

smoke and heat are largely transported together, and most numerical models describe the transport

of both with the same type of algorithm. The following is a summary of the accuracy assessment

for the hot gas layer predictions of the six test series:

ICFMP BE #2: MAGIC under-predicts the hot gas layer temperature by less than 10% for all

three cases. This falls within the range of experimental uncertainty. In addition, MAGIC underpredicts the hot gas layer height by less than 10% in all three cases. That is, MAGIC's height

prediction is above the measured height. A graphical comparison of the MAGIC predictions

and experimental observations for these three cases is presented in Figure A-2. The scatter plot

in Figure 6-1 illustrates the relative differences between the measured and predicted peak hot gas

layer temperatures and heights.

6-4
Model Validation

ICFMP BE #3: MAGIC predicts the hot gas layer temperature and height to within

experimental uncertainty for all 15 tests. It should be noted that the discrepancies in the hot gas

layer heights depicted in Figures A-4 and A-5 (which refers to closed-door tests) are attributable

to the data reduction method used to determine the experimental layer interface. This method

is not applicable for tests in which a single gas layer develops (i.e., the room is completely filled

with smoke). Notice that MAGIC predicts that the hot gas layer eventually reaches the floor,

generating a single gas layer in the room. That prediction is consistent with visual observations

during the experiments. Given the inconsistency between model results and the reduced

experimental data, no relative differences were calculated for closed-door tests.

The collection of graphical comparisons between MAGIC predictions for hot gas layer

temperatures and heights for ICFMP BE #3 is presented in Figures A-4 through A-7.

The relative differences calculated for peak values are summarized in Table A-2 and Figure 6-1.

ICFMP BE #4: MAGIC predicts the hot gas layer temperature within experimental uncertainty

for the single test (Test 1). However, there is some discrepancy in the shapes of the curves

for the hot gas layer height (see Figure A- 11). This discrepancy is associated with a relative

difference of 25%, which is outside the range of experimental uncertainty. A possible explanation

for the discrepancy in the layer height is the fact that the room was almost engulfed in flames,

which may not be consistent with the fundamental assumption in MAGIC of two distinct gas layers.

The relative differences for layer temperature and height are also plotted in Figure 6-1.

ICFMP BE #5: MAGIC predicts the hot gas layer temperature and height to within

experimental uncertainty for the single test (Test 4). The graphical comparison between

experimental measurements and model predictions, illustrated in Figure A-1I suggests very good

agreement between the profiles. The calculated relative differences for peak hot gas layer

temperature and height are listed in Table A-4.

FM/SNL: MAGIC predicts the hot gas layer temperature to within experimental uncertainty

for Tests 4, 5, and 21. In the case of the hot gas layer height, there are inconsistencies in

the comparison of hot experimental measurements and model predictions. As previously discussed

for the case of closed-door tests in ICFMP BE #3, the data reduction method for determining

hot gas layer height is not applicable for closed-door tests. Consequently, the graphical comparisons

presented in Figure A- 13 do not show good agreement between model predictions

and experimental measurements. For that same reason, no relative differences were calculated

for hot gas layer height in this test series.

NBS Multi-Room: MAGIC's hot gas layer temperature predictions in this test series are,

for the most part, outside the experimental uncertainty for both the fire room and adjacent

compartments. At the same time, the comparisons between predicted and observed values

suggest over-predictions of hot gas layer temperatures, as depicted in Figures A-15 through A- 17

and Figure 6-1. The hot gas layer height predictions were close to the experimental uncertainty

limits with some over-predictions in the corridor. Recall that a negative relative difference

suggests a model hot gas layer height prediction above the experimental observation.

6-5
Model Validation

Summary: HGL Temperature and Height (Green for single rooms and Yellow+

for multiple rooms)

The hot gas layer temperature and height merit a Green classification for single rooms

and a Yellow+ classification for scenarios with multiple rooms.

" The research team considers the MAGIC model for calculating hot gas layer temperatures

to be appropriate for its intended applications.

* MAGIC's predictions of the hot gas layer temperature and height are, with the exception

of the selected tests from the NBS test series, within experimental uncertainty of 13%. "

* The scatter plot in Figure 6-1 summarizes the relative differences calculated for hot gas layer

temperatures and height. As previously explained, no relative differences were calculated

for closed-door tests.

* Validation results suggest that MAGIC is certainly suited for predicting hot gas layer

temperatures and heights in scenarios where this study is applicable. Because most

of the validation results are within experimental uncertainty, and MAGIC is over-predicting

hot gas layer temperatures in the selected tests from the NBS test series, a color assignment

of Green is assigned for single-room fire scenarios and Yellow+ for scenarios with multiple rooms.

In the case of hot gas layer height, a Green classification is assigned for the room of fire origin

and Yellow for adjacent rooms.

6-6
Model Validation

700-

600-

5 00-

400

100

0

MAGIC: Hot Gas Layer Temperature Rise

* CFNP3E #2

*ICFNFBE #3 1

* CFW BE #5

600 700 8001

16-

14-

12

? 10

&6

4

2

MAGIC: Hot Gas Layer Depth

7 7~i1 7'

'7 /

'7'/

A'- * IO:F6E#2

* ICRVWPE#3

A KFW BE #4

* K0apeE#S

* N~BS FWafi rSoom I U

0 100 200 300 400 500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Measured Termperature Rise Measured Depth (m) (C)

60%

Hot Gas Layer Temp and Height

40% SO 00

20% 7.:.7'-7. = -7 --- -o ------- - - - - - - - - - - - --- 

0%: 00 0 06 -20%-..........--- o--- --------------------- -- ------- ,-o-, -------- -0-------- - 0 -

-20%

-40%

07o Termp (Roomof fire origin) a Terrp (Adj rooms) A Ternlp (Ad] rooms)

-60% 4-- * Height (Room of fire origin) x Height (Adj rooms) ---- BJ Tenp

-80% •--.. - EU Height

-100% 7- 0 CC) (0 Cc) 03L -~ n ~ g 0 NJ MV M -. J .-j CZ CD 

W *. w_ w~ *. s.. MU C M C) .. .. M~ Z) rZ . a

03 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Uj LU 03 wU w3 LU LU M3 W 03 M ~~3000 M030MM303 w WM WWW

Figure 6-1: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height

in ICFMP BE #2, #3, #4, and #5, and the Selected FMISNL and NBS Tests

[Experimental uncertainties (EU) are 13% (HGL temp) and 9% (HGL height).]

6-7
Model Validation

6.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature

The ceiling jet algorithm in MAGIC consists primarily of the model proposed by Cooper [Ref. 7].

It is recommended that analysts review MAGIC's technical reference [Ref. 2] for specific details

about the implementation of the ceiling jet algorithm. Typical of ceiling jet correlations,

MAGIC's algorithm applies only to the flow of hot gases under a flat ceiling. Only two of the six

test series (ICFMP BE #3 and FM/SNL) involved a ceiling jet formed over a relatively wide,

flat ceiling.

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

(16%), with the exception of Tests 10, 13, and 16, as illustrated in Figure 6-2. Interestingly,

Test 10 is a replicate of Test 4, which was predicted to within experimental uncertainty.

The ventilation system was on during these two tests, and the inconsistent results may be

attributed to it. It is difficult to draw conclusions about over-predictions in Tests 15 and 16.

The only difference in Tests 13 and 16 is the mechanical ventilation, which was off in Test 13

and on in Test 16. The over-prediction for Test 16 does not appear to be a consistent pattern

from MAGIC in predicting ceiling jet temperatures, in particular, because such over-prediction

was not observed in similar test in ICFMP BE #3. Therefore, such over-prediction is not considered

dominant in assessing MAGIC's capabilities for predicting ceiling jet temperature. Figure 6-2

also suggests that the relative differences for open-door tests are smaller (near 0%) than those

in closed-door tests. Furthermore, only two under-predictions, -7% in Test 1 and -1% in Test 14

were calculated.

The graphical comparisons between experimental measurements and MAGIC's predictions

for ceiling jet temperature are grouped in Figures A-1 8 and A-19. Table A-9 lists the calculated

relative differences.

FMISNL: MAGIC predicts the ceiling jet temperature at two locations in Test 4, 5, and 21

to within experimental uncertainty. The graphical comparisons are provided in Figure A-20.

The calculated relative differences are listed in Table A-10 and plotted in Figure 6-2.

Summary: Ceiling Jet Temperature - Green

* With three exceptions corresponding to closed-door tests in ICFMP BE #3, MAGIC's

ceiling jet predictions are within experimental uncertainty.

* MAGIC's ceiling jet sub-model is well-suited for the range of scenarios validated in this study.

In general, this validation applies to ceiling jet flows under flat unobstructed ceilings and an r/H

up to 1.7 (r is the horizontal radial distance and H is the distance between the fire source

and the ceiling). Notice that the MAGIC technical manual (Ref. 2) suggests that "the model

is valid up to r/H = 3. In MAGIC, they are applied up to r/H =10, to avoid a discontinuity

in gas temperature. In cases where the ceiling jet exceeds r/H = 10, it is assumed that

the gas temperature beyond r/H = 10 equals the temperature at r/H = 10. These hypotheses are

conservative even if they have not been explored experimentally."

* This V&V study included the evaluation of MAGIC's capabilities for predicting ceiling jet

temperature inside the hot gas layer.

* Based on the model's robustness and the fact that most relative differences are within

experimental uncertainty (16%), a Green classification is assigned.

6-8
Model Validation

400-

MAGIC: Ceiling Jet Temperature Rise 0

350

A

/

cc)

CD

QE

0)

U

IL

300 7

/ -

9~. @7 250 4-

200 1--.

,~ ' , - -

, - -

~.. 7 LA 7_ - - - - -

- -- 150

100 .

-' A~--

, , -- I--

,~ -

50 -

0i

0

*K;FMP BE#3

*FMISNL •Il100 200 300 400

Measured Ceiling Jet Temperature Rise (C)

100% 100% Ceiling Jet Temperature 80%,

60%

40%

20% -

0

0%

-20%

-40%

-60%

-80%

-100%

4-

.......................... 0 . . . ............................. I...............................

0 0

0 0_ A

--------- , -- - --,- -- --- - •... --- -. ----, - -, ---- ,O --- - ---O --- -- -- -- A --- --- -- --- --

o IOFW BE #3 Tree 7-10~

w FWvSNL 11/98H

N N ý C;) C) C-) C') , C) C) C) 6~ 00 0,

w w w w C') w wJ C') CI 00w M' M' M' MMwwww w w M M w w n - -

L- Z Z Z

Figure 6-2: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Ceiling Jet Temperatures in ICFMP BE #3

and the Selected FM/SNL Tests (Experimental uncertainty is 16%.)

6-9
Model Validation.

6.3 Plume Temperature

As with the ceiling jet, MAGIC has a specific plume sub-model. This validation refers primarily

to the implementation of the McCaffrey plume temperature correlation and the correction for

plume flows above the hot gas layer interface. The line plume model in MAGIC was not

evaluated in this study. Data from ICFMP BE #2 and the FM/SNL test series have been used

to assess the accuracy of plume temperature predictions.

ICFMP BE #2: MAGIC's predictions of plume temperature are within the experimental

uncertainty of 14%. Figure A-22 provides the graphical comparisons between model predictions

and experimental measurements. The calculated relative differences are listed in Table A-II

and plotted in Figure 6-3.

FM/SNL: MAGIC predicts the plume temperatures in Tests 4 and 5 to within. experimental

uncertainty. See Figure A-23 and Table A-12 for the graphical comparisons and calculated

relative differences.

Summary: Plume Temperature - Green

The axisymmetric plume temperature model in MAGIC is well-suited for applications similar to

those evaluated in this study.

.0 This V&V study included the evaluation of MAGIC capabilities for predicting plume

temperature inside the hot gas layer.

* Because all of the relative differences are within experimental uncertainty and the

experimental and predicted temperature profiles show good agreement, a classification

of Green is assigned for the axisymmetric plume model in MAGIC.

6-10
Model Validation

400 .7 -

MAGIC: Plume Temperature Rise 7 ,,

350 -

300 / / / / , ,"

M 250 - -

a.200

15 -

a.

"oV /, -,

100 ~ "om pj' --

50* KCFMP BE #2

* FM(SNL

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4O00

Measured Temperature Rise (C)

100%

%I Plume Temperature 80% --

60 %L

40%+

20%

0%

-20%

-40%

-60%

-80%

-100%

______ --- d__-------- _____ ------ ------ --- ------- ___*_--- ---------------------- ------------------ ----- ----- -- ---------

r• i E

______ _____________oKFivBE#2TG.11

m ICFR'BE #2TG.2!--

A FM(SNL 28/98ýH

-j -j

MD C MD MD D MD M M W W W W w CD W WZ Dm~ W / J

D MD MD M CO CD CO

LL U- 2 M M

Figure 6-3: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Plume Temperatures in ICFMP BE #2,

and the Selected FMISNL Tests (Experimental uncertainty is 14%.)

6-11
Model Validation

6.4 Flame Height

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

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

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

accurate to within a pan diameter.

The MAGIC model for flame height consists of Heskestad's flame height correlation. See

Reference 2 for technical details.

ICFMP BE #2: The height of the visible flame in the photographs of BE #2 has been estimated

to be between 2.4 and 3 pan diameters [(3.8 m to 4.8 m (12.5 ft to 15.7 ft)]. From Figure A-24,

which reports MAGIC flame height predictions, flame heights are between 3 and 7 m (9.8 and

23.0 ft).

ICFMP BE #3: MAGIC appears to predict the flame height correctly in this test series, at least

to the accuracy of visual observations and a few photographs taken before the hot gas layer

obscures the upper part of the fire. The experiments were not designed to measure the flame

height other than through visual observation. Flame height pictures and MAGIC predictions can

be found in Figures A-26 through A-28. Notice for example that Figure A-26 suggests flames

with heights similar to the height of the door [2 m (6.6 ft)]. MAGIC's predictions peak above

2 m (6.6 ft) in all cases.

Summary: Flame Height - Green

MAGIC appears to provide flame height predictions consistent with the heights observed in

available photographs for BE #2. MAGIC's flame height predictions for BE #3 are also

consistent with the heights observed in available photographs.

* This evaluation does not suggest that MAGIC is under-predicting flame height. Therefore,

based on the consistency with visual evidence, a Green classification is assigned.

6-12
Model Validation

6.5 Oxygen Concentration

The oxygen concentration in MAGIC results directly from the conservation of mass equation

in both the upper and lower layers. The evaluation results are based on oxygen concentrations

calculated in the upper layer. It should be stressed that this study is limited to well-ventilated

fires (Equivalence ratios, ý, less than 1, as noted in Volume 1, Table 2-5).

ICFMP BE #3: The relative differences associated with MAGIC's predictions of upper-layer

oxygen concentration range from approximately -30% to 25%. Some of these relative

differences are outside the range of experimental uncertainty of 9%. As suggested in Figure 6-4,

there appears to be a pattern of negative relative differences associated with open-door tests not

observed in the closed-door tests. In all these cases, the measured oxygen concentration was

above 15%. In terms of the closed-door tests, all the relative differences are within experimental

uncertainty with the exception of Tests 4 and 10, which involved a mechanically ventilated room.

Recall that negative relative differences indicate that MAGIC predicted oxygen concentrations

higher than those measured in the experiments. Figures A-29 and A-30 illustrate the experimental

and model oxygen concentration profiles.

ICFMP BE #5: MAGIC's prediction of the upper-layer oxygen concentration in Test 4 of this

test series is above the experimental uncertainty of 9%.

Summary: Oxygen Concentration - Yellow

The MAGIC model is capable of making oxygen concentration predictions, assuming that the

basic stoichiometry of the combustion reaction is known. Recall that this study is limited to

well-ventilated compartment fires only.

* Relative differences in BE #3 are comparable to experimental uncertainty in the case of

closed-room tests. In the case of open-door tests, they are below the experimental

uncertainty range in BE #3. The relative difference associated with the single comparison

in BE #5 is also outside the range of experimental uncertainty.

* Based on the above discussion, a classification of Yellow is assigned for the oxygen

concentration predictions in MAGIC.

6-13
Model Validation

0.12 - - _-__

MAGIC: Upper Layer Oxygen Concentration

0.10- "S .

C

0

.2

0

0)

C

Q.,

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

4t0

N

0.;

,,/

°,

0.00 !1--- ,

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

Measured Change in Volune Fraction

0.12

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

-40%

-60%

-80%

-100%

Oxygen Concentration

0-- -...... 0--------------- - -- - - --------

0 00 00 _0 0

00 0 0 0 0 So Ox o

w w w w w w w w w. w cw Z Z zJ00 W W W W MD M Co W W W CD CDQQ

U-u - U- z zZ

I

Figure 6-4: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Oxygen Concentration in ICFMP BE #3 and #5

(Experimental uncertainty is 9%.)

6-14
Model Validation

6.6 Smoke Concentration

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

the smoke yield was specified as one of the test parameters. MAGIC consistently over-predicted

smoke concentrations from approximately 30% to 500% in the closed-door tests. For open-door

tests, MAGIC's predictions are within the experimental uncertainty of 33%.

The graphical comparisons for smoke concentration are summarized in Figures A-32 and A-33.

The relative differences are listed in Table A- 15 and plotted in Figure 6-5.

Summary: Smoke Concentration - Yellow

MAGIC is capable of transporting smoke throughout a compartment, assuming that the

production rate is known and its transport properties are comparable to gaseous exhaust products.

" MAGIC over-predicts the smoke concentration in closed-door tests. The predictions for

open-door tests are within experimental uncertainty.

* No firm conclusions can be drawn to explain the drastic differences in predictions between

open- and closed-door tests. Therefore, a Yellow classification is assigned because there is

no clear indication that MAGIC would always result in conservative estimates.

6-15
Model Validation

1600

MAGIC: Smoke Concentration

%a

1400

E

C

0

0

E

1200

1000

800

600

400

* Open Door Tests

o Cosed Door Tests

00 0~-

200 0 0

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

- -.---.- -- A

350 400

Measured Snoke Concentration (rg/rrm3)

600%

Smoke Concentration

0 500% -

400%

300%

0

0

0

200% . 0 0 0.

100% ]-

0 0" t 'O r 

•- 0 0%

-100%

C'J CJ (4 C) C) C U i

D mm 1• m m m LU m LU A Il

In CO

U? T Z? 0 0 LU) LU LU. ) ' U L U , Z - - Q' 

U- z z Z

Figure 6-5: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration in ICFMP BE #3

(Experimental uncertainty is 33%.)

6-16
Model Validation

6.7 Compartment Pressure

Comparisons between measurements and predictions of compartment pressure for BE #3 are

shown in Figure A-34 and A-35. For those tests in which the door to the compartment is open,

the over-pressures are only a few Pascals; however, when the door is closed, the over-pressures

are several hundred Pascals.

The relative differences were calculated as follows:

* For closed-door rooms, the relative difference refers to the positive peak at the early stages

of the fire. Positive relative differences indicate that MAGIC over-predicted the measured

peak.

* For open-door rooms, the relative difference refers to the negative magnitudes of the pressure,

typically at the late stages of the test. Positive relative differences suggest that MAGIC

calculated the difference as being lower than the experimental measurement.

Relative differences are listed in Table A-16.

Visual examination of the plots of experimental data and model results (see Figure A-34)

strongly suggest that for tests with open doors, where leakages are not critical because of the

large door opening, MAGIC captures both the magnitude and the profile of the pressure.

These profiles suggest a negative pressure profile at the floor of the room, indicating that fresh

air is moving into the enclosure.

In closed-door tests, MAGIC captures both peaks and pressure profiles (see Figure A-35). It is

important to mention that fan tests were conducted before some of the tests resulting in relatively

well-known leakage areas, which were used as inputs to the model. Furthermore, notice that

MAGIC captures both positive and negative pressure peaks. These peaks are an indication of a

positively pressurized room in the early stages of the test, and a negatively pressurized room

when the fuel supply is discontinued and heat losses to the boundaries are higher than the heat

release rate of the fire.

In general, the magnitudes of the predicted pressures are comparable to those of the measured

pressures and, in most cases, differences can be explained using the reported uncertainties in the

leakage area and the fact that the leakage area changed from test to test because of the thermal stress

on the compartment walls. The one notable exception is Test 16, which was performed with

the door closed and the ventilation on. For that test, there is considerable uncertainty in the

magnitudes of both the supply and exhaust flow rates.

The relative differences are plotted in Figure 6-6. Notice that only the relative difference

associated with Test 16 is outside the experimental uncertainty ranges of 40% and 80% for tests

with the ventilation system off or on, respectively.

Summary: Compartment Pressure - Green

* The basic mass and energy conservation equations solved by MAGIC ensure reliable

predictions of compartment pressure. It should be stressed that compartment pressure

predictions are extremely sensitive to the leakage area and forced ventilation. In the MAGIC

runs, the leakage area listed in the experimental descriptions was divided by the orifice flow

coefficient, 0.68, so that it is reflected in the model as the actual opening area.

6-17
Model Validation

" The MAGIC pressure predictions for BE #3 are within experimental uncertainty, with an

exception that may be related to the behavior of a ventilation fan.

" A Green classification is assigned for compartment pressure predictions in MAGIC,

assuming that room leakages are known in closed-door scenarios.

E

350 --- °" -"

Peak Room Pressure (Closed Door)

300

250. . .. ..... - _____...

200 *

150/ -

100

50

25 .... 0 .... . .....................

200 ... . ........ ... "."

0 • .... .. .. . .. . .S 7 --

~~.1

-3.0) -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0

Peak Room Pressure (Open Door) ...........

. o, -1.0 0.5 -...-.. 

.1

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5

-3.0 0 50 100 150 200 250

Measured RDom Pressure (Pa)

300 35(

Measured Rom Pressure (Pa)

U,

C

2?

02

120% ---... - .

100% . -Room Pressure .O-....... ............. .......

100% ----- - ---- -- ------__ _ _

20% . ............ . .... --. . - -_ ____

-20% - - ---- ___ -- . . . . . . . --------.--- .

