View
216
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
1/134
Comparison of Sprinkler
Activation in Flat and
Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6
Erik Carlsson
Department of Fire Safety Engineering and Systems Safety
Lund University, Sweden
randteknik oc! "isk!antering
Lunds tekniska !#gskola
Lunds universitet
"eport $%&%, Lund '&()
*!e report !as +een financed +y olmes Fire, Sydney, Australia
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
2/134
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
3/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping
Ceilings using FDS 6
Erik Carlsson
Lund '&()
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
4/134
TitleComparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6
AuthorErik Carlsson
Report: 5404ISSN: 1402-3504ISRN: LUTVDG/TVBB-5404-S
Number of pages:95
!e"#or$%Sprinkler activation, fire sprinkler, fire suppression, actuation, sloping ceiling, slope, CFD,Computational Fluid Dynamics, Fire Dynamics Simulator, FDS, FDS 6, NFPA 1, sprinkleractivation pattern, sprinkler suppression!
S&'or$Sprinkleraktivering, aktivering, "rand, sluttande tak, CFD, Computational Fluid Dynamics, Fire
Dynamics Simulator, FDS, NFPA 1, sprinkleraktiveringsm#nster, sprinklersl$ckning!
A(%tr)*t%&e purpose of t&is report is to investigate t&e implications of installing sprinkler systems inceilings 'it& a ceiling slope e(ceeding t&e ma(imum permitted "y NFPA 1, "eing )!* + or 1!-- +depending on t&e type of sprinkler system! %&e o".ective of t&e report is to present a comparisonand analysis of sprinkler activation times and patterns for sprinkler systems installed in ceilings 'it&different slope angles, using Fire Dynamics Simulator version 6 /elease Candidate 1! %&e pro"lem&as "een defined as0 &o' does t&e ceiling slope angle '&ere sprinklers are provided affect t&eactivation of sprinklers 2t &as "een demonstrated t&at a ceiling slope of up to 36!*4 + may notaffect t&e sprinkler activation pattern! 2t &as also "een demonstrated t&at t&e increased sprinkleractivation times and c&anged patterns e(&i"ited for sprinkler systems in sloping ceilings may "e a
result of a com"ination of e(cessive ceiling &eig&t and ceiling slope angle, su".ect to discussion!/educed /esponse %ime 2nde( and activation temperature can reduce activation patterndiscrepancies and reduce activation times! %&e intent of t&e sprinkler system may not "ecompromised '&en ceiling slopes e(ceeding t&ose specified in NFPA 1 are introduced!
The )uthor i% re%po+%i(le ,or the *o+te+t o, thi% report5 Copyrig&t0 randteknik oc& /isk&antering, 7unds tekniska gskola, 7unds universitet, 7und
381!
Department of Fire Safety Engineering
and Systems Safety
Lund University
P.O. Box 118
SE-1 !! Lund
S"eden
#rand$#rand.%t&.se
&ttp'((""".#rand.%t&.se(eng%is&
)e%ep&one' *+, +, ,!Fax' *+, +, +, 1
Brandte/ni/ o0& is/&antering
Lunds te/nis/a &2gs/o%a
Lunds universitet
Box 118
1 !! Lund
#rand$#rand.%t&.se
&ttp'((""".#rand.%t&.se
)e%efon' !+, - ,!
)e%efax' !+, - +, 1
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
5/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage a
PREFACE
%&is t&esis is my final piece of t&e Fire Protection Engineering program at 7und 9niversity,S'eden! .ole% ire, Sydney, Australia, &as financed t&e t&esis and deserve special recognition!Especially Gle+ it*hellfor creating t&e opportunity as 'ell as )the# ree)+for providingsupport and "eing t&e num"er one &elping &and in t&e :;% < 11088 time =one!
Special t&anks go out to t&e follo'ing people in recognition for t&eir contri"utions to'ards t&efinalisation of t&is t&esis0
o+)th)+ )hli%t> P&D Student at t&e Department of Fire Safety Engineering andSystems Safety, 7und 9niversity!
6)tri*' )+ .ee%> Professor at t&e Department of Fire Safety Engineering and SystemsSafety, 7und 9niversity!
Ro(ert &+%%o+> ?ead of t&e Department of Fire Safety Engineering and Systems Safety,7und 9niversity!
A+$er% Nil%%o+> Student at t&e Department of Fire Safety Engineering and SystemsSafety, 7und 9niversity!
oh)+ S7&li+> Student at t&e Department of Fire Safety Engineering and Systems Safety,7und 9niversity!
Se) Vi%'oi*h> Arc&itect at @aime leinert Arc&itects, Sydney, Australia!
Sydney, ;arc& 381
Erik Carlsson
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
6/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage b
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
7/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage c
EXECU!"E SU##AR$
%&e purpose of t&is report is to investigate t&e implications of installing sprinkler systems inceilings 'it& a ceiling slope e(ceeding t&e ma(imum permitted "y NFPA 1, "eing appro(imately)!* + or 1!-- + depending on t&e sprinkler system type! %&e o".ective of t&e report is to present acomparison and analysis of sprinkler activation times and patterns for sprinkler systems installed inceilings 'it& different slope angles, using /elease Candidate 1 B/C1 of Fire Dynamics SimulatorBFDS version 6! %&e pro"lem &as "een defined as0
How does the ceiling slope angle where sprinklers are provided affect the activation of sprinklers?
A validation study 'as conducted in order to .ustify t&e met&odology and models used 'it&in t&isreport! %&e validation study s&o'ed t&at t&e model cannot "e considered to "e fully validated as ofyet! ?o'ever, it is considered to provide satisfactory predictions for t&e first five sprinkleractivations for t&e purposes of t&is report!
