Verification and Validation 

of Selected Fire Models for 

Nuclear Power Plant 

Applications 

Volume 5: 

MAGIC 

January 2006 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Electric Power Research Institute 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 3412 Hillview Avenue 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 Palo Alto, CA 94303 

 

NUREG-1824 EPRI 1011999 

Draft for Comment Preliminary Report

Verification & Validation of Selected 

Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant 

Applications 

Volume 5: MAGIC 

NUREG-1824 EPRI 1011999 

January 2006 

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

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) 3412 Hillview Avenue 

Division of Risk Analysis and Applications Palo Alto, CA 94303 

Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852-2738 

U.S. NRC-RES Project Manager EPRI Project Manager 

M. H. Salley R. P. Kassawara 
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES 

THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN 

ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH 

INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI NOR ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE 

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

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

(I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR 

SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS 

FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR 

INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY’S INTELLECTUAL 

PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER’S 

CIRCUMSTANCE; OR 

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER 

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

HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR 

SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, 

PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT. 

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT: 

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

Science Applications International Corporation 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

ORDERING INFORMATION 

Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow 

Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520, (800) 313-3774, press 2 or internally x5379, (925) 609-9169, 

(925) 609-1310 (fax). 

Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power 

Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power 

Research Institute, Inc. 
iii 

COMMENTS ON DRAFT NUREG-1824 REPORT 

This report is being published jointly by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and 

the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Any interested party may submit comments on 

this report for consideration by the NRC and EPRI staffs. Comments may be accompanied by 

additional relevant information or supporting data. Please specify both the report number (Draft 

NUREG-1824) and the volume number in your comments, and send them by March 31, 2006, to 

the following address: 

Chief Rules Review and Directives Branch 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Mail Stop T-6D59 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

For any questions about the material in this report, please contact: 

Mark Henry Salley 

Mail Stop T-10E50 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Phone: (301) 415-2840 

Email: MXS3@nrc.gov

If EPRI members also wish to provide comments to EPRI, they may send them to the following 

address: 

R.P. Kassawara 

Electric Power Research Institute 

3412 Hillview Avenue 

Palo Alto, CA 94304 

Phone: (650) 855-2775 

Email: RKASSAWA@epri.com

v 

CITATIONS 

This report was prepared by 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) 

Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852-2738 

Principal Investigators: 

K. Hill 

J. Dreisbach 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 

3412 Hillview Avenue 

Palo Alto, CA 94303 

Science Applications International Corp (SAIC)

4920 El Camino Real 

Los Altos, CA 94022 

Principal Investigators: 

F. Joglar 

B. Najafi 

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Building Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) 

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600 

Principal Investigators: 

K McGrattan 

R. Peacock 

A. Hamins 

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

Volume 2, FDTS

: K. Hill, J. Dreisbach 

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

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

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

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

Volume 7, Experimental Uncertainty: A. Hamins, K. McGrattan 

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

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

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

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

Volume 5: MAGIC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory 

Research (RES), Rockville, MD: 2005 and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, 

CA. NUREG-1824 and EPRI 1011999.

vii 

ABSTRACT 

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

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

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

In 2002, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) developed NFPA 805, PerformanceBased Standard for Fire Protection for Light-Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants, 2001 

Edition. In July 2004, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) amended its fire 

protection requirements in Title 10, Section 50.48, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 

50.48) to permit existing reactor licensees to voluntarily adopt fire protection requirements contained 

in NFPA 805 as an alternative to the existing deterministic fire protection requirements. In 

addition, the nuclear fire protection community wants to use risk-informed, performance-based 

(RI/PB) approaches and insights to support fire protection decision-making in general. 

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

fire models that can reliably predict the consequences of fires. Section 2.4.1.2 of NFPA 805 

requires that only fire models acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) shall be 

used in fire modeling calculations. Further, Sections 2.4.1.2.2 and 2.4.1.2.3 of NFPA 805 state 

that fire models shall only be applied within the limitations of the given model, and shall be 

verified and validated. 

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

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

guidelines that the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) set forth in Standard 

E1355-04, “Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models.” The results of 

this V&V are reported in the form of ranges of accuracies for the fire model predictions. 

ix 

CONTENTS 

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1

2 MODEL DEFINITION..............................................................................................................2-1

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

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

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

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

2.5 Governing Equations and Assumptions ..........................................................................2-1

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 FOR MAGIC.....................................................................................3-1

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

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

3.2.1 Combustion .............................................................................................................3-3

3.2.2 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height .................................................................3-3

3.2.3 Walls, Ceiling and Floor...........................................................................................3-3

3.2.4 Flame Height, Fire Plume & Ceiling Jets.................................................................3-3

3.2.5 Natural & Mechanical Ventilation.............................................................................3-4

3.2.6 Radiation .................................................................................................................3-4

3.2.7 Targets ....................................................................................................................3-4

3.2.8 Electrical Cables......................................................................................................3-4

3.2.9 Sprinkler Suppression .............................................................................................3-6

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

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

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

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

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 MAGIC Improvements as a Result of the V&V Process..................................................4-5

4.4 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................................4-6

5 MODEL 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 Temperature and Height .................................................................5-4

5.2.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature ..........................................................................................5-5

5.2.3 Plume Temperature.................................................................................................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 Temperature and Heat Flux .......................................................................5-12

5.2.9 Wall Temperature ..................................................................................................5-17

5.3 Concluding Remarks.....................................................................................................5-20

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

6.1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height .........................................................................6-4

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

6.3 Plume Temperature.........................................................................................................6-8

6.4 Flame Height...................................................................................................................6-9

6.5 Oxygen Concentration...................................................................................................6-10

6.6 Smoke Concentration....................................................................................................6-11

6.7 Compartment Pressure .................................................................................................6-12

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

6.9 Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature.....................................................................6-18

6.10 Summary.....................................................................................................................6-20

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

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

A.1.1 ICFMP BE #2 ......................................................................................................... A-2

A.1.2 ICFMP BE # 3 ........................................................................................................ A-4

A.1.3 ICFMP BE #4 ....................................................................................................... A-11

A.1.4: ICFMP BE #5 ...................................................................................................... A-12

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

A.1.6 The NBS Multi-Room Test Series ........................................................................ A-16

A.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature............................................................................................... A-23

A.2.1 ICFMP BE # 3 ...................................................................................................... A-23

A.2.2 The FM/SNL Test Series...................................................................................... A-27

A.3 Plume Temperature ..................................................................................................... A-29

A.3.1 ICFMP BE # 2 ...................................................................................................... A-29

A.3.2 The FM/SNL Test Series...................................................................................... A-31

A.4 Flame Height ............................................................................................................... A-32

A.4.1 ICFMP BE #2 ....................................................................................................... A-32

A.4.2 ICFMP BE #3 ....................................................................................................... A-34

A.5 Oxygen Concentration ................................................................................................. A-37

A.5.1 ICFMP BE #3 ....................................................................................................... A-37

A.5.1 ICFMP BE #5 ....................................................................................................... A-41

A.6 Smoke Concentration .................................................................................................. A-42

A.6.1 ICFMP BE #3 ....................................................................................................... A-42

A.7 Room Pressure............................................................................................................ A-46

A.7.1 ICFMP BE #3 ....................................................................................................... A-46

A.8 Target Temperature and Heat Flux.............................................................................. A-49

A.8.1 ICFMP BE #3 ....................................................................................................... A-50

A.8.2 ICFMP BE #4 ....................................................................................................... A-87

A.8.3 ICFMP BE # 5 ...................................................................................................... A-89

A.9 Compartment Wall Temperature and Heat Flux .......................................................... A-92

A.9.1 ICFMP BE #3 ....................................................................................................... A-92

A.9.2 ICFMP BE #4 ..................................................................................................... A-113

A.9.3 ICFMP BE #5 ..................................................................................................... A-114

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

xiii 

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, 1MW fire.......................................................................5-15

Figure 5-13: Target heat flux profiles, 5MW fire.......................................................................5-16

Figure 5-14: Target temperature vs. wall temperature, 1 MW fire ...........................................5-18

Figure 5-15: Target temperature vs. wall temperature, 5MW fire ............................................5-19

Figure 6-1: Scatter plot of relative differences for hot gas layer temperature and height in 

ICFMP BE #2, 3, 4, 5, and the selected FM/SNL and NBS Tests. Experimental 

uncertainties are 13% (HGL temp) and 9% (HGL height)..................................................6-6

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%.............................6-7

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%...................................6-8

Figure 6-4: Scatter plot of relative differences for oxygen concentration in ICFMP BE#3 

and BE#5. Experimental uncertainty is 16%. ..................................................................6-11

Figure 6-5: Scatter plot of relative differences for smoke concentration in ICFMP BE#3. 

Experimental uncertainty is 33%......................................................................................6-12

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)..................6-13
xiv 

Figure 6-7: Scatter plot of relative differences for target temperature in ICFMP BE#3. 

Experimental uncertainty is 14%......................................................................................6-15

Figure 6-8: Scatter plot of relative differences for target temperature in ICFMP BE#3. 

Experimental uncertainty is 14%......................................................................................6-16

Figure 6-9: Scatter plot of relative differences for radiant heat flux in ICFMP BE#3. 

Experimental uncertainty is 20%......................................................................................6-16

Figure 6-10: Scatter plot of relative differences for total heat flux in ICFMP BE#3. 

Experimental uncertainty is 20%......................................................................................6-17

Figure 6-11: Scatter plot of relative differences for target temperature in ICFMP BE#3, 4, 

and 5. Experimental uncertainty is 14%..........................................................................6-19

Figure 6-12: Scatter plot of relative differences for heat flux in ICFMP BE# 3, 4 and 5. 

Experimental uncertainty is 20%......................................................................................6-19

Figure A-1: 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 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure A-8: Snapshot of the MAGIC simulation of ICFMP BE #4, Test 1. .............................. A-11

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 100O. ... A-19

Figure A-17. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z..... A-22

Figure A-18: Near-ceiling gas (ceiling jet) temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-24

Figure A-19: Near-ceiling gas (ceiling jet) temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests...... A-25

Figure A-20: Near-ceiling gas (ceiling jet) temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1 and 

3. ..................................................................................................................................... A-27

Figure A-21: Fire plumes in ICFMP BE #2. Courtesy Simo Hostikka, VTT Building and 

Transport, Espoo, Finland............................................................................................... A-29

Figure A-22: Near-ceiling gas temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1 and 3...................... A-30

Figure A-23: Near-plume temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 13..................................... A-31
xv 

Figure A-24: Flame heights for ICFMP BE # 2 ....................................................................... A-32

Figure A-25: Photographs of heptane pan fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2. Courtesy, Simo 

Hostikka, VTT Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland................................................... A-33

Figure A-26: Photograph and simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3, as seen through the 2 

m by 2 m doorway. Photo courtesy of Francisco Joglar, SAIC. ..................................... A-34

Figure A-27: Near-ceiling gas temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests...................... A-35

Figure A-28: Flame heights, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests.................................................. A-36

Figure A-29: O2 concentration, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. .......................................... A-38

Figure A-30: O2, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. ................................................................... A-39

Figure A-31: O2, ICFMP BE #5, Test 1 ................................................................................... A-41

Figure A-32: Smoke concentration in ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. ................................ A-43

Figure A-33: Smoke concentration in ICFMP BE #3, open door tests.................................... A-44

Figure A-34: Compartment pressure in ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. ............................. A-47

Figure A-35: Compartment pressure in ICFMP BE #3, open door tests................................. A-48

Figure A-36: Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7. .................. A-51

Figure A-37: Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8. .................. A-52

Figure A-38: Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10. ................ A-53

Figure A-39: Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16 ............... A-54

Figure A-40: Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Test 17. ............................ A-55

Figure A-41: Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9. .................. A-56

Figure A-42: Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14. ................ A-57

Figure A-43: Thermal environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18. .............. A-58

Figure A-44: Thermal environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7. .................. A-60

Figure A-45: Thermal environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8. .................. A-61

Figure A-46: Thermal environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10. ................ A-62

Figure A-47: Thermal environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16 ............... A-63

Figure A-48: Thermal environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Test 17. ............................ A-64

Figure A-49: Thermal environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9. .................. A-65

Figure A-50: Thermal environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14. ................ A-66

Figure A-51: Thermal environment near Cable D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18. .............. A-67

Figure A-52: Thermal environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7.................... A-69

Figure A-53: Thermal environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8.................... A-70

Figure A-54: Thermal environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10.................. A-71

Figure A-55: Thermal environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16................ A-72

Figure A-56: Thermal environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Test 17. ............................ A-73

Figure A-57: Thermal environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9.................... A-74

Figure A-58: Thermal environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14.................. A-75

Figure A-59: Thermal environment near Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18................ A-76

Figure A-60: Thermal environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7. .................. A-78
xvi 

Figure A-61: Thermal environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8. .................. A-79

Figure A-62: Thermal environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10. ................ A-80

Figure A-63: Thermal environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16 ............... A-81

Figure A-64: Thermal environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Test 17............................. A-82

Figure A-65: Thermal environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9. .................. A-83

Figure A-66: Thermal environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14. ................ A-84

Figure A-67: Thermal environment near Cable G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18. .............. A-85

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

1. ..................................................................................................................................... A-88

Figure A-69: Thermal environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4.............. A-90

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

tests................................................................................................................................. A-93

Figure A-71: Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-94

Figure A-72: Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-95

Figure A-73: Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-96

Figure A-74: Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-98

Figure A-75: Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests................................................................................................................................. A-99

Figure A-76: Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door 

tests............................................................................................................................... A-100

Figure A-77: Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door 

tests............................................................................................................................... A-101

Figure A-78: Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. . A-103

Figure A-79: Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. . A-104

Figure A-80: Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests..... A-105

Figure A-81: Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests..... A-106

Figure A-82: Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. .... A-108

Figure A-83: Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. .... A-109

Figure A-84: Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests........ A-110

Figure A-85: Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests........ A-111

Figure A-86: Back wall surface temperatures, ICFMP BE #4, .............................................. A-113

Figure A-87: Back and side wall surface temperatures, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4..................... A-114
xvii 

TABLES 

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

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

Table A-1: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in ICFMP BE# 2 ...... A-4

Table A-2: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in ICFMP BE# 3 .... A-10

Table A-3: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in ICFMP BE# 4 .... A-12

Table A-4: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in ICFMP BE# 5 .... A-13

Table A-5: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in FM/SNL ............. A-15

Table A-6: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in NBS Tests ......... A-18

Table A-7: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in NBS Tests ......... A-20

Table A-8: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in NBS Tests ......... A-22

Table A-9: Relative differences for ceiling jet temperature in ICFMP BE #3 .......................... A-26

Table A-10: Relative differences for ceiling jet temperatures in FM/SNL Tests...................... A-28

Table A-11: Relative differences for plume temperature in ICFMP BE #2.............................. A-30

Table A-12: Relative differences of plume temperature in FM/SNL tests ............................... A-31

Table A-13: Relative differences of oxygen concentration in ICFMP BE #3 tests .................. A-40

Table A-14: Relative differences of oxygen concentration in ICFMP BE #3 tests .................. A-41

Table A-15: Relative differences of smoke concentration in ICFMP BE #3 tests ................... A-45

Table A-16: Relative differences for compartment pressure in ICFMP BE #3 tests ............... A-49

Table A-17: Relative differences for surface temperature to cable B ..................................... A-59

Table A-18: Relative differences for radiative and total heat flux to cable B........................... A-59

Table A-19: Relative differences for surface temperature to cable D ..................................... A-68

Table A-20: Relative differences for radiative and total heat flux to cable D .......................... A-68

Table A-21: Relative differences for surface temperature to cable F...................................... A-77

Table A-22: Relative differences for radiative and total heat flux to cable F........................... A-77

Table A-23: Relative differences for surface temperature to cable G ..................................... A-86

Table A-24: Relative differences for radiative and total heat flux to cable G .......................... A-86

Table A-25: Relative differences for surface temperature, and total heat flux to targets ........ A-88

Table A-26: Relative differences for surface temperature ...................................................... A-90

Table A-27: Relative differences for total heat flux ................................................................. A-91

Table A-28: Relative differences for temperature and total heat flux corresponding to the 

long wall .......................................................................................................................... A-97
xviii 

Table A-29: Relative differences for temperature and total heat flux corresponding to the 

short wall ....................................................................................................................... A-102

Table A-30: Relative differences for temperature and total heat flux corresponding to the 

ceiling............................................................................................................................ A-107

Table A-31: Relative differences for temperature and total heat flux corresponding to the 

floor ............................................................................................................................... A-112

Table A-32: Relative differences for wall temperature .......................................................... A-113

Table A-33: Relative differences for wall temperature .......................................................... A-114
xix 

REPORT SUMMARY 

This report documents the verification and validation (V&V) of five selected fire models 

commonly used in support of risk-informed and performance-based (RI/PB) fire protection at 

nuclear power plants (NPPs). 