60%:

-60%4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

40% 0 0-- -U_-_-0 0 0_

20% ... .0

20% o0

~0

-40%1 0

-60% ----

-80% - - - - - - - - - - - - --. - - - -

-100%

- C'. T3 - "r- N 0 Q? 3 C P C? 03 L? Ln 3 co 'T 'T - ( 0

N M ,M M M M3 , .7 c, M '7 ' u_ W_ 0_ a. o- a_ o-_ a . m .. c n'a) a. c_ In c) a z z m 2 2 2 2 C O a- CL. M 2 2 M. a--, n Q Q z z z LA. LI LLA. L U. Li. U. L. m. 2 2 Li. U_ 2 2 U_ Li. 2 2 Q

0 0 0 0 0 U.. U. . 00 , , U. U. 00 L LL U. _ 0 _ 0 _, 0 0 _ --- _ ,.0 .l

Figure 6-6: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Room Pressure in ICFMP BE #3

[Experimental uncertainties are 40% (no forced vent) and 80% (forced vent).]

6-18
Model Validation

6.8 Target Temperature and Heat Flux

Target temperature and heat flux data are available from ICFMP BE #3, #4, and #5. In BE #3,

the targets are various types of cables in various configurations - horizontal, vertical, in trays,

or free-hanging. In BE #4, the targets are three rectangular slabs of different materials

instrumented with heat flux gauges and thermocouples. In BE #5, the targets are again cables,

in this case, bundled power and control cables in a vertical ladder.

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

different cables that are graphed in Section A.8. 1. Consequently, it is difficult to make sweeping

generalizations about the accuracy of MAGIC. For each target, the graphical comparison of

experimental measurements and MAGIC predictions are presented for target temperature, cable

temperature, radiation, and total heat flux. At best, one can scan the figures and associated tables

to get a sense of the overall performance. The experimental uncertainty is about 20% and 14%

for heat flux and surface temperature, respectively. The following important aspects of this

evaluation should be considered:

MAGIC provides the capability to model cable temperature as a "target" (where the material

is simulated as a slab), or a cable itself (where the material is simulated as a cylinder with

concentric layers of conductor, insulation, andjacket). This evaluation includes both alternatives.

When cables were modeled as targets (slab), the thickness of the target was selected as d/4,

where d is the diameter of the cable (see the discussion on cable modeling and sensitivity

analysis in Chapters 3 and 5).

* The measured radiative heat flux is compared with MAGIC's "Incident Heat Flux" output,

which is the sum of all radiated heat fluxes to a target. That is, the incident flux is the

radiation flux received from the environment. This value is normally positive because it is

not a balance. At the beginning of the simulation, conditions are ambient. Therefore,

the incident heat flux is approximately Oe'Tb 0.9(5.67E -1 X293)4 0.4kW/m 2 .

The total heat flux measurement is compared with MAGIC's "Total Heat Flux, Flux Meter"

output, which simulates a typical water-cooled heat flux meter.

Figures 6-7 through 6-10 show the relative differences for target and cable temperature, as well as

radiative and total heat fluxes for targets B-TS-14, D-TS-12, F-TS-20, and G-TS-33.

The following observations are relevant:

* It can be concluded that results from the majority of the comparisons were within

experimental uncertainty or were over-predictions for surface temperature.

* In general, there is more scatter in heat flux predictions than in surface temperature

predictions.

* In the case of temperature, there is almost no difference in modeling cables as targets or cables,

provided that the thermo-physical properties are the same and the thickness of the target

is one-quarter of the diameter of the cable.

* Relative differences for heat flux suggest under- and over-predictions.

* Specific conclusions can be drawn on a case-by-case basis. For example, temperatures

for G-TS-33 are generally over-predicted.

6-19
Model Validation

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

targets located about 1 m (3.3 ft) from the fire. The trend is consistent, but it cannot be explained

solely in terms of experimental uncertainty. The technical details supporting relative differences

are included in Figure A-68 and Table A-2 1.

ICFMP BE #5: MAGIC predicts both temperature and total heat flux to targets in BE #5, Test 4

(approximately) to within experimental uncertainty. The technical details supporting relative

differences are included in Figure A-69 and Table A-22.

Summary: Radiant and Total Heat Flux and Target Temperature - Yellow

MAGIC is capable of predicting the radiative and total heat flux to targets, assuming known

thermo-physical properties. MAGIC is also capable of predicting the surface temperature

of a target. Based on the scatter plots of relative differences, the following classifications

are assigned:

" Yellow for surface temperature of the target

* Yellow for total heat flux

* Yellow for radiated heat flux

6-20
Model Validation

800 T

MAGIC: Target Temperature Rise

700 ... - -. .. . . . . .

//

6 0 0 . .. . . .. . . . . . . - ... . . ...0 

, d

, -

500 - ,' -

E

I .9 •

S300 -

I' v#3 B-TS-14

Z 2007 . .CFP K #3 TS-33

.ICFMP#3 D-TS-12 EL

.9

.9 .9 .9

.9 .9 .9

.9 .9 .9 .9 .9

.9 .9 .9 .9 .9

.9

+

100

0

+ cRvP#3 F-TS-20

z lFlV BE #4

I -ICFP BE #5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Nbasured Tarnet Ternnerature Rse 10

100%

75%

50%

25%

0%

-25%

-50%

-75%

-100%

X *CaKe

* Cable D

___ ___ __ __ __ ___ __ __ A Cable F _I

x x Cable G

)K Steel- ....X ... . .... . .... ... .... ... . e Concrete

A A ,A **

-TCO 3-3 T

e TJO 1-5 I

c3 TCO 3-5

____ ___ ____ ___ ____ _ A TCO 1-7 I

x TCOQ3-7

CO Lo co (aC~ Co Zn Cn C' ~) IL U) Co Co .

U- z z Z 1

Target Temperature

SC 1- C" 'IT 0 M') 64 (N ( C C6 C6) c) A

w w w w w w wU LU "I mm mmm ~ ~ m I oUL

Figure 6-7: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Target Temperature in ICFMP BE #3

(Experimental uncertainty is 14%.)

6-21
Model Validation

800 - -__

MAGIC: Cable Temperature Rise - ,

700 . . . . . . . ..--- -.. 

7/--. --- / - -

SlCF1 #3 B-TS-14 1,#- - -- 600 - . . - ..... - -

UIFMP#3 TS-33 ' ' ./

ICFMP#3 D-TS-12 s

500 1- ,..

I+ lCv#3 F-TS-20 --

8 400

300

C-,

200

00 +-- ---- 10 0 :K .~--..-

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

WMasured Cable Termperature Rise (C)

100%-----------. . . .........................

Cable Temperature (Cable Model in MAGIC) x

75% x x x x

50% -.-.. X .................

x 25% .... . _X__x __ ........... . ------ A ..... A ...... . ................................... _i . I _._ . i , I I . . . .

%-. .-.. .... . -. ...... ... ... .. ......... 

-25%

-50%

A

-75%

*Cable B m Cable D A Cable F x Cable G

-100% -

A Af A0 ~( - ~d CON

in in inU- L 

-L z Z Z

Figure 6-8: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Target Temperature in ICFMP BE #3

(Experimental uncertainty is 14%.)

6-22
Model Validation

14 ,_-

MAGIC: Racdiaiit Heat Flux

12

10 j.

0I

I /

N4 l I / , -

E

I

2o4-4----

0

0

,+

*Gauge 1, Cable F

KGauge 3, Cable B

0 Gauge 7, Cable D

+ Gauge 10, Cable G

10 20 30 40 50

Radiant Heat Rux (kW/2)

150%

100%

50%

0%

-50%

-100%

7' C-J C') 7 C') Z1 

M' M' W' w W Lu w Lu U) , -

uLLLL Z Z Z

Figure 6-9: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Radiant Heat Flux in ICFMP BE #3

(Experimental uncertainty is 20%.)

6-23
Model Validation

14 -

12 4-

MAGIC: ,TQtal Heat Flux

e ,

")

M

IU

8

R

'I +0

6

4 +f

4 I n/

* Gauge 2, Cable F

x Gauge 4, Cable B

9 Gauge 8, Cable D

+ Gauge 9, Cable G

0 50 60

0 I

0 10 20 30

Total Heat Flux (kWI2)

4

200%

150%

100%

50%

0%

-50%

-100%

Total Heat Flux +

*

a

........... ..... - ~ -- -t ~ - - -M - - - - .... ...... .. X ...... x .....

.................--- A- .... -A -------. ----- v. ......------ A A A A~

* Gauge 2, Cable F

* Gauge 4, Cable B

A Gauge 8, Cable D

X Gauge 9, Cable G

+ Steel, WS2

-Concrete,WS3

-Gas Concrete. WS4

*WS2

OWS3

AWS4

- ý C'j c r.- Cý a? -T 0 C) M CO 0 r- M' M) In -' (0C 'T .9 LO ;ý < 0 N

w~~~~. w. ,C 0 0 0

U. U U Z Z Z

Figure 6-10: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Total Heat Flux in ICFMP BE #3

(Experimental uncertainty is 20%.)

6-24
Model Validation

6.9 Wall Heat Flux and Temperature

Wall heat flux and 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 (above), there are numerous comparisons.

It should be noted that the wall temperatures and heat fluxes in MAGIC were calculated locating

individual targets in the walls. The targets are characterized by the thermo-physical properties and

thickness of the wall. The targets were located in the same model location as the experimental

instruments in the test room. Consequently, this evaluation does not include MAGIC's "Wall

Temperature," or "Wall Heat Flux" output options, which are available in the Wall output

category. Experimental measurements were compared with MAGIC's "Total Absorbed Heat

Flux" output option.

ICFMP BE #3: It cannot be generalized that MAGIC predicts wall temperatures and heat fluxes

within the experimental uncertainty of 14% and 20%, respectively. For the most part,

temperatures and heat fluxes for walls are over-predicted, while those for ceilings and floors

present both under and over predictions. As noted by the corresponding markers in Figures 6-11

and 6-12, most of the relative differences for the ceiling and floor temperatures and heat fluxes

are negative. The over-predictions for walls and floors can be up to (approximately) 100% with

very few exceptions.

The graphical comparisons of experimental and predicted temperature and heat flux profiles

are presented in Figures A-70 through A-85 and Tables A-24 through A-27.

ICFMP BE #4: MAGIC predicted two wall surface temperatures to within the experimental

uncertainty of 20%. The two points are presumably very close to the fire because the temperatures

are 600 'C to 700 'C (see Figure A-86) above ambient. The relative differences are -11%

and 10%, as listed in Table A-28.

ICFMP BE #5: MAGIC predictions of wall temperature are comparable to experimental

uncertainty with a significant outlier of more than 800%. At this point, there is no explanation

for such an outlier.

Summary: Wall Heat Flux and Temperature - Yellow

MAGIC has the capability to predict the radiative and total heat flux to walls. MAGIC also has

the capability to predict the surface temperature of a wall, assuming that its composition is fairly

uniform and its thermal properties are well-characterized.

0 MAGIC generally over-predicted the heat flux and surface temperature for walls and floors,

with few comparisons below the lower limit of experimental uncertainty. By contrast,

MAGIC consistently under-predicted the heat flux and surface temperature for ceilings. Based

on these results, a Yellow classification is assigned.

6-25
Model Validation

800

MAGIC: Wall Temperature Rise -

700 •-"... ...

* ICFVP BE #3: Long Wall ,,

600 A ICFMP BE #3: Short Wall __-- -

e ICFMP BE#3: Ceiling / 7,

I 0 o ICFM BE #3: loar " - 7

500 - L A ICFVP BE #4 , - ,

o0 CFMPBE#5, , -

16 4 0 0 -. ---. . . ... ._-. . . . . . ..--. . .. .. . ... . .

E 7

0 /

100 - --- -•- - - " -" " _ . . . .. . .

I o0 0

0-

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Measured Wall Temperature Rise (C)

300% .. . ..........- . . - ---.. 

Wall Temperature

250% --- Outlier of 868% in BE5

200 Long Wallj

2 Short Wall!

150% - A Ceiling X

X Roor Xx X X X X 100% - * a M

50% - I a 

. A. ----------- -- --- -•--

-0% - . .............- --- -• z- I

-50% -- -- A- A- -A A A 1 A AX A

A

-100%

CýJ C') ; r- Cýi ~ ~ 0 C' D C') 0) Ct) ) CD,~- C LUJ LU W£ U L l w LU w w JIl ZL 03 -I 0

caL M' M' ' w UL w w o, co~ M' w o w ' ) Uc U) 0)Z co M _ __ _ _ _U- Z Z Z

Figure 6-11: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Target Temperature

in ICFMP BE #3, #4, and #5 (Experimental uncertainty is 14%.)

6-26
Model Validation

12-

MAGIC: Wall Heat Flux

10 lICRVP BE#3: Long Wall

* ICFIVP BE #3: Short Wall

8 i A ICRvP BE#3: Ceiling

o lCFIV BE #3: Roor

Ooo

6 -•

0.,0

(U

0

•k

J6 *AAA A A A

2 A. 0 A

00

0 2 4

Heat R

0

6 12:

ux (kW/m2)

8 10

150%

100%

50%

0%

-50%

-100%

Heat Flux to Walls

I0 Long Wall

X m Short Wall U U

U U A Ceiling

- ....... •7x Roor •U ........... = . . .' ' = .......... "x-......... --- ------ ......... ........

-A K-A A

, ___ -_- ---- __--_--__, x ._, _,__,_. . . . - ...- ,-- ,---- - -_

........... A . . . . -- -- - -................. X,.--. - -'..... N - ..............................

. N' . C. N M M M C C ? IT M 0 .

' . ! 9V .0 

. .. M M L ?, ,t - Z; < 0 N r -D z -J D 03 w~ w w~ MMMMw LU LU zj z Z '?CRC l:O 0 G '•"• •Li i LU O L UJ I LU C U3 (0 0LUJ 0 LU 0 LU •• •0 • - • ( i O fl0' (I) •O 

L. LL Z Z

Figure 6-12: Scatter Plot of Relative Differences for Heat Flux in ICFMP BE#3, #4 and #5

(Experimental uncertainty is 20%.)

6-27
Model Validation

6.10 Summary

This chapter summarizes numerous comparisons of the MAGIC output with a range of

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

for comparison and a color rating was assigned to each output category, indicating, in a very

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

* HGL Temperature and Height: Green

* Ceiling Jet Temperature: Green

" Plume Temperature: Green

* Flame Height: Green

* Oxygen: Yellow

* Smoke Concentration: Yellow

" Compartment Pressure: Green

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

" Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature: Yellow

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

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

relative differences (comparing the model output and experimental results) are consistent with

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

* The MAGIC predictions of HGL temperature and height are, with a few exceptions, within

or close to experimental uncertainty.

* MAGIC's predictions for ceiling jet and plume temperatures are comparable to experimental

uncertainty. In the case of the ceiling jet, results suggest a greater scatter for relative

difference in BE #3 closed-door tests than for BE #3 open-door tests. At this point,

no specific explanation for this behavior is available. In the case of plume temperature,

all relative differences were within experimental uncertainty.

* MAGIC predicts the flame height consistent with visual observations of flame height

for the experiments. This is not surprising, given that MAGIC simply uses a well-characterized

experimental correlation to calculate flame height.

" Compartment pressure: MAGIC predicted compartment pressure to within experimental

uncertainty.

Four of the quantities were assigned a Yellow rating, indicating that users should exercise caution

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

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

" MAGIC generally over-predicts smoke concentration. Predicted concentrations for open-door

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

" MAGIC predicts most cable surface temperatures within or above experimental uncertainties.

Very few under-predictions were observed. However, this is not the case for total and radiant

heat fluxes. Relative differences are both under- and over-predicted. Total heat flux to targets

is typically predicted to within about 30%, and often under-predicted. Care should be taken

in predicting localized conditions (such as target temperature and heat flux) because of

inherent limitations in all zone fire models.

6-28
Model Validation

" Oxygen concentrations were consistently under-predicted at about 30% for open door tests

in BE #3. However, these under-predictions resulted from oxygen concentration

comparisons above 15%, which are above concentrations suggesting fire extinction.

In the case of closed-door tests, MAGIC's results are comparable to experimental uncertainty.

* MAGIC generally over-predicted the compartment surface temperature and heat flux for

walls, but consistently under-predicted the surface temperature and heat flux for ceilings.

Finally, the floor surface presents both over and under-predictions.

* Differences between the model outputs and experimental results were evident in these

studies. Some of the differences can be explained by limitations of the model and/or the

experiments. Like all predictive models, the best predictions come with a clear understanding

of the limitations of the model and the inputs provided for the calculations.

6-29

7

REFERENCES

1. ASTM Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models,

ASTM E 1355-05a, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005.

2. Gay, L., C. Epiard, and B. Gautier, MA GIC Software Version 4.1.1: Mathematical Model,

EdF H182/04/024/B, Electricitd de France, France, November 2005.

3. Gay, L., User Guide of the MAGIC Software V4.1.1 "] EdF H182/04/23/A, Electricitd de

France, France, April 2005.

4. Gay, L., J. Frezabeu, and B. Gautier, Qualification File of Fire Code MAGIC Version 4.L],

EdF HI-82/04/022/B, Electricitd de France, France, November 2005.

5. McCaffrey, B., "Flame Height," The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering,

2nd Ed. (P.J. DiNenno, D. Drysdale, C.L. Beyler, and W.D. Walton, eds.), National Fire

Protection Association and The Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Quincy, MA, 1995.

6. Heskestad, G., "Fire Plume, Flame Height, and Air Entrainment," The SFPE Handbook of

Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd Ed. (P.J. DiNenno, D. Drysdale, C.L. Beyler, and W.D.

Walton, eds.), National Fire Protection Association and The Society of Fire Protection

Engineers, Quincy, MA, 2002.

7. Cooper, L., "Fire Plume-Generated Ceiling Jet Characteristics and Convective Heat Transfer

to Ceiling and Wall Surfaces in a Two-Layer Fire Environment: Uniform Temperature,

Ceiling and Walls," Fire Science & Technology, Vol 13, No. 1 & No. 2, pp. 1-17, 1993.

Also NISTIR 4705, November 1991.

8. Cooper, L.Y., "Combined Buoyancy and Pressure-Driven Flow through a Horizontal Vent,"

NISTIR 5384, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD,

9. Heskestad, G., "Quantification of Thermal Responsiveness of Automatic Sprinklers

Including Conduction Effects," Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 14, 1988.

10. Gear, R., Difsub for solution of Ordinary Differential Equations, Collected algorithms from

CACM, Algorithm 407, 1970.

11. Press, W.H., S.A. Teukolsky, W.H. Vetterling, and B.P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in

FORTRAN, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1992.

12. Benmamoun, A., "Rapport d'analyse et des modifications du code FORTRAN" SYSAM -

SE-03 I OAB, 2004 (Analysis and modification report of the FORTRAN code, in French).

13. FORSTUDY (FORTRAN Code Analyzer), Cobalt Blue, Inc., Alpharetta, Georgia,

available at http://www.cobalt-blue.connl-//fymain.htm as of the time of publication of this

report.

7-1
References

14. plusFORT Version 6 (Toolkit for FORTRAN Programmers), Polyhedron Software, Ltd.,

Standlake, England, available at http://www.polyhedron.corn/pf/plusfort.html as of the time

of publication of this report.

15. Gautier, B., Plan QualitW du Logiciel MAGIC, Note EdF/DER HT 31/95/025/B, Electricitd

de France, France, November 1996 (Quality assurance policy, MAGIC).

16. Casal, J., and T. Noguer, MAGIC Version 4 Dossier de conception globale - Mise 2zjour,

Doc. ILM-technologie, September 2004 (Concept document, MAGIC user interface,

in French).

17. Gay, L., and J. Frezabeu, Cahier de recette de l'interface utilisateur du logiciel MAGIC en

version 4.1.1, EdF HI-82/04/02 I/P, Electricit6 de France, France, November 2004 (Magic

user interface, in French).

18. Gay, L., J. Casal, and T. Noguer, Manuel de ref~rence de l 'interface utilisateur du logiciel

MAGIC en version 4, HI-82/04/025/P, September 2004 (Reference handbook, MAGIC user

interface, in French).

19. NUREG- 1758, "Evaluation of Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications:

Cable Tray Fires," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, June 2002.

20. Barakatm M., "Interaction Rayonnment-Particules.Cas de Fummes Generees par Differents

Types de Combustibles," Thesis from the University of Poitiers, Poitiers, France, 1994

(Particle-Radiation Interaction, Case of Smokes Generated by Different Combustible Types,

in French).

21. Mulholland, G., Section 2-13, "Smoke Production and Properties" The SFPE Handbook of

Fire Protection Engineering, 3 Ed. (P.J. DiNenno, D. Drysdale, C.L. Beyler, and W.D.

Walton, eds.), National Fire Protection Association and The Society of Fire Protection

Engineers, Quincy, MA, 2002.

7-2
A

TECHNICAL DETAILS FOR THE MAGIC VALIDATION

STUDY

This appendix provides comparisons of MAGIC's predictions and experimental measurements

for the six series of fire experiments under consideration. The sections to follow contain

assessments of the model's 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 Concentration

A.6 Smoke Concentration

A.7 Compartment Pressure

A.8 Target Temperature and Heat Flux

A.9 Wall Heat Flux and Temperature

The model's 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-AE _ (M,-Mo)-(EP-Eo) 8= -

AE (E - E0

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

Mo. 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; for example, a higher temperature, lower oxygen concentration, higher smoke

concentration, etc.

Finally, all of the calculations performed in the evaluation were open; that is, the. heat release rate

of the fire was a specified model input, and the results of the experiments were provided to the

analysts.

A-1
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height

Relative differences for hot gas layer temperature were calculated using experimental data from

ICFMP Benchmark Exercises (BE). #2, #3, #4, and #5; the FM/SNL test series; and the NBS

multi-compartment fire test series. In the case of hot gas layer temperature, positive relative

differences are an indication that MAGIC's predictions are higher than the experimental observations.

By contrast, in the case of hot gas layer height, positive relative differences suggest that

MAGIC's predictions are lower than the measured height.

A. 1.1 ICFMP BE #2

The HGL temperature and depth were calculated from the averaged gas temperatures from three

vertical thermocouple arrays using the standard reduction method. There were 10 thermocouples

in each vertical array, spaced 2 m (6.6 ft) apart in the lower two-thirds of the hall, and 1 m (3.3 ft)

apart near the ceiling. Figure A- 1 presents a snapshot from one of the simulations.

395.09

388-29

381.50

374.70

367.90

361.11

354.31

547.52

340.72

333.92

327.13

320.33

313.54

306.74

299.95

293.15

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

The comparison between measured hot gas layer temperatures and heights for ICFMP BE #2,

Cases 1, 2 and 3 are presented in Figure A-2.