%&is report &as demonstrated t&at t&e use of a sprinkler system in a ceiling 'it& a slope angle
greater t&an )!* + is feasi"le, su".ect to limitations! %&e activation pattern can differ 'it& greaterceiling slopes and t&e activation times are generally greater in a sloping ceiling as compared to acode compliant sprinkler system, e!g! installed in a ceiling 'it& a slope of )!* + or less for an EarlySuppression Fast /esponse BESF/ system or 1!-- + for an e(tended coverage sprinkler system! 2t&as "een s&o'n t&at reduced /esponse %ime 2nde( B/%2 and activation temperature can result ineuivalent or similar activation patterns and activation times as for a code compliant sprinklersystem! /egardless of t&e sprinkler c&aracteristics, t&e pattern as opposed to t&e activation timesdoes not seem to c&ange 'it& ceiling slopes of 36!*4 + or less! Nor does t&e activation patternc&ange if t&e fire is located at t&e lo'est end of t&e ceiling 'it& a ma(imum vertical distance"et'een t&e fuel "ed and t&e ceiling of -! m and a ceiling slope of !6) +!
?ence, t&e cause of differing sprinkler activation patterns and activation times seem to "e more a
result of an e(cessive ceiling &eig&t in com"ination 'it& t&e ceiling slope angle, rat&er t&an a resultof only t&e ceiling slope angle! ?o'ever, t&ese differences may also "e t&e result of fla'edmodelling met&ods and assumptions, '&ic& are discussed &erein!
%&e results 'it&in t&is report suggest t&at t&e intent of t&e ceiling slope limitations for sprinklersystems in NFPA 1 may "e ac&ieved even '&en a sprinkler system is installed in a ceiling 'it& aslope angle up to at least 36!*4 +! %&is can "e ac&ieved if t&e sprinkler response c&aracteristics arereduced, e!g! reduced /%2 or activation temperature! A greater ceiling slope angle t&an )!* + for anESF/ system or 1!-- + for ot&er sprinkler systems does not necessarily mean t&at t&e purpose ofNFPA 1 is not ac&ieved!
2t s&ould "e noted t&at t&e results &erein are su".ect to a num"er of limitations and assumptions as
presented 'it&in t&e report! %&ese include, "ut are not limited to only studying t&e first * sprinkleractivations, only studying a fire located under t&e centre and under t&e lo'est part of t&e slopedceiling, only studying a m "y - m sprinkler spacing grid, and only studying one single set ofenclosure footprint dimensions, 'it& varying ceiling &eig&ts and ceiling slope angles!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
8/134
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
9/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage b
SA##A%FA%!%&
Syftet med denna rapport $r att unders#ka implikationerna av att installera sprinklersystem i takmed lutningar som #verstiger de gsta tilltna enligt NFPA 1, ungef$r ),* + eller 1,-- +"eroende p typ av sprinklersystem! ;let med rapporten $r att presentera en .$mf#relse oc& analysav sprinkleraktiveringstid oc& >m#nster f#r sprinklersystem installerade i olika sluttande tak, med&.$lp av /elease Candidate 1 B/C1 av Fire Dynamics Simulator BFDS version 6!Pro"lemdefinitionen lyder0
Hur pverkar taklutning sprinkleraktivering?
En valideringsstudie genomf#rdes f#r att motivera metodiken oc& modellerna som anv$nts irapporten! alideringen visade att modellen inte kan anses vara fullt validerad $nnu men ansesgenerera tillfredsst$llande resultat f#r de f#rsta fem sprinkleraktiveringarna f#r denna rapports syfte!
Denna rapport &ar demonstrerat att anv$ndningen av ett sprinklersystem i ett tak med lutning #ver),* + $r genomf#r"art, men med "egr$nsningar! Aktiveringsm#nstret kan variera med st#rre
lutningar oc& aktiveringstiderna $r generellt sett l$ngre i sluttande tak i .$mf#relse med tilltnataklutningar! %ill e(empel ett Early Suppression Fast /esponse BESF/ sprinklersystem installerat iett tak med en lutning om ),* + eller mindre eller 1,-- + eller mindre f#r ett e(tended coveragesprinklersystem! Det &ar visats att reducerat /esponse %ime 2nde( B/%2 oc& aktiveringstemperaturkan resultera i lika eller liknande aktiveringsm#nster oc& aktiveringstider som f#r sprinklersysteminstallerade enligt NFPA 1! Aktiveringsm#nstret, till skillnad frn aktiveringstiderna, verkar e.$ndras d taklutningen $r 36,*4 + eller mindre, oavsett /%2 oc& aktiveringstemperatur!Aktiveringsm#nstret $ndras e. &eller d "randen $r placerad under takets l$gsta punkt oc& detvertikala avstndet mellan "r$nsleytan oc& taket $r -, m oc& taklutningen s stor som ,6) +!
F#l.aktligen verkar orsaken till varierande aktiveringsm#nster oc& aktiveringstider vara en funktionav tak.d i kom"ination med taklutning, snarare $n en"art ett resultat av taklutningsvinkeln! Dock
kan dessa skillnader $ven vara ett resultat av "ristande modeller oc& antaganden, vilka diskuteras idiskussionen!
/esultaten i denna rapport tyder p att syftet med att "egr$nsa taklutning i NFPA 1 kan uppns$ven om taklutningen $r 36,*4 + eller mindre, givet att sprinklersystemet designas med l$gre /%2eller aktiveringstemperatur! En taklutningsvinkel #ver ),* + f#r ett ESF/ system eller 1,-- + f#randra system "etyder inte n#dv$ndigtvis att syftet med NFPA 1 inte uppns!!