Background 

Over the past decade, there has been a considerable movement in the nuclear power industry to 

transition from prescriptive rules and practices towards the use of risk information to supplement 

decision-making. In the area of fire protection, this movement is evidenced by numerous 

initiatives by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the nuclear community 

worldwide. In 2001, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) completed the 

development of NFPA Standard 805, “Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light 

Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants 2001 Edition.” Effective July, 16, 2004, the NRC 

amended its fire protection requirements in 10 CFR 50.48(c) to permit existing reactor licensees 

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

existing deterministic fire protection requirements. RI/PB fire protection relies on fire modeling 

for determining the consequence of fires. NFPA 805 requires that the “fire models shall be 

verified and validated,” and “only fire models that are acceptable to the Authority Having 

Jurisdiction (AHJ) shall be used in fire modeling calculations.” 

Objectives 

The objective of this project is to examine the predictive capabilities of selected fire models. 

These models may be used to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48(c) 

and the referenced NFPA 805, or support other performance-based evaluations in NPP fire 

protection applications. In addition to NFPA 805 requiring that only verified and validated fire 

models acceptable to the AHJ be used, the standard also requires that fire models only be applied 

within their limitations. The V&V of specific models is important in establishing acceptable 

uses and limitations of fire models. Specific objectives of this project are: 

• Perform V&V study of selected fire models using a consistent methodology (ASTM E1355) 

and issue a report to be prepared by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear 

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

• Investigate the specific fire modeling issues of interest to the NPP fire protection 

applications. 

• Quantify fire model predictive capabilities to the extent that can be supported by comparison 

with selected and available experimental data. 
xx 

The following fire models were selected for this evaluation: (i) NRC’s NUREG-1805 Fire 

Dynamics Tools (FDTs), (ii) EPRI’s Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation Revision 1 (FIVERev. 1), (iii) National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Consolidated Model of 

Fire Growth and Smoke Transport (CFAST), (iv) Electricite de France’s (EdF) MAGIC, and (v) 

NIST’s Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). 

Approach 

This program is based on the guidelines of the ASTM E1355, “Evaluating the Predictive 

Capability of Deterministic Fire Models,” for verification and validation of the selected fire 

models. The guide provides four areas of evaluation: 

• Defining the model and scenarios for which the evaluation is to be conducted, 

• Assessing the appropriateness of the theoretical basis and assumptions used in the model, 

• Assessing the mathematical and numerical robustness of the model, and 

• Validating a model by quantifying the accuracy of the model results in predicting the course 

of events for specific fire scenarios. 

Traditionally, a V&V study reports the comparison of model results with experimental data, and 

therefore, the V&V of the fire model is for the specific fire scenarios of the test series. While 

V&V studies for the selected fire models exist, it is necessary to ensure that technical issues 

specific to the use of these fire models in NPP applications are investigated. The approach 

below was followed to fulfill this objective. 

1. A set of fire scenarios were developed. These fire scenarios establish the “ranges of 

conditions” for which fire models will be applied in NPPs. 

2. The next step summarizes the same attributes or “range of conditions” of the “fire 

scenarios” in test series available for fire model benchmarking and validation exercises. 

3. Once the above two pieces of information were available, the validation test series, or 

tests within a series, that represent the “range of conditions” was mapped for the fire 

scenarios developed in Step 1. The range of uncertainties in the output variable of 

interest as predicted by the model for a specific “range of conditions” or “fire scenario” 

are calculated and reported. 

The scope of this V&V study is limited to the capabilities of the selected fire models. There are 

potential fire scenarios in NPP fire modeling applications that do not fall within the capabilities 

of these fire models and therefore are not covered by this V&V study. 

Results 

The results of this study are presented in the form of relative differences between fire model 

predictions and experimental data for fire modeling attributes important to NPP fire modeling 

applications, e.g., plume temperature. The relative differences sometimes show agreement, but 

may also show both under-prediction and over-prediction. These relative differences are 

affected by the capabilities of the models, the availability of accurate applicable experimental 

data, and the experimental uncertainty of this data. The relative differences were used, in 

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

agreement between model and experiment, to produce a graded characterization of the fire 

model’s capability to predict attributes important to NPP fire modeling applications. 

This report does not provide relative differences for all known fire scenarios in NPP applications. 

This incompleteness is due to a combination of model capability and lack of relevant 

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

needs more applicable fire experiments. 

EPRI Perspective 

The use of fire models to support fire protection decision-making requires that their limitations 

and confidence in their predictive capability is well understood. While this report makes 

considerable progress towards that goal, it also points to ranges of accuracies in the predictive 

capability of these fire models that could limit their use in fire modeling applications. Use of 

these fire models present challenges that should be addressed if the fire protection community is 

to realize the full benefit of fire modeling and performance-based fire protection. This requires 

both short term and long term solutions. In the short term a methodology will be to educate the 

users on how the results of this work may affect known applications of fire modeling. This may 

be accomplished through pilot application of the findings of this report and documentation of the 

insights as they may influence decision-making. Note that the intent is not to describe how a 

decision is to be made, but rather to offer insights as to where and how these results may, or may 

not be used as the technical basis for a decision. In the long term, additional work on improving 

the models and performing additional experiments should be considered. 

Keywords 

Fire Fire Modeling Verification and Validation (V&V) 

Performance-based Risk-informed regulation Fire Hazard Analysis (FHA) 

Fire safety Fire protection Nuclear Power Plant 

Fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Fire Probabilistic Safety Assessment 

 (PSA) 

xxiii 

PREFACE 

This report is presented in seven volumes. Volume 1, the Main Report, provides general 

background information, programmatic and technical overviews, and project insights and 

conclusions. Volumes 2 through 6 provide detailed discussions of the verification and validation 

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

Volume 2 Fire Dynamics Tools (FDTs

) 

Volume 3 Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation, Revision 1 (FIVE-Rev1) 

Volume 4 Consolidated Model of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport (CFAST) 

Volume 5 MAGIC 

Volume 6 Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) 

Finally, Volume 7 quantifies the uncertainty of the experiments used in the V&V study of these 

five fire models. 

xxv 

FOREWORD 

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

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

requirements for fire protection in 10 CFR Part 50; “Specific Exemptions”; the Significance Determination 

Process (SDP) used in the inspection program conducted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); 

and, most recently, the risk-informed performance-based (RI/PB) voluntary fire protection licensing basis 

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

(NFPA) Standard 805, “Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light-Water Reactor Generating 

Plants.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

commonly available fire modeling tools. 

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

(ASTM) Standard E1355-04, “Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models.” These 

industry standards form the methodology and process used to perform this study. Technical review of fire 

models is also necessary to ensure that those using the models can accurately assess the adequacy of the scientific and 

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

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

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

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

presented in the seven volumes of this report. 

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

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

analyses documented in this report represent the combined efforts of individuals from RES and EPRI, both of 

which provided specialists in the use of fire models and other FHA tools. The results from this combined 

effort do not constitute either a regulatory position or regulatory guidance. Rather, these results are intended 

to provide technical analysis, and they may also help to identify areas where further research and analysis are 

needed. 

 _________________________________

 Carl J. Paperiello, Director 

 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

xxvii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

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

support from several organizations. 

The verification and validation (V&V) studies for FDTs (Volume 2), CFAST (Volume 4), and 

FDS (Volume 6) were conducted in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

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

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

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

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

fire hazard analysis (FHA). 

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

Engineers, Inc. for their comments and contribution to Volume 2. 

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

(EdF) in preparing Volume 5 for MAGIC. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gesellschaft fuer Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) and Institut fuer Baustoffe, Massivbau 

und Brandschutz (iBMB) in Germany, which provided leadership and valuable experimental data 

for ICFMP BE #4 and BE #5. In particular, ICFMP BE #2 was led by Stewart Miles at BRE; 

ICFMP BE #4 was led by Walter Klein-Hessling and Marina Rowekamp at GRS, and R. 

Dobbernack and Olaf Riese at iBMB; and ICFMP BE #5 was led by Olaf Riese and D. Hosser at 

iBMB, and Marina Rowekamp at GRS. We acknowledge and sincerely appreciate all of their 

efforts. 

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

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

publishing support for this report. We also greatly appreciate Dariusz Szwarc, Nuclear Safety 

Professional Development Program participant, for his assistance finalizing this report. 

xxix

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

AGA American Gas Association 

AHJ Authority Having Jurisdiction 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

BE Benchmark Exercise 

BFRL Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

BRE Building Research Establishment 

CFAST Consolidated Fire Growth and Smoke Transport Model 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EdF Electricité de France 

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

FDS Fire Dynamics Simulator 

FDTs

 Fire Dynamics Tools (NUREG-1805) 

FHA Fire Hazard Analysis 

FIVE-Rev1 Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation, Revision 1 

FM-SNL Factory Mutual & Sandia National Laboratories 

FPA Foote, Pagni, and Alvares 

FRA Fire Risk Analysis 

GRS Gesellschaft fuer Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (Germany) 

HRR Heat Release Rate 

IAFSS International Association of Fire Safety Science 

iBMB Institut für Baustoffe, Massivbau und Brandschutz 

ICFMP International Collaborative Fire Model Project 

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

MCC Motor Control Center 
xxx 

MQH McCaffrey, Quintiere, and Harkleroad 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NBS National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) 

NFPA National Fire Protection Association 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NPP Nuclear Power Plant 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRC) 

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (NRC) 

RI/PB Risk-Informed, Performance-Based 

SDP Significance Determination Process 

SFPE Society of Fire Protection Engineers 

V&V Verification & Validation 
1-1 

1 

INTRODUCTION 

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

applications including fire risk studies, 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 study is to document a V&V study for the MAGIC zone model, 

in accordance with ASTM E1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability 

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

Electricité de France (EdF), which officially released the latest version of the model in 2005. The 

MAGIC software calculates fire-generated conditions single or multi-compartment geometries as a 

function of time [Refs. 2, 3, and 4]. 

The MAGIC software is a classical thermal model for fire simulations in zones able to process 

communicative multi-compartment problems. Each compartment is divided into two volumes, 

which are assumed to be homogeneous. The solution of the mass and energy balances 

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

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

 Consistent with ASTM E1355, 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; 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, for which the researchers defined a base case scenario 

and varied selected input parameters in order to explore MAGIC’s capabilities for modeling 

typical characteristics of NPP fire scenarios. 
Introduction 

1-2 

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

classified by fire modeling parameter. The following parameters 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. 
2-1 

2 

MODEL DEFINITION 

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

as suggested by ASTM E1355. 

2.1 Name and Version of the Model 

This V&V study focused on the latest version (V4.1.1b) of the MAGIC zone model, 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 of conservation of energy and mass are solved in each control volume as the fire heat 

release rate develops over time. The thermal conditions of the control volumes are the boundary 

conditions for localized heat transfer problems solved at the surfaces and targets in the room. 

2.3 Model Developers 

MAGIC was developed and is maintained by Electricité 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). 
Model Definition 

2-2 

Chapter 3 of this report and Ref. 2 provide a complete technical description of MAGIC algorithms and 

sub-models. 

2.6 Input Data Required To Run the Model 

In general, the following data is 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) The following parameters describe 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/close 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) The following parameters describe the characteristics of the fire: 

• Fuel type and fire heat release rate profile. The heat release rate profile is specified using 

the heat of combustion and the mass loss rate of the fuel. 

• Fire location (elevation, near a wall, near a corner, 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 
Model Definition 

2-3

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. 

2.8 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) 

• fire intensity and flame height 

• flow velocities through vents and openings. 

3-1 

3 

THEORETICAL BASIS FOR MAGIC 

3.1 Introduction 

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

the ASTM E1355 requirement 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 Ref. 2 for a complete technical description. 

MAGIC is a “standalone” computer program for simulating fire conditions inside a compartment. 

Technical details, as well as a user’s guide and validation studies of this computer program, 

can be found in Refs. 2, 3, and 4. 

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 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. 

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. 

Specific sub-models are used to characterize the various physical processes: 

• pyrolysis of the fuel(s) on fire 

• combustion in gaseous phase, governed by the properties of emitted products and the air 

supply attributable to the plume flow 

• smoke production and unburned products, for which the properties depend on the fuels 

• the fire plume over each source in various configurations (circular or linear fire, at different 

heights, above the openings) 

• heat exchange by convection and radiation between the flame, air, hot gas layer, walls, 

and environment 
Theoretical Basis For MAGIC 

3-2 

• natural flows through the openings (vertical and horizontal), which allow the compartments 

to communicate with each other and the outside 

• forced or natural ventilation 

• thermal behavior and reaction of critical elements to determine their malfunction or ignition 

• thermal behavior and combustion of electric cables 

• water spray from sprinklers 

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. 

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 

Figure 3-1 summarizes MAGIC’s modeling features. 

Figure 3-1: Pictorial Representation of MAGIC’s Features 
Theoretical Basis For MAGIC 

3-3

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 input 

of oxygen quantity into the plume is at least equal to the quantity necessary to burn all of 

the gaseous fuels in the plume, combustion is considered to be 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 balance equation 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 un-burnt 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: 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 wall 

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 

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, Heskestad's correlation [Ref. 7] for temperature and velocity in the plume region. 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. 6] 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, 
Theoretical Basis For MAGIC 

3-4 

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

Heskestad’s correlation [Ref. 7]. 

3.2.5 Natural & Mechanical Ventilation 

The model for flows through horizontal openings is based on the formulation proposed by Cooper 

[Ref. 8]. This model addresses the issue of one- or two-way 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. 

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 based on the KIRCHOFF equation, and 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 Radiation 

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

Those systems exchange through the layer interface. View factors are re-evaluated for every 

iteration due to the layer interface height variations. 

3.2.7 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. 

Convective and radiative fluxes are considered, and the heat exchange is calculated in detail. 

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. 

3.2.8 Electrical Cables 

Electrical cables are numerous in NPPs, and they serve as both fuel and targets in NPP fire scenarios. 

Figure 3-2 summarizes the modeling of electrical cables in MAGIC. 
Theoretical Basis For MAGIC 

3-5

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

The cable is composed of successive layers of materials that are thermally described by the user. 

Each layer includes a certain amount 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 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 modelled as single conductor as follows: 

• The cross sectional area of the equivalent single conductor is ∑=

n

i

Ai

1

 where Ai is the area 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. 
Theoretical Basis For MAGIC 

3-6 

Figure 3-3: Modeling multi-conductor cables in MAGIC 

3.2.9 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 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. 

Specifically, the power of the fire is stabilized when the spray is in contact with the fire. 

This modeling is conservative and has been adopted in MAGIC. 

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 a combination of on 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. 

a a 

Jacket

Insulator

Conductor
Theoretical Basis For MAGIC 

3-7

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

the beginning 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. Databases in MAGIC give 

consistent information to the user, who can also customize with preferential 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. 

4-1 

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 E1355 requires the following analyses to address the mathematical and numerical 

robustness of models: 

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

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

relatively few situations for which analytical solutions are known. 

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

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

and inconsistencies within the computer code. 

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

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

(as an indicator of numerical convergence). 

4.2 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 fire problems — even for the simplest cases. 

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 
Mathematical and Numerical Robustness 

4-2 

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 t0 (where the variables are known) and by using a recurrence formula 

linking instant tn to tn+1. 