I

A-2
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

80 r

70 1 Gas Layer Tempe•r

708BE2, Case II

60 i

504 40

a)

C.x

E

20

18

16

14

12

10-

8

Hot Gas Layer Height

BE 2, Case I

-MAG IC Layer interface height Height _______

30

20 MAGIC Upper layer 20 termperature 10 T upper

0

0 2 4 6 8

Time (rrin)

10

4----

2

0 . . . .. . . . .

0 2 4 6 8 10

T"ine (rnin)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

5D

a

I

20

16 Hot Gas Layer Height

16 -..... BE2, Case 2

12 ±- - -- MAGIC Layer interface height

8 •- ",=Height

4 - . . .

0 4--------

0 2 4 6 8

0 2 4 Time (rrin)

Time (nin)

6 8

120 2(0

CE

I-ot Gas Layer Height

16 . . BE 2, Case 3

12 - MAGIC Layer interface height

1Height 0)

a

0

- MAGIC Upper layer

temperature

T_upper

2 4 6

Time (nin)

04

0 2 4 6 8

Time (rrn)

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

Table A-I summarizes the relative differences calculated for the hot gas layer temperature and

height. MAGIC slightly under-predicts the temperature. At the same time, measured hot gas

layer heights are consistently higher than the MAGIC prediction by a relatively small margin.

A-3
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Table A-I: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in ICFMP BE#2

Hot Gas Laver TemDerature Hot Gas Laver Heiaht

Relative Relative

Test AE (*C) AM (°C) Difference AE (m) AM (m) Difference

ICFMP 2-1 54.8 50.8 -7% -14.57 -13.66 -6%

ICFMP 2-2 86.3 81.6 -5% -14.77 -14.35 -3%

tCFMP 2-3 82.6 81.3 -2% -13.86 -12.55 -9%

A.1.2 ICFMP BE #3

BE #3 consisted of 15 liquid spray fire tests with different heat release rates, pan locations,

and ventilation conditions. The basic geometry as modeled in MAGIC 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 were

calculated using thermocouple Trees 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Tree 4 was not used because one of its

thermocouples (4-9) malfunctioned during most of the experiments.

K

543.27

527.26

511.25

495.25

479.24

463.23

447.22

431.21

415.21

399-20

383.19

367.18

351.17

335.17

319.16

303.15

I

Figure A-3: Snapshot of the MAGIC Simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

In the closed-door tests, the HGL descended 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 dropped all the way

to the floor. Notice that in the MAGIC simulations, the hot gas layer is predicted to reach the floor.

A-4
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

It is important to indicate also that the HGL reduction method produces spurious results in the

first few minutes of each test because no clear layer has yet formed.

The comparisons between MAGIC simulations and measured hot gas layer temperatures and

heights are shown in Figure A-4 through Figure A-7.

A-5
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

C-E

160

1 Hot -0 Gas Layer Teeperature

140 IMPBE #3. Test I___

120 - .......... . . -

100 - ---- - ----- *-- -

40

20 -MAGIC Fre-Room : Upper layer temperature

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5-

Z 2.0-

1.5

1.0

0.5

~Hot Gas Layer Height

•. . CFMPBE #3, Test I•

-- MAGIC Rre-Room: Layer •

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TimTe (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tue (min)

160

140

120

100

• 80

E 60

40

20

0

Hot Gas Layer Tenmperature

.- j .--. r TGeupper

..... -WGIC Fwre-Roonn: Upper layer

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

. 2,0

I 1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

0

Hot Gas Layer Height

......... - ICFPBE#3. Test 7

- H---eight

l it. - MAGC cFire-Room. •

Layer iterface heigh

5 10 15 20 25 30

lime (men)

I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

time (rrm)

=E

C..

3 0 0 1 . .. . .. . ..... . . . . ... ... . . IHot Gas Layer Temnperature

250 •F BE#3, Test2

200 --.--

5o - MAGICre-Room:Upper

A layer tenperature

0 _ -------

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

TiTe (ain)

3,5

3,0

S2,5

Z 2,0

I 1,5

1,0

0,5

0.0

0 2 4 6

Tre (rme)

8 10 12

E

H,

Hot Gas Layer Terperature

250.- KIF PBE#3,Test8

200

150

100 _

4,0

3,5

3,0

2.5

2,0

1.5

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFP BE #3, Test 8-

•VIAGIC Fire-Room : Layer interface

height

I

E0

50

--Tupper

,WGel Fire-RDorm: Upper layer /1 -i,.---te rrperature

1UT

o0s[

U..

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tir (rein) Tifm (rnin)

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

A-6
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

E; 100 -

50.

0

250-

200

50

250

3,5

3,0

2,5

E 2,0

I 1,5

1.0

0.5

0,0

Hlt Gas Layer Height

VICF6 E#U. Test 4

-0- Hoight

"-MAGIC Fire-Room: Layer

interface height

0 5 10 15

K0 5 10 15 Tirns (rri) Tirna (rmn)

I

3,5

3,0

2.5

2,0

1,5

1.0

0.5

u-u

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICZFWP BE #3, Test 10-

i-MAGIC Fffe-fom: Layer. __• i•1• interface height . ,

10 15

Tm(rrin)

4,0

4,0

0 5 10 15

Trfe (men)

5

E

40 Hot Gas Layer Temperature 400 •FMPBE#3. Test 13

350 ____ - -

30020D15100-... ....

250 ...

200 - - --

150-

100 T- Tupper

5D • -MAGIC- Fre-Room: Upper layer - 0 Zr termperature

0 , I -_- . -

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Toe (nin)

3.5

3,0

2,5

2.0

1,5

_Hot Gas Layer Heightt

ICFW BE #3, Test 13-

- Heigt

\--MAGIC Rre-Room: Layer

interface heightt

I

, i

0.5

0 2 4 6

Tene (nin)

8 10 12

E

B

I,,,-

350

300

250

200

150

100

.0

I•

0 2 4 6

Tmer (rain)

8 10 12 0 2 4 6

Trne (min)

8 10 12

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

A-7
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

E

.0' AV

4,0

3,5

3,0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1,0

0,5

0,0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

irem (min) 0 2 4 6 8

Time (mnn)

10 12

Open-door tests

250

2 I t Ga!

200

4.0

3.5

3,0

2,5

. 2,0

I 1.5I'S

1.0

0.5

0,0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Tem (min) 5 10 15 20 25

.Tine (min)

200

© 150

E 100

50

0

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

C BE#3, Test 9

- R• AGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

temperature

4,0

3.5

3,0

2,5

2.0

1.5

1,0

0,5

0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min) 5 10 15 20 "Tiffs (mrin) 25

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

A-8
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

250 -- - __ _________

20 t Gas Layer Terrperature

| IC BE #3, Test 5

200 --

150

E 100•

50. 50 -MAGIC Fire-Rnom. Upper layer

I -. -temrperature

0 --------------

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (nin)

250-

IlHot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFW BE#3, Test 14

150.....-- .- -

1 100

T upper 50

M vAGIC Fire-Room: Upper layer

0 L temrperature 2

0 10 15 20 25

Tiet (nin)

4,0

3,5

3,0

2.5

Z 2,0

I• 1,5,

1,0

0,5

0.0

Flot Gas Layer Height

ICFP BE #3. Test 5

F-- Hoiht .... '

-- MAGIC Fire-Room : Layer !- 1

--interface height ... / =•

0I 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (ramn)

I

10 15 20 25

Time (min)

E

4,0

3,5

3.0

2,5

Z 2.0-

.0

M 1.5

1,0

0,5

Hot Gas Layer Height I

• • • ... ICMP BE#3, est I5.

-a- -llht j

-MAGIC Fre-Room: Layer

Interface height --

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tmne (min) 0 5 10 15 20 25

T•-• (rrin)

2004

150

100 E

5-0

50

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

temperature

.0'

v

0 5 10 15 20 25

Trem (min) 0 5 10 15 20 25

Tie (mn)

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

A-9
Technical Details for the MA GIC Validation Study

Table A-2: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in ICFMP BE#3

Hot Gas Laver TemDerature Hot Gas Laver Heiaht

Relative Relative

Test AE (-C) AM (°C) Difference AE (m) AM (m) Difference

ICFMP 3-1 122.9 120.3 -2% N/A'

ICFMP 3-7 116.8 117.3 0% N/A'

ICFMP 3-2 229.2 219.2 -4% N/A'

ICFMP 3-8 217.7 218.3 0% N/Al

ICFMP 3-4 204.3 210.8 3% N/A'

ICFMP 3-10 197.8 209.4 6% N/A1

ICFMP 3-13 290.5 298.9 3% N/A'

ICFMP 3-16 268.4 278.6 4% N/A'

ICFMP 3-17 135.3 129.2 -5% N/A'

ICFMP 3-3 207.3 207.1 0% -3.26 -3.82 17%

lCFMP 3-9 204.0 204.5 0% -3.23 -3.82 18%

ICFMP 3-5 175.5 176.5 1% -2.98 -3.82 28%

ICFMP 3-14 208.2 205.8 -1% -3.29 -3.82 16%

ICFMP 3-15 210.6 205.3 -3% .- 3.13 -3.75 20%

ICFMP 3-18 193.4 204.6 6% -3.26 -3.82 17%

1. Relative difference not applicable for closed door compartment fire experiments because the data

"eduction method does not account for the formation of a single layer, which is the case when the hot gas

ayer reaches the floor.

A-10
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A. 1.3 ICFMP BE #4

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

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

compartment. Thus, its HGL temperature is considerably higher than the other fire tests under

study. As shown in Figure A-8, the compartment geometry is fairly simple, consisting of

a rectangular shaped room.

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

Figure A-9 includes the comparison between experimental and predicted hot gas layer

temperature and height. The relative differences calculated for this experiment are listed in

Table A-3.

U

2

10 20 30 40

Tfre (nTn)

10 20

Tre (nin)

30 40

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

A-1I
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Table A-3: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in ICFMP BE#4

Hot Gas Layer Temperature Hot Gas Layer Height

Relative Relative

Test AE (-C) AM (°C) Difference AE (m) AM (m) Difference

ICFMP 4-1 700.1 741.4 6% -4.20 -5.27 25%

A. 1.4 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 MAGIC. Only one experiment (test 4) from this

test series was used in the evaluation, and only the first 20 minutes of the test, during the "preheating" stage, when only the ethanol pool fire was active. The burner was lit after that point,

and the cables began to bum.

K

531.15

M 515.29

[ 499.42

483.55

467.69

451.82

435.95

420.09

404.22

388.35

372.48

356.62

340.75 . 324.88

309.02

293.15

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

Figure A-11 summarizes the comparison between the experimental and predicted hot gas layer

and height during the first 20 minutes of the simulation. The corresponding relative differences

are listed in Table A-4.

A-12
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

6 . . . . .... . ..... .. . ... .. . ...

Fbt

5 ___ ---- BE 5Ts4 -

4

3-MAtG- aerhigC

Fbt Ges Layer Hetght~

E

.0' ---Layer height i2

L ........... "Z_--_'7 .....

I C - I I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Twnm (ren)

0 , --------- 0 5 10 15

Twm (nn)

20 25 30

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

Table A-4: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in ICFMP BE#5

Hot Gas Layer Temperature Hot Gas Layer Height

Relative Relative

Test AE (-C) AM (°C) Difference AE (m) AM (m) Difference

ICFMP 5-4 185.7 182.8 -2% -4.70 -4.72 1%

A. 1.5 FMISNL Test Series

Tests 4, 5, and 21 from the FM/SNL test series were selected for comparison. Figure A-12

provides a pictorial representation of the experimental geometry as idealized in MAGIC.

The experimental hot gas layer temperature and height were calculated using the standard method.

The thermocouple arrays that are referred to as Sectors 1, 2 and 3 were averaged (with an equal

weighting for each) for Tests 4 and 5. For Test 21, only Sectors 1 and 3 were used, as Sector 2

fell within the smoke plume.

A-13
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

K

346.36

0 342.81

339.26

335.72

332.17

328.62

325,08

321.53

317.98

T 314.43

310.89

rA 307-34

9 303.79

300.24

296.70

293.15

Figure A-12: Snapshot from the MAGIC Simulation of FM/SNL Test 5

Figure A- 13 summarizes the graphical comparison of hot gas layer temperatures and heights

for Tests 4, 5, and 21. The relative differences are included in Table A-5.

A-14
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

80

70

50

Hot Gas Layer Temrperature I

............... FM/SN, Test 4 -

E

i/ z

20

10 - M~G Local feu. : Uper layer

0im 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25

TTae (rnn)

E

E4

a J= 3

0 5 10

Turu (rrin)

15 20 10

Twm (run)

15 20

E

90

Fbt Gas Layer Terrpwa 80 tpwsw Tasf2 T_

t La er T

70 ----- ------

40 . .... .

60 -

50

20 _ e __ajjK

30 - -- ---------- ------

IL

ar ff ature

10

fe

I0 10 20

Tugr (ron)

30 40 10 15 20 25

Tur (rin)

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

Table A-5: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in FMISNL Series

i

Hot Gas Layer Temrerature Hot Gas Laver Heiaht

Relative Relative

Test AE (°C) AM -C) Difference AE (m) AM (m) Difference

FM/SNL 4 59.2 51.0 -14% -3.40 -5.50 N/A

IFMISNL 5 46.6 40.4 -13% -3.23 -5.41 N/A

FM/SNL 21 66.0 59.6 -10% -3.43 -5.79 N/A

A-15
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.1.6 The NBS Multi-Room Test Series

This series of experiments consisted of two relatively small rooms connected by a long corridor.

The fire was located in one of the rooms. Eight vertical arrays of thermocouples were positioned

throughout the test space (one in the 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 prediction (the array in the bum room, the array in the middle of the

corridor, the array at the far end of the corridor, and the array in the target room). In Tests IOOA

and 1000, the target room was closed, in which case, the array in the exit doorway was used.

Figure A-14: Snapshot from the MAGIC Simulation of NBS Multi-Room Test 1OOZ

Figure A-15 through Figure A-17 compile the graphical comparison between experimental

measurements and modeling results for hot gas layer temperature and height for the three

selected experiments. Recall that the target room was closed in the first two experiments

(A and 0). Consequently, no relative difference was calculated for the target room in those two

experiments. The relative differences are listed in Table A-6 through Table A-8.

A-16
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

400

Hot Gas Layer Tep, Burn Room

L. • Hot Gas Layer Height, Burn Room

2.0 NBS, W 100A_2

E

250

200 MV---- 2

150

100- Tupper

50 -MAGK FireR;oo: Upper lyer tenperatur

C,

13

1.5

20

1.0

0.5

0.0

._ Hoight

- MAGIC AreRoom ; Layer

iterface height

0

0 5 10 15

Time (rain)

0 5 10 15 2

Time (min)

0

120

E-

.

I=

:3.00 HOt Gas Layer Height, Corridor

2 .5 0 N B S , M V 1 0 0A- 2 . ..- - -- . - .-. - .-- 

2.00

1.50 _

- MlMAGIC Coio: Layer interace height

0.50 -Height. Tree 5 (Corridohr) L 

. -a--- Height. Tree 4 (Conridor)

0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20 20

Tirre (rain) Trre (r ain)

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

Table A-6: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in NBS Tests

Hot Gas Layer Temperature Hot Gas Layer Height

Relative

Difference

Relative

AE (°C) I AM (VC) AE (W) AM (W) Difference

NBS A Bum Room, Tree 1 239 318 33% -1.27 -1.17 -8%

NBS A Corrdor, Tree 4 82 93 13% -1.32 -1.18 -11%

NBS A Corridor, Tree 5 75 93 25% -1.41 -1.18 -16%

NBS A Target Room, Tree 7[ Target room closed

A-17
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

E

but I-Mt Gas Layer Termp, Bum Room

400 NBS, MV100 O 2

300 .

200 ----- T-u---. ...................

Toupper

100 MAGIC FReRoom: Upper Layer

terreerature

2.0

1.5

" 1.0

0.5

0.0

2.5

0

0 5 10 15 20

Ti-ne (mn)

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

140

120 Hot Gas Layer Temp, Corridor

-NBS, MV1000 2

U

E

80U

I

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

Hot Gas Layer Height, Corridor

NBS, MW10002

MAGIC Corridor : Layer interface heightI --- Height. Tree 5 (Corridor)

-a-.Height. Tree 4 (Corridor)

40 MAGIC Corridor : Upper layer temperature

T Upper, Tree 5 (Corridor) I

20 -a- T Upper, Tree 4 (Corridor)

0I

0 5 10 15 20

Trim (ttn)

5 10 15 20

lim (nTn)

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

Table A-7: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in NBS Tests

Hot Gas Layer Temperature Hot Gas Layer Height

Relative

Difference

Relative

AE (°C) I AM (°C) AE (m) AM (W) Difference

NBS 0 Bum Room, Tree 1 307 399 30% -1.32 -1.19 -10%

NBS 0 Corridor, Tree 4 102 97 -5% -1.82 -2.44 23%

NBS 0 Corridor, Tree 5 96 97 1% -1.98 -2.44 23%

NBS 0 Target Room, Tree 7 Target room closed

A-18
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

E

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

2.0

1.8

1.6-

1.4

8

I

H04t Gas_ yyh5MI Hw!t ;hw

_Ts ftN100Z-2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

ý• MA G eRýom : Layer interface height

-4.- Height

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min) 0 5 10 15 20

lime (min)

E

120

100

80

60

40Q

20

.6

Hot Gas Layer Termp, Corridor

NBS. WI100Z 2

3.00 Mot Gas Layer Height, Corridor

2.50 NBS. MW 100Z2

2.00

1.00 . . . . . . . .. . . ... . MAGIC Corridor : Layer interface height 5 --. - Heighit, Tree 5 (Coridor) ah it .

o ... _-- Ileght, Tree 4Corridor)

0.00

0 5 10 15 20

Time (nin)"

-- MAGIC Corridor: Upper layer temperature

T Lipper, Tree 5 (Corridor)

-a-- T Upper, Tree 4 (Corridor)

20

0 I -- __ __ __ -15__ --

a 5 10 15

C)

0

7------

SHot Gas Layer Ternp, Target Room

60

56

40

30

'10 0MAGICTargetRoom: Upper layer temperature]

0

.6'

3.00 -- --

Hot Gas Layer Height, Target Room

2.50 - NBS, M10OZ_2

1.00

0.50 - MAGIC TargetRoom Layer iterface height

0.00

^^^

0 5 10 15 20

Time (rnn)

0 5 10 15 20

Tmrr (mn)

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

A-19
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Table A-8: Relative Differences of Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height in NBS Tests

Hot Gas Layer Temperature Hot Gas Layer Height

Relative Relative

AE ('C) AM (-C) Difference AE (m) AM (m) Difference

NBS Z 3urn Room, Tree 1 264 312 18% -1.34 -1.17 -13%

NBS Z Corridor, Tree 4 65 93 43% -1.40 -1.05 -25%

NBS Z Corridor, Tree 5 58 93 60% -1.31 -1.05 -20%

ýNBS Z Target Room, Tree 7 34 38 11% -1.45 -1.66 14%

A-20
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature

MAGIC has an explicit ceiling jet temperature model based on the model developed by Cooper

[Ref. 6]. The model also accounts for the hot gas layer effects using Cooper's method. In general,

a target is specified in the computational domain. If the target is exposed to ceiling jet,

the "Target/Gas Temperature" output option provides the ceiling jet temperature.

Experimental measurements for this category are available from ICFMP BE #3 and the FM/SNL

series only.

Positive relative differences are an indication that the MAGIC prediction is higher than

the experimental observation.

A.2.1 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. The 15 graphical comparisons

of experimental measurements and model results are grouped in Figure A- 18 and Figure A- 19.

The relative differences are listed in Table A-9.

A-21
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

180a - Ceiflng Jet Tenperature

•o 1... 0.. . . . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. - -- 840

1060 -- --- - - - - -

20 v- AGrCTree7-10: Gas tenperature

0 -I -- --.-. .--- . --- - - - ....... --- ____-- _- I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rrin)

180

140

• 120

2 100

a 60

40

20

0

° --Tte tu1e I.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tine (nin)

I

350 --

Ceiting Jet Temperature

300 -ICFMPBE#3, Test 8 -/

250

S200

150

1500. . ......

-MAGIC Tree7-1O : Gas tenperature~

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tine (rain)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tene (nin)

Ceiling Jet Tenperature

300 -CFPBE#3,Test4

250

8 200

. 150

100

50

0

__ - =%O- %

-. Tire~e7-10

- MAGIC Tree7-10: Gas temperature

0 5 10 15

E

I5 10 15

Twne (rein) Trne (rin)

3-

15

I-.

450

400

350

- 300

T 250

S200

E

100

50

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Trne (rin) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tfrne (ntn)

Figure A-18: Near-Ceiling Gas (Ceiling Jet) Temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-22
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Open-door tests IE

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tmen (rinn)

300 ~*-*---

Ceiling Jet Tenperature

250 1CFVP BE#3. Test 3

200 - -.

150 A-.

1004 --- . -

-. MAGITree7-10: Gas temperature

0

300-

N

E

0 5 10

Trne (nin)

15 20 25 10 15 20 25

Tirr• (nin)

250

ICF

200

0 150 -

100

0

U

I300

250

200

150

100

... i----Tree 7-10 i

MAGIC Tree7-10: Gas tenperature I

5 10 15 20 25 30

Trne (rrin) 0 5 10

-nrre (nin)

15 20 25

U

a

6

I.-

300

250

Ceiling Jet Temperature

IF BE#,Testi15

150_ ;'

100

-Tree 7-10 50

- MAGrC Tree7-10: Gas temrperature

0

U

S350

300

250

200

150

100-

50-

0

0 5 10

Trne (nin)

15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25

mrne (rin)

30

Figure A-19: Near-Ceiling Gas (Ceiling Jet) Temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-23
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Table A-9: Relative Differences for Ceiling Jet Temperature in ICFMP BE #3

Relative

Instrument AE (-C) AM (oC) Difference

ICFMP 3-1 Tree 7-10 154.9 140.1 -10%

ICFMP 3-7 Tree 7-10 139.3 136.8 -2%

ICFMP 3-2 Tree 7-10 270.6 269.4 0%

ICFMP 3-8 Tree 7-10 246.9 268.3 9%

ICFMP 3-4 Tree 7-10 228.9 261.0 14%

ICFMP 3-10 Tree 7-10 217.5 259.1 19%

ICFMP 3-13 Tree 7-10 330.5 400.9 21%

ICFMP 3-16 Tree 7-10 277.7 376.6 36%

ICFMP 3-17 Tree 7-10 155.9 172.3 11%

ICFMP 3-3 Tree 7-10 240.7 234.6 -3%

ICFMP 3-9 Tree 7-10 234.6 231.4 -1%

ICFMP 3-5 Tree 7-10 207.7 204.7 -1%

ICFMP 3-14 Tree 7-10 240.8 232.5 -3%

ICFMP 3-15 Tree 7-10 243.7 231.4 -5%

ICFMP 3-18 Tree 7-10 235.1 233.2 -1%

A-24
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.2.2 The FMISNL Test Series

The near-ceiling thermocouples in Sectors 1 and 3 were chosen as surrogates for the ceiling jet

temperature. Figure A-20 compiles the graphical comparisons between experimental

measurements for ceiling jet temperature and the MAGIC predictions. The corresponding

relative differences are listed in Table A- 10.