Det "#r noteras att resultaten &$ri $r "aserade p ett flertal "egr$nsningar oc& antaganden sompresenteras i rapporten! Dessa inkluderar, men $r inte "egr$nsade till, att en"art studera de f#rsta *sprinkleraktiveringarna, endast studera en "rand placerad under mitten oc& den l$gsta punkten avdet sluttande taket, endast studera en sprinklergrid p m gnger - m, samt att endast studera en
enskild rumkonfiguration med varierande tak.d oc& Glutning!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
10/134
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
11/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage d
A'(E )F C)%E%S
( -.*"/DUC*-/. (
(0( 1U"1/SE (
(0' /2EC*-3E ((0) *A"4E* 4"/U1 '(0% 5E*/D/L/4 '1.+.1 L3)E4)UE S)UD5 1.+. POBLE6 DEF373)3O7 1.+. 37ES)394)3O7S 1.+.+ 474L5S3S:37)EPE)4)3O7 47D PESE7)4)3O7 (0$ 1"/LE5 DEF-.-*-/. )(06 DEL-5-*A*-/.S A.DASSU51*-/.S )
' L-*E"A*U"E /3E"3-E7 $
'0( AS-C F-"E D.A5-CS $'0' *E .F1A()S1"-.8LE" S*A.DA"D $'0) FDSS1"-.8LE"AC*-3A*-/. 1"ED-C*-/. 9..1 373)34L SP37;LE 4
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
12/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage e
@.+.1 ESUL)S +1$0$ SU55A" %)
6 FDS 5/DELL-.4 "ESUL*S = SL/1-.4 CE-L-.4 %$
60( UL*"A SL/7 "ES1/.SE S1"-.8LE" 5/DELS %$
,.1.1 ESUL)S +@60' SL/7 "ES1/.SE S1"-.8LE" 5/DELS %;,..1 ESUL)S +860) 5ED-U5 "ES1/.SE S1"-.8LE" 5/DELS $(,..1 ESUL)S @160% FAS* "ES1/.SE S1"-.8LE" 5/DELS $%,.+.1 ESUL)S @+60$ SU55A" $9
9 C/51A"-S/. /F FDS 5/DELL-.4 "ESUL*S $
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
13/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage *
* !%R)DUC!)%
%&e provision of a fire suppression system suc& as a sprinkler system in a "uilding can considera"lyimprove t&e life safety and property protection performance of t&e "uilding! 2t is a reuirement t&atit is designed, installed and maintained appropriately! %&e maintenance of a sprinkler system is t&eresponsi"ility of "uilding management over t&e lifetime of t&e "uilding! Design and installation islimited to t&e time of installation and is t&e responsi"ility of ot&er stake&olders! Specification s&eetsfrom t&e sprinkler manufacturers provide t&e main installation provisions, "ut also refer toadditional standards suc& as NFPA 1! NFPA 1 is an e(tensive pu"lication 'it& sprinklerinstallation provisions! /euirements include t&e ma(imum permitted ceiling slope angle, "einglimited to a rise of 1 in a run of units Bappro(imately 1!-- + for a num"er of sprinkler systemsand limited to a rise of 1 in a run of 6 units Bappro(imately )!* + for fast response early suppressionsprinkler systems BNFPA, 3813! %&e intent of t&e ceiling slope angle reuirements is not clear,&o'ever it is assumed t&at t&e intent of t&is specific reuirement is to0
1! Avoid a situation '&ere t&e smoke layer fails to &eat t&e sprinkler &eads in t&e vicinity oft&e fire enoug& to activate t&e sprinkler systemH or
3! Prevent t&e activation of an e(cessive amount of sprinklers a'ay from t&e fire origin,potentially depleting t&e 'ater supply or cooling t&e smoke layer suc& t&at sprinklers closeto t&e fire fail to activate!
I'ing to ever c&anging and evolving arc&itectural ideas and designs, t&e limitation preventing t&eprovision of a sprinkler system in a ceiling 'it& a slope e(ceeding t&e )!* + or 1!-- + may not infact result in an arc&itectural design c&ange to a "uilding! 2nstead, t&e fire safety provisions of t&e"uilding may c&ange, omitting t&e installation of sprinklers in advantage of ot&er systems, fore(ample smoke e(&aust or smoke detection! J&ilst t&ese solutions may "e adeuate in some cases,it is not al'ays indisputa"le '&et&er it may "e "etter to &ave a sprinkler system installed!
%&e availa"le researc& in t&is area is relatively limited, focusing on a 'ide range of parametersrat&er t&an narro'ing it do'n to get a greater understanding of eac& individual parameter and t&eeffects different parameters &ave '&en com"ined!
Sprinkler activation may "e delayed for sprinklers installed in a sloped ceiling compared to aneuivalent system in a flat ceiling BFP/F, 3818! %&is raises uestions suc& as t&e possi"ility toc&ange c&aracteristics of a sprinkler system in a 'ay suc& t&at t&e activation time is euivalent to acode compliant sprinkler system in a flat ceiling, in "ot& cases due to t&e prevention of a smokelayer forming in t&e vicinity of t&e fire, reducing t&e &eating of t&e sprinkler &eads! Potentialspecific c&aracteristics to modify in t&e sprinkler system include, "ut may not "e limited to,/esponse %ime 2nde( B/%2 and activation temperature! 2t s&ould "e noted t&at NFPA 1 does notprovide any limitations for ma(imum ceiling &eig&ts '&ere sprinklers are installed!
*+* Purpose
%&e purpose of t&e report is to investigate t&e implications of installing sprinkler systems in ceilings'it& a ceiling slope e(ceeding t&e ma(imum permitted "y NFPA 1, "eing appro(imately )!* + or1!-- + depending on t&e sprinkler system type!
*+, )b-ective
%&e o".ective of t&e report is to present a comparison and analysis of sprinkler activation times andpatterns for sprinkler systems installed in ceilings 'it& different slope angles, using /eleaseCandidate 1 B/C1 of Fire Dynamics Simulator BFDS version 6 BN2S% 3, 3813!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
14/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage ,
*+. arget &roup
%&is report is generally aimed for t&e fire safety community glo"ally! %&e focus is on groupsaffiliated 'it& sprinkler design, codes and installation standards and fire engineers 'orking 'it&performance "ased design solutions! %&e target group is assumed to &ave a "asic understanding offire dynamics and sprinkler systems in general! A "asic understanding of t&e Computational FluidDynamics BCFD fundamentals is also e(pected of t&e target group!
*+/ #et0odolog1
%&e met&odology in developing t&is report 'as divided into a num"er of p&ases, as descri"ed"elo'! %&e p&ases are "ased on and adapted from e(isting literature on report met&odologyBackman, 388!