All the solution variables at instant tn 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 tn+1 . 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. 
Mathematical and Numerical Robustness 

4-3

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

 t+∆t

Reading input file 

Writing case data in result file 

Initialization: 

• Variables 

• Results 

• Solver 

Updating: 

• Exterior variables 

• State variables Opening 

Vent system

Fire source 

Ceiling jet 

Wall conduction

Radiation 

Cable conduction

Secondary source ignition 

Layers transfers 

Sprinkling 

Equations writing 

Writing results 

Time step t 

Fluxes estimation for the 

differential equations

Equations solving 
Mathematical and Numerical Robustness 

4-4 

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 at 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: 

3⁄4 FOR_STUDY from Cobalt Blue 

3⁄4 PLUSFORT from Polyhedron Software 

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 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. 
Mathematical and Numerical Robustness 

4-5

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. 

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. 

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. 13] 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 short description of objectives and parameters for each. 

• Reception test framework [Ref. 14] validates all of the interface functions and enables the user 

to verify consistency between the specification and software. 

• User reference guide [Ref. 15] presents the various interface menus and details their uses. 

• Tutorials [Ref. 16] allow self-teaching through step-by-step exercises. 

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 verification and validation process including a rigorous comparison of code 

predictions with experimental observations. MAGIC version 4.1.1b includes the latest the 

Needs expression 

Specifications 

General design 

Detailed design 

Execution (coding) 

Unit tests 

Merger tests 

Validation (Recipes) 

Maintenance 
Mathematical and Numerical Robustness 

4-6 

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. 

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 PC 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 R&D. On average, a 

MAGIC revision is released once a year. 
5-1 

5 

MODEL SENSITIVITY 

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

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

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

twofold: 

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

results, and 

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

in Chapter 6 and Appendix A. Specifically, two modeling strategies selected for validation 

includes: 

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

temperature VS the use of the cable sub-model. 

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

fluxes to room surfaces VS 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 #1 as part of an 

ongoing International Collaborative Fire Modeling Project (ICFMP) [Ref. 17]. This section 

summarizes the technical description of the scenario. (Note that only Part 1 of the benchmark 

exercise 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) 

• 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 
Model Sensitivity 

5-2 

• 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 

Material 

Thermal cond 

[kW/mK] Density [kg/m3] Cp [kJ/Kg-k] 

XPE 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 t2 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. 

Figure 5-1: Selected Heat Release Rate Profiles 

Heat Release Rate Profiles

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time [sec]

k W

1.0 MW 5.0 MW
Model Sensitivity 

5-3

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. 

Instead, the researchers selected key parameters relevant to typical commercial NPP fire scenarios. 

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

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

Case Heat Release 

Rate [kW] 

Natural 

Ventilation 

[m2

] 

Mech. 

Ventilation 

[m3/s] 

Lower 

Oxygen 

Limit [%]

Fuel Type 

Vertical 

Fire 

Position 

Horizontal 

Fire 

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 XPL 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. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-4 

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, 

since 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, since most NPP fire scenarios involve concrete rooms. 

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. Notice that 

the temperature profile is similar to the heat release rate. That is, once the fire reaches steady-state 

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. 

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. 

Wall Target 

Ceiling Jet Temp 

Targets 

XPL Cable 

PVC Target 

Plume 

Targets

Door

PVC Cable 

XPL Target 

Mechanical 

ventilation 
Model Sensitivity 

5-5

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. 

 

 

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. 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Case 1

Case 2

Case 5

Hot Gas Layer Height

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

Case 1

Case 2

Case 5

Hiot Gas Layer Temperature

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Case 9

Case 10

Case 13

Hiot Gas Layer Height

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

Case 9

Case 10

Case 13
Model Sensitivity 

5-6 

 

Figure 5-4: Ceiling Jet Temperature Profiles 

MAGIC performed as expected. First, for each case, the temperature at a larger 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, the ceiling jet temperature was just above 150 °C in Case 5. 

Recall that the predicted hot gas layer temperature for Case 5 was below 150 °C. 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. 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 above the floor, the ceiling jet temperatures were above 

250 °C. Case 5, which had identical conditions but with a floor base fire, resulted in temperatures 

more than 50 °C lower. Figure 5-4 illustrates the temperature profiles for the ceiling jet in Cases 7 

and 15. 

Ceiling Jet Temperature

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Case 1, R = 2 m

Case 1, R = 4 m

Case 5, R = 2 m

Case 5, R = 4 m

Ceiling Jet Temperature

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Case 9, R = 2 m

Case 9, R = 4 m

Case 13, R = 2 m

Case 13, R = 4 m

Ceiling Jet Temperature

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Case 7, R = 2 m

Case 7, R = 4 m

Ceiling Jet Temperature

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Case 15, R = 2 m

Case 15, R = 4 m
Model Sensitivity 

5-7

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. This is a clear in 

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. These 

values should be interpreted as sensors immersed in flames. 

In the case of a fire elevated 2.3 m 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. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-8 

 

Figure 5-5: Plume Temperature Profiles 

Plume Temp

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Case 1, H = 2.5 m

Case 1, H = 3.5 m

Case 1, H = 4.5 m

Plume Temp

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Case 5, H = 2.5 m

Case 5, H = 3.5 m

Case 5, H = 4.5 m

Plume Temp

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Case 9, H = 2.5 m

Case 9, H = 3.5 m

Case 9, H = 4.5 m

Plume Temp

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Case 13, H = 2.5 m

Case 13, H = 3.5 m

Case 13, H = 4.5 m

Plume Temp

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Case 7, H = 2.5 m

Case 7, H = 3.5 m

Case 7, H = 4.5 m

Plume Temp

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Case 15, H = 2.5 m

Case 15, H = 3.5 m

Case 15, H = 4.5 m
Model Sensitivity 

5-9

Flame Height

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

Case 1

Case 5

Case 7

Flame Height

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

Case 9

Case 13

Case 15

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 t2 growth period of the fire. Flame height are constant during 

the steady burning period. Second, notice that MAGIC predicted flame heights above the ceiling 

height of 4.6 m in Cases 9 and 13. 

 

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 burn at its specified heat release rate. The larger the heat release rate, the 

larger 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 percent. That is, the fire will burn with an intensity governed by the amount of oxygen or 

fuel until all the oxygen in the room has been consumed. 

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. 

However, 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. 

The heat release rate for these cases can be read in the right y-axis. Notice that in Case 9, 

where the LOL is 0 percent, the heat release rate begins to decay when the oxygen concentration 

is 0 percent. In Case 11, where the LOL is 10 percent, the heat release rate begins to decay 
Model Sensitivity 

5-10 

Heat Release Rate

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Conc (g/g)

Case 1

Case 2

Case 5

Oxygen Concentration

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Conc (g/g)

Case 9

Case 10

Case 13

Case 11

Heat Release Rate

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Conc (g/g)

Case 9

Case 10

Case 13

Case 11

at 550 seconds, when the oxygen concentration is 10 percent. It is interesting to note that the two 

oxygen concentration profiles are identical up to 10 percent. At that point, the fire in Case 9 

maintains its original intensity and, therefore, consumes more oxygen than the fire in Case 11. 

 

Figure 5-7: Oxygen Concentration Profiles 

5.2.6 Smoke Concentration 

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

with units of 1/m. Average specific area is also available [Ref. 17], which can be also a way to 

input soot yield using a conversion factor of 7600 (ys = k/0.0076) [Ref.18]. 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 Ref. 1 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. 

In this sensitivity analysis, Case studies 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. 

Oxygen Concentration

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Conc (g/g)

Case 1

Case 2

Case 5
Model Sensitivity 

5-11

Smoke Concentration

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Conc (mg/m3)

Case 6

Case 5

Case 1

Figure 5-8 summarizes the average extinction coefficient results. 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. 

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 to a 5.76-m2 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 

(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 air 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. 

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. 

Smoke Concentration

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Conc (mg/m3)

Case 14

Case 13

Case 9
Model Sensitivity 

5-12 

Room Pressure

-8000

-6000

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Case 1

Case 9

Room Pressure

-5

-4.5

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

Case 5

Case 13

 

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 cables’ 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 around 50 °C. 

MAGIC offers two modeling alternatives for predicting cable temperature as a thermal target 

or 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 cable and target. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-13

Figure 5-10: Equivalence between Cable and Targets 

The surface-to-volume ratio gives a thickness target value of 4

D

e = . Figure 5-11 above also 

includes temperature profiles with targets with thicknesses D/4 and D/2. Targets with thickness 

D/4 resulted with the highest surface temperature. 

 Cable Target 

Surface Area πDL DL

Volume L D

4

2

π DLe

L

D

e 

L 

D 
Model Sensitivity 

5-14 

XPL Target Temperature - Case 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Gas Temp

Target d/4

Target d/2

Cable Model

XPL Target Temperature - Case 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Gas Temp

Target d/4

Target d/2

Cable Model

PVC Target Temperature - Case 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Gas Temp

Target d/4

Target d/2

Cable Model

PVC Target Temperature - Case 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Gas Temp

Target d/4

Target d/2

Cable Model

 

 

Figure 5-11: Target temperature profiles 

In terms of heat flux, the MAGIC output options “Total heat flux” and “Incident heat flux” are 

relevant in this study. The former is the total radiative and convective heat flux contributions to 

the target. The later is total radiative heat flux received by the target. 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 m away from the fire, 

and the elevation of both targets was 2.3 m. 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 due 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 1 kW/m2

. Figures 5-12 and 5-13 compile the graphical results. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-15

XPL Target Heat Flux - Case 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

HF (kW/m2)

Total HF

Incident HF

PVC Target Heat Flux - Case 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

HF (kW/m2)

Total HF

Incident HF

XPL Target Heat Flux - Case 5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

HF (kW/m2)

Total HF

Incident HF

PVC Target Heat Flux - Case 5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

HF (kW/m2)

Total HF

Incident HF

XPL Target Heat Flux - Case 6

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

HF (kW/m2)

Total HF

Incident HF

PVC Target Heat Flux - Case 6

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

HF (kW/m2)

Total HF

Incident HF

 

 

 

Figure 5-12: Target heat flux profiles, 1MW fire. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-16 

XPL Target Heat Flux - Case 9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

HF (kW/m2)

Total HF

Incident HF

PVC Target Heat Flux - Case 9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

HF (kW/m2)

Total HF

Incident HF

XPL Target Heat Flux - Case 13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

HF (kW/m2)

Total HF

Incident HF

PVC Target Heat Flux - Case 13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

HF (kW/m2)

Total HF

Incident HF

XPL Target Heat Flux - Case 14

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

HF (kW/m2)

Total HF

Incident HF

PVC Target Heat Flux - Case 14

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

HF (kW/m2)

Total HF

Incident HF

 

 

 

Figure 5-13: Target heat flux profiles, 5MW fire. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-17

5.2.9 Wall Temperature 

Figures 5-14 and 5-15 summarize a comparison between the use on MAGIC output options 

“Wall Temperature”, and “Surface Temperature of the target”. The output “Wall temperature” 

results from a one dimensional finite difference conduction calculation in to the walls. The 

internal boundary condition is 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 conduction calculation into a slab of similar thickness as the wall. 

This comparison is important because the validation study described in Chapter 6 for wall 

temperature was developed using the later 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 to predict wall surface 

temperature can produce higher temperatures with the exception of the floor surface in open door 

tests. In the cases ran with a 1 MW fire, the temperature difference between both modeling 

strategies is approximately 10 o

C. In cases ran with a 5 MW fire, the temperature difference is 

between 40 o

C and 60 oC. 
Model Sensitivity 

5-18 

Wall Temperature - Case 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Wall Temp

Target Temp

Floor Temperature - Case 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Wall Temp

Target Temp

Ceiling Temperature - Case 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Wall Temp

Target Temp

Wall Temperature - Case 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Wall Temp

Target Temp

Floor Temperature - Case 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Wall Temp

Target Temp

Ceiling Temperature - Case 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Wall Temp

Target Temp

 

 

 

Figure 5-14: Target temperature vs. wall temperature, 1 MW fire 
Model Sensitivity 

5-19

Wall Temperature - Case 9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Wall Temp

Target Temp

Floor Temperature - Case 9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Wall Temp

Target Temp

Ceiling Temperature - Case 9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Wall Temp

Target Temp

Wall Temperature - Case 13

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Wall Temp

Target Temp

Floor Temperature - Case 13

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Wall Temp

Target Temp

Ceiling Temperature - Case 13

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

Wall Temp

Target Temp

 

 

 

Figure 5-15: Target temperature vs. wall temperature, 5MW fire 
Model Sensitivity 

5-20 

5.3 Concluding Remarks 

This chapter illustrates the effect of the most important parameters in fire modeling with the code 

MAGIC. The set of models included in MAGIC are intended to translate the impact of those 

parameters on the fire-generated conditions in a compartment. It is therefore important to 

understand the effects the input parameters have in 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 that others since it depend 

on specific applications, and most (if not all) of the parameters are mathematically related. As 

illustrated in the 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. 
6-1 

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 7 and in the individual test reports. 

ICFMP BE #2: Benchmark Exercise #2 consists of 8 experiments, representing 3 sets of 

conditions, to study the movement of smoke in a large hall with a sloped ceiling. The results of 

the experiments were contributed to the International Collaborative Fire Model Project (ICFMP) 

for use in evaluating model predictions of fires in larger volumes representative of turbine halls 

in NPPs. The tests were conducted inside the VTT Fire Test Hall, which has dimensions of 19 m 

high by 27 m long by 14 m wide (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 International Collaborative Fire 

Model Project (ICFMP) and sponsored by the US NRC, consists of 15 large-scale tests 

performed at NIST in June, 2003. The fire sizes range from 350 kW to 2.2 MW in a 

compartment with dimensions 21.7 m x 7.1 m x 3.8 m (71 ft x 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 25 mm thick marinate boards, while the floor is covered with two 

layers of 25 mm thick gypsum boards. The room has one 2 m x 2 m (6.6 ft x 6.6 ft) door and a 

mechanical air injection and extraction system. Ventilation conditions and fire size and location 

are varied, and the numerous experimental measurements include gas and surface temperatures, 

heat fluxes, and gas velocities. 

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

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

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

Collaborative Fire Model Project (ICFMP). These fire experiments involve relatively large fires 

in a relatively small (3.6 m x 3.6 m x 5.7 m high, 11.8 ft x 11.8 ft x 18.7 ft) concrete enclosure. 

Only one of the two experiments was selected for the present V&V study (Test 1). 

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

routed cable trays in the same test compartment as BE #4. Only one test (Test 4) was selected for 

the present evaluation, and only the first 20 min during which time an ethanol pool fire preheats 

the compartment. 

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

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

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

was to provide data with which to validate computer models for various types of NPP 

compartments. The experiments were conducted in an enclosure measuring 60 ft long x 40 ft 

wide x 20 ft high (18 m x 12 m x 6 m), constructed at the FMRC fire test facility in Rhode 
Model Validation 

6-2 

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 polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) solid fire. Four of these tests were conducted with a full-scale control 

room mockup in place. Parameters varied during testing are the heat release rate, enclosure 

ventilation rate, and fire location. Only three of these tests have been used in the present 

evaluation (Tests 4, 5 and 21). Test 21 involves the full-scale mock-up. All are gas burner fires. 

NBS Multi-Room Series: The National Bureau of Standards (NBS, now the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, NIST) Multi-Compartment Test Series consists of 45 fire tests 

representing 9 different sets of conditions, with multiple replicates of each set, which were 

conducted in a three-room suite. The suite consists of two relatively small rooms, connected via 

a relatively long corridor. The fire source, a gas burner, is located against the rear wall of one of 

the small compartments. Fire tests of 100, 300 and 500 kW were conducted, but for the current 

V&V study, only three 100 kW fire experiments have been used (Test 100A, 100O, and 100Z). 

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: Room pressure 

• Section 6.8: Target temperature and heat fluxes 

• Section 6.9: Wall temperature and heat fluxes

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

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

( ) ( )

( ) p o

p o p o

E E

M M E E

E

M E

−

− − − = ∆

∆ − ∆

ε =

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

Mo. ∆E is the difference between the experimental measurement, Ep, and its original value, Eo. 