120

100

C,

IU

70

&60

~50

~40 E~30

20

5 10 15 5 10 15

T•m (rin) T'ra (rrin)

100

90

80-

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

E

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Ceiling Jet Temp

- FMSNL, Test 5 - Sector 3 Wool

- MAGIC SEC3_98 :Gas terrperature

_-.-- 11/(0.98 H)

0 5 10 15 5 10 15

TirTre(rrin) The (rnn)

E

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Ceing Jet Term

FM'SNL. lest 21- Sector 1

-MAGIC EC1 -98: Gas tefTperature

-.- 1(0.98 H)

120 Ceiling Jet Temp

FWSNL. Test 21 - Sector 3

E

i80 a

60

20 / MAGIC SEC3_98: Gas teffperature

-.- 11/(0.98 H) J 0 T

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tomu (nin)

I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tino (rin)

Figure A-20: Near-Ceiling Gas (Ceiling Jet) Temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1 and 3

A-25
Technical Details for the MA GIC Validation Study

Table A-10: Relative Differences for Ceiling Jet Temperature in FMISNL Tests

Relative

Instrument AE (-C) AM (oC) Difference

1/98H 82.8 78.8 -5%

11/98H 66.1 58.1 -12%

1/98H 73.7 66.8 -9%

11198H 52.6 47.5 -10%

1/98H 75.9 74.2 -2% 11/98H 77.2 74.2 -4%

A-26
Technical Details for the MAGIC 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 was not measured above the fire (BE #3),

the fire plume leaned because of the flow pattern within the compartment (BE #4), or the fire

was set up against a wall (NBS). Only for BE #2 and the FM/SNL series were the plumes

relatively free from perturbations.

Once a target is specified in the calculation domain, MAGIC identifies if it is located within

the fire plume region. Plume temperature results are captured in the "Target/Gas Temperature"

output option. The output would include hot gas layer effects in the plume temperature if the

target is located inside the fire plume and above the hot gas layer interface. Positive accuracies

are an indication that MAGIC's predictions are higher than the experimental observations.

A.3.1 ICFMP BE #2

BE #2 consisted of liquid fuel pan fires conducted in the middle of a large fire test hall. Plume

temperatures were measured at two heights above the fire, 6 m (19.7 ft) and 12 m (39.4 ft).

The flames extended to about 4 m (13.1 ft) above the fire pan (Figure A-2 1). The suspended

rectangle contains an array of thermocouples designed to locate the plume centerline. Notice that

the smoke plume does not always rise straight up because of air currents within the large test hall.

Figure A-21: Fire Plumes in ICFMP BE #2

(Courtesy of Simo Hostikka, VTT Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland)

A-27
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

200

S E0 2 4 6 Tim (nin) 10 4 Trnm (mn•)

Plume Teryp

250 BE2. Case3.

l~150

100

50

0

- MGICC Gas terrperature - MAGIC Gas terrperature / -• -- •---T G.1

=TG.2 i G.

0 2 4 Tvns (nrn) 6 8

Figure A-22: Near-Ceiling Gas Temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors I and 3

Figure A-22 illustrates the graphical comparison between experimental plume temperatures

and MAGIC's predictions for the three cases in ICFMP BE #2. The corresponding relative

differences are listed in Table A-11.

Table A-11: Relative Differences for Plume Temperature in ICFMP BE #2

Relative

Instrument AE (°C) AM (=C) Difference

ICFMP 2-1 TG.1 166 161 -3%

_TG.2 79 87 10%

ICFMP 2-2 TG.1 288 258 -11%

TG.2 128 141 10%

ICFMP 2-3 TG.1 252 229 -9%

TG.2 128 132 3%

A-28
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.3.2 The FM/SNL Test Series

In Tests 4 and 5, thermocouples were positioned near the ceiling directly [5.9 m (19.4 ft)] over

the fire pan. In Test 21, the fire pan was inside a cabinet. For that reason, no plume temperature

comparison has been made. Figure A-23 presents the graphical comparisons and Table A- 12

lists the corresponding relative differences.

80

60

E

5 10 15 5 10 15

Thm (nin) T"T- (mfin)

Figure A-23: Near-Plume Temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sector 13

Table A-12: Relative Differences of Plume Temperature in FM/SNL Tests

Relative

Instrument AE (C AM (°C) Difference

FM/SNL 4 28/98H 116 115 0%

FM/SNL 5 28/98H 94 101 8%

A-29
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.4 Flame Height

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

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

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

accurate to within a pan diameter.

A.4.1 ICFMP BE #2

Shown in Figure A-24 are MAGIC's predictions for flame height. Figure A-25 contains

photographs of the actual fire. The height of the visible flame in the photographs has been

estimated to be between 2.4 and 3 pan diameters [3.8 m to 4.8 m (12.5 to 15.7 ft)]. The height

of the simulated fire fluctuates from 5 m (16.4 ft) to 6 m (19.7 ft) during the peak heat release

rate phase.

7

I

I

I

3

2

-1

Timer (nin) Tne (nin)

-1

Tom (nn)

Figure A-24: Flame Heights for ICFMP BE #2

A-30
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Figure A-25: Photographs of Heptane Pan Fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2

(Courtesy of Simo Hostikka, VTT Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland)

A-31
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.4.2 ICFMP BE #3

No measurements were made of the flame height during BE #3, but numerous photographs were

taken. Figure A-26 is one of these photographs. These photographs provide at least a qualitative

assessment of the MAGIC flame height prediction. Recall that the door is 2.0 m (6.6 ft) high.

Inspection of the picture suggests that the flame height, at least is some of its oscillations, can be

more than 2.0 m (6.6 ft) high. MAGIC, however, appears to .over-predict flame heights, as most

of the predictions are over 3 m (9.8 ft) high.

Figure A-26: 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-32
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

3

E E

-1

Tom (rrt) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tnet (run)

E.

Z 2,0

1.0 0= 1.5

0.5

0,0

'* Ftlane Wight

3.0 I...C- BE #3, Test 8

2,5

I 2,0

x 1,0

0- MAGIC Fire-Pan: Ratne height

00, ...... ... .-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tite (nin)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tim, (mtn)

Flanme Height

3.0 . .. IFMPBE#3,Test4

2.5 4- - - -

.Z 2,0

15s

.0 -- -- MAGIC Fire-n: Fla height

0.5

0.0 .

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tima (tin)

2.0

z= 1,5

1.0

05

0.0

S2.5 S2.0

Z 1,5

1,0

0.5

0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Trim (nin)

4.5

Pa"e Height

4,0 CF1vPBE 03. Testi16S

3.5

3,0

•:2.5

x 2.0

1,5

1.0 - MAGIC Fwe-Pant: namn height

0.5

0.0

0 2 4 6• Trn (oim) 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Ttom (om)

Figure A-27: Near-Ceiling Gas Temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-33
Technical Details for the AMIGIC Validation Study

3,0 ]

2,5 1

E

1.0-

0.5

Open-door tests

0 2 4 6

T." (rrdn)

8 10 12

3.5

E

.0'

2,0 .G'

1.5

1.0

0,5

0,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Trne (mnn) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

T•ne (min)

3.0-

2.5 -

• 2.0

1,5

4' 1,0-

0.5

Flane Height

ICFM PBE #3, Test 5

- MAGIC Fi'e-Pan : Fame height

3.0

2.5

E 2.0

.' 1,5 • 5 105

1,0-

0.5

[I vv 4I 0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tihe (rin)

0 5 10. 15 20 25 30

Tune (min)

3.0

2.0

*1.5

E

S1,0

E 15

S 1.0-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -0.5

Thu (emi) The (sin)

Figure A-28: Flame Heights, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-34
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.5 Oxygen Concentration

Oxygen concentration data are available for accuracy calculations in ICFMP BE #3 and #5.

For the calculations, measured values in the experiments are compared with the upper-layer

oxygen concentration, which is an output available in MAGIC. Relative differences are

calculated by comparing the lowest concentration measured in the experiments with the lowest

concentration predicted by MAGIC. Positive relative differences indicate that MAGIC predicted

a lower concentration than that measured in the experiments.

A.5.1 ICFMP BE #3

In experiments with closed room doors in the ICFMP BE #3 test series, the fuel supply was

discontinued when the oxygen concentration was measured around 12 to 15%. In these tests,

relative differences are measured at the lowest concentration before the experiment was

terminated.

The graphical comparisons for closed- and open-door tests and relative differences are provided

in Figure A-29, Figure A-30, and Table A-13, respectively.

A-35
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

n 1.g

Oxygen Concentration

ICFP BE #3, Test 1

0,20

0.15

0,10

0.05

0,00

0,25

0,25

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0,2

z. 0.15

0.10 •.

_=0,10

- 0o2-1

0,05 i- MAGIC Fire-Room: Upper layer

ni oxygen concentration

- 02-1

- MAGIC Rre-Room: Upper layer oxygen

concentration

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tere (ren)

0 5 10 15

Tioe (inn)

20 25

Oxygen Concentration

IWF BE#3. Test 2

0.25...... __... -

Oxygen Concentratio

0.20 ICFM' BE #3. Test 8 0.20

.J

0,15

. 0.10 -

0,05- _- 02-1

-MAkGIC Rre-Room: Upper layer oxygen

0,15 4

S0,10. - ---- - --

> x-02-1 0.105J ........-...... -. - O -

0 05 4!. . - MAGIC re

I oxygen coi

0.00 1

-Room: Upper layer

ncentration

0 2 4 6 8 10 1

Tirm (nmn)

2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (nin)

0.25

Oxygen Concentration

ICVP BE #3, Test 4

0.20

0,15

E 0,10

0,05 -- •-- MAGIC Fre-Room: Upper layer oxygen

concentration

0.00 -

0 5 10 15

Trm (men)

0.25 -

I

2

O Oxygen Concentration

ICFMVPBE#3. Test 10

,0.15 

.2°0_

E 010 >" [-0. 2-1

0.05 :- - -

F -- MAGIC Fre-Room: Upper layer oxygen

concentration I

0 5 10 15

Time (nn)

0.15

0,10

0,05

0.00

0,25 Oxygen Concentration

ICFM BE #3. Test 16

0.20 !f

0.15

E= 0.10

02

0.05

0.0 - MAGIC FAre-Room: Upper layer oxygen S concentration

0,00

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tire (nin)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Figure A-29: Oxygen Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-36
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Open-door tests

0.15

0,10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tine (nin)

0.25

0,20

0,15

0,10

0,25 iOxygen Concentration

FMP BE #3, Test 9

0.20

0 10 15 20 25

Time (nin)

0.20

Z 0.15

E 0,10

Oxygen Concentration K2CFMP BE #3, Test5

0-- 02-1

MAGIC Fre-Room: Upper layer oxygen

concentration

OLL

I-.---O2-1.....i

0.05

- MH GIC re-Rom: Upper layer oxygen con....ntratio 0.00 4---._---.-

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tirm (min)

0,25 1 Oxygen Concentration

CFN'BE#3, Test 14

0.20 ..... n........ ...

0.15

0,105 0

- MAGIC Fire-Room: Upper layer oxygen

0,001-

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tonm (rin)

0.'25

0.2Oxygen Concentration

020 R ICFlPBE#3. Test 18

0,05-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tirin (rin)

0.20-

0.15 U0,15-

0.10-

0,05

0.00

Oxygen Concentration

ICEW BE #3, Test 15

MAGIC Fire-RDom: Upper layer oxygen

"• 0.15

0.10

0.05

0,05

0,00

-.- 02-1

- MAGIC Fire-Rootm : Upper layer oxygen - concentration

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tore (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tire (nin)

Figure A-30: Oxygen Concentration ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-37
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Table A-13: Relative Differences for Oxygen Concentration in ICFMP BE #3 Tests

Relative

AE AM Difference

ICFMP 3-1 -0.065 -0.070 8%

ICFMP 3-7 -0.064 -0.068 6%

ICFMP 3-2 -0.092 -0.100 8%

ICFMP 3-8 -0.096 -0.098 2%

ICFMP 3-4 -0.079 -0.065 -17%

ICFMP 3-10 -0.079 -0.065 -18%

ICFMP 3-13 -0.101 -0.110 9%

ICFMP 3-16 -0.091 -0.081 -11%

ICFMP 3-17 -0.033 -0.028 -16%

ICFMP 3-3 -0.052 -0.039 -24%

ICFMP 3-9 -0.054 -0.038 -30%

ICFMP 3-5 -0.030 -0.025 -17%

ICFMP 3-14 -0.055 -0.038 -31%

ICFMP 3-15 -0.052 -0.038 -27%

ICFMP 3-18 -0.051 -0.037 -27%

A-38
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.5.2 ICFMP BE #5

Figure A-31 and Table A- 14 present the graphical comparison and relative difference for oxygen

concentration in ICFMP BE #5, Test 4.

22

Oxygen Concentration

BE 5, Test 4

0-

20

19

18

17

15'

- MAGIC Upper Layer Conc

_GA 1-02

- GA 2-02

MAGI Lower Layer Conc

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-rmn (Rni)

Figure A-31: Oxygen Concentration ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Table A-14: Relative Differences for Oxygen Concentration in ICFMP BE #5 Tests

Relative

I AE AM Difference

[ICFMP 5-4 -0.028 -0.035 24%

A-39
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.6 Smoke Concentration

Data for smoke concentration are only available in ICFMP BE #3. Positive accuracies indicate

that MAGIC predicted higher smoke concentrations than those measured in the experiments.

Depending on the application, this may not yield a conservative result.

The units used for accuracy calculations are mg/m3. Notice that MAGIC's output is average

extinction coefficient, k, with units of 1/rn. As a result, the direct output from the model was

converted to mg/m3 using the following equation:

U-k =km

where v is the concentration in mg/mi3, and km is a constant with value 0.0076 m2/mg [Ref. 21].

A.6.1 ICFMP BE #3

Figure A-32 and Figure A-33 contain comparisons of measured and predicted smoke

concentration at one measuring station in the upper layer for closed- and open-door tests.

MAGIC consistently under-predicts the smoke concentration, with the exception of Test 17,

which consisted of a Toluene fuel. This trend is reflected in the relative differences listed in

Table A- 15.

A-40
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

E

E

0

U)

E

E

E

to

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tun (nin)

500

450 Smoke Concentration _

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2 400 .

350 ---.- Smoke Conc.

300 E~o nk

250 -7 Concentration I

200o ---- :---... ...

150 ...-. . 2.....

100-'.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tim (min)

E

*6

E

Z0

Z

E1

0 2 4 6

Tm (min)

8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8

TOnM (rim)

10 12

250

Smoke Concentration

200-- Smoke Conc. ICFWBE#3. Test 4

MAGC S Re Room:

Smioke Concentration

0

E

5,V

E

0)

250

200-

150

100

50-

Smoke Conc. ISmoke Concentration

- MAGIC Fre Room: Smoke: Test 10

100

50

0 0.

0 10 15 0 5 10 15

Tni (min) TnTi (min)

bUU .

E

U)

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min) Time (ni)

Figure A-32: Smoke Concentration in ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-41
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Srmke Concentration

CFMP BE#3, Test 17

2000 !L

Concentration

'• 500 " . .. . ..

0 2 4 6 .8 10 12

Time (nin)

Open-door tests

140 ..... ---- Smoke Concentration

KIFP BE #3, Test 9

100

-80

60

S,oo40 E3

120 -

S100o.. ...

O 80-

a, -. -a--Srmke Conc.

2, . .... . F. rei Rom . Sm.. k .

20 -.- Concentration

0 - -

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (sin) T•m (rin)

100

90-

80•

E~ 70

O 60-

50

o 40-

30

20

107-

.... _- .. Smoke Concentration

ICFM PBE #3. Test 5

140

120

100

g6o - 80

60

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Trm (mIn)

140- - SmDke Concentaration

10 . CFMP BE #3, Test 15 120 '

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tim (rin)

100 100

80E 80

60, 60

U) 20 • Smoke Cone. U 20

2- - MA8GIC: Fre Roomt: Smoke Concentratie2

0 5 10 15 20 25

Trae (nin)

5 10 15 20 25

Tna (inn)

Figure A-33: Smoke Concentration in ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-42
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Table A-15: Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration in ICFMP BE #3 Tests

Relative

AE (maim Difference 3) AM (maim 3

)

ICFMP 3-1 41.50 258.62 523%

ICFMP 3-7 55.05 250.39 355%

ICFMP 3-2 128.00 305.08 138%

ICFMP 3-8 99.53 359.64 261%

ICFMP 3-4 79.90 196.32 146%

ICFMP 3-10 70.75 194.81 175%

ICFMP 3-13 223.51 282.84 27%

ICFMP 3-16 139.07 219.10 58%

ICFMP 3-17 353.09 1453.17 312%

ICFMP 3-3 118.03 127.06 8%

ICFMP 3-9 117.00 126.03 8%

ICFMP 3-5 87.34 91.36 5%

ICFMP 3-14 91.30 126.62 39%

ICFMP 3-15 123.71 126.65 2%

ICFMP 3-18 110.18 126.08 14%

A-43
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.7 Compartment Pressure

Experimental measurements for room pressure are available from the ICFMP BE #3 test series

only. The pressure within the compartment was measured at a single point, near the floor. In the

simulations of the closed-door tests, the compartment is assumed to leak via a small opening near

the ceiling. In order to reflect the actual leakage area in the model, the measured area was

divided by 0.68, which is the orifice flow coefficient used in MAGIC for all flows through

vertical openings.

A. 7.1 ICFMP BE #3

Visual examination of experimental data and model results plots strongly suggest that in tests

with open doors, where leakages are not critical because of the large door opening, MAGIC

captures both the magnitude and the profile of the pressure. These figures describe a negative

pressure profile at the floor of the room, indicating that fresh air is moving into the enclosure.

Similarly, in closed-door tests, MAGIC is able to capture the both peaks and pressure profiles.

It is important to mention that fan tests were conducted before some of the tests, resulting in

relatively well-known leakage areas. Furthermore, notice that MAGIC captures the positive

and negative pressure peaks. These peaks are an indication of a positively pressurized room

in the early stages of the test, and a negatively pressurized room when the fuel supply

is discontinued and heat losses to the boundaries are higher than the heat release rate of the fire.

Comparisons between measurements and predictions are shown in Figure A-34 and Figure A-35.

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

at the early stages of the fire; however, when the door is closed, the over-pressures can be up to

several hundred Pascals. The calculated relative differences are listed in Table A-16.

The relative differences were calculated as follows:

" For closed-door rooms, the relative difference refers to the positive peak at the early stages

of the fire. Positive relative differences indicate that MAGIC over-predicted the measured

peak.

* For open-door rooms, the relative differences refer to the negative magnitudes of the

pressure, typically at the late stages of the test. Positive relative differences suggest that

MAGIC calculated a lower pressure than the experimental measurement.

A-44
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

60

0. 0.

Time (in) Ttre (rmn)

400--

300 Room Pressure

20_0: 200 IFM BE#3, Test 2

v. 0 2 46 R10, 0.

& -300

-400

i i MAGICF'e-Room:FPressure at

the room floor

-6 0 0 [ - -

-700

Time (nin) remn (nin)

200 100 Room Ressure

0A

&

0.

0.

Tre (rnn)

0. 0

-100 0-200

a.

&

200

100

0

-100

-200

-300

-400

-500

-600-

Room Pressure

IFP BE #3, Test 16

- AGtC Rre-Rom-m: R sure

at the room floor

Tom (nri) Tim (min)

Figure A-34: Compartment Pressure in ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-45
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

50

' -50

it -100

-150

-200

-250

-300

Open-door tests

Time (rnn)

iRoom Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

. 0 20

-4 . .. . . .. . . . .. . .

- MAGIC Fwe-Room: Pressure at the

i roomfloor

-8 ......... .

Terme (mim)

5

Room Pressure

2 7--- CompP ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

MAGIC Fire-Room:

1 1 Pressure at the room floor

a.

m 1 5 10 15 20 . ..

0 -2 -----------

-3 i

,1

5s

t Time (rin)

a

S G eRoom Pressure 2 .......... - ... .. ...... ........ ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

-2 i5

.2

-4u.. . . . ...

-6',_ -i-Con•P

S -- MAGIC Fre-Room : Pressure at the room floor

-8/

Tune (f-in)

Za

4 __________--- . ..

Room Pressure

2• ICFMPBE#3. Test 14

0• .

8 10 15 20

- - --- --- -ConpP

-6 W MAGC Fire-Room: Pressure at the

I roomfloor

Tnu (nin)

-2

rme (,•i) Tre(rrmn)

Figure A-35: Compartment Pressure in ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-46
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Table A-16: Relative Differences for Compartment Pressure in ICFMP BE #3 Tests

Relative

AE (Pa) AM (Pa) Difference

ICFMP 3-1 57.6 35.7 -38%

ICFMP 3-7 45.9 21.0 -54%

ICFMP 3-2 290.0 241.2 -17%

ICFMP 3-8 189.3 195.7 3%

ICFMP 3-4 56.6 57.6 2%

ICFMP 3-10 49.3 34.3 -30%

ICFMP 3-13 231.5 313.6 35%

ICFMP 3-16 80.6 162.5 102%

ICFMP 3-17 194.9 144.8 -26%

ICFMP 3-3 -1.9 -2.7 41%

ICFMP 3-9 -2.0 -2.7 36%

ICFMP 3-5 -1.8 -2.5 40%

ICFMP 3-14 -2.1 -2.7 31%

ICFMP 3-15 -2.4 -2.8 17%

ICFMP 3-18 -2.0 -2.8 41%

A.8 Target Temperature and Heat Flux

Target temperature and heat flux data are available from ICFMP BE #3, #4, and #5. In BE #3,

the targets are various types of cables in various configurations - horizontal, vertical, in trays,

or free-hanging. In BE #4, the targets are three rectangular slabs of different materials

instrumented with heat flux gauges and thermocouples. In BE #5, the targets are again cables,

in this case, bundled power and control cables in a vertical ladder.

