Presentation on theme: "Computational modelling as an alternative to full-scale testing for tunnel fixed fire fighting systems Kenneth J. Harris & Bobby J. Melvin Parsons Brinckerhoff."— Presentation transcript:
Computational modelling as an alternative to full-scale testing for tunnel fixed fire fighting systems Kenneth J. Harris & Bobby J. Melvin Parsons Brinckerhoff Sacramento, CA USA E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org@pbworld.com Presented By Aaron McDaid
Key modeling bases Fundamental energy analysis can be used to estimate water application rates. Subroutines that model the key elements of solid and liquid vaporization have been written. Subroutines that model the key elements of combustion energy have been written.
Common Heat Flux Levels SourcekW/m 2 Irradiance of sun on the earth’s surface≤1 Minimum for pain to skin (relatively short exposure)~1 Minimum for burn injury (relatively short exposure)~4 Usually necessary to ignite thin items≥10 Usually necessary to ignite common furnishings≥20 Surface heating by a small laminar flame50-70 Surface heating by a turbulent wall flame20-40 ISO 9705 room-corner test burner to wall 100 kw40-60 ISO 9705 room-corner test burner to wall 300 kw60-80 Within a fully-involved room fire (800-1000 C)75-150 Within a large pool fire (800-1200 C)75-267
Description of LTA Fire Tests LTA Test No. Water Application Rate (mm/min) Activation Time after 60 C Peak FHRR (MW) Target Ignited? Max Target Heat Flux (kw/m 2 ) 1124 min37.7No2 284 min44.1Unknow n 70none150Yes225
Tabulation and comparison of fuel quantities Model ValuesWoodPlasticTotalTest Values Volume (m 3 )/%7.6/821.7/189.380/20 Mass (kg)/%3,410/671,711/335,1215,000 Energy (GJ)/%58.0/6137.6/3995.699.2 Total inc. Target (GJ) 117
Fuel Properties Property(11)(12) D F (13)(14)(15)(16)Value Used Wood Specific Heat~1.5-2.02.5-7.42.2-4.01.2-2.0 2.2 Thermal Conductivity 0.12.19-2.08.23-.80 0.23 Density600354-753455-502300-550 450 Heating Rate 5 Heat of Reaction 1600- 3500 1600- 2900 1600 Heat of Combustion 17000 Plastic Specific Heat 1.4-1.5.92-2.3 1.4 Thermal Conductivity.17-.19 0.17 Density 1150- 1190 570-39001000 Heating Rate 5 Heat of Reaction 800-6400 1500 Heat of Combustion 14000- 47000 22000
Comparison of model and test results for unsuppressed fire
Comparison of model and test results for 12 mm/min. suppressed fire
Peak heat flux and FHRR for various leakage rates
Comparison of model and test results for unsuppressed and 12 mm/min. suppressed fire
Conclusion o Computer modelling provides a more cost-effective means of demonstrating proposed system performance. o The fuel vaporization process is well-defined in fire science and the computer models can be set up to utilize this approach. Some significant differences in modelling are required for this approach. The fuel properties and structure must be explicitly defined. o Comparison with a test is beneficial to calibrate the model. Modelling of the unsuppressed fire in particular can produce results very close to that shown in testing. Modelling of fire suppression can provide results that give a reasonable degree of confidence of what can be expected of the system. o Computer modelling can be used to model the interaction of water and fire for design purposes, making individual full-scale testing unnecessary and making FFFS more likely to be implemented in road tunnels. o Pyrolysis-based input rather than fire heat release rate input should be used to more accurately model the effects of water and fire interaction.
Fire Sprinkler International FSI 2014 22 Thank you