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

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

concentration, etc. 
Model Validation 

6-3

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

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

chapter. At the end of each section, a color rating is assigned to each of the output 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 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 uncertainty? This 

criterion is used as an indication of the accuracy of the model prediction. Since fire experiments 

are used as a way of establishing confidence in model prediction, the confidence can only be as 

good as our experiments. Therefore, if model predictions fall within the ranges of experimental 

uncertainties, the predictions are determined to be accurate. However, one should recognize that 

the experimental uncertainties vary with the experiment and the attribute being measured (see 

volume 7 of this report). These ranges could be as much as +50% for the experiments and 

attributes we used in this validation study. This leads to some judgment about the relative 

difference proximity relative to the range of uncertainty, as the uncertainty ranges are not 

necessarily all-inclusive or definitive. 

The predictive capability of the model is characterized as follows based on the above criteria. 

GREEN: 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, then the V&V team concluded that the fire model prediction is accurate for the 

ranges of experiments in this study, and as described in tables 2-4 and 2-5. A grade of GREEN 

indicates 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. 

YELLOW±: 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, then the model predictive capability is characterized as YELLOW+ for overprediction, 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, but the users should take care and use caution when interpreting the results of the model. A 

complete understanding of model assumptions and scenario applicability to these V&V results is 

necessary. Generally, 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 described as YELLOW±. 
Model Validation 

6-4 

YELLOW: If the first criterion is satisfied and the calculated relative differences are outside 

experimental uncertainty with no clear pattern of over- or under-prediction, then the model 

predictive capability is characterized as YELLOW. Caution should be exercised when using a 

fire model for predicting these attributes. In this case, the user is referred to the details related to 

the experimental conditions and validation results documented in volumes 2 through 6. The user 

is 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 prediction to the fire 

scenario for which it is being used. 

RED: If the first criterion is not met, then the particular fire model capability should not be used. 

No color: This V&V study did not investigate this capability. This may be due to one or more 

reasons that include 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, engineering judgment is exercised 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 colors. 

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 assumptions. The difference 

between the colors is due 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. 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 also by less than 10 % the hot gas layer height in all three cases. That is, the MAGIC 

height prediction is above the measured one. A graphical comparison of the MAGIC predictions 

and the 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. 

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 
Model Validation 

6-5

layer height depicted in Figures A-4, and A-5 (which refers to closed door tests) is due 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. 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. Due to 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 to 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 plotted also 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-11 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 discussed earlier 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 predictions in this test series are for the most part outside the 

experimental uncertainty for both the fire room and adjacent compartments. The largest relative 

differences are associated with adjacent compartments to the fire room. As depicted in Figures 

A-15 to A-17, and in Figure 6-1, MAGIC over predicted the hot gas layer temperature in all 

cases. The hot gas layer height shows under-predictions of up to around 50% in some of the 

rooms. 

Summary: Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height

• The research team considers the MAGIC model for calculating hot gas layer temperatures to 

be appropriate for its intended applications. 
Model Validation 

6-6 

• The MAGIC 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 15%. 

• The scatterplot in Figure 6-1 summarizes the relative differences calculated for hot gas layer 

temperatures and height. As explained earlier, no relative differences were calculated for 

close door tests. 

• Validation results suggest that MAGIC is certainly suited for prediction 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 the room of fire origin and a yellow + for adjacent rooms. In the case of hot 

gas layer height, a green classification is assigned for the room of fire origin and a yellow for 

adjacent rooms. 

Hot Gas Layer Temp and Height

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

BE 2-1BE 2-2BE 2-3BE 3-1BE 3-7BE 3-2BE 3-8BE 3-4

BE 3-10BE 3-13BE 3-16BE 3-17

BE 3-3BE 3-9BE 3-5

BE 3-14BE 3-15BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100ANBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Temp (Room of fire origin) Temp (Adj rooms) Temp (Adj rooms)

Height (Room of fire origin) Height (Adj rooms) EU Temp

EU Height

Figure 6-1: Scatter plot of relative differences for hot gas layer temperature and height in 

ICFMP BE #2, 3, 4, 5, and the selected FM/SNL and NBS Tests. Experimental uncertainties 

are 13% (HGL temp) and 9% (HGL height). 

6.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature 

The ceiling jet algorithm in MAGIC consists primarily in the model proposed by Cooper [Ref 6-

6]. It is recommended that analysts review MAGIC’s technical reference (Ref 6-2) for specific 

details about the implementation of the ceiling jet algorithm. Typical of ceiling jet correlations, 

it 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 

with the exception of three tests, Test 10, 13, & 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 Test 15 and 16. Figure 6-2 also 

suggests that the relative differences for opened 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. 
Model Validation 

6-7

The graphical comparisons between experimental measurements and MAGIC predictions for 

ceiling jet temperature are grouped in Figures A-18 and A-19. Table A-9 lists the calculated 

relative differences. 

FM/SNL: 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 

• With three exceptions, corresponding to closed-door tests in ICFMP BE#3, MAGIC ceiling 

jet predictions are within experimental uncertainty. . 

• The MAGIC 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 a 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 6-2) suggest 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”. 

• Based on the model robustness and the fact that most relative differences are within 

experimental uncertainty of 15% and no outliers were observed, a green classification 

assigned. 

Ceiling Jet Temperature

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

BE 2-1BE 2-2BE 2-3BE 3-1BE 3-7BE 3-2BE 3-8BE 3-4

BE 3-10BE 3-13BE 3-16BE 3-17

BE 3-3BE 3-9BE 3-5

BE 3-14BE 3-15BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100ANBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Tree 7-10

1/98H

11/98H

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%. 
Model Validation 

6-8 

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 predictions of plume temperature are within the experimental 

uncertainty of 15%. Figure A-22 provides the graphical comparisons between model predictions 

and experimental measurements. The calculated relative differences are listed in Table A-11 and 

plotted in Figure 6-3. 

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

uncertainty. See Figure A-23 and Table A-12 for the graphical comparisons and the calculated 

relative differences. 

Summary: Plume Temperature 

• The axisymmetric plume temperature model in MAGIC is well suited for applications similar 

to the ones evaluated in this study. 

• Since all 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. 

Plume Temperature

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

BE 2-1BE 2-2BE 2-3BE 3-1BE 3-7BE 3-2BE 3-8BE 3-4

BE 3-10BE 3-13BE 3-16BE 3-17

BE 3-3BE 3-9BE 3-5

BE 3-14BE 3-15BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100ANBS 100O

NBS 100Z

TG.1

TG.2

28/98H

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%. 
Model Validation 

6-9

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 in the Heskestad’s flame height correlation. See 

reference 6-2 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). From Figure A-24, which reports 

MAGIC flame height predictions, flame heights are between 3 and 7 m. 

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 to A-28. Notice for example that Figure A-26 suggests flames with 

heights similar to the height of the door (2 m). MAGIC predictions peak above 2 m in all cases. 

Summary: Flame Height 

• MAGIC appears to provide flame height predictions consistent with the ones observed in 

available photographs for BE#2. MAGIC flame height predictions for BE#3 are also 

consistent with observations made from 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. 
Model Validation 

6-10 

6.5 Oxygen Concentration 

The oxygen concentration in MAGIC results directly from the conservation of mass equation in 

both the upper and lower layer. 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. 

ICFMP BE #3: The relative differences associated with MAGIC 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 close door tests. In all these cases, the measured oxygen concentration was 

above 15%. In terms of the close door tests, all the relative differences are within experimental 

uncertainty with the exception of tests 4 and 10, which consisted of mechanically ventilated 

room. Recall that negative relative differences indicate that MAGIC predicted higher oxygen 

concentrations that those measured in the experiments. Figures A-29 and A-30 illustrate the 

experimental and model oxygen concentration profiles. 

ICFMP BE #5: MAGIC prediction of the upper layer oxygen concentration in Test 4 of this test 

series is above the experimental uncertainty of 9%. 

Summary: Oxygen Concentration 

• 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 

close room tests. In the case of open door tests, they are below 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. 
Model Validation 

6-11

Oxygen Concentration

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

BE 2-1BE 2-2BE 2-3BE 3-1BE 3-7BE 3-2BE 3-8BE 3-4

BE 3-10BE 3-13BE 3-16BE 3-17

BE 3-3BE 3-9BE 3-5

BE 3-14BE 3-15BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100ANBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Figure 6-4: Scatter plot of relative differences for oxygen concentration in ICFMP BE#3 and 

BE#5. Experimental uncertainty is 16%. 

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 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 

• MAGIC is capable of transporting smoke throughout a compartment, assuming that the 

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

products. 

• MAGIC over predicts the smoke concentration in close door tests. The predictions for open 

door tests are within experimental uncertainty. 

• No firm conclusions can be drawn explaining why the drastic differences in predictions 

between open and close door tests. Therefore, a yellow classification is assigned since there 

is no clear indication that MAGIC would always result in conservative estimates. 
Model Validation 

6-12 

Smoke Concentration

-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

BE 2-1BE 2-2BE 2-3BE 3-1BE 3-7BE 3-2BE 3-8BE 3-4

BE 3-10BE 3-13BE 3-16BE 3-17

BE 3-3BE 3-9BE 3-5

BE 3-14BE 3-15BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100ANBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Figure 6-5: Scatter plot of relative differences for smoke concentration in ICFMP BE#3. 

Experimental uncertainty is 33%. 

6.7 Compartment Pressure 

Comparisons between measurement and prediction 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, whereas 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 opened 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 a more negative difference than the experimental measurement. 

Relative differences are listed in Table A-16. 

Visual examination of experimental data and model results plots (see Figure A-34) strongly 

suggest that 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. 

In close door tests, MAGIC is able to capture the both peaks and pressure profiles (see Figure A35). 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 pressurize room in the 

early stages of the test, and a negatively pressurize room when the fuel supply is discontinued 

and heat loses to the boundaries are higher than the fire hear release rate. 
Model Validation 

6-13

In general, the predicted pressures are of comparable magnitude to the measured pressures, and 

in most cases differences can be explained using the reported uncertainties in the leakage area 

and the fact that the leakage area changed from test to test because of the thermal stress on the 

compartment walls. The one notable exception is Test 16. This experiment was performed with 

the door closed and the ventilation on, and there is considerable uncertainty in the magnitude of 

both the supply and 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 50% and 75% for tests 

with ventilation system off or on respectively. 

Summary: Compartment Pressure 

• 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, 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. 

• 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. 

Room Pressure

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

BE 2-1BE 2-2BE 2-3BE 3-1BE 3-7BE 3-2BE 3-8BE 3-4

BE 3-10BE 3-13BE 3-16BE 3-17

BE 3-3BE 3-9BE 3-5

BE 3-14BE 3-15BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100ANBS 100O

NBS 100Z

EU - Forced vent

EU - No forced vent

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). 
Model Validation 

6-14 

6.8 Radiation, Total Heat Flux and Target Temperature 

Target temperature and heat flux data are available from ICFMP BE #3, #4 and #5. In BE #3, 

the targets are various types of cables in various configurations – horizontal, vertical, in trays or 

free-hanging. In BE #4, the targets are three rectangular slabs of different materials instrumented 

with heat flux gauges and thermocouples. In BE #5, the targets are again cables, in this case 

bundled power and control cables in a vertical ladder. 

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

different cables that are graphed in the Section A.8.1. Consequently, it is difficult to make 

sweeping generalizations about the accuracy of MAGIC. The section is classified by target. 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 the 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 of modeling cable temperature as Targets, where the material 

is simulated as a slab, or a cable itself, where the material is simulated as a cylinder with 

concentrical layers of conductor, insulation and jacket. This evaluation includes both 

alternatives. When cables are modeled as targets (slab), the thickness of the target was 

selected as d/4 were d is the diameter of the cable (see discussion on cable modeling and 

sensitivity analysis in Chapters 3 & 5). 

• The measured radiative heat flux is compared with MAGIC output “Incident heat flux” 

which is the sum of all radiated heat fluxes to a target. The total heat flux measurements is 

compared with MAGIC output “Total heat flux, flux meter”, which simulates a typical watercooled heat flux meter. 

Figures 6-7 to 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 the majority of the comparisons resulted within experimental 

uncertainty or over predictions for surface temperature. 

• There is in general 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 thermo-physical properties are the same and the thickness of the target is 

a quarter of the diameter of the cable. 

• Relative differences for heat flux suggest under and over predictions. 

• Specific conclusions can be made on a case-by-case basis. For example, temperatures for GTS-33 are for the most part over-predicted. 

ICFMP BE #4: MAGIC over-predicts both the heat flux and surface temperature of three “slab” 

targets located about 1 m from the fire. The trend is consistent, but it cannot be explained solely 

in terms of experimental uncertainty. The technical details supporting relative differences are 

included in Figure A-68 and Table A-21. 
Model Validation 

6-15

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: Target Heat Flux and Surface Temperature 

• MAGIC is capable of predicting the radiative and total heat flux to targets, assuming 

know 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 classification is assigned: 

- Yellow for surface temperature of the target 

- Yellow for total heat flux, and 

- Yellow for radiated heat flux 

Target Temperature

-100%

-75%

-50%

-25%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

BE 2-1BE 2-2BE 2-3BE 3-1BE 3-7BE 3-2BE 3-8BE 3-4

BE 3-10BE 3-13BE 3-16BE 3-17

BE 3-3BE 3-9BE 3-5

BE 3-14BE 3-15BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100ANBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Cable B

Cable D

Cable F

Cable G

Steel

Concrete

L Concrete

TCO 1-3

TCO 3-3

TCO 1-5

TCO 3-5

TCO 1-7

TCO 3-7

Figure 6-7: Scatter plot of relative differences for target temperature in ICFMP BE#3. 

Experimental uncertainty is 14%. 
Model Validation 

6-16 

Cable Temperature (Cable Model in MAGIC)

-100%

-75%

-50%

-25%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

BE 2-1BE 2-2BE 2-3BE 3-1BE 3-7BE 3-2BE 3-8BE 3-4

BE 3-10BE 3-13BE 3-16BE 3-17

BE 3-3BE 3-9BE 3-5

BE 3-14BE 3-15BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100ANBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Cable B Cable D Cable F Cable G

Figure 6-8: Scatter plot of relative differences for target temperature in ICFMP BE#3. 

Experimental uncertainty is 14%. 

Radiant Heat Flux

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

BE 2-1BE 2-2BE 2-3BE 3-1BE 3-7BE 3-2BE 3-8BE 3-4

BE 3-10BE 3-13BE 3-16BE 3-17

BE 3-3BE 3-9BE 3-5

BE 3-14BE 3-15BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100ANBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Gauge 1, Cable F

Gauge 3, Cable B

Gauge 7, Cable D

Gauge 10, Cable G

Figure 6-9: Scatter plot of relative differences for radiant heat flux in ICFMP BE#3. 

Experimental uncertainty is 20%. 
Model Validation 

6-17

Total Heat Flux

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

BE 2-1BE 2-2BE 2-3BE 3-1BE 3-7BE 3-2BE 3-8BE 3-4

BE 3-10BE 3-13BE 3-16BE 3-17

BE 3-3BE 3-9BE 3-5

BE 3-14BE 3-15BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100ANBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Gauge 2, Cable F

Gauge 4, Cable B

Gauge 8, Cable D

Gauge 9, Cable G

Steel, WS2

Concrete, WS3

Gas Concrete, WS4

WS2

WS3

WS4

Figure 6-10: Scatter plot of relative differences for total heat flux in ICFMP BE#3. 

Experimental uncertainty is 20%. 
Model Validation 

6-18 

6.9 Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature

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

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

flux and surface temperature above, there are numerous comparisons. 

It should be noted that the wall temperatures and heat fluxes in MAGIC were calculated locating 

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 the MAGIC output 

option “Wall Temperature”, or “Wall heat flux” available in the Wall output category. 

Experimental measurements were compared with MAGIC’s output option “Total absorbed heat 

flux”. 

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, walls are 

over predicted and ceiling and floor are under predicted. As noted by the corresponding markers 

in Figures 6-11 and 6-12, most of the relative differences for the ceiling and floor temperature 

and heat flux are negative. The over predictions for the wall and floor can be up to 

approximately 100% with very few exceptions. 

The graphical comparison of experimental and predicted temperature and heat flux profiles is 

presented in Figures A-70 to A-85 and Tables A-24 to 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 Surface Temperature 

• MAGIC has the capability of predicting the radiative and total heat flux to walls. 

MAGIC is also capable of predicting the surface temperature of a wall, assuming that its 

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

• MAGIC predictions of heat flux and surface temperature are generally over predictions 

for walls with few comparisons below the lower limit of experimental uncertainty. 