Cable targets in MAGIC can be represented as cables or thermal targets. This section provides

graphical comparisons and relative differences for both options. Targets are virtual sensors

in the computational domain, characterized by a thickness and themo-physical properties.

By contrast, cables are specified as cylinders of some length, with multiple concentric layers

of different materials to account for jacket, insulation, and conductor.

For radiated heat flux, the Target/Heat Flux/Incident Heat Flux output option in MAGIC

was selected for comparison with experimental results. This is the sum of all external radiative

heat fluxes impacting the target. In the case of total heat flux, the Target/Heat Flux/Total Heat

Flux "Flux Meter" output option in MAGIC was selected for comparison.

The total flux gauges used in the experiment correspond to the total heat flux with a target

calibrated using cooling water with a temperature of 75 'C (167 'F). In MAGIC, the target

measuring total heat flux is based on the ambient temperature of -20 'C (68 'F).

A-47
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.8.1 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.

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. In MAGIC, cables can

be modeled using the Target option or the Source/Cable option. This study evaluates both.

The Target option is listed in the graphical comparisons as "Surface Temperature of the Target."

The Cable/Source option is listed as "Maximum Surface Temperature."

Favorable or unfavorable predictions of cable surface temperatures can usually be explained in

terms of comparable errors in the prediction of the thermal environment in the vicinity of the cable.

Regardless of the complexity of the target, the model must be able to predict the thermal insult

to it.

The following figures and tables provide the graphical comparisons and calculated relative

differences. Results are classified by cable. That is, for a selected cable, the surface and gas

temperature and the total and radiated heat fluxes for the 15 tests are grouped together.

The tables for relative differences for those 15 tests follow each group of graphical comparisons.

Relative differences were calculated for surface temperature, radiative heat flux, and total heat flux.

A-48
160

140

120

100

Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

7.0

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

6,0 - ICFMP BE#3. Test I

.0---- _ Cable Rad Gauge 3

E......... MAGIC RG3&4: Total

4,0 heat flux fluxfreter'

___ MAGCRG3&4: . 3,0 Incident heat flux - - Cable Total Flux 4

I 2.0 .

E

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tirne (rnn)

E

160 Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

140 ICFMP BE#3. Test1 I

120 . _

801

60 . _

40 . - .-- s1

20 ..... MAGK..B-Ts-14 " Nl

surface temperature 0 0 5 10 is 20 25 30

Tirne (rrin)

-

160 --------- Target B-TS-14 Temperature

140 ICFMP BE#3, Test7 --.

100

60 .... MAGIC B-TS- 14 : SGace

20 • temperature of the target ' -a,--- Tree 4-8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tirne (rnin)

x

I

8,0

7.0

6,0

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0

1.0

0,0

Target B-TS-14 H-eat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Cable Rad Gauge 3

RG3&4: Total .MAGIC 

heat flux 'fjxrreter'

_ -- MAGIC RG3&4: ' _

Icident heat flux Cable Total Rux 4

0 5 10 15

Ttire (nun)

20 25 30

U

C

2

2

6

I0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tone (rin)

Figure A-36: Thermal Environment near Cable B, !CFMP BE #3, Tests I and 7

A-49
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

250 Target B-1S-14 Termperature

to-FBE#3, Test2 .. "-

200

I- .'/aPr t temperature

0 __jI GIC8 B-T S-14: Surfac e 50raur of.. th targe

o~~ ~~~ 4-8..........; -

ilf

E

12,0 Target B-TS-14 Heat Fux

IMP BE #3, Test 2

10.0 ,,T-. CableRadGauge3

8- A6RG3&4 :TotaI 8,0" ....... MAGIC R34:Ttr

heat flux fktxrneter' I ___ MAGIC RG3&4:

6,0 Incident heat flux"

Cable Total Rux 4 r

4,0

20 -

0,0

0 2 4 6

Tirme (rrin)

8 10 12 0 2 4 6

Tirre (nin)

8 10 12

EE

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tiur' (alin)

2 5 0 . . . . .. . . . .... . .. . . . ... . . .. . . .

Target B-TS--14 Temprerature

20CFMPBE#3, Test 8

010 4 '- B-Ts-14

MAGICB-TS-14: Srfaces -

terrperature of the target

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tune (nnn)

E

12,0 Target B-TS-14 Heat Rux

ICFW BE#3, Test 8

100 Cable Rad Gauge 37 - i

80 ....... MAGIC RG3&4: Total 'i h eat fluJx Itulxrnater'

; -- MAGIC RG3&4 : ..... i

6,0 Incident heat flux S Cable Total Flux4

2.0 0,0 -

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Trae (nin)

250

Cable B-TS-14 Termperature

KIFM BE#3, Test 8

1-o

100

50

-.---B-Ts-14

"l -MAGIC B-Ts- 14: Maxinum

surface temperature

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tame (rin)

Figure A-37: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8

A-50
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

S150~ UI

EK 1001

04

250 -

200

0 150

E 100

I--

50

0

250

200

"g 150

E,100

5-

50

,'i

E

5:

9,0

8.0 Cable Rad Gauge 3 1

....... MAGIC RG3&4 'Total 7.0 heat flux fluxmeter'

6,0 MAGIC RG3&4: Incident ' heat flux

5,0 Cable Total Flux 4

4,0

1,0 1 Tg..-au

5 10 15 0 2 4 6 8 10

Tire (min)

12 14

l-ue (rnn)

10 15

Time (nun)

E

0 5 10 15

Twne (nin) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Minre (nn)

E

0.

0 5 10 15

The (ran)

Figure A-38: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10

A-51
Technical Details for the MAGIC ,Validation Study

E

E

E

x B-Ts-14 "'--.

.. ....- MAGI B-TS-14: Gas

___TCVeratum Surface

- te_.perature of the target =m• • ___•___ Tree 4-8 .... ..... .

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -

Tirre (nin)

14,01 , Cale d Gauge3

120 ...... MAGI RG3&4: Total

1 MAGIC RG3&4: 10cident heat flux

-e--Cable TotalFlux 4 8,0

40

40

20 are~tT 6-514 H-eat PP1N~jjj

010 N 3Tes1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tire (rnn)

300 Cable B-TS-14 Terperature

ICFMP BE#3, Test 13

250

100 i ..... ... ... . . .. _ -

too . rMAGIC B-Ts- 14: Mexiraure

surface tferperature

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (rrin)

E

Z

E450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

5D

0

E

,T

1O4 .- a" Cable, RdGauge 3

12 0 ....... MAGIC RG3&4: Total

heat flux 'flusxrrter' 100 __- MAGIC RG3&4: ' I .- "• Incident heat flux /

8,0-x-- Cable Total Rux4

40

2,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Terne (rin)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tine (rin)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Trie (nin)

Figure A-39: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16

A-52
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

250 F5___ 1

200 i. . ....... MAGIB-TS-14: Gas I / temrperature

- MAGIB-TS-14: Surface

1" •" 10 -.- v,.,=L-Tree 4errieperature e4- 8 of the target

E 0 1 --. I

STargetýB-TS_14 Terr-perature

KCPW BE #3, Test 17

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tire (rain)

-Cable Rad Gauge 3

6,0 tAK ..... Total

* heat flux fltxmeter' N. 5.0 -PA MAGICRG3&4: S4Icident heat flux

4,0 - Cable Total Flux 4

X arget 6-ý15-'14 -_at Fluix

0.01-

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

irne (rin)

120

100

" 80 .

60o

'C 40

20n4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Trne (nin)

Figure A-40: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

A-53
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

300 ]Target B--TS-14 Temperature

E

E

I200

150 -

100

so

WGE G....... B-TS-14: Gas

-- • 8-TS-14: M Surface

_ terperature of the target ---- Tree 4-8

25

B

I

0 5 10 15 20

Timre (nin)

5 10 15 20 25

Tirre (rin)

300

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

250 ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

20G .... ..

150,

50.1- MAGIC B-Ts- 14 : Maxh'u~m 1

surface termperature

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tam (nin)

E

E.

300 ... . ..... _ 

'Target B-15-14 Temperature

250 tW I PBE#3, Test9

0 5 10 15 20

Ten• (sin)

I:

25 5 10

Tame (rn)

15 20 25

0 5 10 15 20 25

Trne (sfin)

Figure A-41: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9

A-54
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

E

E

I[

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tre (rrin)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tinme (nn)

C-

"2

Eo

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

0ICFP BE #3, Test 5

150

50 /- ~MAGX'C B'Ts 14 " Maximum

0 surface temperature

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tmn (ffin)

250

200

0 150

a oo

iE

4,0

a: 3.0

: 2,0

1.0

0.0

25

E

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (Mnn)

30

Figure A-42: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14

A-55
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

900

750

600

450

300

150

0

70,0-

60,0

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE#3, Test 15 ,1------ Cable Rad Gauge 3

Zi 50,0 , *~q . .... - ,,.• • ,: , " •heat flux 'fluxrreter

40.0~~ kiidnt heat flx

-..--- ,-CableeTotalFlux4

I" 20,0 ---

10,0 .

0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

B---- 6-Ts- 14

M•GIC B-TS- 14: Gas V temperature ---iMAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

0 temperature of the target 25 -x- Tree_4-8 Tine (rfin) Irne (rin)

500 ,

450

3 o40 0 -..- .. ---- .. -.

350 L - 300 ___

25 S1 epratur

200 .......... Cf. BE #3, Test 15

-o...B-T.-14. Im

so surface terrperature

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Trne (rdn)

I

5 10

Time (rnin)

15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25

Thme (nin)

0 5 10 1s 20 25 30

Truee (fin)

Figure A-43: Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18

A-56
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Table A-17: Relative Differences for Surface Temperature of Cable B

Target Surface Temp, Cable Surface Temp,

B-TS-14 B-TS-14

Control Relative Relative

Cable AE (°C) AM (-C) Diff AE (-C) AM (-C) Diff

Test 1 106 115 8% 106 112 5%

Test 7 90 111 23% 87 108 -1%

Test 2 176 204 16% 176 187 6%

Test 8 183 203 11% 183 186 1%

Test 4 149 201 35% 149 192 29%

Test 10 144 198 38% 144 189 31%

Test 13 186 264 42% 186 228 25%

Test 16 160 244 52% 160 222 38%

Test 17 83 80

Test 3 226 206 -9% 226 202 -11%

Test 9 228 204 -10% 228 199 -12%

Test 5 150 182 21% 150 175 16%

Test 14 199 201 1% 199 199 0%

Test 15 416 315 -24% 416 333 -20%

Test 18 236 200 -15% 236 200 -15%

Table A-18: Relative Differences for Radiative and Total Heat Flux to Cable B

Radiant Heat Flux Gauge 3 Total Heat Flux, Gauge 4

Control AE AM Relative AE AM Relative

Cable (kW/m 2) (kW/m 2) Diff (kW/m 2) (kW/m 2) Diff

Test 1 1.1 1.3 12% 1.85 3.06 65%

Test 7 2.9 3.6 26% 1.84 2.99 62%

Test 2 4.4 3.6 -18% 5.26 6.92 31%

Test 8 2.9 3.4 17% 5.58 6.85 23%

Test 4 3.9 3.0 -22% 5.52 6.57 19%

Test 10 1.2 1.2 2% 4.91 6.51 33%

Test 13 2.9 3.6 23% 8.26 11.48 39%

Test 16 4.3 3.5 -19% 8.37 10.03 20%

Test 17 2.7 3.4 25% 2.36 3.43 45%

Test 3 4.8 7.0 47% 7.10 6.74 -5%

Test 9 2.8 3.3 15% 6.58 6.56 0%

Test 5 46.5 7.4 -84% 6.86 5.67 -17%

Test 14 4.1 5.9 42% 3.82 6.37 65%

Test 15 1.3 1.5 15% 57.72 11.72 -80%

Test 18 5.2 3.8 -28% 7.61 6.86 -10%

A-57
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

160 3.5 Target D-TS-12 Temperature Cable Pad Gauge 7

140 ICI E#3, Test 1 120 -t 3.0 ........ MAGIC RG7&8: Total h

jf 2,5 - MAGIC RG7 &•ident 100 -E heat flux c ,

......... MAGICD-TS-1 2: Gas .

,,o •terrerature

40__ MAGIC -TS-12: Surface 10 -

temperature of the target

20 Tree 3-9 O- 0,5 ICFMPBE #3, Test 1

---------------------- 0.0--- -.. - - --.-----. -

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

Tuem (nrn). Time

16010Cable TS-12 Temperature

140 -ICFMPBE#3, Test 2

t oo

4O

120 ---- - ----- _ _

40 -MAGIC D-TS-12:Mxru

20 surface tenperature

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tme (mn) -.

180 3,5

Target D-TS-12 Temperature Target D-TS-12 FHeat Rux 1 ICFMP BE#3, Test 7 3,0 4 ICFMP BE#3, Test 7 . . . .

• ioo . 2.0 ..... . . .. ., -

a 80 -,7 1, ,

C- 601, a-- 1

40

20 .2,5 -- •----

20teveatreofth trgt . ,-.... MAGIC RG7&8 : Total heat ft 1x

0 , .-----. - 0,0 • 'ftuxrmter' L..

_____- MAGEC RG7&B • Icident heat 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 .01 fl"i T25 Tame (inn) fuxjT'

160

140 "IFP BE#3, Test 7

,120.

-10020

& 80

6GIC D-TS-12: Gaxsnu

40 surface tenperature 20GIC DT1Ts-12

20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tare (nr)

Figure A-44: 7 Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests and 7

A-58

30 (nin)

30

t(rin)
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

E

FITE:

20..............................-- Cabl fteRad uge 7

1,0 ..... MAGIC RG7&8: Total

heat flux fluxrneter' 0,0 MAGIC RG7&8:

0 2 Incident heat flux 12 fl (nn)/ -e- -- Cable Total Rux6 12

300

250

6 200 2O

oa- 150-

E 100

50-

0-

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Trne (rrin)

Target D-TS-12 Heat Rux

ICFP BE #3, Test 8

E6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Thri irn)

300

250-

Ej 200 -

0 150

100

50

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tire (rin)

Figure A-45: Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8

A-59
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

300

E

E

IE

7I.0 Cable RadGauge 7 -

6.0 4

....MAGIC RG7&13" Total heo f-

....................................... flux 'lhjxrrter'e -

5,0 ]] MAGIC RG78"cident heat

40J flux

3,0 L-----,, -:- • aPOA l : A -` 

2,0

1,0 -L _ Target D-TS-12 I-at Fux__,

ICFMP BE#3, Test 4

0 .0 K

10 15 0 5 10 15

Time (rin) T (rn (in)

EE30

25

20

15

1G

0 0- .----------- ....- - ...- .--

50 -MAGIC D-TS-12: Maxrunmj surface temperature

00

lO Cble TS-35 Terrerature

ICFP BE #3. Test 2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Trne (rin)

E

250 Target D-TS- 12 Temperaiture

ICFMPBE#3, Test 10 . • • . •

1.00. - .... MAGIC D-TS- 12: Surf

50 . -- tenperature of the target •" I-- Tree 3-9

0

0 5 10 15

Ttmu (nin)

;7

10

9 .- Cable Rad Gauge 7

9!

8 MAGIC RG7&8: Total heat flux

7 'hJfklrrter

6 MAGIC RG7&8: Incident heat -"

flux 5

4

3

2 Target-----TS.-I Rux

0 5 10 15

Tmer (rin)

E

i0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tire (min)

Figure A-46: Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10

A-60
Technical Details for the M GIC Validation Study

3

I600 60 _ [....MAGIC _ D-TS-12 _ _: Gas

500 WAI D-TS-12: Surface

[I temperature of the target 400 Tr'ee 3-9 ...... ..

300 J,- .. . . . . ..

400

Target 0-TS- 12 Terrperature 0 - ICFIP BE #3. Test 13

'i 14,0

12,0

10,0

8,0

i 6.0

4,0

2.0

0.0

0 2 4 6

Twrn (rrin)

8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Trne(nin)

300

250

o 200

aB 150

100

so

0 5 10 15

Tttte (min)

20 25

600

500-

400

300

E

I-.

....... MAGIC D-1S-12: Gas

temrperature

MAGIC D-TS-12: Surface

tenperature of the target Tree 3-9

• -p I2

! A..- ~ý- .... .2

18,0- 1,0 Cable d Gauge 7

16,0 -__

MAGIC RG7&8: Total .... 

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

12.0 - MAGIC RG7&8: g Lrcident heat flux 10.0 Cable Total Rxg8.0

6,0

2.0

20 I'MP BE#3,Test 16

0.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Twe (nim)

200 4

1-"¢

IU

Target D-TS-12 Temrperature"'7 ^ ~I'MBE #3. Test 16

U

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tom (inn)

'ton 300

E

i-

/--MAGIC D'TS-12 : raximrm 250 surface temperature .

I / \ I"D--DTs'12!

150 - -

100

50 Cable D-TS-12 Temperature

tCFtP BE #3. Test 16

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tune (ttin)

Figure A-47: Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16

A-61
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

E

IE•

300- ......... WGrD-TS-12:Gas

250 tenperature

250 .___ .GIC D-TS-12: Surface

terrperature of the target

200-. -Tree3-9

150

100-, -

5o0 4 .. : - ,.. . ..... .

50 ~ Target D-TIS-12 Ternperature

I ~ W FBE#3, Test 17

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Trne (nin)

i.

E

0 2 4 6

Tirr (rrin)

8 10 12

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Trm (min)

Figure A-48: Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

A-62
350

Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

10,0

9.0 - Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

8,0 ICFM BE #3, Test 3

5.0

5.0 .- ' -a Cable Red Gauge 7

e..MAGIC RG7&8: Total

X 3.0 ....... . . .

RE

E10 15 20 25

Trne (rrin)

0 5 10 15 20

Tirm (rain)

25 30

E

300 ..... Target D-TS-12 Tenperature . ,,

250 ICFWPBE#3. Test9 _

200 .. . . . . --

/ ...... MAGI D.TS-12 : Gas- 100 l- = 1M1GCT-2 : Surface

lenteerature of the target 50 r - Tree 3-9

-- D-Ts-12

0 5 10 15 20 25

T1rrs (nin)

ki

E

10.0

9,0 Target D-TS-12 -leat Rux _ ! CRVP BE #3, Test 9 •-~il

8.

70

60

5.0

3.0 ....... MAGIC RG7&8: Total 2.0 •1•' ''-I heat flux 'fluxmatet" I

20' MAGIC RG7&8:

1 0 -Incident heat flux C-- Cabe l-- Total Flux 6

00-

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tern (ain)

E

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tern (nri)

Figure A-49: Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9

A-63
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

250 I1 Target D-TS-12 Terrperature

200 KTWBE #3, Test 5

E teaarature

F- ~ MAGIC 04-T-12: Surface

50 - terrperature of the target Tree 3-9 '

"-|Target D-TS- 12 Feat Flux

66,0 CFLPBE#3,Test5

E

30 Cable Rd Gauge 7

J J• P flux tuxmater'

1.0 ----- MAGIC RG7&8: Ictident

0,0 heat flux

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tine (rnin)

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Twe (rrin)

300 .•

Cable 0-1S-12 Temperature

250 IC F P B E # 3 .T est5 5. . . .

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tmer (nix)

300.-

Target D-TS-12 Tetperature

250:• ICRMP BE#3, Test 14 o0-" D----Ts"12

0 5 10 15 20 25

T"hue (rfin)

2:

I W - ~Cable Pad Gauge 7 I

MAGIC RG7&8: Total |

D heat flux rfux ter'

_MAGIC RG7&8: 0 .icident heat flux

0 5 • -.. - Cable Total Rux 6 25

Tien (rrin)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tri (rrn)

Figure A-50: Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14

A-64
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

5200

a 150

• 100

50

0

300

250

S200

1- 150

S100

i4

E

20.0

18,0

16.0

14.0

12,0

10.0

8.0

6.0

10 15 20 25

Tonm (rrin)

0 5 10 15 20

Tum n Qin)

25 30

300

250

200

Target D-TS-12 Tenperature

ICMPW BE#3.

E

18.0

16,0-

14,0 -

E 12.0

10,0-

8.0.

6.0 I 4.0-

Cable Pad Gauge 7

RG7&8: Total .MAGIC 

heat flux fkjxrreter'

MAGIC RG7&8:

Incident heat flux

--- -- Cable Total Flux 6

100

50

0

MAGIC D-TS-12: Surface

te=eature of the target --- Tree 3-9

D-Ts- 12

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tirn' (rnn)

SI D-TS 12 Heat 18

0.0

0 5 10 15 Tawn (rdt) 20 25

300

U

E

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tern (rdn)

Figure A-51: Thermal Environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18

A-65
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Table A-19: Relative Differences for Surface Temperature of Cable D

Target Surface Temp. D-TS-12 Cable Surface Temp, D-TS-12

Control Relative Relative

Cable AE (-C) AM ('C) Diff AE (-C) AM (-C) Diff

Test 1 115 112

Test 7 87 111 27% 87 108 -4%

est 2 126 204 62% 126 187 48%

est 8 150 203 36% 150 186 4%

est 4 113 201 77% 113 192 70%

est 10 132 198 50% 132 189 43%

Test 13 173 263 52% 173 229 32%

Test 16 156 243 56% 156 222 42%

Test 17

Test 3 210 204 -3% 210 201 -4%

Test 9 220 201 -9% 220 199 -8%

Test 5 132 178 34% 132 174 9%

Test 14 178 203 14% 178 202 14%

Test 15 243 247 1% 243 251 8%

Test 18 217 199 -8% 217 199 -8%

Table A-20: Relative Differences for Radiative and Total Heat Flux to Cable D

Radiant Heat Flux Gauge 7 Total Heat Flux, Gauge 8

ontrol AE AM Relative AE AM Relative

able (kWlm2 ) (kW/m 2) Diff (kW/m2) (kWlm 2) Diff

est 1 1.44 1.59 10% 3.07

Test 7 4.16 3.64 -12% 2.52 2.99 19%

est 2 3.75 9.83 6.93 -29%

est 8 3.26 3.43 5% 8.51 6.86 -19%

est 4 4.78 3.22 -33% 7.23 6.60 -9%

est 10 1.35 1.54 14% 6.71 6.54 -3%

Test 13 3.55 3.59 1% 11.22 11.50 3%

est 16 5.26 3.61 -31% 11.67 10.08 -14%

est 17 2.91 3.39 16% 3.29 3.43 4%

est 3 6.58 7.02 7% 9.45 6.85 -28%

est 9 3.32 3.33 0% 9.06 6.68 -26%

Test 14 3.95 6.07 6.45 6%

Test 5 4.83 5.90 22% 8.52 5.87 -31%

Test 15 1.52 1.49 -2% 20.87 8.39 -60%

Test 18 3.43 1 7.83 6.50 -17%

A-66
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

100

0

140

Cab

120R

10

e80-

40O

20

0

160

140 ,

120p

100-

480

6 60 E

4U

20

3,0 Ji• Cable Rad Gauge 1

2'.5. ....... MAGIC RGI&2: I

heat fluxf I ter.