*+/+* (iterature Stud1
A literature revie' p&ase 'as undertaken 'it& emp&asis on e(isting researc& in relation to t&e
validity of t&e sprinkler activation model 'it&in FDS and on activation of sprinkler systemsinstalled in sloping ceilings! %&e literature revie' also incorporate sprinkler installation standards,fire engineering "ranc& maga=ines and ot&er material deemed relevant to varying degrees for t&epro.ect!
%&e purpose of t&e literature revie' p&ase 'as to ensure an appropriate kno'ledge "ase forsu"seuent p&ases of t&e pro.ect in order to produce and provide a constructive report, and toavoid redundant 'ork!
2nformation collated 'it&in t&e literature revie' p&ase is presented in Section 3 of t&is report, inorder to provide a "asic understanding of t&e pro"lem and its implications!
*+/+, Problem Definition
ased on t&e literature revie', a pro"lem definition 'as formulated! Iutputs to "e investigated'ere selected and a num"er of relevant inputs 'ere selected!
Parallel to defining t&e pro"lem, preliminary FDS modelling &as "een undertaken in order tonarro' t&e scope of t&e pro.ect "y selecting t&e most relevant input and output parameters!Furt&ermore, t&e preliminary modelling provided a "etter understanding of timeframes for t&emain modelling!
*+/+. !nvestigations
%&e investigations p&ase, "eing one of t&e ma.or p&ases, incorporated t&e main FDS modelling!%&e investigations included a supplementary literature revie' in order to facilitate t&e validation ofmodels and assumptions used in t&e assessment! ased on t&e validation literature revie',simulations 'ere conducted to cement t&e validations and esta"lis& delimitations, implications andvalidity of t&e report models!
%&e preliminary models from t&e preceding p&ase 'ere refined and furt&er developed! Parallel tot&is, different met&ods of modelling t&e ceiling slope 'ere identified and analysed in order toesta"lis& t&e "est possi"le kno'ledge "ase for t&e su"seuent modelling!
%&e investigations are more e(plicitly descri"ed in t&e respective sections 'it&in t&e report!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
15/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage .
*+/+/Anal1sis2 !nterpretation and Presentation
%&e results from t&e investigations p&ase 'ere collated, summarised, analysed and interpreted! Alldiscrepancies and unanticipated results 'ere investigated furt&er "y undertaking secondary FDSmodelling 'it& t&e intent of minimising uncertainty and providing alternative designs! %&esesecondary models may "e considered "eing sensitivity analyses, "ut &ave "een presented parallel tot&e initial models! %&e sensitivity analyses 'ere carried out on a num"er of parameters, suc& as t&esprinkler /%2 and activation temperature!
Discussions on t&e findings, conclusions and suggestions for future researc& 'ere also incorporatedin t&is p&ase!
%&e findings &ave "een presented in t&is report and orally at 7und 9niversity, S'eden on 14Decem"er 3813!
*+3 Problem Definition
?o' does t&e ceiling slope angle '&ere sprinklers are provided affect t&e activation of sprinklers%&is main pro"lem definition is dependent on a num"er of su"Gcomponents as listed "elo'0
V)li$)tio+ o, DS %pri+'ler )*ti)tio+ o$el:%&e FDS sprinkler activation modelmust first "e s&o'n to "e valid for t&e su".ect application! %&is is essential for any FDSsprinkler activation results to "e valid!
8eili+9 %lope o$elli+9 etho$:%&ere are different met&ods for modelling a slopingceiling 'it&in FDS!?o' does t&e ceiling slope angle modelling met&od affect t&e results,and '&ic& met&od is "est for t&e su".ect application
Spri+'ler )*ti)tio+ tie%: ?o' does t&e slope angle of t&e ceiling in '&ic& sprinklersare installed affect t&e sprinkler activation time
Spri+'ler )*ti)tio+ p)tter+: ?o' does t&e slope angle of t&e ceiling in '&ic& sprinklersare installed affect t&e sprinkler activation pattern and t&e num"er of sprinklers t&atactivate
2nvestigation of t&e a"ovementioned issues 'ill also take into consideration t&e follo'ing0
%&e effect of varying /esponse %ime 2nde( B/%2 valuesH
Pro(imity to 'allsH
%&e effect of varying activation temperaturesH and
%&e effect of varying ceiling &eig&ts!
*+6 Delimitations and Assumptions
%&e report &as "een limited to comparing t&e sprinkler activation times and pattern fromsimulations in FDS 6 for t&e first * sprinkler activations! Inly one type of 'ater spray sprinklersystem B'it& one set of specifications, e!g! disc&arge velocity "ut 'it& varying /%2 and activationtemperature &as "een considered 'it&in t&is report! It&er systems suc& as 'ater mist systems anddry pipe systems &ave not "een considered!
2t s&ould "e noted t&at FDS *!*! 'as t&e latest official release of FDS at t&e time of 'riting t&ist&esis! %&e use of any open source soft'are prior to an official release Bsuc& as FDS 6 /C1 canand s&ould "e adeuately .ustified due to a need of furt&er validation and verification! 2t is
considered t&at t&e use of FDS 6 &as "een .ustified for t&e purposes of t&is report "y t&e validationof t&e sprinkler activation and 'ater disc&arge models in Section 3!! Furt&ermore, o'ing to t&e
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
16/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage /
pending final release of FDS 6, it is considered t&at t&e use of FDS 6 'it&in t&is report providest&e fire engineering community 'it& more useful kno'ledge t&an FDS *!*!!
Due to limited resources and a limited timeframe, no e(periments &ave "een conducted in t&edevelopment of t&is report! ?o'ever, e(perimental results &ave "een considered in validating t&emodels used in t&e analysis! A full validation of t&e "uilt in sprinkler activation model 'it&in FDS 6
&as not "een conducted "ut considered to t&e degree necessary! 2t s&ould "e noted t&at t&esprinkler 'ater spray model and its implications is not fully validated! 2t is not considered feasi"leto fully validate it 'it&out conducting furt&er e(tensive fullGscale e(periments! As a result, t&econclusions 'it&in t&is report in relation to sprinkler activation follo'ing activation of t&e firstsprinkler &ead s&ould "e read in con.unction 'it& t&ese limitations and t&e discussion in Section3!!3 and Section ! %&e modelled sprinkler systems &ave "een assumed not to e(tinguis& t&e fireand as suc& t&e sprinkler effect on t&e fuel "ed is not fully investigated 'it&in t&e assessment!