Ceiling and floor were consistently under predicted. Based on these results, a yellow 

classification is assigned. 
Model Validation 

6-19

Wall Temperature

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

BE 2-1BE 2-2BE 2-3BE 3-1BE 3-7BE 3-2BE 3-8BE 3-4

BE 3-10BE 3-13BE 3-16BE 3-17

BE 3-3BE 3-9BE 3-5

BE 3-14BE 3-15BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100ANBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Long Wall

Short Wall

Ceiling

Floor

Outlier of 868% in BE5

Figure 6-11: Scatter plot of relative differences for target temperature in ICFMP BE#3, 

4, and 5. Experimental uncertainty is 14%. 

Heat Flux to Walls

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

BE 2-1BE 2-2BE 2-3BE 3-1BE 3-7BE 3-2BE 3-8BE 3-4

BE 3-10BE 3-13BE 3-16BE 3-17

BE 3-3BE 3-9BE 3-5

BE 3-14BE 3-15BE 3-18

BE 4-1BE 5-4

FM/SNL 4FM/SNL 5

FM/SNL 21

NBS 100ANBS 100O

NBS 100Z

Long Wall

Short Wall

Ceiling

Floor

Figure 6-12: Scatter plot of relative differences for heat flux in ICFMP BE# 3, 4 and 5. 

Experimental uncertainty is 20% 
Model Validation 

6-20 

6.10 Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

• Ceiling Jet Temperature: 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 

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

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

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

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

within or close to experimental uncertainty. 

• MAGIC predictions for ceiling jet and plume temperatures are comparable to experimental 

uncertainty. In the case of the ceiling jet, results suggest a higher scatter among relative 

difference in BE #3 closed-door tests than in BE #3 opened-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 since 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 the user should exercise caution 

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

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

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

concentrations for open-door tests are within experimental uncertainties, but those for closeddoor tests are far higher. 
Model Validation 

6-21

• Most cable surface temperatures are predicted 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 the prediction of localized conditions such as target temperature and heat flux due to 

inherent limitations in all zone fire models. 

• Oxygen concentrations were consistently under predicted at about 30% for opened 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 close door tests, MAGIC results are comparable to experimental uncertainty. 

• Predictions of compartment surface temperature and heat flux are for the most part over 

predicted for walls. Consistent under predictions are observed for the ceiling temperature 

and heat flux. Finally, the floor surface presents both over and under predictions. 

Differences between the model and the experiments were evident in these studies. Some of the 

differences can be explained by limitations of the model as well as of the experiments. Like all 

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

model and of the inputs provided to do the calculations.

7-1 

7 

REFERENCES 

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

ASTM E1355-04, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA 2004. 

2. L. Gay, C. Epiard, B. Gautier “MAGIC Software version4.1.1: Mathematical model” EDF 

HI82/04/024/B November 2005 

3. L. Gay “User guide of the MAGIC Software V4.1.1” EDF HI82/04/23/A April 2005 

4. L. Gay, J. Frezabeu, B. Gautier "Qualification file of fire code MAGIC version 4.1.1.". HI82/04/022/B November 2005 

5. B. McCaffrey "Flame Height" SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 2nd edition, 

NFPA, 1995. 

6. 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 (1–17), 1993. 

Also NISTIR 4705, Nov 1991. 

7. G. Heskestad "Fire Plume, Flame Height, and Air Entrainment " SFPE Handbook of Fire 

Protection Engineering, 3nd edition, NFPA, 2002. 

8. L. Y. Cooper, “Combined Buoyancy and Pressure-Driven Flow Through a Horizontal Vent,” 

NISTIR 5384. 

9. G. Heskestad “Quantification of thermal responsiveness of automatic sprinklers including 

conduction effects” in Fire Safety Journal, vol. 14, 1988. 

10. R. Gear "Dif sub for solution of Ordinary Differential Equations", Collected algorithms from 

CACM, Algorithm 407, 1970 

11. W. H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, W.H. Vetterling, B.P. Flannery “ Numerical Recipes in 

Fortran ”, Cambridge University Press, 1992 

12. A. Benmamoun “Rapport d’analyse et des modifications du code FORTRAN” SYSAM - SE0310AB – 2004 

13. J. Casal T. Noguer “MAGIC Version 4 Dossier de conception globale - Mise à jour” Doc. 

ILM-technologie September 2004 

14. L. Gay, J. Frezabeu “Cahier de recette de l’interface utilisateur du logiciel MAGIC en 

version 4.1.1” EDF HI-82/04/021/P November 2004 

15. L.Gay, J. Casal, T. Noguer “Manuel de référence de l’interface utilisateur du logiciel 

MAGIC en version 4” HI-82/04/025/P September 2004 
References 

7-2 

16. NUREG-1758, “Evaluation of Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications: 

Cable Tray Fires,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, June 2002. 

17. Barakatm M., “Interaction Rayonnment-Particules.Cas de Fummes Generees par Differents 

Types de Combustibles,” Thesis from Poitiers University, France, 1994. 

18. Mulholland, G., “Smoke Production and Properties” SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection 

Engineering, 3rd Edition, Chapter 2–13, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA 2002. 
A-1 

A 

TECHNICAL DETAILS FOR THE MAGIC VALIDATION 

STUDY 

Appendix A provides comparisons of FDS predictions and experimental measurements for the 

six series of fire experiments under consideration. Each section to follow contains an assessment 

of the model predictions for the following quantities: 

A.1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height 

A.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature 

A.3 Plume Temperature 

A.4 Flame Height 

A.5 Oxygen Concentration 

A.6 Smoke Concentration 

A.7 Compartment Pressure 

A.8 Target Heat Flux and Surface Temperature 

A.9 Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature 

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

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

( ) ( )

( ) p o

p o p o

E E

M M E E

E

M E

−

− − − = ∆

∆ − ∆

ε =

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

Mo. ∆E is the difference between the experimental measurement, Ep, and its original value, Eo. 

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

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

concentration, etc. 

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.
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-2 

A.1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height 

Relative differences for hot gas layer temperature were calculated using experimental data from 

ICFMP benchmark exercises 2, 3, 4, and 5, the FM/SNL test series, and the NBS multicompartment fire test series. In the case of hot gas layer temperature, positive relative 

differences are an indication that the MAGIC predictions are higher than the experimental 

observations. In contrast, in the case of hot gas layer height, positive relative differences suggest 

that the MAGIC prediction is below the measured layer 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. 

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, 3 and 3 are presented in Figure A-2. 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-3

 

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

Table A-1 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. 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

BE 2, Case 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC Upper layer

temperature

 T_upper

Hot Gas Layer Height

BE 2, Case 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

Height (m)

MAGIC Layer interface height

 Height 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

BE 2, Case 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

02468

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC Upper layer

temperature

 T_upper

Hot Gas Layer Height

BE 2, Case 2

0

4

8

12

16

20

02468

Time (min)

Height (m)

MAGIC Layer interface height

 Height 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

BE 2, Case 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

02468

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC Upper layer

temperature

 T_upper

Hot Gas Layer Height

BE 2, Case 3

0

4

8

12

16

20

02468

Time (min)

Height (m)

MAGIC Layer interface height

 Height 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-4 

Table A-1: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in ICFMP BE# 2 

 Hot Gas Layer Temperature Hot Gas Layer Height 

Test ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Differenc

e ∆E (m) ∆M (m) 

Relative 

Differenc

e 

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% 

ICFMP 2-3 82.6 81.3 -2% -13.86 -12.55 -9% 

A.1.2 ICFMP BE # 3 

BE #3 consists of 15 liquid spray fire tests with different heat release rate, pan locations, and 

ventilation conditions. The basic geometry as modeled in MAGIC is shown in Error! 

Reference source not found.. 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. 

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

In the closed-door tests, the HGL layer 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. 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-5

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 comparison between MAGIC simulations and measured hot gas layer temperatures and 

heights are compiled in Error! Reference source not found. to Figure A-7. 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-6 

 

 

 

 

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

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tavg upper layer (C) 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Height (m)

Layer Height above floor (m) 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Layer

interface height

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Height (m)

 Height 

MAGIC Fire-Room :

Layer interface height

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper

layer temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Height (m)

 Height 

MAGIC Fire-Room :

Layer interface height

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Height (m)

 Height 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Layer interface

height
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-7

 

 

 

 

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

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Height (m)

 Height 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Layer

interface height

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Height (m)

 Height 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Layer

interface height

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Height (m)

 Height 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Layer

interface height

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Height (m)

 Height 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Layer

interface height
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-8 

 

Open Door Tests 

 

 

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

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Height (m)

 Height 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Layer

interface height

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Height (m)

 Height 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Layer

interface height

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Height (m)

 Height 

MAGIC Fire-Room :

Layer interface height
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-9

 

 

 

 

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

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Height (m)

 Height 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Layer

interface height

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Height (m)

 Height 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Layer

interface height

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Height (m)

 Height 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Layer

interface height

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

 T_upper

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Height (m)

 Height 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Layer

interface height
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-10 

Table A-2: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in ICFMP BE# 3 

 Hot Gas Layer Temperature Hot Gas Layer Height 

Test ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference ∆E (m) ∆M (m) 

Relative 

Difference

ICFMP 3-1 122.9 120.3 -2% N/A1

ICFMP 3-7 116.8 117.3 0% N/A1

ICFMP 3-2 229.2 219.2 -4% N/A1

ICFMP 3-8 217.7 218.3 0% N/A1

ICFMP 3-4 204.3 210.8 3% N/A1

ICFMP 3-10 197.8 209.4 6% N/A1

ICFMP 3-13 290.5 298.9 3% N/A1

ICFMP 3-16 268.4 278.6 4% N/A1

ICFMP 3-17 135.3 129.2 -5% N/A1

ICFMP 3-3 207.3 207.1 0% -3.26 -3.82 17% 

ICFMP 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 since the 

data reduction method does not account for the formation of a single layer, which is the case 

when the hot gas layer reaches the floor. 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-11

A.1.3 ICFMP BE #4 

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

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

compartment. Thus, its HGL temperature is considerably higher than the other fire tests under 

study. As shown in Figure A-8, the compartment geometry is fairly simple, consisting of a 

rectangular shape room. 

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

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. 

 

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

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

BE 4, Test 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 10 20 30 40

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC Fire : Upper layer temperature

Tup

Hot Gas Layer Height

BE 4, Test 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 10 20 30 40

Time (min)

Height (m)

MAGIC Fire : Layer interface

height

Layer height
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-12 

Table A-3: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in ICFMP BE# 4 

 Hot Gas Layer Temperature Hot Gas Layer Height 

Test ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference ∆E (m) ∆M (m) 

Relative 

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 of the experiments from this 

test series was used in the evaluation, Test 4, and only the first 20 min of the test, during the 

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

point, and the cables began to burn. 

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 simulation. The corresponding relative differences are 

listed in Table A-4. 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-13

 

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 

Test ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference ∆E (m) ∆M (m) 

Relative 

Difference

ICFMP 5-4 185.7 182.8 -2% -4.70 -4.72 1% 

A.1.5 FM/SNL 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. 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

BE 5, Test 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC T_up

Hot Gas Layer Height

BE 5, Test 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Height (m)

MAGIC Layer height
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-14 

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. 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-15

 

 

 

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 FM/SNL 

 Hot Gas Layer Temperature Hot Gas Layer Height 

Test ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference ∆E (m) ∆M (m) 

Relative 

Difference

FM/SNL 4 59.2 51.0 -14% -3.40 -5.50 N/A 

FM/SNL 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 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC Local_feu : Upper layer

temperature

 Tupper

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC Local_feu : Upper

layer temperature

 T_upper

Hot Gas Layer Height

FM/SNL, Test 5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

MAGIC Local_feu : Layer

interface height

 Height 

Hot Gas Layer Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 10 20 30 40

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC Local_feu : Upper

layer temperature

 T_upper

Hot Gas Layer Height

FM/SNL, Test 21

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Height (m)

MAGIC Local_feu : Layer

interface height

 Height 

Hot Gas Layer Height

FM/SNL, Test 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Height (m)

MAGIC Local_feu : Layer interface

height

 Height 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-16 

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 burn room, one near the door of the burn room, three in the 

corridor, one in the exit to the outside at the far end of the corridor, one near the door of the other 

or “target” room, and one inside the target room. Four of the eight arrays were selected for 

comparison with model prediction: the array in the burn room, the array in the middle of the 

corridor, the array at the far end of the corridor, and the array in the target room. In Tests 100A 

and 100O, the target room was closed, in which case the array in the exit doorway was used. 

The standard reduction method was not used to compute the experimental HGL temperature or 

height for this test series. Rather, the test director reduced the layer information individually for 

the eight thermocouple arrays using an alternative method (Peacock 1991). 

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

The following three figures (Figure A-15 to Figure A-17) compiled 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 O). Consequently, no relative difference was calculated for the target room 

in those two experiments. The relative differences are listed in Table A-6 to Table A-8. 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-17

 

 

 

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

Hot Gas Layer Temp, Burn Room

NBS, MV100A_2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

UP BR

MAGIC FireRoom : Upper layer temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height, Burn Room

NBS, MV100A_2

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGT DO

MAGIC FireRoom : Layer

interface height

Hot Gas Layer Temp, Burn Room Doorw ay

NBS, MV100A_2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

UP DO

MAGIC ConnectToFireRoom : Upper layer

t t

Hot Gas Layer Height, Burn Room Doorw ay

NBS, MV100A_2

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGT DO

MAGIC ConnectToFireRoom : Layer interface

h i ht

Hot Gas Layer Temp, Corridor

NBS, MV100A_2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

UP 4.5

MAGIC Corridor : Upper layer temperature

UP 18

UP 38

UP EXI

Hot Gas Layer Height, Corridor

NBS, MV100A_2

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGT4.5

M AGIC Corridor : Layer interface height

HGT 18

HGT 38

HGTEXI
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-18 

Table A-6: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in NBS Tests 

 Hot Gas Layer Temperature Hot Gas Layer Height 

 ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Difference ∆E (m) ∆M (m) 

Relative 

Difference

NBS A Burn Room 247.8 318.4 29% -1.18 -1.17 -1% 

NBS A Corridor 4.5 85.9 93.5 9% -2.24 -1.18 -47% 

NBS A Corridor 18 77.5 93.5 21% -1.27 -1.18 -7% 

NBS A Corridor 38 71.1 93.5 31% -2.22 -1.18 -47% 

NBS A Corridor EXI 66.4 93.5 41% -2.37 -1.18 -50% 

NBS A 

Target 

Room Target room closed 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-19

 

 

 

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

Hot Gas Layer Temp, Burn Room

NBS, MV100O_2

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

UP BR

MAGIC FireRoom : Upper layer

temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height, Burn Room

NBS, MV100O_2

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGT BR

MAGIC FireRoom : Layer interface height

Hot Gas Layer Temp, Burn Room Doorw ay

NBS, MV100O_2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

UP DO

MAGIC ConnectToFireRoom : Upper layer

Hot Gas Layer Height, Burn Room Doorw ay

NBS, MV100O_2

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGT DO

MAGIC ConnectToFireRoom : Layer interface

h i ht

Hot Gas Layer Temp, Corridor

NBS, MV100O_2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

UP 4.5

MAGIC Corridor : Upper layer temperature

UP 18

UP 38

UP EXI

Hot Gas Layer Height, Corridor

NBS, MV100O_2

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGT4.5

MAGIC Corridor : Layer interface height

HGT 18

HGT 38

HGTEXI
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-20 

Table A-7: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in NBS Tests 

 Hot Gas Layer Temperature Hot Gas Layer Height 

 ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Difference ∆E (m) ∆M (m) 

Relative 

Difference

NBS O Burn Room 310.3 399.3 29% -1.59 -1.19 -25% 

NBS O Corridor 4.5 94.5 97.3 3% -1.55 -1.06 -32% 

NBS O Corridor 18 94.7 97.3 3% -2.12 -2.44 15% 

NBS O Corridor 38 89.8 97.3 8% -2.14 -2.44 14% 

NBS O Corridor EXI 65.5 97.3 48% -2.23 -2.44 10% 

NBS O Target 

Room Target room closed 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-21

 

 