T - MAGIC

2.0dicent eatfkia I;i- Cable talRux 2

0,0

0,5 Target F-TS-20 Pleat Rux

0.0• ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Trrne (rrin)

5 10 15 20 25 30

T', (nun)

5 10 15 20 25 30 Tfme (,uin)

3,0

2.5

E 2,0

1,5

o 1,0

0.5

0.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Trn (rr*i)

140

120

100

80-- E

- 40-

2 0 i

0

Cable F-TS-20 Temrperature

-s MAGIC F-Ts-20c tnaermatm

surface teffrrpraur

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tr•r (nun)

Figure A-52: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests I and 7

A-67
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

7,0

E 100-

501

0

200

180

160

140

120

180

- 60-

40

20

0

i

.E

I

2 4 6 8 10 12

"ire (inn)

/ - MGIC F-Ts-20: Maximrum

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tern (rrin)

Target F-TS-20 Tenperature .

:, ICFM PBE #3, Test8 .8 '

200

E, 1oo I- F-Ts-20

E • . ...... AýGIC F-TS-20 : Gas

! .•• I terrperature

50 - M -C F-TS-20: Surface

. temperature of the target I i ,,,• Tree 5-6

0 r ! I, . I .

N- 5.0

4,0

3,0

- 2,0

1.0

0,0

0 2 4 6

Tim (rrn)

8 10 12

E

I0 2 4 6

Time (rrin)

8 10 12

Figure A-53: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8

A-68
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

E

00 F-Ts-20 350 1 i, ....... MAsGIC F-TS-20: Gas

300 temperature I - MAGIC F-TS-20: Surface

250 -. tenperature of the target...... -a--- Tree 5-6

200 -___... . .________"

100 ...

50 - ___ Target F-TS-20.Terrperature _

ICF' BE.3, Test 4

0

i4

E

0 5

Tie (ein)

10 15 10 15

Tirr (rrn)

IE

CE

i0 5 10 15 20 25 30

T"ina (men)

250 ......

Target F-TS-20 Tenrperature

ICFW BE #3, Test 10

100 OE FTs-20

- t4GIF-TS-2C0:Gas 1

50 - M I C F-TS-20 Surface

Tempeature of tfhe target

0 5 10 15

Twne (rin)

9,0

8.0-

7.0

'" 6,0-

~,5.0

.2 4,0.

• 3.0

•-C•le - - id Gauge 1

...... MAGIC RG1&2: Total heat flux 'fluxmeter'

-- MAGIC RG1&2: kicilent

heat flux " Cable Total Rux 2 .,- . •

7 ICFWBE #3, Test 10 0,0 Lý --..-.-

0 5 10 15

thie (run)

250

200

150

E, 100

50

Cable F-TS-20 Temperature

CPFW BE#3, Test 10

I-- A

-a-F-Ts-20

MAGr, F-Ts-20: Maximum

surface tenrperature

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

T"rre (ntn)

Figure A-54: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10

A-69
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

600 __ _ _

6° -a--- F-Ts'20 *-

500 W#GI B-TS-20: Gas tal erature

M ter oerature M MB-S-2 of the Surface target Tre 5I6 ,-

E

,T

E

200

100-

T BE#3, Test 13

I

0 2 4 6

Tme (rin)

8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tirme (rin)

250

200-

s" 150-

100-

E0 5 10 15 20 25

Tirme (rnn)

E

I

14,0-

12,0-

10.0.

8,0

6,0

....... MAGIC RGI.&2 i Total

heat flux fluxneter' ____AGICRG182:

Incident heat flux k

| - Cable Total Flux 2 I

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux!

7~~~BE #3, Test1

4I[ -,.• 1 l

0.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tone (nmn)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tuam (rin)

E

I0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Thue (nrn)

Figure A-55: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16

A-70
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

300-

250.

200

a 150

E 100

50

0

.. MAGIC F-TS-20: Gas

terrperature

MAGIC F-TS-20: Surface

termperature of the target .- Tree 5-6 t..i

E

Target F-TS-20 Temp~erature

tOSP BE#3. Test 17

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tie (nrn)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Timn (nin)

100

80

~40

20

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tre (nrin)

Figure A-56: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

A-71
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

E

i- 5,0

E

4,0

, 3,0

2.0

5 10

Time (inn)

15 20 25

E

E

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

"l'e (nin)

250

200

150

100

50

25

I0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tnu (rmn)

Figure A-57: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9

A-72
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

250 1111"

9,0

8,0

i" 7.0 E S6.0

- Cable Pad Gauge 1

....... MAGIC RGI 2: Total heat

flux Ifkuxneter' - MAGIC RG1 82 :ncident

heat flux ---- Cable Tots 1501

010!

250

200

Ea 150

1005 

50

I

5,0 -- -,- I

4,0

2.0

1,0 Taat-T-01laFu

lClF BE #3, Test 5 0,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

inme (rnn)

5 10 15 20 25 30

Tire (fin)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

"ure (rrin)

10 r ...a MAGIC B-TS-20: Gas

50- -N I&B-S-20: surface- te----• ature of the target

T 5.

-1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Trh (min)

250

Cable F-TS-20 Tenrrerature

ICFOW BE#3, Test 14

200

150--

I 100 ______ E

I50

0

-• F-Ts_20

- MAGIC F-Ts-20: Maximum

surface terpemrature

0 10 15 20 25 30

Trhe (fin)

Figure A-58: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14

A-73
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

700 -,25,0 Target F-TS-20 Hoat Rui Target F-TS-20 Temprtr ICIFPBE #3, Test 15 ux mf••

600 - ICFPBEE#3, Test 15

500

100 5.0.. MAGIC RGI&2 :Total ........... MAGIC B-TS-20: GasjrL hafux•lrntr

0 0 • ___ ~~~~~temp~erature MAGIC B-TS-200: Surface 00I -AIRI2 014e0

0 •, terpe~ralture of the target 0 5 l0'-e,--- Cable Total Flux 2

"Trr (ran) -a- Tree 5)

800 -] I"' ____- __F-Ts__--20--' --- -

600• surface termperat__re

10 400 W. .

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 "nane (rnn)

0 Te 120.0 Rad Gauge CaCable I

250~~~~ Tet1 ,LBE3 MAGIC ToTlotal____ R Gl &2: 

M A I B 0 G s heat flux xfluxrneter

5. ... MAGICP 'TE' Garet1 6 ,•]....MGI G& oa

0 terrperate 14.0'. - MAGIC RG&2: _ 2:

2O0 Bl Sncident heat fhux 0 12.0 5-101 Cable -2Total Rux 

8000

7 00 ~60

60r0 lea

0 Surae4. 0,02e -

10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25

T~er(rrnn) Tirm(mtn)

E300 -___________________

300

Cable F-TS-20 Temaperature

250ICFM Test 18 #E#3, 

L200

010 15 20 25 30

TIme (rrin)

Figure A-59: Thermal Environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18

A-74
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Table A-21: Relative Differences for Surface Temperature of Cable F

Target Surface Temp, F-TS-20 Cable Surface Temp, F-TS-20

Power Relative Relative

Cable AE ('C) AM (-C) Diff AE (C) AM (C) Diff

Test I 83 109 32% 83 95 15%

Test 7 90 109 21% 87 101 12%

Test 2 129 183 42% 129 150 16%

est 8 131 181 38% 131 148 13%

est 4 149 189 27% 149 158 6%

est 10 150 194 29% 150 174 16%

est 13 143 219 52% 143 188 31%

est 16 168 227 35% 168 199 19%

Test 17 1

Test 3 195 202 3% 195 182 -7%

Test 9 195 200 3% 195 180 -8%

Test 5 175 178 2% 175 157 -10%

Test 14 171 197 15% 171 179 5%

Test 15 669 245 -63% 669 231 -66%

Test 18 232 205 -11% 232 184 -20%

Table A-22: Relative Differences for Radiative and Total Heat Flux to Cable F

Radiant Heat Flux Gauge I Total Heat Flux, Gauge 2

Power AE AM Relative AE AM Relative

Cable (kWlm 2) (kW/m 2) Diff (kWIm 2) (kW/m 2) Diff

Test 1 0.87 1.24 44% 1.60 3.05 90%

Test 7 1.99 3.60 81% 1.51 2.98 95%

est 2 2.95 3.40 15% 4.77 6.89 44%

est 8 2.02 3.33 65% 4.93 6.82 38%

est 4 2.65 2.69 2% 5.02 6.49 29%

est 10 0.82 1.22 48% 4.36 6.43 48%

Test 13 1.93 3.54 83% 7.28 11.40 56%

Test 16 1.93 3.29 71% 6.13 9.90 61%

Test 17 2.73 3.26 20% 1.85 3.43 83%

Test 3 2.90 6.91 139% 5.55 6.51 17%

Test 9 2.12 3.17 50% 5.08 6.33 25%

Test 5 18.29 9.59 -48% 6.45 5.34 -18%

Test 14 2.76 5.73 108% 3.46 6.26 77%

Test 15 0.88 1.49 69% 23.94 10.44 -56%

Test 18 5.18 3.87 -25% 8.74 6.94 -21%

A-75
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

" Vert-----Ve Cable Te'33 I60 t Cae 36 Cable Rad Gauge 10

250 ....... MWGICTS-33: Gas temperature 5,0 ....MAGIC RG9&10 :Total heat1

~520 MAGIC TS-33: Surface iq4.0 flux fluarreter' 20a E MAGIC RG9&10: Incident termperature f thetarget - heat fl:x 150 Tree2- 1s h f.0-x

032,0

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

Time (min) Tirm (run)

140 ---- Vertical Cable Ts-33 I

120 • 108| - MAGICTS-33 surface t emp e : r attttttttt. Max,

100

60 -----..

20 Cable TS-33 Temperature

rIFMP BE #3. Test 1

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tirme (rrin)

250 6,0

-.--- Vertical Cable Ts-33 - Cable Rad Gauge 10

200 --- MAGICTS-33:Gas 5,0 ~tempDerature i ...... MAGIC RG9&IO : Tote

____MAGIC TS-33: Surface iq4 etflxfjrne

150 --- temperature of the target . MGICRG9&10:

Tgt 333,0 Inar cident heat flux

Ei I o

CFMP BE#3, Test 7CFPBE#3,Test7

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

Time (min) Tirre (rrin)

140 Cable TS-33 Temperature

120 17' RF #3 Test 7

100

R 80 -

E

" 40 - Vertical Cable Ts-33

20 - MAGIC TS-33: Maximum

surface temperature

0I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (main)

Figure A-60: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7

A-76
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

400-

250

3 00

E 150 I12,0

10.0-

E" 8.0-

6.0

4,0

2.0

Cable Pad Gauge 10

....... MAGIC RG9&10: Total

heat flux 'fluxreter' MAGIC RG9&10:

Incident heat flux x Cable Total Flux 9 ; .-

i

J

"Target TMP H#,eatt lux

EFT4PBE#3, Test 2

0.0 iM M wen

0 2 4 6

Time (nin)

8 10 12 0 2 4 6 Tnie (rrin) 8 10 12

250 -

200 -

C) "0 15o1

I'- 50 ---- ----.- -

I-.Vertical Cable Ts-33

- MAGIC TS-33: Maximr'm

surface tenperature

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (ntn)

400 i -

. - - Vertical Cable Ts-33

....... MAGIC "S-33: Gas

300 te ature

30GES•T33: Surface 250 temperature of the target

200

E 150

KE

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Trne (in)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tint (nin)

250

200

*150

lO10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tint (itn)

Figure A-61: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8

A-77
Technical Details for the M GIC Validation Study

E

3500 I i

• Tae33: Gtemperatuera• t 

'00 50 -...... .IF M~PBE#3, Test 4 -

0 5 10 15

"line (rrn)

12,0 -- 0,.0 Cable Rd Gauge 10

....... MAGIC RG9&10: Total heat

8.0 flux 'fluxrreter'

E MAGIC RG9&1 0: Incident heat flux

6.0

4 40----------- -. :_-- - - I , . . .

0 10 15

Fare (rrin)

250

200

IS0

100

50

0

-- Vertical Cable Ts-33

- - MAGIC TS-33: Iaximum

surface temperature

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (nun)

E

I--

400

350-

300-

250

200.

150.

100

50

E

x

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

6 -ICFMPBE#3, Test 10.' -

- W-_Cbl- Gue1

2 1 ,... MA G I .R..Gg&. 0: T~otal•

R ! J•." • heat f~luxYfuxmater' t

o •: 1 heat flux

0 5 10 15

Tirne (rinn)

0 10 15

Thu (nin)

250

200

S150

100 E

50

0

0 5 10 15 20

Ti•n (rrin)

25 30

Figure A-62: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10

A-78
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

500 18,0-

450 Vertical Cable Ts-33 16.0 - Cable RG9uI 0

400 4|..... MAIC4C TS-33 te : Gas i 14,0. hea f ~x'iJ ter

te4, heat flux 'fluxrneter' 350 WA TS-33: Surface -12,0 k MGIC RG&10t :h

3o0 ten Ta T. ,atu .•f,, target 1I0 -- cabent heato , Ca [aTo• 

2"80 : 6.0arget TS -33 Heat R ux

1 50 6rirek 3IC.rost13 T 13

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tirne (nin)

300 +! Cable TS-33 Tenperature 1

43200 - _ _ _

1500

1004

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

TernD (in)

- / F - Vertical Cable Ts-33

50 - MAGIC TS-33: MaxirmUrn

surface termperature Fl

0 5 10 15 20 25

Trne ('rin)

600 y;.J7i::.:. 20.0 500 i ....... -a--Vertical Cable Ts-33 I- Too -Cab le Rid _Gauge 1 0

500. MAGIC TS-33 : Gas 16,0 ...... MAGIC RG&10: Tota I1 temnperature ] J| heat flux 'fk~xmetet'

S MAGICTS-33: Surface 14.0 _4 _ _MAGICRG9&10:

.S , S a--Tree _ temerature T 2-52- of the targe 12,0 -- Inicident Cable Total heat Fux flux9

e6 300 10,

I-.

2000 --• -. ------ • ' 

Target TS-33 Temperatur f"2E"

ICFMPBE#3, Test 16 L IC3MPBE#3, Test16 0 . ----- 0,0 

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (nin) The (ain)

Cable TS-33 Tenrerature

250 ICFMP BE#3, Test 16

U200 -

a 150

0100

50 ~ ~~-a-Vertical CabW1111,.;

50 -- MAGIC TS-33: Maxiurm

surface termperature

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tern (rim)

Figure A-63: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16

A-79
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

6,0

- 5,0 E

4,0

a. 3.0

:I: 2,0

1.0

0,0

E

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Twrn (nin)

120

Cable TS-33 Temperature

100............... ,PFW BE #3, Test 17

80 -***--

60

4 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tine (rin)

[ -- ~MAGIC TS-33 : Maxim I I 20 surface temperature j

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Trnr (rin)

Figure A-64: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

A-80
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

E SE

S ....... MAGICTS-33: Gas J •1 i trn~eature •.;ir ....... -- " TI-33 : Surfce

tenperature of the target

-- a---- Tree 2-5

0 5 10 15 20

Tare (rnun)

25 5 10 15 20 25

Time (rin)

250

200

150

E 100

5o f~rical a Cable ýTs 33

MAGIC TS-33: Zirrxinu

surface termperature

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (nin)

250

E

E

8,0

I Target TS-33 Hleat Rux

7.0 ICFWIBE #3,Test 9

60

-[-Cable Rad Gauge 10

.. MAGICRG9&10:To I • heat flux Trluxrneter' 2,0 _-- MAGICRG9&10:

1.0 .•f kcident heat flux

I= oble total FWu 9

0,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

The (rin)

K MAGIC TS-33: Gas temprature . _Jl•__•-- MAGTS-33 : Surface

tenperature of the target

C)1 '-0'-- Tree 2- 5

0 5 10 15 20

Tmne (rrin)

25

----- Vertical Cable Ts-33

- MAG IC TS-33: x"F xlfu

l surface temperature

0 5 10

Tirn (rrnn]

15 20 25

Figure A-65: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9

A-81
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

i4

E

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

irme (nin)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tine (nin)

(15

E- 1001

50-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tirme (min)

~3200

S150-

E~

12,0

10.0

8,0

6,0

4,0.

2.0

0 5 10 15 20 25

"lnre (Mn)

10 15 20 25

T"rne (rin)

200

. 150

IE

0 5 10 15 20 25 " 30

Tww (min)

Figure A-66: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14

A-82
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

1.

6,0

Target TS-33 tet Flux

ICF BE #3. Test 15

E

4,0

x

3.0 - Cable Rad Gauge 10

M 2.0 -. AGIC RG9&10: Total

- heat flux "fluxneter' __P )O -- W-MGIC Rng&10 :

10I Incident heat flux

0.0 CabeTotal Flux 9

0 5 10 is 20 25 "time (nin) 5 10

Time (nin)

15 20 25

100

50

0

400

350

300

250•

a 20

E 150

100

50

0

0 5 10 15. 20 25 30

Tine (rin)

S

i4

,TE

10 15 20 25 TrN (nin)

0 5 10

Tom (nmin)

15 20 25

E 150

I0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Team (rnin)

Figure A-67: Thermal Environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18

A-83
Technical Details for the M4 GIC Validation Study

Table A-23: Relative Differences for Surface Temperature of Cable G

Target Surface Temp, Cable Surface Temp,

G-TS-33 G-TS-33

ontrol Relative Relative

able AE (*C) AM (*C) Diff AE (-C) AM (*C) Diff

Test 1 64 114 79% 64 111 74%

est 7 78 111 42% 90 107 37%

est 2 107 204 91% 107 184 72%

est 8 107 203 90% 107 182 70%

est4 125 201 61% 125 189 51%

est 10 148 198 34% 148 186 25%

Test 13 133 264 98% 133 222 66%

Test 16 169 243 44% 169 216 27%

Test 17

Test 3 169 206 22% 169 200 19%

Test 9 165 204 23% 165 198 19%

Test 5 161 183 14% 161 172 7%

Test 14 270 230 -15% 270 204 -24%

Test 15 160 200 25% 160 197 23%

Test 18 106 200 89% 106 197 87%

Table A-24: Relative Differences for Radiative and Total Heat Flux to Cable G

Radiant Heat Flux Gauge 10 Total Heat Flux, Gauge 9

Control AE AM Relative AE AM Relative

Cable (kW/m 2) (kW/m 2) Diff (kW/m 2) (kW/m 2

) Diff

Test 1 1.51 1.41 -6%

Test 7 5.97 3.64 -39% 1.89 2.99 56%

est 2 5.36 3.71 -31%

est 8 6.00 3.41 -43% 5.98 6.86 15%

est 4 5.45 3.16 -42% 6.42 6.58 2%

est 10 1.47 1.33 -10% 6.20 6.51 5%

Test 13 6.03 3.59 -40% 12.18 11.50 -6%

Test 16 5.15 3.58 -31% 12.23 10.05 -18%

Test 17 5.42 3.37 -38% 3.07 3.43 11%

Test 3 10.06 7.01 -30% 6.45 6.82 6%

Test 9 10.50 6.12 -42% 6.37 6.65 4%

Test 5 3.73 3.28 -12% 6.69 5.80 -13%

Test 14 11.96 5.87 -51% 10.90 8.39 -23%

est 15 2.42 2.15 -11% 5.12 6.36 24%

est 18 2.85 3.06 8% 4.45 6.13 38%

A-84
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.8.2 ICFMP BE #4

Targets in BE #4, Test 1 were three material probes made of concrete, aerated concrete, and steel.

Sensor M29 represents the aerated concrete material, while Sensors M33 and M34 represent

the concrete and steel materials, respectively.

MAGIC appears to over-predict both total heat flux and surface temperature to the targets.

The graphical comparisons for heat flux and surface temperature and the resulting relative

differences are presented in Figure A-68 and Table A-17, respectively.

A-85
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

E

800- 80700

6001, "I

500

300

200-

100-

I

0 10 20

Trne (rinn)

30 40 0 10 20 The (nin) 30 40

700 Concrete Surface Tenperature InnBE4.Testl 1 A

600

500

BE4 Test 1 A

E

F400 i

300

200

- MAGI M33_Concrete : Surface

100 teýrgarture of thle target

0 10 20 30 40

Thm (ran)

,.;.