%&e total num"er of simulations conducted and considered 'it&in t&e report are 'ell in e(cess of388! ?o'ever, t&e limited pro.ect timeframe &as reduced t&e num"er of FDS simulationsundertaken, resulting in ualitative discussions in lieu of uantitative investigations of a num"er ofparameters! %&ese include t&e effect of varying room si=es, ventilation openings, t&e effect of
smoke e(&aust and t&e fire location in relation to t&e sprinkler grid, see Section !
Fires &ave "een assumed to occur in a single location at one time only and as suc& multiplesimultaneous fires are not considered!
Inly one fuel, propane, &as "een used in t&e main simulations! Even t&oug& a fuel suc& aspolyuret&ane may "e considered representative for a range of different fuels to a greater degree,propane is considered adeuate for t&e purposes of t&is report!
Inly one fire gro't& rate &as "een considered in t&e main simulations!
Inly fires located under t&e centre and under t&e lo'est part of t&e sloped ceiling &ave "een
presented 'it&in t&is report! Simulations 'ere carried out 'it& fires located under t&e ape( of t&esloping ceiling, "ut &ave not "een presented &erein!
%&e sprinkler spacing &as "een limited to a m "y - m grid, &o'ever it is assumed t&at t&e resultsare applica"le to ot&er sprinkler spacings!
All models are simulated using one single set of enclosure footprint dimensions, 'it& varyingceiling &eig&ts and ceiling slope angles!
Ine am"ient temperature of 38 +C &as "een used 'it&in t&e simulations! Previous researc&B?agman K ;agnusson, 388- &as also s&o'n t&at t&e am"ient temperature &as a significantimpact on t&e smoke movement c&aracteristics in an enclosure!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
17/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage 3
, (!ERAURE )"ER"!E4
%&e availa"le researc& on t&e pro.ect topic is considered to "e relatively limited 'it& an evidentneed for furt&er researc& to "e undertaken! %&e follo'ing sections present summaries of variousresearc& in t&e area of sprinkler systems in sloped ceilings, 'it& varying degrees of relevance to t&isreport!
,+* 'asic Fire D1namics
2n order to understand t&e underlying p&ysics for t&e sprinkler activation process and t&e pro"lemsassociated 'it& it, a "asic understanding of fire dynamics is reuired!
Standard 'ater spray sprinklers are activated individually '&en t&ey are &eated up to a sprinklerspecific temperature! Needless to say, fires produce &eat, resulting in a mass of &ot gases ascendingfrom t&e fire source and surrounded "y am"ient air! %&e density difference due to t&e temperaturedifference results in "uoyancy! %&is 'ill make t&e &otter, less dense gas to ascend in relation to t&e
cool, denser am"ient surrounding air! %&is is referred to as a fire plume Barlsson K Luintere,3888! As t&e &ot gases rise, t&e am"ient air 'ill entrain t&e plume, cooling it and &ence reduce t&espeed of '&ic& t&e &ot gases travel up'ards! A &ig&er ceiling, and t&us a longer travel distance for&ot gases to reac& t&e sprinkler &eads, 'ill result in increased sprinkler activation times! %&is is dueto a cooler smoke layer and a longer time for t&e smoke layer to reac& t&e sprinkler &eads! %&eresult is a lo'er &eat transfer rate to t&e sprinkler &eads!
Follo'ing activation of t&e first sprinkler &ead, t&e 'ater spray 'ill furt&er cool t&e smoke layerBdue to &eat transfer from t&e &ot gases to t&e cool 'ater droplets! As a result, tur"ulence may "eintroduced in t&e &ot gas layer, complicating t&e prediction of su"seuent sprinkler activation timesand locations Barlsson K Luintere, 3888!
,+, 0e %FPA *. Sprinkler StandardNFPA 1 shall provide the minimum requirements for the design and installation of automatic fire sprinklersystems and exposure protection sprinkler systems covered within this standard. BNFPA, 3813, page 1G1!Clause 1!3!1 of NFPA 1 states0
The purpose of this standard shall e to provide a reasonale degree of protection for life and property fromfire through standardi!ation of design" installation" and testing requirements for sprinkler systems" includingprivate fire service mains" ased on sound engineering principles" test data" and field experience.
NFPA 1, Section !1!1 BNFPA, 3813, page 1G-* states0
#.$.$% The requirements for spacing" location" and position of sprinklers shall e ased on the following
principles&'$( )prinklers shall e installed throughout the premises.
'*( )prinklers shall e located so as not to exceed the maximum protection area per sprinkler.
'+( )prinklers shall e positioned and located so as to provide satisfactory performance with respect toactivation time and distriution.
',( )prinklers shall e permitted to e omitted from areas specifically allowed y this standard.
'-( hen sprinklers are specifically tested and test results demonstrate that deviations from clearancerequirements to structural memers do not impair the aility of the sprinkler to control or suppress a
fire" their positioning and locating in accordance with the test results shall e permitted.
'/( 0learance etween sprinklers and ceilings exceeding the maximums specified in this standard shalle permitted" provided that tests or calculations demonstrate comparale sensitivity and performanceof the sprinklers to those installed in conformance with these sections.
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
18/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage 6
'1( 2urniture" such as portale wardroe units" cainets" trophy cases" and similar features not intendedfor occupancy" does not require sprinklers to e installed in them. This type of feature shall epermitted to e attached to the finished structure.
'#( )prinklers shall not e required to e installed within electrical equipment" mechanical equipment"or air handling units not intended for occupancy.