 

 

Hot Gas Layer Temp, Burn Room

NBS, MV100Z_2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

UP BR

MAGIC FireRoom : Upper layer

temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height, Burn Room

NBS, MV100Z_2

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2,0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGT BR

MAGIC FireRoom : Layer interface height

Hot Gas Layer Temp, Burn Room Doorw ay

NBS, MV100Z_2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

UP DO

MAGIC ConnectToFireRoom : Upper layer

t t

Hot Gas Layer Height, Burn Room Doorw ay

NBS, MV100Z_2

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGT DO

MAGIC ConnectToFireRoom : Layer interface

h i ht

Hot Gas Layer Temp, Corridor

NBS, MV100Z_2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

UP 4.5 < UP 18

UP 38 UP EXI

Hot Gas Layer Height, Corridor

NBS, MV100Z_2

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGT4.5

MAGIC Corridor : Layer interface height

HGT 18

HGT 38

HGTEXI

Hot Gas Layer Temp, Target Room Doorw ay

NBS, MV100Z_2

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

UP TRD

MAGIC ConnectToTargetRoo : Upper layer

Hot Gas Layer Height, Target Room Doorw ay

NBS, MV100Z_2

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGTTRD

MAGIC ConnectToTargetRoo : Layer interface

height
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-22 

 

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

Table A-8: Relative differences of hot gas layer temperature and height in NBS Tests 

 Hot Gas Layer Temperature Hot Gas Layer Height 

 ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Difference ∆E (m) ∆M (m) 

Relative 

Difference

NBS Z Burn Room 283.9 311.9 10% -1.67 -1.17 -30% 

NBS Z Corridor 4.5 68.7 92.9 35% -1.24 -1.05 -15% 

NBS Z Corridor 18 61.1 92.9 52% -1.70 -1.05 -38% 

NBS Z Corridor 38 58.2 92.9 60% -1.76 -1.05 -40% 

NBS Z Corridor EXI 51.2 92.9 82% -1.36 -1.05 -23% 

NBS Z Target 

Room 31.7 37.8 19% -2.06 -1.66 114% 

Hot Gas Layer Temp, Target Room

NBS, MV100Z_2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Temp (C)

UP TR

MAGIC TargetRoom : Upper layer temperature

Hot Gas Layer Height, Target Room

NBS, MV100Z_2

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Height (m)

HGT TR

MAGIC TargetRoom : Layer interface height
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-23

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 towards 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. 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-24 

 

 

 

 

Figure A-18: Near-ceiling gas (ceiling jet) temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

MAGIC Tree7-10 : Gas temperature

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

MAGIC Tree7-10 : Gas temperature

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

MAGIC Tree7-10 : Gas temperature

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

MAGIC Tree7-10 : Gas temperature

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

MAGIC Tree7-10 : Gas temperature

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

MAGIC Tree7-10 : Gas temperature

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

MAGIC Tree7-10 : Gas temperature

Ceiling Jet Temp

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0,0

50,0

100,0

150,0

200,0

250,0

300,0

350,0

400,0

450,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Pressure (PSI)

Tree 7-10 

MAGIC Tree7-10 : Gas

temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-25

Open Door Tests 

 

 

 

Figure A-19: Near-ceiling gas (ceiling jet) temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests 

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

MAGIC Tree7-10 : Gas temperature

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

MAGIC Tree7-10 : Gas temperature

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

MAGIC Tree7-10 : Gas temperature

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

MAGIC Tree7-10 : Gas temperature

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

MAGIC Tree7-10 : Gas temperature

Ceiling Jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

MAGIC Tree7-10 : Gas temperature

Ceiling jet Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Tree 7-10 

MAGIC Tree7-10 : Gas temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-26 

Table A-9: Relative differences for ceiling jet temperature in ICFMP BE #3 

Instrument ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Differenc

e 

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% 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-27

A.2.2 The FM/SNL 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. 

 

 

 

Figure A-20: Near-ceiling gas (ceiling jet) temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1 and 3. 

Ceiling Jet Temp

FM/SNL, Test 4 - Sector 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC SEC1_98 : Gas temperature

1/(0.98 H)

Ceiling Jet Temp

FM/SNL, Test 4 - Sector 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC SEC3_98 : Gas temperature

11/(0.98 H)

Ceiling Jet Temp

FM/SNL, Test 5 - Sector 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC SEC1_98 : Gas temperature

1/(0.98 H)

Ceiling Jet Temp

FM/SNL, Test 5 - Sector 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC SEC3_98 : Gas temperature

11/(0.98 H)

Ceiling Jet Temp

FM/SNL, Test 21- Sector 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC SEC1_98 : Gas temperature

1/(0.98 H)

Ceiling Jet Temp

FM/SNL, Test 21 - Sector 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC SEC3_98 : Gas temperature

11/(0.98 H)
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-28 

Table A-10: Relative differences for ceiling jet temperatures in FM/SNL Tests 

Instrument ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Differenc

e 

1/98H 82.8 78.8 -5% FM/SNL 4 11/98H 66.1 58.1 -12% 

1/98H 73.7 66.8 -9% FM/SNL 5 11/98H 52.6 47.5 -10% 

1/98H 75.9 74.2 -2% FM/SNL 21 11/98H 77.2 74.2 -4% 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-29

A.3 Plume Temperature 

Plume temperature measurements are available from ICFMP BE #2 and the FM/SNL series. For 

all the other series of experiments, the temperature 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 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 (13.12 ft) above the fire pan. (Figure A-21). 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 Simo Hostikka, VTT Building and 

Transport, Espoo, Finland.
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-30 

 

Figure A-22: Near-ceiling gas temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 1 and 3. 

Figure A-22 above illustrates the graphical comparison between experimental plume 

temperatures and MAGIC prediction 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 

Instrume

nt ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Differenc

e 

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% 

Plume Temp

BE 2, Case 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 2 4 6 8 10 Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC Gas temperature

MAGIC Gas temperature

T G.1

T G.2

Plume Temp

BE 2, Case 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

02468

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC Gas temperature

MAGIC Gas temperature

T G.1

T G.2

Plume Temp

BE 2, Case 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

02468

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC Gas temperature

MAGIC Gas temperature

T G.1

T G.2
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-31

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. 

 

Figure A-23: Near-plume temperatures, FM/SNL Series, Sectors 13. 

Table A-12: Relative differences of plume temperature in FM/SNL tests 

Instrume

nt ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Differenc

e 

FM/SNL 4 28/98H 116 115 0% 

FM/SNL 5 28/98H 94 101 8% 

Plume Temp

FM/SNL, Test 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC STATION13_98 : Gas temperature

28/(0.98 H)

Plume Temp

FM/SNL, Test 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC STATION13_98 : Gas temperature

28/(0.98 H)
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-32 

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 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. 

 

Figure A-24: Flame heights for ICFMP BE # 2 

Flame Height

BE 2, Case 1

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

02468

Time (min)

Height (m)

MAGIC Flame height

Flame Height

BE 2, Case 2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

02468

Time (min)

Height (m)

MAGIC Flame height

Flame Height

BE 2, Case 3

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

02468

Time (min)

Height (m)

MAGIC Flame height
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-33

Figure A-25: Photographs of heptane pan fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2. Courtesy, Simo 

Hostikka, VTT Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland. 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-34 

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 size of 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 be overpredicting flame heights, as most of the predictions are over 3 m high. 

Figure A-26: Photograph and simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3, as seen through the 2 m 

by 2 m doorway. Photo courtesy of Francisco Joglar, SAIC. 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-35

 

 

 

 

Figure A-27: Near-ceiling gas temperatures, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

-1

0

1

1

2

2

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Flame Height (m)

MAGIC Fire-Pan : Flame height

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Flame Height (m)

MAGIC Fire-Pan : Flame height

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Flame Height (m)

MAGIC Fire-Pan : Flame height

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Flame Height (m)

MAGIC Fire-Pan : Flame height

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Flame Height (m)

MAGIC Fire-Pan : Flame height

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Flame Height (m)

MAGIC Fire-Pan : Flame height

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Flame Height (m)

MAGIC Fire-Pan : Flame height

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Flame Height (m)

MAGIC Fire-Pan : Flame height
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-36 

Open Door Tests 

 

 

 

Figure A-28: Flame heights, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests 

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Flame Height (m)

MAGIC Fire-Pan : Flame height

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Flame Height (m)

MAGIC Fire-Pan : Flame height

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Flame Height (m)

MAGIC Fire-Pan : Flame height

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Flame Height (m)

MAGIC Fire-Pan : Flame height

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Flame Height (m)

MAGIC Fire-Pan : Flame height

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Flame Height (m)

MAGIC Fire-Pan : Flame height

Flame Height

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Flame Height (m)

MAGIC Fire-Pan : Flame height
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-37

A.5 Oxygen Concentration 

Oxygen concentration data is available for accuracy calculations in ICFMP benchmark exercises 

number 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 comparing the lowest concentration measured in the experiments with 

the lowest concentration predicted by MAGIC. Positive relative differences indicate that 

MAGIC is predicting a lower concentration than the one measured in the experiments. 

A.5.1 ICFMP BE #3 

In experiments with close 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. 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-38 

 

 

 

 

Figure A-29: O2 concentration, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

O2-1 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer oxygen

concentration

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

O2-1 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

oxygen concentration

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

O2-1 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer oxygen

concentration

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

O2-1 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

oxygen concentration

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

O2-1 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer oxygen

concentration

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

O2-1 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer oxygen

concentration

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

O2-1 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer oxygen

concentration

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

O2-1 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer oxygen

concentration
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-39

Open Door Tests 

 

 

 

Figure A-30: O2, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

O2-1 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer

oxygen concentration

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

O2-1 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer oxygen

concentration

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

O2-1 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer oxygen

concentration

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

O2-1 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer oxygen

concentration

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

O2-1 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer oxygen

concentration

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

O2-1 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer oxygen

concentration

Oxygen Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Volume Fraction

O2-1 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Upper layer oxygen

concentration
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-40 

Table A-13: Relative differences of oxygen concentration in ICFMP BE #3 tests 

∆E ∆M 

Relative 

Differenc

e 

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% 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-41

A.5.1 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. 

Figure A-31: O2, ICFMP BE #5, Test 1 

Table A-14: Relative differences of oxygen concentration in ICFMP BE #3 tests 

∆E ∆M 

Relative 

Differenc

e 

ICFMP 5-4 -0.028 -0.035 24% 

Oxygen Concentration

BE 5, Test 4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Concentration (%)

MAGIC: Upper Layer Conc

GA 1-O2

GA 2-O2

MAGIC: Low er Layer Conc
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-42 

A.6 Smoke Concentration 

Data for smoke concentration is only available in ICFMP BE # 3. Positive accuracies are an 

indication of MAGIC prediction higher smoke concentrations than the ones measured in the 

experiments. Depending on the application, this may not mean a conservative result. 

The units used for accuracy calculations are mg/m3

. Notice that MAGIC output is average 

extinction coefficient, k, with units of 1/m. As a result, the direct output from the model was 

converted to mg/m3

 using the following equation: 

mk υ = k

where ν is the concentration in mg/m3

, and km is a constant with value 0.0076 m2/mg (Ref. 18). 

A.6.1 ICFMP BE #3 

Figure A-32and 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.

 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-43

 

 

 

 

Figure A-32: Smoke concentration in ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m3)

Smoke Conc. 

MAGIC Fire Room : Smoke

Concentration

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m3)

Smoke Conc. 

MAGIC Fire Room : Smoke

Concentration

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m3)

Smoke Conc. 

MAGIC Fire Room : Smoke

Concentration

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m3)

Smoke Conc. 

MAGIC Fire Room : Smoke

Concentration

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m3)

Smoke Conc. 

MAGIC Fire Room :

Smoke Concentration

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m3)

Smoke Conc. 

MAGIC Fire Room : Smoke

Concentration

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m3)

Smoke Conc. 

MAGIC Fire Room : Smoke

Concentration

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m3)

Smoke Conc. 

MAGIC Fire Room : Smoke

Concentration
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-44 

Open Door Tests 

 

 

 

Figure A-33: Smoke concentration in ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m3)

Smoke Conc. 

MAGIC Fire Room : Smoke

Concentration

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m3)

Smoke Conc. 

MAGIC Fire Room : Smoke

Concentration

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m3)

Smoke Conc. 

MAGIC Fire Room : Smoke

Concentration

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m3)

Smoke Conc. 

MAGIC Fire Room : Smoke Concentration

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m3)

Smoke Conc. 

MAGIC Fire Room : Smoke Concentration

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m3)

Smoke Conc. 

MAGIC Fire Room : Smoke Concentration

Smoke Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Smoke Density (mg/m3)

Smoke Conc. 

MAGIC Fire Room : Smoke Concentration
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-45

Table A-15: Relative differences of smoke concentration in ICFMP BE #3 tests 

∆E (mg/m3) ∆M (mg/m3)

Relative 

Differenc

e 

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% 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-46 

A.7 Room 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 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 close 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 pressurize room in the 

early stages of the test, and a negatively pressurize room when the fuel supply is discontinued 

and heat loses to the boundaries are higher than the fire hear release rate. 

Comparisons between measurement and prediction 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, whereas 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 opened 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 a more negative difference than the experimental measurement. 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-47

 . 

 

 

 

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

Room Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

CompP 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Pressure at the

room floor

Room Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

CompP 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Pressure at

the room floor

Room Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

CompP 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Pressure at

the room floor

Room Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

CompP 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Pressure at the

room floor

Room Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

CompP 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Pressure

at the room floor

Room Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

CompP 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Pressure at the

room floor

Room Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

CompP 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Pressure at

the room floor

Room Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

CompP 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Pressure

at the room floor
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-48 

Open Door Tests 

 

 

 

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

Room Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

CompP 

MAGIC Fire-Room :

Pressure at the room floor

Room Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

CompP 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Pressure at the

room floor

Room Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

-3

-3

-2

-2

-1

-1

0

1

1

2

2

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

CompP 

MAGIC Fire-Room :

Pressure at the room floor

Room Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

CompP 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Pressure at the room floor

Room Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

CompP 

MAGIC Fire-Room : Pressure at the

room floor

Room Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

-3

-3

-2

-2

-1

-1

0

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

CompP 

MAGIC Fire-Room :

Pressure at the room floor

Room Pressure

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

-3,5

-3,0

-2,5

-2,0

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Pressure (Pa)

CompP 

MAGIC Fire-Room :

Pressure at the room floor
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-49

Table A-16: Relative differences for compartment pressure in ICFMP BE #3 tests 

∆E (Pa) ∆M (Pa) 

Relative 

Differenc

e 

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 as 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. 

On the other hand, 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 

“fluxmeter” output option in MAGIC was selected for comparison. 