I

80

70

60

50

40

30

Total Flux to Concrete Rate

-. -- •M N% C 33_Concrete: Totalheat

fflux tiuxrter' hal

WS3

Amfur ri -1ý \

10 olob

0 10 20 30 4

ThFur (min)

Total Flux to Steel Rate A 70 ub,4, Tes" z I

60~

0

E

0

I

50-

40

.. ..-- . MAGI MN34_Steel : Total heat -

fxr- frl•fUXter -WS2

20

10

n

10 20

Tir (imt)

30 40 0 10 20

Trre (mn)

30 40

Figure A-68: Heat Flux and Surface Temperatures of Target Slabs, ICFMP BE #4, Test I

Table A-25: Relative Differences for Surface Temperature and Total Heat Flux to Targets

AM (°C)

Relative

Diff

AE

(kW/m2)

AM

(kWlm 2)

Relative

AE (°C) Diff

Steel, M34 356 684 92% 27.18 75.65 178%

ICFMP 4-1 Concrete, M33 308 608 97% 46.56 75.65 63%

Gas Concrete, M29 489 728 49% 32.41 75.65 133%

A-86
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.8.3 ICFMP BE #5

A vertical cable tray was positioned near a wall opposite the fire. Heat flux gauges were inserted

in between two bundles of cables, one containing power cables, and the other containing control

cables. The following pages show plots of the gas temperatures, heat fluxes, and cable surface

temperatures at three vertical locations along the tray.

Figure A-69 compiles the graphical comparisons for total heat flux and surface temperature.

Table A-26 and Table A-27 list the corresponding relative differences.

A-87
Technical Details for the MA GIC Validation Study

I

-z 4

C 3

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Twm (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tne (rnn)

8

E

E

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20,

0 5 10 15 20

Twri (rrn)

25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Trne (rrn)

E

2 0 0 i 2 0 0 . . . . . ..

180 I- Cable Surface Temrperature 180 Cable Surface Termperature

160 t160 BEE5,TTest 16 BE• et4-

140

120 120 ---

80 E

60 60_ MAGC OO1-

40 - TOO 1-5 40

20 TC O 3-5 20-* - TOO 3-7

P ... . ......... MAGIC TCO 3-. . ....... MAGIC TCO 3-7 0 -- 0

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

TUnM (min) Thne (ru )

Figure A-69: Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Table A-26: Relative Differences for Surface Temperature

30

Surface Relative

Temperature Instrument AE (-C) AM (°C) Difference

TCO 1-3 141.1 165.1 17%

TCO 3-3 144.3 165.2 14%

ICFMP 5-4 TCO 1-5 147.8 159.2 8%

TCO 3-5 222.5 159.3 -28%

TCO 1-7 182.6 157.6 -14%

TCO 3-7 180.2 157.7 -13%

A-88
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Table A-27: Relative Differences for Total Heat Flux

Total AE AM Relative

Heat Flux nstrument (kW/m 2) (kW/m 2) Diff

NS2 141 161 14%

ICFMP 5-4 WS3 144 174 21%

NS4 148 158 7%

A-89
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.9 Wall Heat Flux and Temperature

Heat fluxes and surfaces temperatures at compartment walls, floor, and ceiling are available from

ICFMP BE #3 and #5. This category is similar to that of the previous section, "Heat Flux and

Surface Temperature of Targets," with the exception that the focus here is on the compartment

walls, floor, and ceiling.

MAGIC offers two alternatives for wall temperature and heat flux results. The first alternative

results from a heat balance at the surface of the wall in both the upper and lower layers.

The second option is to locate a target characterized by the wall properties. The second option

is preferred for validation purposes because the target can be placed in the same location

as the experimental sensors.

A.9.1 ICFMP BE #3

Thirty-six heat flux gauges were positioned at various locations on all four compartment walls,

plus the floor and ceiling. Comparisons between measured and predicted heat fluxes and surface

temperatures are shown on the following pages for a selected number of locations. Over half

of the measurement points were in roughly the same relative location to the fire and, hence,

the measurements and predictions were similar. For this reason, data for the east and north walls

are shown because the data from the south and west walls are comparable. Data from the south wall

is used in cases where the corresponding instrument on the north wall failed, or the fire was

positioned close to the south wall.

The heat flux gauges used on the compartment walls measured the net, rather than total, heat flux.

In MAGIC, this measured heat flux is compared with the Target/Heat Flux/ Total Absorbed Heat

Flux output option.

The following graphical comparisons are grouped per room surface (long wall, short wall,

ceiling, or floor). The term "long wall" refers to either the north or south wall. The term "short wall"

refers to either the east or west wall. Two sensors have been selected for comparison for each

surface. Comparisons include both surface temperature and heat flux. The corresponding

relative differences are provided after the graphical comparison for each room surface.

A-90
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

150

100

4.0 North Wall Heat Flux KICFMP BE #3. Test1

- SouthU3.0, _ .- •-.- North U- 1

2.5 •-- MAGIC South-U4 : Total

2,0 absorbed heat flux

1.5 •. - ....----- MAGIC North-U1 : Total 1.5 Labsorbed heat flux

10 ' 5

0.0

0 10 20 30

Tune (rrin)

0 10 20 30

Toe (fin)

I

250 --- ---

-.--- TC South U-4-2

200 _ ----- TC North U-1-2

MAGIC South-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target 150 MA GIC North-UI : Surface.

temperature of the target

100.-

North Wall Terrperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0.

E

E

"-

3,0 South U-4

2,5 - North U- 1

2,0 - MAGIC South-U4: Tota

absorbed heat flux

1,5 ....... MAGIC North-U1 : Total absorbed heat flux

1.0

0,5 North W l-~at Fux

0,0 E 3 1.' Test 7

0 10 20 30

TIrne (0in)

0 10

lirne (inn)

20 30

U

a

a

Ia

a.5a

I-

..uu -- - TC South U-4-2 350

- TC North U-1-2

300

MAGIC South-U4 : Surface 250 temperature of the target

I MAGIC North-U1 : Surface 200 temperature of the target

150

100

50 -- rt al praturt50 =11 w ICFVP BE #3, Test 2

0

0 5 10

Time (in)

7,0

6,0

5,0

4.0

3,0

2.0

1,0

0,0

--.--- South U-4

- North U-I

MAGIC South-U4: Total

absorbed heat flux ....... MAGIC North-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

0 5 10

Time (rain)

A t3='•

------ TCNorthU-4-2

350

300 -- TC North U-1-2

250 MAGIC North-U14 : Surface

temperature of the target

North-U1 .MAGIC : Surfac

150 • temperature of

100 -

50 . h Wall Temperature

ICFM BE #3, Test 8

7,0

6.0

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0

1.0

0.0

NoWrth U-4

ý North U-1i

- MAGIC North-U4: Total

absorbed heat flux -

MAGIC North-U1 Total

North Wal Heat Flux

S ICFM BE #3. Test 8 UA

0 10 0 5

Tine (rain)

10

Time (rain)

Figure A-70: Long-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-91
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

!31

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

I

6,0

5.0

4.0

3,0

2,0

1.0

O(3

00v

10 15 0 5 10 15

Tiren(rrin) Time (rrin)

Ca

6,0

5,0

4,0

3,0

- North U-4

- North U-1

___ MAGIC North-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux ....... MAGIC North-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

LU ...... • ----

1,0

0,0

10,

kbrthFeat Flux

5 10 15

Tirre (rrn)

0

5 10 15

Twe (rnn)

a

I

450

4W-- TC North U-4-2

40 -- TC North U-1-2

300 MAGIC North-U4: Surface

250 tenperature of the target

"MAGIC North-U1 : Surface

200 terrperature of the target

150

100

Z .kNorth Wall Temperature

0 ICF'W BE #3, Test 13 0

IC

1I

9,0

8,0

7,0

6,0

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0-

1,0

ý North U-4

-- North U-I

___MAGIC North-U3 : Total

absorbed heat flux

WesT-U1 :Total -M

T absorbed heat flux

H

Ji

I-f !

fNorth Wal Heat Flux

IWBE#3, Test 13-

0 5 10

Twrn (rin)

15 20 25

a

I500

450 -- TC North U-4-2

400 - - TC North U-1-2

350 MAGIC North-U4 : Surface

300 terperature of the target

250 ........- MAGIC North-U1 :Surface

200-- __._Orature of the target

150

100 /O." "e"

- .- 'O 'ot Wall Terrferawlure ý

u.

0.0 1="

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tare (rin)

0 North U-4

9,0

8,0 -- - North U-I

7,0 MAGIC North-LU4: Total

6.0 absorbed heat flux

5,0 ....... MAGIC WesT-U1: Total

4,0[ 4bsorbed heat fljx

3,0

North Wall Heat Flux 2,0 K;F, BE#3. Test W

1,0

0.0 -I 01 - FMP BE#3, Test 16

0 2 4 6

Tffr (rrin)

8 10 12 0 2 4 6

Twne (rin)

8 10 12

Figure A-71: Long-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-92
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

5,0

4.0 - -North U-11

3.5 -------- AGIC North-UI4 iTotal

3,0 absorbed heat flux

2.5 MAGIC North-U1 : Total

1. 0 2 .. .absorbed heat flux

S1.5 _ _

1.0 North Wall Heat Flux

ICFMIP BE #3. Test 17

0,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tne (rrin)

0 5 10

Tirme (min)

Open-door tests

L)

E400

350 - -TC North U-4-2

300 -i,.-TC North U- 1-2 -

250 MAGIC W North-U4 * Surface

200 20 .... MAGIC Nort -terrperature •U;;a~i~mP of the target

150 eteetarget

North Wall Teperature

T0

U.

5,0-

4,0"

3.0-

2,0

1,0-

0,0,

0 5 10

Tire (irtn)

15 20 25 0 5 10 15

Twre (rnn)

20 25

0

I-.

WA5,0

4,5

4,0

3,5

3.0

2,5

2,0

1.5

1,0

0,5

0.0

0 5 10

Tome (finn)

15 20 25 5 10

Tore (nin)

15 20 25

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

Closed- and Open-Door Tests

A-93
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

a

I5,0

4,5

4,0

3,5

3,0

2.5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

0 10 20 30

Trime (nun)

500450 , TC North U-4-2[..............

400 -.. TCNorth U-1-2 I --....

350

300 - MAGIC North-UJ4 Surface temperature of the target

a250 2 • __-_ MAGCc Nort , e' •- -

200 te Of the target- i --

1500

North Wall Terrq~eature 50 ICFABE #3, Teat 14

0

0 10 20 30

Time (rain)

6,0

II:

-.-- North U-4

5,0 .. . . .. 50-----North U- 1

4,0---------- MAGIC North-LU3: Total

absorbed heat flux

3,0 ....... MAGIC WesT-U1 :Total

K~p*6w absorbed heat flux

2,0 ll i

1.0

nn Wail Heat Flux

ICFtvlBE #3, Teat 1 I 0 5 10

irre (nTin)

15 20 25 0 5 10 15

Tirre (rnin)

20 25

&

a

a

5 0 0 ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .....- 40 TC South U-L.1 -2I 450 • -

400 - -TC South 1U-3-2,

350 MAGIC South-Ul : Surface 300 r temperature of the target

250 . MAGIC South-W Surfac 200 _•

150

1001

50 North Wall Tenrperature

0

8,0

7,0

6,0

5.0

4,0

3,0

2,0

1,0

0.0

0 5 10

Tr'ne (in)

15 20 25 0 5 10 15

Twre (rain)

20 25

600

500 T ot L50T •--- TC South U-4-2

.400 MAGIC South-Ul : Surface

temfperature of the target

1 300 ..... MAGIC South-U.4 ____

North Wall Temfperature

SICFWM BE #3, Test 18

6,0

5.0-

4,0-

3,0-

2,2-

- South U-1

- South U-4

•___ MAGIC South-Ul :Total

absorbed heat flux

....... MAGIC South-U4: Total

absorbed heat flux

u,u f North Wall Heat Flux

ICRW BE #3, Test 18

0.0

0 5 10 15 20

Trm (fin)

25 0 5 10

Time (min

15 20 25

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

A-94
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Table A-28: Relative Differences for Temperature and Total Heat Flux

Corresponding to the Long Wall

Wall Temperature Wall Total Heat Flux

Long Instrument Relative AE AM Relative

Wall AE (-C) AM (-C) Diff (kWlm 2) (kW/m Diff

N1 54 89 65% 0.7 1.1 49%

Test I S4 68 89 31% 1.0 1.2 25%

N1 53 87 63% 0.8 1.0 29%

Test 7 S4 70 87 23% 1.1 1.1 -5%

N1 96 158 65% 2.4 2.8 17%

Test 2 S4 120 158 32% 2.8 2.8 -1%

NI 95 157 66% 2.5 2.8 12%

Test 8 N4 120 157 19% 1.5 2.8 83%

Ni 97 159 64% 2.0 2.4 20%

Test 4 N4 124 159 9% 1.5 2.3 59%

N1 94 158 68% 2.0 2.4 20%

Test 10 N4 124 158 -3% 1.5 2.3 53%

N1 110 209 91%

Test 13 N4 151 210 5%

N1 107 195 83%

Test 16 N4 150 196 -10%

N1 39 70 79% 1.5 2.1 47%

Test 17 N4 54 71 -13% 0.9 2.1 125%

N1 114 168 47% 1.7 2.0 18%

Test 3 N4 169 170 -1% 1.4 2.0 40%

N1 113 165 47% 1.7 2.0 17%

Test 9 N4 167 168 -6% 1.4 2.0 40%

N1 94 143 52% 1.5 1.8 20%

Test 5 N4 150 147 -5% 1.7 2.0 20%

N1 114 167 46% 1.8 2.0 16%

Test 14 N4 146 176 -31% 2.7 2.6 -4%

S1 115 167 34% 1.9 2.0 9%

Test 15 S3 308 182 -17% 5.9 3.1 -46%

S1 109 166 41% 1.8 2.0 14%

est18 $4 312 191 -39%_ _

A-95
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

250 1 I- __ '- _-__---- TC East U-2-2 2.0 East U'I Eas,0-

1.8

200 -4 E-TC East U-1-2 1,6. - EastLU-2

*. ........ .MAGIC EAST-Ul : Surface 1.4 - - -.------- MAGIC EAST-U2 iTotal ,a e ,absorbed ! he ta heat flux

a 150. teIperature of the Larget MAGIC EAST-U1 : Total MAGIC EAST-U2 Surface

- -~_ temrperature of the targetL 1,0 _8

.... ( 0,6

East Wall Temperature 

0.6 E Wa Heat , F

;ast Wall Heat Flux

0 _0 ýSMBE#3,_Test 1 0,0 4._ B 3 Ts

0.0

0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30

Turie (ruin) Trne (nrrt)

250 T- 2,5

East U-2-2 .TC East U-3

200 ----- TC East U-3-2 2,0 - .-- - East U-2

MAGIC EAST-U3 W Surface ....... MAGIC EAST-U2: Total

T 150 temperature of the target 1.5 absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-.r2 : Surface MAGIC EAST-U3: Total

10 temperature of the target absorbed heat fx

0 L- 1I

50 05

East Wal Terrperature East Wall Heat Flux -IF BE #3. Test 7 KICFP RBE #3, Test 7 0- -- - 0,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30

Tre (mrn) "irre (nn)

350 -- 6,0

TC East U-2-2 , East U-1 300 ----0-0 TC East U-1-2 i5.0.--=-.- East U.L2

250 MAGIC EAST-Ul : Surface . 4,0........ MAGIC EAST-LU2: Total

temrature of the tar 40 absorbed heat fluxe

• 200 rMAIC EAST-U2 Surace -- --- MAGIC EAST-Ul :Total

tetrperature of the targ 30 absorbed heat flux

0.0

12 .. 00 50 •r . IFMP BE #3, Test 2 1, -Est Wall Ha u

3iilm~• IFMP BE #3, Test 2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10

Ta, (ruin) "nrm (rin)

400 1 6,0 "__"- - East U' ____

350 - TC East U-2-2 E 350 ,50 • Es -

300 -X-- TC East U-1-2 

5 .s

250 ....... MAGIC EAST-U1 :Surface -- 4.0 . MAGIC EAST- Totalf

tenperature of the target"3.0.. MAGIC EAST-U1 :Total

200 - MAGIC EAST-W2: Surface 3-absorbed heat f

temperature of the ,

100

ef Ea Wall Terrperature 1,0East Wa lHeat Flux 50 1 dowo F B#,et8• 0.0 ICFMP BE #3, Tet 8

0 5 10 0 2. 4 6 8 10 12

irm (rmin) "rme (rain)

Figure A-74: Short-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-96
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

a

I-I

400 - - __ _ _

-- TC East U-2-2 350O-

- - TC East U-1-2 300

. MAGIC EAST-Ul : Surfac 250 temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U2: Surfac

200 terrperature of the target ,.

1500... ....

100

i 50 Ea,' st Wagl Terrperature

0 1 FMP BE #3, Test 4

0 5 10 15

Tlne (rfn)

0 5

Time (rnn)

10 15

E

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

5 10 15 0 5 10 15

Tare (ain) Time (rrin)

450

400

350

6 300

S250

200

150

12,0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4,0

2.0

-•.._ East U-1 I

- East U-4

.......- MAGIC CELN-GC-5: Total | ~absorbed heat flux ~MAGIC EAST-)2 : Total ~absorbed heat flux

East Wall Heat Rux

,ICFWP BE #3, Test 13

0.0

0 5 10

"wrn.e (nin)

15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25

Tine (rrin)

500 -_ _ _ _ _

450 -- - T East L-2-2

400 X TC East U-1-2

350

300 ..... MAGIC EAST-Ul : Surface temperature of the target

250 MAGIC EAST-AJ2: Surface

200 -ture of the target

100

50- 4g ' East WallT attire 50 q ICFMP BE#3, Test 16 0

a

IA.

-r

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

I ý

- East U-I

-- East U-2

MAGIC EAST-. : Total 

absorbed heat flux MAGIC EAST-Ui : Total

, "''aJrb d heat flux

3,0

2,0 East Wal Heat Rx

1,0F-` l BE #3, Test 16

010

0 5 10 0 2 4 6 a 10 12

Tif (mtra) Trne (nin)

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

A-97
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

90

C.,

4,

E

4,

I-

"1

0 5 10

TiUe (rain)

Open-door test

400

350 -

300-

250

N 200

150

100

so

. TC East U-2-2

TC East U-1-2

...... MAGIC EAST-Ul Surface

temrperature of the target

-- MAGIC EAST-U2W: Surface

termperature of the target

East Wal Tenperature i

ICFP BE#3, Test 3

6.0

5.0

4,0

3,0

U. •

1 2.0 I

1.0

0,0

5 10 15 20 25

Turn (nin)

400 - TCE ast(U'4.2

300 I• -' TC East U -3-2 i

3 ....... MAGIC EAST-U3: Surface

terperature of the target

20 I MAGIC EAST-U4: Surface

0 temperature of te

50I East Wall Te srt9 e

CFW BE #3. Test

019

0 10 15 20 25

Time (inn)

5.0

4.5-

4.0-

3.5-

3.0-

2,5-

2,0-

! 1,5

1,0

0,5

0.0

- East U-3

- East U-4

....... MAGIC EAST-U4: Total

absorbed heat flux _- MAGIC EAST-U3: Total

absorbed heat flux

East W all Heat lux

lCFWBE #3, Test 94

0 5 10 "15 Tom (uin)

20 25 0 5 10

Tum (rain:

15 20 25

Figure A-76: Short-Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3,

Closed- and Open-Door Tests

A-98
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

U

a

I

350 TC East U2-2

300--- TC East U'1"2

....... MAGIC EAST-U2 : Surface 250 tenlperature of the tre -MAGIC EASTL2: =uac

200 temperature of the target

150---.------ --

100

50

0 ~CF BE #__, Test__ 5

4.0 •---o--East U- 1

3.5 East U-2

3.0 EAST-U2: Total .MAGIC 

2.5 absorbed heat flux

____MAGIC EAST-Ul :Total

2,0 absorbed heat flux

1.5

0,5 East Wa Iteat Fl.ux

ICF: BE #3. Test 5

0 10 20 30

Time (rdn)

0 10 20

Tom (min)

30

a

I

.--- j 4.5 • East UI-2

4,0 ---- East U-3

3.5 ....... MAGIC FLOOR-US : Total -

3,0 absorbed heat flux - IIMAGIC EAST-U3: Total

2,5 absorbed heat flux

2,0-

1,5 11 - -

1.0-

0,5 East Wall Heat Rux O.FMo#•3,- Test 14

0.07 i 0 5 10

Time (rrin]

15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (rain)

5,0 East U-2

4,5

4,0 ---.--- East U-3 j _

3,5 ........ MAGIC FLOOR-U8: Total H-.... 3.0 absorbed heat flux

- MAGIC EAST-US ota

2,5 absorbed heat flux

L. 2,0-

I' 1,5 1,0

0.5. East Wall Heat Flux

0.0IC3IPBE#3, Testi1!

0t 0 5 15 20 25

Tire (rin)

5 10

Turn, (mrt) 15 20 25

400 ._•----TC East U-2-2

350 3O35 - c Tc East U-3-2

300

.MAGIC EAST-U2 : Surface

a200 -- temperature of tetre

150.

I0.

50 East Wag Tenpemlure ICFP BE#3. Test 18

0

5.0

4.5-

4.0-

3,5

3,0-

2.5-

2,0

1.5

1,0

0,5 -

0.0

- East U-2

- East U-3

....... MAGIC EAST-U3 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

East Wag Heat Flux

ICFMl BE #3, Test 18

0

v

5 10

Twre (ffun)

15 20 25 0 5 10

Tire (rnn)

15 20 25

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

A-99
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Table A-29: Relative Differences for Temperature and Total Heat Flux

Corresponding to the Short Wall

Wall Temperature Wall Total Heat Flux

Short Instrument Relative AE AM Relative

Wall AE (°C) AM (°C) Diff (kW/m 2

) (kW/m2 ) Diff

El 55 89 61% 0.7 1.1 64%

Test 1 E2 71 91 28% 0.9 1.0 17%

E3 53 87 59% 0.7 1.2 77%

Test 7 E2 70 88 26% 1.0 1.0 6%

El 110 158 44% 2.3 2.8 20%

Test 2 E2 125 162 29% 2.9 2.8 -2%

El 109 157 44% 2.5 2.8 12%

est 8 E2 125 160 29% 2.9 2.8 -3%

El 106 159 50% 1.9 2.4 26%

est 4 E2 121 162 34% 2.2 2.4 12%

E3 102 158 51% 1.8 2.4 36%

Test 10 E2 117 161 38% 2.1 2.4 14%

El 127 208 65% ,

Test 13 E4 55 214 290%

El 123 195 58%

Test 16 E2 141 201 42%

E3 52 69 22% 1.6 2.2 40%

Test 17 E2 61 74 21% 1.9 2.2 14%

El 87 168 92% 1.6 2.1 27%

Test 3 E2 146 170 16% 2.0 2.1 1%

E3 83 165 90% 1.4 2.1 49%

Test 9 E4 75 167 124%

El 71 142 99% 1.2 2.2 80%

Test 5 E2 118 144 23% 1.7 1.8 4%

E3 90 167 94% 1.2 2.1 70%

Test 14 E2 148 169 14% 2.1 2.0 -2%

E3 84 167 73% 1.4 2.1 46%

Test 15 E2 151 168 11% 2.2 2.0 -7%

E3 87 166 76% 1.3 2.1 58%

Test 18 E2 153 167 9% 2.2 2.0 -9%

A-100
Technical Details for the MA GIC Validation Study

350

300-

250 -

2OO150.