NFPA 1, Section !-! BNFPA, 3813, page 1G-) states0
#.,.+ 3xtended 0overage )prinklers. 3xtended coverage sprinklers shall only e installed as follows&
'$( 4nostructed construction consisting of flat" smooth ceilings with a slope not exceeding a pitch of $in / 'a rise of * units in a run of $* units" a roof slope of $/.1 percent(
'*( 4nostructed or noncomustile ostructed construction" where specifically listed for such use
'+( ithin trusses or ar 5oists having we memers not greater than $ in. '*-., mm( maximumdimension or where trusses are spaced greater than 16 ft '*.+ m( on center and where the ceilingslope does not exceed a pitch of $ in / 'a rise of * units in a run of $* units" a roof slope of $/.1
percent(
',( 3xtended coverage upright and pendent sprinklers installed under smooth" flat ceilings that haveslopes not exceeding a pitch of $ in + 'a rise of , units in a run of $* units" a roof slope of ++.+
percent(" where specifically listed for such use
'-( 3xtended coverage sidewall sprinklers installed in accordance with #.7.,.*.* in slopes exceeding aceiling pitch of * in $* where listed for such use
'/( 8n each ay of ostructed construction consisting of solid structural memers that extend elow thedeflector of the sprinkler
NFPA 1, Section !-!6!3 BNFPA, 3813, page 1G-) states0
#.,./.* 3)29 sprinklers shall e installed only in uildings where roof or ceiling slope aove the
sprinklers does not exceed a pitch of * in $* 'a rise of * units in a run of $* units" a roof slope of $/.1percent(.
ESF/ is t&e a""reviation for early suppression fast response, as defined in NFPA 1 BNFPA, 3813,page 1G3 as0
+./.,.* 3arly )uppression 2ast:9esponse '3)29( )prinkler. ; type of fast:response sprinkler that hasa thermal element with an 9T8 of -< 'meters:seconds($=*or less and is listed for its capaility to provide
fire suppression of specific high:challenge fire ha!ards.
NFPA 1, Section !-!6!* BNFPA, 3813, page 1G-) states0
#.,./.- Temperature 9atings. )prinkler temperature ratings for 3)29 sprinklers shall e ordinary
unless #.+.* requires intermediate: or high:temperature ratings.
%&e different temperature ratings are given in NFPA 1, %a"le 6!3!*!1 BNFPA, 3813, page 1G3,'&ic& is modified "elo' in %a"le 3G1 to only include metric values!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
19/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage 5
ableableableable ,,,,****7 %FPA *. emperature7 %FPA *. emperature7 %FPA *. emperature7 %FPA *. emperature Ratings 8%FPA2 ,9*,2 page *.Ratings 8%FPA2 ,9*,2 page *.Ratings 8%FPA2 ,9*,2 page *.Ratings 8%FPA2 ,9*,2 page *.,:;,:;,:;,:;
#a* =C E* =C ,9/,/6 =C "er1 e =C ./. =C Ultra 0ig0 )range 'lack
%&ere are only a fe' su"Gclauses of t&e a"ove cited clauses t&at are of particular interest for t&isreport! %&ese are, apart from Clause 1!3!1 outlining t&e purpose of NFPA 1, t&e follo'ing clauses0
Clause !1!1B0
)prinklers shall e positioned and located so as to provide satisfactory performance with respect toactivation time and distriution.
Clause, !1!1B60
0learance etween sprinklers and ceilings exceeding the maximums specified in this standard shall epermitted" provided that tests or calculations demonstrate comparale sensitivity and performance of thesprinklers to those installed in conformance with these sections.
Clause !-!B10
4nostructed construction consisting of flat" smooth ceilings with a slope not exceeding a pitch of $ in / 'arise of * units in a run of $* units" a roof slope of $/.1 percent(
Clause !-!B-0
3xtended coverage upright and pendent sprinklers installed under smooth" flat ceilings that have slopes notexceeding a pitch of $ in + 'a rise of , units in a run of $* units" a roof slope of ++.+ percent(" where
specifically listed for such use
Clause !-!6!30
#.,./.* 3)29 sprinklers shall e installed only in uildings where roof or ceiling slope aove thesprinklers does not exceed a pitch of * in $* 'a rise of * units in a run of $* units" a roof slope of $/.1
percent(.
2t s&ould "e noted t&at NFPA 1 does not limit t&e ceiling &eig&t '&ere sprinklers are installed!
,+. FDS Sprinkler Activation Prediction
Previous researc& &as s&o'n t&at t&e activation time of a residential sprinkler system installed in a
sloped ceiling may "e increased in comparison to an euivalent sprinkler system "elo' a flat andsmoot& ceiling BFP/F, 3818! %&is 'ill result in &ig&er temperatures prior to fire control! Despite
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
20/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage :
t&e longer activation times and &ig&er temperatures prior to sprinkler control, t&e sprinkler systemmay still meet t&e stated purpose of NFPA 1D for one and t'o family d'ellings and NFPA 1/for residential "uildings of not more t&an - storeys, in relation to fire si=e and occupant safety! %&econclusions in relation to t&e overall performance of a more e(tensive sprinkler system "ased ont&e residential sprinkler system researc& are limited! %&is is due to t&e limited num"er of sprinklersin a residential "uilding, generally "eing only t'o 'it&in t&e vicinity of t&e fire o'ing to t&e limited
room si=es! Furt&ermore, t&e fact t&at t&e ceiling slope angle in t&e a"ovementioned researc& 'aslimited to 1 + and - +, t&e limited ceiling &eig&t, fuel c&aracteristics and t&e specific sprinklersystem specifications used in t&e study furt&er reduces t&e applica"ility of t&e results in varying"uilding configurations!
%&e sprinkler activation model in FDS can "e considered as a t'oGpart systemH activation of t&efirst sprinkler &ead Binitial sprinkler activation and activation of sprinkler &eads follo'ing t&e firstactivated sprinkler &ead Bsecondary sprinkler activation! %&e second part of t&e system, t&esecondary sprinkler activation, is different from t&e initial sprinkler activation as a result of t&ecooling of t&e smoke layer, o'ing to t&e 'ater disc&arge follo'ing t&e activation of t&e firstsprinkler &ead!