The total flux gauges used in the experiment corresponds to the total heat flux with a target 

calibrated using 75°C (167 o

F) cooling water. In MAGIC, the target measuring total heat flux is 

based on ambient temperature (~20 °C, 68 o

F). 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-50 

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 Targets 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.
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-51

 

 

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

Target B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 4-8 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

MAGIC RG3&4 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG3&4 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 4 

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-Ts-14 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 4-8 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

MAGIC RG3&4 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG3&4 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 4 

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-Ts-14 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-52 

 

 

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

Target B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 4-8 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

MAGIC RG3&4 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG3&4 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 4-8 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

MAGIC RG3&4 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG3&4 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 4 

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-Ts-14 : Maximum

surface temperature

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-Ts-14 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-53

 

 

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

Target B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 4-8 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

MAGIC RG3&4 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG3&4 : Incident

heat flux

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 4-8 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

MAGIC RG3&4 : Total heat

flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG3&4 : Incident

heat flux

Cable Total Flux 4 

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-Ts-14 : Maximum

surface temperature

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-Ts-14 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-54 

 

 

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

Target B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 4-8 Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13 0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

MAGIC RG3&4 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG3&4 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 4 

Target B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 4-8 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16 0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

MAGIC RG3&4 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG3&4 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 4 

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-Ts-14 : Maximum

surface temperature

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-Ts-14 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-55

 

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

Target B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 4-8 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

MAGIC RG3&4 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG3&4 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 4 

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC B-Ts-14 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-56 

 

 

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

Target B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 4-8 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

MAGIC RG3&4 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG3&4 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 4 

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-Ts-14 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 4-8 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

MAGIC RG3&4 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG3&4 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 4 

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-Ts-14 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-57

 

 

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

Target B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 4-8 Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

MAGIC RG3&4 : Total heat flux

'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG3&4 : Incident heat

flux

Cable Total Flux 4 

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-Ts-14 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 4-8 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

MAGIC RG3&4 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG3&4 : Incident

heat flux

Cable Total Flux 4 

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-Ts-14 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-58 

 

 

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

Target B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

150

300

450

600

750

900

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 4-8 

Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

MAGIC RG3&4 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG3&4 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 4 

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-Ts-14 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-14 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 4-8 Target B-TS-14 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

20,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 3 

MAGIC RG3&4 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG3&4 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 4 

Cable B-TS-14 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

B-Ts-14 

MAGIC B-Ts-14 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-59

Table A-17: Relative differences for surface temperature to cable B 

Target Surface Temp, BTS-14 Cable Surface Temp, BTS-14 

Control 

Cable ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Diff ∆E (oC) ∆M (oC)

Relativ

e 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 

Cable 

∆E 

(kW/m2

) 

∆M 

(kW/m2)

Relative 

Diff 

∆E 

(kW/m2)

∆M 

(kW/m2)

Relative 

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% 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-60 

 

 

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

Target D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 3-9 Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

MAGIC RG7&8 : Total heat

flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG7&8 : Incident

heat flux

Cable TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 3-9 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

MAGIC RG7&8 : Total heat flux

'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG7&8 : Incident heat

flux

Cable D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Maximum

surface temperature

D-Ts-12 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-61

 

 

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

Target D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 3-9 

D-Ts-12 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

MAGIC RG7&8 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG7&8 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 6 

Cable D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Maximum

surface temperature

D-Ts-12 

Target D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 3-9 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

MAGIC RG7&8 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG7&8 :

Incident heat flux

Cable D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Maximum

surface temperature

D-Ts-12 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-62 

 

 

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

Target D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 3-9 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

MAGIC RG7&8 : Total heat

flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG7&8 : Incident heat

flux

Cable TS-35 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 3-9 Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

MAGIC RG7&8 : Total heat flux

'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG7&8 : Incident heat

flux

Cable D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Maximum

surface temperature

D-Ts-12 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-63

 

 

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

Target D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 3-9 

D-Ts-12 

Cable D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Maximum

surface temperature

D-Ts-12 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

20,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

MAGIC RG7&8 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG7&8 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 8 

Cable D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Maximum

surface temperature

D-Ts-12 

Target D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 3-9 

D-Ts-12 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

MAGIC RG7&8 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG7&8 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 8 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-64 

 

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

Target D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 3-9 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

MAGIC RG7&8 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG7&8 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 6 

Cable D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-65

 

 

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

Target D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 3-9 

D-Ts-12 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

MAGIC RG7&8 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG7&8 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 6 

Cable TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Maximum

surface temperature

D-Ts-12 

Target D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 3-9 

D-Ts-12 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

MAGIC RG7&8 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG7&8 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 6 

Cable TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Maximum

surface temperature

D-Ts-12 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-66 

 

 

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

Target D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 3-9 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

MAGIC RG7&8 : Total heat

flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG7&8 : Incident

heat flux

Cable D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Maximum

surface temperature

D-Ts-12 

Target D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 3-9 

D-Ts-12 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

MAGIC RG7&8 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG7&8 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 6 

Cable D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Maximum

surface temperature

D-Ts-12 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-67

 

 

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

Target D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 3-9 

D-Ts-12 

Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

20,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

MAGIC RG7&8 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG7&8 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 6 

Cable D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Maximum

surface temperature

D-Ts-12 

Target D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 3-9 

D-Ts-12 Target D-TS-12 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 7 

MAGIC RG7&8 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG7&8 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 6 

Cable D-TS-12 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC D-TS-12 : Maximum

surface temperature

D-Ts-12 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-68 

Table A-19: Relative differences for surface temperature to cable D 

Target Surface Temp, DTS-12 Cable Surface Temp, DTS-12 

Control 

Cable ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Diff ∆E (oC) ∆M (oC)

Relativ

e Diff 

Test 1 115 112 

Test 7 87 111 27% 87 108 -4% 

Test 2 126 204 62% 126 187 48% 

Test 8 150 203 36% 150 186 4% 

Test 4 113 201 77% 113 192 70% 

Test 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 

Control 

Cable 

∆E 

(kW/m2

) 

∆M 

(kW/m2

)

Relative 

Diff 

∆E 

(kW/m2

)

∆M 

(kW/m2

)

Relative 

Diff 

Test 1 1.44 1.59 10% 3.07 

Test 7 4.16 3.64 -12% 2.52 2.99 19% 

Test 2 3.75 9.83 6.93 -29% 

Test 8 3.26 3.43 5% 8.51 6.86 -19% 

Test 4 4.78 3.22 -33% 7.23 6.60 -9% 

Test 10 1.35 1.54 14% 6.71 6.54 -3% 

Test 13 3.55 3.59 1% 11.22 11.50 3% 

Test 16 5.26 3.61 -31% 11.67 10.08 -14% 

Test 17 2.91 3.39 16% 3.29 3.43 4% 

Test 3 6.58 7.02 7% 9.45 6.85 -28% 

Test 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 7.83 6.50 -17% 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-69

 

 

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

Target F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 5-6 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

MAGIC RG1&2 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG1&2 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 2 

Cable F-TS-20 (Bottom) Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-Ts-20 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 5-6 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

MAGIC RG1&2 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG1&2 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 2 

Cable F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-Ts-20 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-70 

 

 

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

Target F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 5-6 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

MAGIC RG1&2 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG1&2 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 2 

Cable F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-Ts-20 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 5-6 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

MAGIC RG1&2 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG1&2 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 2 

Cable F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-Ts-20 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-71

 

 

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

Target F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 5-6 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

MAGIC RG1&2 : Total heat flux

'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG1&2 : Incident heat

flux

Cable Total Flux 2 

Cable F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-Ts-20 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 5-6 Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

MAGIC RG1&2 : Total heat

flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG1&2 : Incident

heat flux

Cable Total Flux 2 

Cable F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-Ts-20 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-72 

 

 

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

Target F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC B-TS-20 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-20 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 5-6 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

MAGIC RG1&2 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG1&2 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 2 

Cable F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-Ts-20 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC B-TS-20 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-20 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 5-6 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

MAGIC RG1&2 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG1&2 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 2 

Cable F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-Ts-20 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-73

 

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

Target F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 5-6 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

MAGIC RG1&2 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG1&2 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 2 

Cable F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC F-Ts-20 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-74 

 

 

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

Target F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 5-6 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

MAGIC RG1&2 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG1&2 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 2 

Cable F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-Ts-20 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 5-6 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

MAGIC RG1&2 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG1&2 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 2 

Cable F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-Ts-20 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-75

 

 

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

Target F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 5-6 Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

MAGIC RG1&2 : Total heat

flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG1&2 : Incident

heat flux

Cable Total Flux 2 

Cable F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-Ts-20 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC B-TS-20 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-20 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 5-6 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

MAGIC RG1&2 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG1&2 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 2 

Cable F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-Ts-20 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-76 

 

 

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

Target F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC B-TS-20 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC B-TS-20 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 5-6 

Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

MAGIC RG1&2 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG1&2 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 2 

Cable F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-Ts-20 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC F-TS-20 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 5-6 Target F-TS-20 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

20,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 1 

MAGIC RG1&2 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG1&2 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 2 

Cable F-TS-20 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

F-Ts-20 

MAGIC F-Ts-20 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-77

Table A-21: Relative differences for surface temperature to cable F 

Target Surface Temp, F-TS-20 Cable Surface Temp, F-TS-20 

Power 

Cable ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Diff ∆E (oC) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Diff 

Test 1 83 109 32% 83 95 15% 

Test 7 90 109 21% 87 101 12% 

Test 2 129 183 42% 129 150 16% 

Test 8 131 181 38% 131 148 13% 

Test 4 149 189 27% 149 158 6% 

Test 10 150 194 29% 150 174 16% 

Test 13 143 219 52% 143 188 31% 

Test 16 168 227 35% 168 199 19% 

Test 17 

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 1 Total Heat Flux, Gauge 2 

Power 

Cable 

∆E 

(kW/m2) 

∆M 

(kW/m2)

Relative 

Diff 

∆E 

(kW/m2)

∆M 

(kW/m2)

Relative 

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% 

Test 2 2.95 3.40 15% 4.77 6.89 44% 

Test 8 2.02 3.33 65% 4.93 6.82 38% 

Test 4 2.65 2.69 2% 5.02 6.49 29% 

Test 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% 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-78 

 

 

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

Target TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Gas temperature

MAGIC TS-33 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 2-5 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

MAGIC RG9&10 : Total heat

flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG9&10 : Incident

heat flux

Cable TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC TS-33 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 2-5 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

MAGIC RG9&10 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG9&10 :

Incident heat flux

Cable TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-79

 

 

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

Target TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC TS-33 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 2-5 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

MAGIC RG9&10 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG9&10 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 9 

Cable TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC TS-33 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 2-5 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

MAGIC RG9&10 : Total heat

flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG9&10 : Incident

heat flux

Cable TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-80 

 

 

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

Target TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC TS-33 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 2-5 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

MAGIC RG9&10 : Total heat

flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG9&10 : Incident heat

flux

Cable TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC TS-33 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 2-5 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

MAGIC RG9&10 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG9&10 : Incident

heat flux

Cable TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-81

 

 

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

Target TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC TS-33 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 2-5 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

MAGIC RG9&10 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG9&10 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 9 

Cable TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC TS-33 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 2-5 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

20,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

MAGIC RG9&10 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG9&10 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 9 

Cable TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-82 

 

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

Target TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC TS-33 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 2-5 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

MAGIC RG9&10 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG9&10 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 9 

Cable TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC TS-33 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-83

 

 

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

Target TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC TS-33 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 2-5 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

MAGIC RG9&10 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG9&10 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 9 

Cable TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC TS-33 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 2-5 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

MAGIC RG9&10 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG9&10 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 9 

Cable TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-84 

 

 

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

Target TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC TS-33 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 2-5 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

MAGIC RG9&10 : Total heat

flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG9&10 : Incident

heat flux

Cable TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC TS-33 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 2-5 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

MAGIC RG9&10 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG9&10 : Incident

heat flux

Cable Total Flux 9 

Cable TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-85

 

 

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

Target TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Gas

temperature

MAGIC TS-33 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 2-5 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

MAGIC RG9&10 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG9&10 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 9 

Cable TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Maximum

surface temperature

Target TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Gas temperature

MAGIC TS-33 : Surface

temperature of the target

Tree 2-5 

Target TS-33 Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Cable Rad Gauge 10 

MAGIC RG9&10 : Total

heat flux 'fluxmeter'

MAGIC RG9&10 :

Incident heat flux

Cable Total Flux 9 

Cable TS-33 Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

Vertical Cable Ts-33 

MAGIC TS-33 : Maximum

surface temperature
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-86 

Table A-23: Relative differences for surface temperature to cable G 

Target Surface Temp, GTS-33 Cable Surface Temp, GTS-33 

Control 

Cable ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Diff ∆E (oC) ∆M (oC)

Relativ

e Diff 

Test 1 64 114 79% 64 111 74% 

Test 7 78 111 42% 90 107 37% 

Test 2 107 204 91% 107 184 72% 

Test 8 107 203 90% 107 182 70% 

Test 4 125 201 61% 125 189 51% 

Test 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 

Cable 

∆E 

(kW/m2) 

∆M 

(kW/m2)

Relative 

Diff 

∆E 

(kW/m2)

∆M 

(kW/m2)

Relative 

Diff 

Test 1 1.51 1.41 -6% 

Test 7 5.97 3.64 -39% 1.89 2.99 56% 

Test 2 5.36 3.71 -31% 

Test 8 6.00 3.41 -43% 5.98 6.86 15% 

Test 4 5.45 3.16 -42% 6.42 6.58 2% 

Test 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% 

Test 15 2.42 2.15 -11% 5.12 6.36 24% 

Test 18 2.85 3.06 8% 4.45 6.13 38% 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-87

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-17respectively. 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-88 

 

 

 

Figure A-68: Heat Flux and Surface Temperatures of Target Slabs, ICFMP BE #4, Test 1. 

Table A-25: Relative differences for surface temperature, and total heat flux to targets 

 ∆E (oC) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Diff 

∆E 

(kW/m2

)

∆M 

(kW/m2

) 

Relative 

Diff 

Steel, M34 356 684 92% 27.18 75.65 178% 

Concrete, M33 308 608 97% 46.56 75.65 63% ICFMP 4-1 Gas Concrete, 

M29 489 728 49% 32.41 75.65 133% 

Light Concrete Surface Temperature

BE 4, Test 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 10 20 30 40

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC M29_GasConcr : Surface

temperature of the target

M29

Total Flux to Light Concrete Plate

BE 4, Test 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40

Time (min)

Heat Flux (KW/m2)

MAGIC M29_GasConcr : Total heat

flux 'fluxmeter'

WS4

Concrete Surface Temperature

BE 4, Test 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 10 20 30 40

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC M33_Concrete : Surface

temperature of the target

M33

Total Flux to Concrete Plate

BE 4, Test 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40

Time (min)

Heat Flux (KW/m2)

MAGIC M33_Concrete : Total heat

flux 'fluxmeter'

WS3

Steel Plate Surface Temperature

BE 4, Test 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 10 20 30 40

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC M34_Steel : Surface

temperature of the target

M34

Total Flux to Steel Plate

BE 4, Test 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 10 20 30 40

Time (min)

Heat Flux (KW/m2)

MAGIC M34_Steel : Total heat

flux 'fluxmeter'

WS2
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-89

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, the other, control. On the 

following pages are plots of the gas temperature, heat flux and cable surface temperatures at 

three vertical locations along the tray. 

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. 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-90 

 

 

 

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

Table A-26: Relative differences for surface temperature 

Surface 

Temperature Instrument ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Difference

TCO 1-3 141.1 165.1 17% 

TCO 3-3 144.3 165.2 14% 

TCO 1-5 147.8 159.2 8% 

TCO 3-5 222.5 159.3 -28% 

TCO 1-7 182.6 157.6 -14% 

ICFMP 5-4 

TCO 3-7 180.2 157.7 -13% 

Total Flux to Cables

BE 5, Test 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (KW/m2)

MAGIC WS2 WS2

Total Flux to Cables

BE 5, Test 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (KW/m2)

MAGIC WS3 WS3

Total Flux to Cables

BE 5, Test 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (KW/m2)

MAGIC WS4 WS4

Cable Surface Temperature

BE 5, Test 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC TCO 1-3

TCO 1-3

TCO 3-3

MAGIC TCO 3-3

Cable Surface Temperature

BE 5, Test 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC TCO 1-5

TCO 1-5

TCO 3-5

MAGIC TCO 3-5

Cable Surface Temperature

BE 5, Test 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC TCO 1-7

TCO 1-7

TCO 3-7

MAGIC TCO 3-7
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-91

Table A-27: Relative differences for total heat flux 

Total Heat 

Flux Instrument 

∆E 

(kW/m2) 

∆M 

(kW/m2) 

Relative 

Diff 

WS2 141 161 14% 

ICFMP 5-4 WS3 144 174 21% 

WS4 148 158 7% 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-92 

A.9 Compartment Wall Temperature and Heat Flux 

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, only here the focus is on compartment walls, ceiling and floors. 

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 layer. The 

second option is to locate a target characterized by the wall properties. The second option is 

preferred for validation purposes since 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 walls of the 

compartment, plus the ceiling and floor. Comparisons between measured and predicted heat 

fluxes and surface temperatures are shown on the following pages for a selected number of 

locations. Over half of the measurement points were in roughly the same relative location to the 

fire and hence the measurements and predictions were similar. For this reason, data for the east 

and north walls are shown because the data from the south and west walls are comparable. Data 

from the south wall is used in cases where the corresponding instrument on the north wall failed, 

or in cases where the fire was positioned close to the south wall. 