100

50

- TC Coding U- 1 -2 .

-CM Cedin BE Test412 -r

0 10 20 30

inme (nin) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tre (rnin)

E

3: • • TC Ceiling U- 1-2

350 300 • •TC Ceiling C-4-2

300

250 terrperature of the target S .... MAGIC CE]LI lked•rf ac e

200 200 ' t o te targ

50.4 Ceiing Tenmperature

l0114- BE #3i, Test 7

0

0 10 20 30

Tirne (min)

2,5

2,0 -

1,5-

1,0.

- Ceilng U-4

- Ceding U-I

_- MAGIC CEILINGC-4:

absorbed heat flux

.... MAGIC CELNGC- 1

absorbed heat flux

Total

I

I ______________

Total I

Ceding Heat Rux

KIFM BE #3, Test7

0.0

0 10 20 30

Tene (am)

I.-

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

-.- TC Ceilng LLI2--

e- TC Ceiling C-4-2

MAG•C C;ELNG ace

terrperature of the targetQ

Ceiling Tenmeature

1CRAW BE #3, Test 2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

TiTe (nin)

i°.

10,0

9,0-

8.0 -

7,0

6,0-

5,0-

4,0

3.0

2.0

1,0

0,0

Ceding ea-4

- Ceiling U-B 1

MAGIC CE]I.NGC-4 : Total '

absorbed heat flux ...... MAGic CE]l• : Total;

absorbed heat flu_-

CeigHa u

_CF BE...Tet .

0 10

Tkne (min)

500-

400 .

5300 - is

9L

'-.----- TC Ceding U- 1-2 _ --

"-'i---- TC Ceiing C'4-2

MAGIC CELW'GC-1 :Surface

temperature of the tar .MAGIC - ace

te p~fre ocf the target

10,0 ,Ceing U-A

9.0 8.0 / . _Ceding U 1'

7,0 -- - MAGIC •C cIC4: Total • n | /absorbed heatrflux S6,0 ....... MAGICCBLINGCr- :Total

5.0 absorbed heat flux

S40

3,0

' i J,------•'• Coding Hleat Flux 1' 11. "IIFMP BE #3. Test 8 • ,

o0 0 Yoe

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Thue (min)

/ 1U +

I•..•Coding Temperature 0lCF BE #3, Test 8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Thu (rrm)

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

A-101
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

400

350

300-

S250.

200

150

100

50

7.0

-.-- TC Ceding U-1-2

-TC Cedng C-4 2

MAGIC CELGC-1 :Surface41

tera erature of the target 11 ..... MA I CLGC-4:SraeI

t:!rature

Ceding Teerperature/

soFvPpE#3, Test 41

u.

E

Iu4-

0 5 10 15

"r',e (nmn)

400 ---- TC Ceding U-1-2

350 ---.. MAGIC CELNIGC-4 : Surface

300 temPerature of the target I - MAGICCEILINGC-1 :urace

25 ~ _A prature of the target I :Ciing d C-4-2 I

1501

100

Celing Tenperature I

ICFMPBE#3, Test 10 i

0

5 0 5

Tirn (ffin)

6.o0

5,0

10 15

4,0

3.0

. 2.0

1,0

0.0

!

0 5 10 15 0 10 15

Trne (rin) Thre (rin)

600

500

400

• 300

200

100

0

800

---- TC Ceitng C-5-2

MAkGICCBLI3C-5: Surface

U..

1r

14,0-

12.0-

10,0

8,0-

6.0

4.0

1 ý

--.-.- Ceding U-7

-s-- Ceiling U-5

I MAGIC CEINGC-7 : Total

absorbed heat flux

....... MAGIC CELiNGC-7:

/ I I B3sCeiling Heat Rux

ICFI?~ BE #3, Test 131 I

" Ceilmng KCNPBE#3, Tenperature Test 13 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 1s 20 25

Tirn (nin) TUn (rntn)

Z3'

-TC Ceding C-5-2

700

600 -- -- TC CeUiing C-7-2

500 MAGIC CaLINGC-5 : Surface

taMepete of the target

400 -• =- GC-7: Surface 0 -tempear rof the target

20n0I Te ratur

10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4,0

z 3,0

2.0

1.0

0,0

ICFW BE #3. Test 16

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (rnin)

0 2 4 6

Tie (rnn)

8 10 12

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

A-102
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

2

I400-

350-

300-

250-

200

150 I

TC Ceiling C-4-2

-.-.- TC Cedng U-1-2

GIC CELtNGC-4: Surface

rperature of the target

GECELNGC-I : Surface

"teature of the target U.

it

5,0

4,5-

4.0-

3,5-

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

Ceiling U-1

•_•Ceding U-4

S....... MAGIC C•E]LINCý4 :

T~~otia •la bed Flheat flux_

50

U!4- OU 0 Ceiling Terrperature

ICFMvP BE #3, Test 17

5 10

Trne (rin)

0.0 ,-

0 5

Torm (nin)

10

Open-door tests to Follow

600

500

-- TC Ceiling U-1-2 7

T- C Ceiling C-4-2

- MAGIC CE]iNGC-1 : Surface .

temrperature of the target ....... MAG CE]LNGC- :Surface I

E

400

300

200 "1

100-

0

0 5 10

Trne (min) 15 20 25 0 5 10

Tom (run)

15 20 25

350 Cedling Tenperature

a

I-.

250

200

150 ý ng:!

100 - MAGC LC-.----.,2: Surface

•IJ"I temperature of the target

50 ....... MAGIC CEgLU`GC-4: Surface

terwerWaure of the target

0

LA0 5 10

Tre (rrn)

15 20 25 10 15 20 25

Tthe (,Tin)

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

A-103
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

C

500 - .- TC Celling U 1-2

450 --- TC Ceiong C-5-2

400-E

3500 -- MAGIC CiLGC-1 :Surface

termperature of the target,.

30(o ...... MAGIC CELBGC-5 : Surface

250 _terpera

200 - -

1 50-

100- Ceiling Ternperatr

-__ FW BE #3, Test 5

0 k.

u.

"-

5,0-

4,5-

4,0-

3,5

3,0 -

2,5

2,0

- Cetling U-5

Ceoding U- 1

__ ___ MAGIC CELGC-5:

Totat absorbed heat flux

GICCEL-GC-1:

Total absorbed heat flux

1,0

0,5

0,0

0 1

Ceiling Heat Rux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 5

~77~ A 0 20 30

Tarne (in)

0 10 20 30

Tarme (rmin)

I400 ------ Coding Temfperature _•.lWdt

350 ICFMP BE #3, Test 14 W-O W

300 -- 7

250 TC Ceiling C-5-2

200

150

100 temrperature of the target

50 _ MAGIC CEL94GC-1 : Surface

ternperature of the target 0

0 5 10 15 20 25

lirne (fin)

10.0

8.0

S6.0.

4.0

I

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFP BE #32, Test 14

- Ceiling U-1

-e- Ceiing U-5

MAGIC South-UI6B: Total

absorbed heat flux

-' I

0,1 2 0 5 10 15 20 25

Trne (ntrin)

350

300

250

Ceiling Temperature

&

I

I.-

150

100

50

rtW{~AGKC CELNGC-4:SurfaceI j 'ternperature of the target

...... MAGC C~ffGC-1 :SurfaceI

F'j tenperature of the target

2,0

1,8

1,6

• 1,4

1.2-

1.0-

LL0.8 - 0,68 r 0.6-

0,4-

0.2

SouthG-3.6 Totat .MAGIC -- absorbed heat ftux

041

0 5 10 15 20 2-

1irre (rmin)

5 u-u

70

I I

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tine (rin)

5

Soo

500O

cs-400-

300-

S200

100

ý TC Ceiling C-4-2

- TC Ceiling U. 1 -2

MAGIC CELNGC-4: Surface

"r rg ....... & 01%= IaSuertface

tenperature of the target

6.0-

6,0-

5.0

4,0

U. 3,0

2,0

1.0

0.0

--- Ceoing U-1

-e- Ceoding U-4

-__ MAGIC CEL.IGC-1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

....... MAGIC CILINGC-4: Total

absorbed heat flux

ICFMP BE#3, Test 18 p *f Going enperaiure

ICFM BE #3, Test 18

04

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tire (fin) 0 5 10

Twre (mrin)

15 20 25

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

A-104
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Table A-30: Relative Differences for Temperature and Total Heat Flux

Corresponding to the Ceiling

CeilinI Temperature Ceiling Total Heat Flux

Relative AE AM Relative

Ceiling Instrument AE (°C) AM (oC) Diff (kWlm 2) (kWlm 2

) Diff

C1 81 89 10% 1.0 1.0 3%

Test 1 C4 176 89 -49% 1.3 1.1 -17%

C1 80 86 8% 1.0 1.0 -1%

Test 7 C4 191 87 -55%

C1 148 158 7% 3.5 2.8 -21%

Test 2 C4 308 159 -49% 4.8 2.8 -42%

C1 148 157 6% 3.9 2.8 -28%

Test 8 C4 325 157 -52% 5.5 2.7 -50%

C1 147 158 8% 2.9 2.4 -19%

Test 4 C4 180 159 -12% 4.9 2.3 -52%

C1 138 158 14% 2.6 2.3 -10%

Test 10 C4 221 158 -29%

C7 35 209 501%

Test 13 C5 500 210 -58%

C7 171 196 15%

Test 16 C5 419 197 -53%

C1 69 71 4%

Test 17 C4 230 71 -69%

Cl 155 167 8% 2.2 2.0 -9%

Test 3 C4 287 181 -37% 4.5 2.8 -36%

C2 46 166 260% 2.0 2.0 -2%

Test 9 C4 290 179 -38% 4.1 2.8 -32%

Cl 125 142 13% 2.0 1.8 -13%

Test 5 C5 166 146 -12% 4.7 1.8 -61%

Cl 158 166 5% 2.2 2.0 -11%

Test 14 C5 248 277 12%

Cl 157 166 6%

Test 15 C4 287 192 -33%

Cl 145 165 14% 2.3 2.0 -16%

Test 18 C4 250 167 -33%

A- 105
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

200

150-

100

0 10 20 30

300

250

200

150

Tom (rain)

TC Floor U-4-2

- -TC Floor U-1-2

- MAGCFLOOR-U4: Surface

temperature of the target

FLOOR-Ul : -MAGIC Surface

tenperature of the target

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Tm'le (nin)

E

12

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0

1.0

0,0

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

Floor U- 1

_ __ -----=---- loor U-4

-- FLOOR-U1 : Total

"absorbed heat flux .... MAGIC FLOOR-U.4 : Total

moau• absorbed heat flux

0 10 20 30 Tame (nin)

I - -

; o N r Termperature

ICFW BE #3. Test 7

0 10 20 30

Tifms (rin)

400 -.-- TC Floor U-4-2

350 T"

I I • TC Floor UI-1-2

300 - MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Surface

-250 ... . terrperature of the target

SMAGIC FLOOR-Ul : Surfac

terrpe2f0 the target

s1od ............ eetr -1 O00J__/

^ • ICFPW BE #3, Test 2I

0 2 4 6

Tws (rn)

8 10 12 5 10 TaIm (ntn)

400 -

300

250

2001

5.

a,

a

-. - TC Floor U-4-2

-----. TC Floor U- 1-2

MAGIC FLOOR-U4: Surface

terrperature of the target .- .... MAGIC FLOOR-Ul : Surface

ter/perature of th target

12,0

10,0

8,0

6.0

4,0

2.0

0.0

Floor U-1

-Floor U-4

FILOOR-Ul :Total

absorbed heat flux

ort d

__ $GICeFRLOORLJ4 

Total heat f!f km . it

X / i~-- 100

7~7>f~Ta~at,,ra .. n 1 r

ICFP BE#3, Test 8

0 5

Tarm (rrn)

10 0 2 4 Floor Heat Flux

ICFM BE #3, Test 8

6 8 10 12

Tam (rin)

Figure A-82: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-I06
400

350

300

250

200

150

Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

10,0-

9•,0 -. Floor U-1

8,0 - -- Floor U-4

p 7,0 ____ MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Total

S6,0 •orled heat flux

5.0 -"--'• " G FLOOR-U4 :Total

LL 40 a bed heat flux

3,0

2,0

0,0

0 5 10 15

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3. Test 4 Twna (rin)

Floor Termperature

ICFM BE#3, Test 4

5 10 15

TEru (min)

E

i400

350

300-

250

200

150

100

50

K TC Floor lk4-2

- TC Foor U.-1-2

MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Surface

temrperature of the target .. .MAGIC FLOOR-Ul :Surface

temperature of the target

"1

Floor iLJ 1

9

8 FlRoor U-4

7 MAGIC FLOOR-Ul :Total

absorbed heat flux 6 ...... MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Total

3

0 .11-MBE 13 Test I

0 5 Time (rain) 101 10 15

Tam (nin) 15

350

IIu Floor Hleat Flux

6,0 "- CFMPBE#3.Test 13-. . . . .

43,0 FoU U-loo 3.0

• 2,0

1.0

0,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Tue (nIt)

400 -.- TC Floor U-2-2

3500

300 -TC FloortU-11-2

MAGIC FLOOR-LU: Surfac250 MtAGerature of the target

20 ..... MAGIC FLOOR-Ul Surf acc

te rtr r ftetre

E 150 4

0 5 10 15 20 25 Tom (rin) 5

7t

LL

I

7{')

___ ---.-- Floor U-11

6,0

5,0 MAGIC FLOOR-12_: Total t absorbed heat flux

4,0 . ....... MAGIC FLOOR-Ul : Total

absorbed heat v flux 3,0

2,0 Floor H-eat Fu

0,01

50 I .- ~ Teera0ture 50 Ill BE #3, Test 16

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tlie (rrin) Tre (rrin)

Figure A-83: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-107
Technical Details for the AMAGIC Validation Study

140 • - ----- TC Floor U-2-2

120 .. .-- N--TC Floor U- 1 -2

100 . . MAGIC FLOOR-U2: Surface

terrperature of the target '

80 .. .... GIC FLOOR-Ul :Surface 80 ___- ature of the target

4020 Floor Temperature

ICFMPBE#3, Test 17

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Tffme (rmn)

4,0

3,5-

3,0

Z" 2,5

1,5

1,0

0.5

0,0 0

---. Floor U- 1

- - -• Floor U-2

MAGIC FLOOR-Ul : Total

absorbed heat flux MA.GIC FLOOR-U.2: Total

absorbed heat flux ~

.... .. Floor Fleat Flux 17 `BE#3 Test 17"

5 10 Ti1me (rin)

Open-door tests to Follow

E

C300

250

200

150

100

50

0

6,0

5.0

S4,0

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

--- Floor U-1

-.. ---- Floor U-2

... __ MAGIC FLOOR-Ul : Total

absorbed heat flux<

FLOOR-2: Total .MAGIC 

absorbed heat flux

k"•:. Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0 5 10 15 20 2 Thu (nun)

25 0 5 10

Ture (rrin}

15 20 25

300

250.

U200

150.

100

- TC Floor U-2-2

,.---- TC Floor U-1-2

- MAGIC FLOOR-L2: Surface

temPerature of the target

.. . MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of th

4.5

4,0

3.5

3,0

2,5

2.0

1,5

bou Floor TeWerature

ICFP BE #3, Test 9

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

lnme (ntn) Tlie (min)

Figure A-84: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-108
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

500

450

400

350

a300

rf 250

lO00 150

100

- TC Floor U-4-2

- TC Floor U-1-2

-MAGIC FLOOR-U4 Surface

tenperature of the target

w - -Surface

temperature of the get

12.0 ,

10.0• _ ! Roar UL-4

8.0 i MAGIC FLOOR-U1.:

Total absorbed heat flu

6,0....MGCL0-K I absorbed heat flu

0.0

0.0 50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Floor Temperature

ICFNP BE #3, Test 5 Tfne (rain)

0 10

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

20 30

Tine (n-n)

300-

250-

I200

150 -

--- TC Floor U-2-2

- TC Floor U-1-2

-MAGIC FLOOR-..U: Surface -

tenperature of the target

- MAGIC FLOOR-U1 :Surface

temeperature of the target

2.0

1uu

50 -

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

Floor U-2

______ MAGIC FLOOR-U2: Total

absorbed heat flux ...... RFLOR-U3: Total .MAG

absorbed heat flux

5 10 15 20 Tfer (rain)

0 5 10

Time (nin)

400

35-- TC FRor U-2-2

350

- TC Floor U-1-2 300

MAGIC FLOOR- 250 tenperature of

200 . MAGIC FLOOR200 tenperature of

150

511 -

is 20 25 25

S

I

5 10

Twne (n-in)

15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 Tirne (nin)

0

1

---- TC Floor U-2-2 300

50 - TC Floor U-1-2 250

- MAGIC FLOOR-LQ : Surface

200 tenperature of the target

....... MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

1so teeperature of the target

100

5,0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2,0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

J4 - Floor U-IFloor U-2

___MAGIC FLOOR-Ul1 Total

2 absorbed heat flux ..... MAGIC FLOOR-2: Total H absorbed heat flut

0

ii~m~iFloor TemPerature ICFMP BE #3. Text 18t

FloR Heal Z. "

ICF'BE#3. Test 18

0 5 10 15

Ture (min)

20 25 0 5 10 15 Tni (ran) 20 25

Figure A-85: Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-109
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

Table A-31: Relative Differences for Temperature and Total Heat Flux

Corresponding to the Floor

Floor Temperature Floor Total Heat Flux

Relative AE AM Relative

Floor Instrument AE (*C) AM (*C Diff (kW/m2) kWlm 2 Diff

Fl 38 53 40% 0.6 0.7 18%

Test 1 F4 77 66 -15% 1.6 2.3 43%

F1 36 52 43% 0.6 0.6 9%

Test 7 F4 78 63 -19% 1.7 2.3 34%

Fl 74 99 34% 1.8 1.9 6%

Test 2 F4 156 131 -16% 6.4 4.7 -27%

Fl 71 98 37% 1.9 1.9 2%

est 8 F4 148 132 -11% 6.2 4.8 -23%

Fl 76 118 55% 1.6 1.7 7%

est 4 F4 152 .144 -5% 5.9 4.7 -22%

Fl 71 120 68% 1.5 1.7 17%

Test 10 F4 158 145 -8% 5.7 4.7 -17%

Fl 89 132 48% 1

Test 13 F2 73 130 77%, _

Fl 80 119 49%

Test 16 F2 206 118 -43%

Fl 24 44 80% 0.9 1.7 96%

Test 17 F2 117 51 -56% 1.5 1.5 1%

Fl 54 112 110% 1.2 1.2 8%

Test 3 F2 186 135 -27% 2.3 1.5 -34%

Fl 53 110 106% 1.2 1.2 5%

Test 9 F2 94 132 41% 1.9 1.5 -21%

Fl 42 91 118% 0.9 1.0 16%

Test 5 F4 171 232 36% 10.0 4.9 -52%

Fl 52 111 113% 1.1 1.2 9%

Test 14 F2 47 117 149% 1.3 1.3 -3%

Fl 52 112 113% 1.2 1.2 6%

Test 15 F2 140 155 10% 7.5 1.8 -76%

F1 50 108 118% 1.1 1.2 10%

Test 18 F2 55 117 115% 1.3 1.3 -4%

A-110
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.9.2 ICFMP BE #4

Three thermocouples were mounted on the back wall of the compartment. Because the fire

leaned toward the back wall, the temperatures measured by the thermocouples are considerably

higher than for most of the other wall surface points considered in this report.

800

700 Wall Surface Teaperature

- 4, Test1

600... ...............

500

400 -- ..

800 1

700

600

500

Wall Surface Temperatur~ s^

(.1

E 300 E

200

100 - -

- MAGIC M19: Surface

. te mperature of the target : 7~tr M19 of•- 

300

260 --M G WO: o Surface

1600 ten~erature of the target

(| 7"'"--

0 10 20

Tnie (rain)

30 40 0 10 20

Tirn (mn)

30 40

Figure A-86: Back Wall Surface Temperatures, ICFMP BE #4

Table A-32: Relative Differences for Wall Temperature

A-Ill
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study

A.9.3 ICFMP BE #5

Wall surface temperatures were measured in two locations during 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-87, the lowest (1), middle (4), and highest (7)

locations are used for comparison.

E

E

1)

6-

140

120

100

80

60

40-

20

U

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Trne (nin) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

T1-n (rni)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

- Wall BES Surface Temperature .

,Ts

0 5

... ___- MPGE"IW/1-7

/~ -'a W 1-7 .. .... -• TW 2-7 -.-. . MAGICW2-7

10 15 20 25 30

Ture (nim)

Figure A-87: Back and Side Wall Surface Temperatures, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

Table A-33: Relative Differences for Wall Temperature

Relative

Instrument AE (-C) AM (*C) Diff

TW 1-1 79 51 -35%

TW 2-1 12 113 868%

ICFMP IFP54 TW 1-4 118 134 13% 5-4 ___ 3

TW 2-4 96 132 38%

TW 1-7 121 131 9%

rw 2-7 100 135 36%

A-112
B

MAGIC INPUT FILES

This appendix is reserved for the MAGIC input files used for the simulations in this V&V study.

These files are only available electronically because of their size and formatting.

B-I

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 6: MAGIC

May 2007

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

F. Joglar (EPRI/SAIC), B. Gautier (EdF), L. Gay (EdF), J. Texeraud (EdF) Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

provide name and mailing address.)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Regulatory Research (RES), Washington, DC 20555-0001

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303

Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), 4920 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA 94022

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST/BFRL), 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type 'Same as above'; it 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 inthe 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

NRIC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Federal Recycling Program

w

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

OFFICIAL BUSINESS