,+.+* !nitial Sprinkler Activation
Activation of t&e first sprinkler &ead can "e predicted 'it& a relatively &ig& level of certainty 'it&t&e tools availa"le today! /o"ert ettori undertook t'o series of -* e(periments involving flatceilings and 43 e(periments 'it& sloped ceilings! %&ese e(periments investigated t&e sprinkleractivation times of a uickGresponse residential sprinkler system 'it& ceiling slopes of 8 +, 1 + or3- +, smoot& or o"structed ceilings, fires 'it& slo' or fast tM gro't& rates and fires located incorner, "y t&e 'all or detac&ed from t&e 'all Bettori, 388! %&e results from t&ese studies &avesince "een compared to simulations in FDS 'it& t&e intent of validating t&e model used in FDS forcalculating t&e first sprinkler activation BN2S% , 3818! Figure 3G1 is an e(tract from t&e FDS *alidation :uide BN2S% , 3818, page 1--! %&e figure s&o's predicted and measured activationtimes for all t&e different configurations for t&e sloped ceiling e(periments! %&e straig&t lineindicates '&ere t&e measured and predicted times 'ould constitute a perfect matc&!
FigureFigureFigureFigure ,,,,****7 FDS Predicted and #easured Activation7 FDS Predicted and #easured Activation7 FDS Predicted and #easured Activation7 FDS Predicted and #easured Activation imes of t0e "ettori Sloped Ceilingimes of t0e "ettori Sloped Ceilingimes of t0e "ettori Sloped Ceilingimes of t0e "ettori Sloped CeilingCasesCasesCasesCases
Figure 3G3 is an e(tract from t&e FDS * alidation :uide BN2S% , 3818, page 1! %&e figures&o's predicted and measured activation times for all t&e different configurations for t&e flat
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
21/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage >
ceiling e(periments! %&e straig&t line indicates '&ere t&e measured and predicted times 'ouldconstitute a perfect matc&!
FigureFigureFigureFigure ,,,,,,,,7 FDS Predicted and #easured Activation imes of t0e "ettori Flat Ceiling Cases7 FDS Predicted and #easured Activation imes of t0e "ettori Flat Ceiling Cases7 FDS Predicted and #easured Activation imes of t0e "ettori Flat Ceiling Cases7 FDS Predicted and #easured Activation imes of t0e "ettori Flat Ceiling Cases
%&e FDS results presented in Figure 3G1 and Figure 3G3 a"ove 'ere simulated using FDS *!*!,"eing t&e latest official release of FDS!
,+.+, Secondar1 Sprinkler Activation and 4ater Disc0arge
FDS models utilise a mi(ture fraction model to simulate t&e com"ustion of fuel BN2S% 1, 3818!Simplified, t&e mi(ture fraction model assumes a reaction of t&e form as s&o'n "elo' in Euation3G1 BN2S% 1, 38180
EuationEuationEuationEuation ,,,,****7 #i
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
22/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage *9
%&e fire in FDS can "e specified as a solid fuel t&at does not "urn at a user specified rate, '&ere t&ep&ysical properties of t&e "urning o".ect defines t&e mass "urning and &ence t&e output ?//! 2ft&is is done, t&e sprinkler 'ater disc&arge model in FDS 'ould "e a"le to e(tinguis& t&e fire inFDS "y completely &alting t&e pyrolysis mec&anism BN2S% 1, 3818! /egardless of '&ic& "urningmet&od t&e FDS user decides to utilise, t&e sprinkler disc&arge simulation in FDS 'ill cool t&esmoke layer "y 'ay of &eat transfer from t&e &ot gases to t&e 'ater droplets!
Jit&in t&is report, t&e FDS solid p&ase fuel "urn a'ay met&od is not used as it is not t&e intent tostudy t&e impact of sprinklers on t&e fuel, "ut rat&er t&e impact of a sloping ceiling on sprinkleractivation! Furt&ermore, t&e solid p&ase fuel "urn a'ay met&od is relatively comple( and e(tremelydependant on user specified data! As suc&, t&e "enefits in relation to t&e cost of using it for t&epurposes of t&is report is considered to "e small!
E(cept for t&e ceiling slope, t&e c&aracteristics of all investigated simulations 'ill "e t&e same in"ot& t&e "ase cases 'it& flat ceilings and in t&e cases 'it& sloping ceilings! As a result, t&e impact ofsprinkler disc&arge on t&e fuel 'ill "e more or less euivalent in "ot& cases! A user defined ?// ist&erefore considered adeuate and 'ill "e utilised in t&e simulations!
2n Septem"er 1)) an e(tensive pro.ect involving a series of ) large scale e(periments 'ereperformed at 9nder'riters 7a"oratories in Nort&"rook, 2llinois BNFP/F, 1))! %&is pro.ectstudied t&e interaction "et'een roof vents, draft curtains and sprinklers! %&e e(periments 'ill&erein "e referred to as 97NFP/F! %&e ceiling &eig&ts 'ere set at appro(imately m and t&esprinkler system &ad a spacing of m, activation temperature of 4- +C, an /%2 of 1- BmsOand aC factor of 8!4 BmsO'it& a disc&arge density of 8!- lmMs '&en provided 'it& a 11 kPapressure! A predecessor to FDS 'as developed as part of t&e pro.ect, "eing t&e 2ndustrial FireSimulator B2FS!
Jit& every minor release of FDS, t&e e(periments &ave "een simulated "y t&e developers of FDSfor validation purposes! Figure 3G is an e(tract from t&e FDS * alidation :uide BN2S% , 3818,page 13* s&o'ing t&e predicted and measured actuations! %&e straig&t line indicates '&ere t&e
measured and predicted times 'ould constitute a perfect matc&!