The heat flux gauges used on the compartment walls measured the net, not total, heat flux. 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. 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-93

 

 

 

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

North Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC South U-4-2 

TC North U-1-2 

MAGIC South-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC North-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

North Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

South U-4 

North U-1 

MAGIC South-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC North-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

North Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC South U-4-2 

TC North U-1-2 

MAGIC South-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC North-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

North Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7 0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

South U-4 

North U-1 

MAGIC South-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC North-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

North Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC South U-4-2 

TC North U-1-2 

MAGIC South-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC North-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

North Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

South U-4 

North U-1 

MAGIC South-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC North-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

North Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC North U-4-2 

TC North U-1-2 

MAGIC North-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC North-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

North Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8 0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

North U-4 

North U-1 

MAGIC North-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC North-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-94 

 

 

 

 

Figure A-71: Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 

North Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC North U-4-2 

TC North U-1-2 

MAGIC North-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC North-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

North Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4 0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

North U-4 

North U-1 

MAGIC North-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC North-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

North, Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC North U-4-2 

TC North U-1-2 

MAGIC North-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC North-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

North Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10 0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

North U-4 

North U-1 

MAGIC North-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC North-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

`

North Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC North U-4-2 

TC North U-1-2 

MAGIC North-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC North-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

North Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

North U-4 

North U-1 

MAGIC North-U3 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC WesT-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

North Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC North U-4-2 

TC North U-1-2 

MAGIC North-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC North-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

North Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

North U-4 

North U-1 

MAGIC North-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC WesT-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-95

 

Open Door Tests

 

 

Figure A-72: Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 

North Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC North U-4-2 

TC North U-1-2 

MAGIC North-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC North-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

North Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 5 10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

North U-4 

North U-1 

MAGIC North-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC North-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

North Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC North U-4-2 

TC North U-1-2 

MAGIC North-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC North-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

North Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

North U-4 

North U-1 

MAGIC North-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC North-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

North Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC North U-4-2 

TC North U-1-2 

MAGIC North-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC North-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

North Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

North U-4 

North U-1 

MAGIC North-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC North-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-96 

 

 

 

 

Figure A-73: Long wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 

North Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC North U-4-2 

TC North U-1-2 

MAGIC North-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC North-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

North Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

North U-4 

North U-1 

MAGIC North-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC North-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

North Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC North U-4-2 

TC North U-1-2 

MAGIC North-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC North-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

North Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14 0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

North U-4 

North U-1 

MAGIC North-U3 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC WesT-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

North Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC South U-1-2 

TC South U-3-2 

MAGIC South-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC South-U3 : Surface

temperature of the target

North Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

South U-3 

South U-1 

MAGIC South-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC North-U6 : Total

absorbed heat flux

North Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC South U-1-2 

TC South U-4-2 

MAGIC South-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC South-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

North Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

South U-1 

South U-4 

MAGIC South-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC South-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-97

Table A-28: Relative differences for temperature and total heat flux corresponding to 

the long wall 

Wall Temperature Wall Total Heat Flux 

Long 

Wall 

Instrument

∆E (oC) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Diff 

∆E 

(kW/m2

)

∆M 

(kW/m2

)

Relative 

Diff 

N1 54 89 65% 0.7 1.1 49% 

Test 1 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% 

N1 95 157 66% 2.5 2.8 12% 

Test 8 N4 120 157 19% 1.5 2.8 83% 

N1 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% 

Test 18 S4 312 191 -39% 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-98 

 

 

 

 

Figure A-74: Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 

East Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1 0

50

100

150

200

250

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC East U-2-2 

TC East U-1-2 

MAGIC EAST-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

East Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2,0

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

East U-1 

East U-2 

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

East Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC East U-2-2 

TC East U-3-2 

MAGIC EAST-U3 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

East Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

East U-3 

East U-2 

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U3 : Total

absorbed heat flux

East Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC East U-2-2 

TC East U-1-2 

MAGIC EAST-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

East Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

0 5 10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

East U-1 

East U-2 

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

East Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC East U-2-2 

TC East U-1-2 

MAGIC EAST-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

East Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

East U-1 

East U-2 

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-99

 

 

 

 

Figure A-75: Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 

East Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC East U-2-2 

TC East U-1-2 

MAGIC EAST-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

East Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

East U-1 

East U-2 

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

East Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC East U-2-2 

TC East U-3-2 

MAGIC EAST-U3 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

East, Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

East U-3 

East U-2 

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U3 : Total

absorbed heat flux

East Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC East U-4-2 

TC East U-1-2 

MAGIC EAST-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

East Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

East U-1 

East U-4 

MAGIC CEILINGC-5 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

s

East Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 5 10

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC East U-2-2 

TC East U-1-2 

MAGIC EAST-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

East Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

East U-1 

East U-2 

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-100 

 

Open Door Test 

 

 

Figure A-76: Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 

East Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 5 10

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC East U-2-2 

TC East U-3-2 

MAGIC EAST-U3 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

East Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 5 10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

East U-2 

East U-3 

MAGIC EAST-U3 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

East Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC East U-2-2 

TC East U-1-2 

MAGIC EAST-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

East Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3 0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

East U-1 

East U-2 

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

East Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC East U-4-2 

TC East U-3-2 

MAGIC EAST-U3 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

East Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

East U-3 

East U-4 

MAGIC EAST-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U3 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-101

 

 

 

 

Figure A-77: Short wall heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, open door tests. 

East Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC East U-2-2 

TC East U-1-2 

MAGIC EAST-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

East Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

East U-1 

East U-2 

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

East Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC East U-2-2 

TC East U-3-2 

MAGIC EAST-U3 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

East Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

East U-2 

East U-3 

MAGIC FLOOR-U8 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U3 : Total

absorbed heat flux

s

East Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC East U-2-2 

TC East U-3-2 

MAGIC EAST-U3 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

East Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

East U-2 

East U-3 

MAGIC FLOOR-U8 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U3 : Total

absorbed heat flux

East Wall Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC East U-2-2 

TC East U-3-2 

MAGIC EAST-U3 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

East Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

East U-2 

East U-3 

MAGIC EAST-U3 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC EAST-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-102 

Table A-29: Relative differences for temperature and total heat flux corresponding to 

the short wall 

Wall Temperature Wall Total Heat Flux 

Short 

Wall Instrument ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Diff 

∆E 

(kW/m2)

∆M 

(kW/m2)

Relative 

Diff 

E1 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% 

E1 110 158 44% 2.3 2.8 20% 

Test 2 E2 125 162 29% 2.9 2.8 -2% 

E1 109 157 44% 2.5 2.8 12% 

Test 8 E2 125 160 29% 2.9 2.8 -3% 

E1 106 159 50% 1.9 2.4 26% 

Test 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% 

E1 127 208 65% 

Test 13 E4 55 214 290% 

E1 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% 

E1 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% 

E1 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% 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-103

 

 

 

 

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

Ceiling Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Ceiling U-1-2 

TC Ceiling C-4-2 

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Surface

temperature of the target

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1 0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Ceiling U-4 

Ceiling U-1 

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Ceiling Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Ceiling U-1-2 

TC Ceiling C-4-2 

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Surface

temperature of the target

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Ceiling U-4 

Ceiling U-1 

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Ceiling Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Ceiling U-1-2 

TC Ceiling C-4-2 

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Surface

temperature of the target

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

0 5 10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Ceiling U-4 

Ceiling U-1 

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Ceiling Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8 0

100

200

300

400

500

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Ceiling U-1-2 

TC Ceiling C-4-2 

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Surface

temperature of the target

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Ceiling U-4 

Ceiling U-1 

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-104 

 

 

 

 

Figure A-79: Ceiling heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 

Ceiling Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Ceiling U-1-2 

TC Ceiling C-4-2 

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Surface

temperature of the target

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4 0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Ceiling U-4 

Ceiling U-1 

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Ceiling Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Ceiling U-1-2 

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Surface

temperature of the target

TC Ceiling C-4-2 

Ceiling, Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Ceiling U-4 

Ceiling U-1 

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Ceiling Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Ceiling C-5-2 

TC Ceiling C-7-2 

MAGIC CEILINGC-5 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Ceiling U-7 

Ceiling U-5 

MAGIC CEILINGC-7 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC CEILINGC-7 :

Ceiling Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Ceiling C-5-2 

TC Ceiling C-7-2 

MAGIC CEILINGC-5 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC CEILINGC-7 : Surface

temperature of the target

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Ceiling U-7 

Ceiling U-5 

MAGIC CEILINGC-7 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC CEILINGC-5 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-105

 

Open Door Tests to Follow

 

 

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

Ceiling Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Ceiling C-4-2 

TC Ceiling U-1-2 

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 5 10

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Ceiling U-1 

Ceiling U-4 

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 :

Total absorbed heat flux

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 :

Total absorbed heat flux

Ceiling Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Ceiling U-1-2 

TC Ceiling C-4-2 

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Surface

temperature of the target

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Ceiling U-4 

Ceiling U-1 

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 :

Total absorbed heat flux

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 :

Total absorbed heat flux

Ceiling Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Ceiling C-2-2 

TC Ceiling C-4-2 

MAGIC CEILINGC-2 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Surface

temperature of the target

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Ceiling U-2 

Ceiling U-1 

MAGIC CEILINGC-2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-106 

 

 

 

 

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

Ceiling Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Ceiling U-1-2 

TC Ceiling C-5-2 

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC CEILINGC-5 : Surface

temperature of the target

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Ceiling U-5 

Ceiling U-1 

MAGIC CEILINGC-5 :

Total absorbed heat flux

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 :

Total absorbed heat flux

Ceiling Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Ceiling C-5-2 

TC Ceiling U-1-2 

MAGIC CEILINGC-5 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Ceiling U-1 

Ceiling U-5 

MAGIC South-U6 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Ceiling Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Ceiling C-4-2 

TC Ceiling U-1-2 

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Ceiling U-1 

Ceiling U-4 

MAGIC South-U6 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC CEILINGC-3 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Ceiling Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Ceiling C-4-2 

TC Ceiling U-1-2 

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Ceiling U-1 

Ceiling U-4 

MAGIC CEILINGC-1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC CEILINGC-4 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-107

Table A-30: Relative differences for temperature and total heat flux corresponding to 

the ceiling 

Ceiling Temperature Ceiling Total Heat Flux 

Ceiling 

Instrument

∆E (oC) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Diff 

∆E 

(kW/m2)

∆M 

(kW/m2)

Relative 

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% 

C1 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% 

C1 125 142 13% 2.0 1.8 -13% 

Test 5 C5 166 146 -12% 4.7 1.8 -61% 

C1 158 166 5% 2.2 2.0 -11% 

Test 14 C5 248 277 12% 

C1 157 166 6% 

Test 15 C4 287 192 -33% 

C1 145 165 14% 2.3 2.0 -16% 

Test 18 C4 250 167 -33% 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-108 

 

 

 

 

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

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Floor U-4-2 

TC Floor U-1-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Floor U-1 

Floor U-4 

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Floor U-4-2 

TC Floor U-1-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Floor U-1 

Floor U-4 

FLOOR-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Floor U-4-2 

TC Floor U-1-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

0 5 10 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Floor U-1 

Floor U-4 

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Floor U-4-2 

TC Floor U-1-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

0 10 20 30 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Floor U-1 

Floor U-4 

FLOOR-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-109

 

 

 

 

Figure A-83: Floor heat flux and surface temperature, ICFMP BE #3, closed door tests. 

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Floor U-4-2 

TC Floor U-1-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

10,0

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Floor U-1 

Floor U-4 

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Floor U-4-2 

TC Floor U-1-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

c

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 10 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 5 10 15 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Floor U-1 

Floor U-4 

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Floor U-2-2 

TC Floor U-1-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Floor U-1 

Floor U-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC FLOOR-U3 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Floor U-2-2 

TC Floor U-1-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Floor U-1 

Floor U-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-110 

 

Open Door Tests to Follow

 

 

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

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Floor U-2-2 

TC Floor U-1-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

0 5 10 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Floor U-1 

Floor U-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Floor U-2-2 

TC Floor U-1-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Floor U-1 

Floor U-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Floor U-2-2 

TC Floor U-1-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Floor U-1 

Floor U-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-111

 

 

 

 

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

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Floor U-4-2 

TC Floor U-1-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U4 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

0 10 20 30

Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Floor U-1 

Floor U-4 

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 :

Total absorbed heat flux

MAGIC FLOOR-U4 :

Total absorbed heat flux

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Floor U-2-2 

TC Floor U-1-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Floor U-1 

Floor U-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC FLOOR-U3 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Floor U-2-2 

TC Floor U-1-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Floor U-1 

Floor U-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC FLOOR-U3 : Total

absorbed heat flux

Floor Temperature

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

TC Floor U-2-2 

TC Floor U-1-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Surface

temperature of the target

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Surface

temperature of the target

Floor Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (min)

Heat Flux (kW/m2)

Floor U-1 

Floor U-2 

MAGIC FLOOR-U1 : Total

absorbed heat flux

MAGIC FLOOR-U2 : Total

absorbed heat flux
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-112 

Table A-31: Relative differences for temperature and total heat flux corresponding to 

the floor 

Floor Temperature Floor Total Heat Flux 

Floor 

Instrument

∆E (oC) ∆M (oC)

Relative 

Diff 

∆E 

(kW/m2)

∆M 

(kW/m2) 

Relative 

Diff 

F1 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% 

F1 74 99 34% 1.8 1.9 6% 

Test 2 F4 156 131 -16% 6.4 4.7 -27% 

F1 71 98 37% 1.9 1.9 2% 

Test 8 F4 148 132 -11% 6.2 4.8 -23% 

F1 76 118 55% 1.6 1.7 7% 

Test 4 F4 152 144 -5% 5.9 4.7 -22% 

F1 71 120 68% 1.5 1.7 17% 

Test 10 F4 158 145 -8% 5.7 4.7 -17% 

F1 89 132 48% 

Test 13 F2 73 130 77% 

F1 80 119 49% 

Test 16 F2 206 118 -43% 

F1 24 44 80% 0.9 1.7 96% 

Test 17 F2 117 51 -56% 1.5 1.5 1% 

F1 54 112 110% 1.2 1.2 8% 

Test 3 F2 186 135 -27% 2.3 1.5 -34% 

F1 53 110 106% 1.2 1.2 5% 

Test 9 F2 94 132 41% 1.9 1.5 -21% 

F1 42 91 118% 0.9 1.0 16% 

Test 5 F4 171 232 36% 10.0 4.9 -52% 

F1 52 111 113% 1.1 1.2 9% 

Test 14 F2 47 117 149% 1.3 1.3 -3% 

F1 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% 
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-113

A.9.2 ICFMP BE #4 

Three thermocouples were mounted on the back wall of the compartment. Because the fire 

leaned towards the back wall, the temperatures measured by the thermocouples are considerably 

hotter than most of the other wall surface points considered in this report. 

 

Figure A-86: Back wall surface temperatures, ICFMP BE #4, 

Table A-32: Relative differences for wall temperature 

 Instrument ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Diff 

M19 596 656 10% ICFMP 4-1 M20 724 656 -9% 

Wall Surface Temperature

BE 4, Test 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 10 20 30 40

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC M19 : Surface

temperature of the target

M19

Wall Surface Temperature

BE 4, Test 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 10 20 30 40

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC M20 : Surface

temperature of the target

M20
Technical Details for the MAGIC Validation Study 

A-114 

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 apart. In Figure A-87, the lowest (1), middle (4), and highest (7) locations are 

used for comparison. 

 

Figure A-87: Back and side wall surface temperatures, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4. 

Table A-33: Relative differences for wall temperature 

 Instrument ∆E (o

C) ∆M (oC) 

Relative 

Diff 

TW 1-1 79 51 -35% 

TW 2-1 12 113 868% 

TW 1-4 118 134 13% 

TW 2-4 96 132 38% 

TW 1-7 121 131 9% 

ICFMP 5-4 

TW 2-7 100 135 36% 

Wall Surface Temperature

BE 5, Test 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC TW 1-1

TW 1-1

TW 2-1

MAGIC TW 2-1

Wall Surface Temperature

BE 5, Test 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC TW 1-4

TW 1-4

TW 2-4

MAGIC TW 2-4

Wall Surface Temperature

BE 5, Test 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Temperature (C)

MAGIC TW 1-7

TW 1-7

TW 2-7

MAGIC TW 2-7
B-1 

B 

MAGIC INPUT FILES 

Appendix B includes the MAGIC input files used for the simulations in this V&V study. These 

file will only be available electronically due to their size and formatting.