Performance Comparison of Zone Models with Compartment Fire Tests

Abstract

Prediction accuracy of zone models is attributed to the sophistication of the mathematical model, as well as the numerical methods applied in their implementation. Well-known zone models CFAST and OZone have gained world-wide acceptance among the fire engineering community in predicting enclosure fire dynamics. Despite these models serving similar purpose, the level of accuracy and applicability range are still a field of active research. This study compares an in-house developed zone model CFMFAN with CFAST and OZone in their modeling concepts, prediction capability, and accuracy. The sub-models for gas flow, heat transfer, and heat release rate are examined. Performance comparisons of these zone models with published experimental results for 20 single compartment fire tests are carried out in the blind mode. The test parameters used are the fire size (330—980 kW) and the fire location (center or side). For performance comparisons, the upper- and lower-layer temperatures, interface and neutral plane heights, pressure difference at the floor, wall temperatures, plume flow, and vent flow rates are compared. Upon comparison with compartment fire test results, the study shows that CFAST consistently overpredicts the upper-layer temperature whereas OZone and CFMFAN underpredict it for all fire sizes. All the models underpredict the lower-layer temperature. Explanations are given for the deviations of the three models from the test results and from one another.

Keywords

compartment fire fire modeling flashover zone model.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Friedman, R. (1992). An International Survey of Computer Models for Fire and Smoke, J. Fire Prot. Engr. , 4(3): 81—92.

Olenick, S.M. and Carpenter, D.J. (2003). An Updated International Survey of Computer Models for Fire and Smoke, Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 13(2): 87—110.

Cadorin, J.F. (2003). Compartment Fir Models for Structural Engineering , PhD Thesis, Universite De Liege, Belgium.

Jones, W.W. , Forney, G.P. , Peacock, R.D. and Reneke, P.A. (2000). A Technical Reference for CFAST: An Engineering Tool for Estimating Fire and Smoke Transport, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.

Franssen, J.M. (2000). The Design Fire Tool OZone V2.0-Theoretical Description and Validation on Experimental Fire Tests, Civil and Structural Engineering Department, University of Liege, Belgium.

Kawagoe, K. and Sekine, T. (1963). Estimation of Fire Temperature-Time Curve in Rooms , Building Research Institute, Ministry of Construction, Japanese Government.

Karlsson, B. and Quintiere, J.G. (2000). Fire Plumes and Heights, in Enclosure Fire Dynamics , CRC Press, Florida.

Özisik, M.N. (1980). Heat Conduction, Wiley Interscience , New York.

Forney, G.P. (1994). Computing Radiative Heat Transfer Occurring in a Zone Fire Model, Fire Science & Technology, 14(1 & 2): 31—47.

10.

McCaffrey, B.J. (1979). Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results — NBSIR 79-1910, National Bureau of Standards.

11.

Press, W.H. (1992). Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN: The Art of Scientific Computing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

12.

Dembsey, N.A. , Pagni, P.J. and Williamson , R.B. (1995). Compartment Fire Experiments: Comparison with Models, Fire Safety Journal, 25(3): 187—227.

13.

Reneke, P.A. , Peatross, M.J. , Jones, W.W. , Beyler, C.L. and Richards, R. (2001). A Comparison of CFAST Predictions to USCG Real-Scale Fire Tests, Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 11(1): 43—68.

14.

Dembsey, N.A. , Pagni, P.J. and Williamson , R.B. (1995). Compartment Fire Near-field Entrainment Measurements, Fire Safety Journal, 24(4): 383—419.

15.

Beard, A.N. (2000). On a priori, Blind and Open Comparisons between Theory and Experiment, Fire Safety Journal, 35(1): 63—66.

16.

Grubert, J. (1989). Interfacial Mixing in Stratified Channel Flows , Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 115(7): 887—905.