FigureFigureFigureFigure ,,,,....7 FDS Predicted and #easured Actuations7 FDS Predicted and #easured Actuations7 FDS Predicted and #easured Actuations7 FDS Predicted and #easured Actuations
%&e activation times 'ere also measured and compared to t&e predicted activation times in FDSBN2S% , 3818! For t&e purpose of t&is report, it is considered more relevant to study t&e results'it&out operating vents Binvolving e(periments '&ere t&e vents 'ere closed or did not open during
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
23/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage **
t&e simulation! %&e tests 'it&out operating vents are summarised in %a"le 3G3! 2t s&ould "e notedt&at t&e varying num"er of sprinkler activations is a result of t&e specific test configurations!
ableableableable ,,,,,,,,7 Results of t0e (arge Full Scale E:;%FPRF2 *>>:;%FPRF2 *>>:;
est %o+est %o+est %o+est %o+ #a *9 #4 53 s 65 s ,.
!!** *9 #4 53 s 6, s ,.
As part of t&e FDS alidation :uide BN2S% , 3818, t&e e(periments &ave "een simulated using
FDS *!*!! %&e e(tensive comparative grap&s for all tests listed a"ove in %a"le 3G3 and provided int&e FDS alidation :uide are presented in Appendi( A! %&e grap&s 'it& roug&ly t&e "est and'orst correlations "et'een measured and predicted sprinkler activation num"ers and times arepresented "elo' in Figure 3G- and Figure 3G* respectively!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
24/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage *,
FigureFigureFigureFigure ,,,,////7 est number !7 est number !7 est number !7 est number !*: Comparison ?it0 #easured Sprinkler Activation2 Appro
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
25/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage *.
?o'ever, a num"er of simulations also s&o' less convincing results su"seuent to activation of t&efift& sprinkler!
FigureFigureFigureFigure ,,,,66667 est number !!7 est number !!7 est number !!7 est number !!> Comparison ?it0 #easured Sprinkler Activation> Comparison ?it0 #easured Sprinkler Activation> Comparison ?it0 #easured Sprinkler Activation> Comparison ?it0 #easured Sprinkler Activation
Figure 3G4 s&o's test num"er 22G1 simulated using FDS 6 SN 131) as acuired from t&e FDSSN repository in lieu of FDS *!*! SN 481 as previously presented in Figure 3G* a"ove! As a
sidenote, t&e SN num"er denotes t&e FDS revision num"er!
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Ac
tuations
Time (s)
UL/NFPRFSII-T1
UL/NFPRF - SII-T1
FDS6
FigureFigureFigureFigure ,,,,55557 est number !!7 est number !!7 est number !!7 est number !!* FDS 6 S"% *,:*> Comparison ?it0 #easured Sprinkler* FDS 6 S"% *,:*> Comparison ?it0 #easured Sprinkler* FDS 6 S"% *,:*> Comparison ?it0 #easured Sprinkler* FDS 6 S"% *,:*> Comparison ?it0 #easured SprinklerActivationActivationActivationActivation
As can "e seen in Figure 3G4 a"ove, t&e correlation "et'een FDS and t&e e(perimental results issignificantly improved 'it& FDS 6 SN 131) compared to FDS *!*! SN 481! %&e total
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
26/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage */
difference "et'een num"er of measured actuations and predicted num"er of actuations &as "eenreduced from 11 to *! %&is constitutes a c&ange from -8 error in t&at specific setup to 1)! 2ts&ould "e noted t&at t&e num"er of activated sprinklers correlate 'ell B'it&in
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
27/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage *3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Predicted
Actua
ons
Measured
Actua ons
UL/NFPRF
Actua ons
vs
FDS
5
Actua ons
Series1
Series2
Upper/Lower10%
FigureFigureFigureFigure ,,,,::::7 FDS 3+3+.7 FDS 3+3+.7 FDS 3+3+.7 FDS 3+3+. Predicted and #easured Actuations for %onPredicted and #easured Actuations for %onPredicted and #easured Actuations for %onPredicted and #easured Actuations for %on)perating "ents)perating "ents)perating "ents)perating "ents
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Predicted
Actua
ons
Measured
Actua ons
UL/NFPRF
Actua ons
vs
FDS
6
Actua ons
Series1
Series2
Upper/Lower10%
FigureFigureFigureFigure ,,,,>>>>7 FDS 6 Predicted and #easured Actuations for %7 FDS 6 Predicted and #easured Actuations for %7 FDS 6 Predicted and #easured Actuations for %7 FDS 6 Predicted and #easured Actuations for %onononon)perating "ents)perating "ents)perating "ents)perating "ents
FDS *!*! seems to systematically over predict t&e num"er of actuations '&ilst FDS 6 sometimesunder predicts and sometimes over predicts t&e num"er of actuations! :enerally t&e results are very
close to t&e e(perimental results! 2n conclusion, averaged results generated "y FDS 6 are likelycloser to reality t&an t&e counterpart generated "y FDS *!*!!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
28/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage *6
%&e &eat transfer from t&e disc&arged sprinkler 'ater to t&e surrounding &ot gases is considered to"e valid for t&e report purpose! %&is is "ased on t&e &ig& level of correlation "et'een measuredactuations and FDS 6 predicted actuations as presented for t&e 97NFP/F study descri"ed a"ove!
2t is considered t&at FDS 6 provides valid predictions for sprinkler actuation for a limited num"erof sprinkler &eads for t&e purpose of t&is report! %&e validation is "ased on t&e assumptions and
limitations &erein, given t&e correct sprinkler system specifications are defined in t&e FDS inputfile, eg! /%2, activation temperature, 'ater pressure and ot&er relevant specifics for t&e sprinklersystem!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
29/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage *5
. CE!(!%& S()PE #)DE((!%&
%&is report evaluates t&ree main outputs, "eing activation times, activation patterns and num"er ofactivated sprinklers! 2n order to o"tain t&e "est possi"le outputs, a num"er of input parametersand modelling met&ods &ave to "e evaluated! Ine of t&e ma.or input parameters is t&e modellingmet&od for t&e sloped ceiling!
FDS utilises a t&ree dimensional Cartesian coordinate grid system BN2S% 1, 3818! As a result,comple( geometries suc& as a smoot& sloping ceiling cannot "e modelled accurately, "ut &ave to "esimplified! Five met&ods of modelling t&e ceiling slope &ave "een evaluated in t&is report, "eing0
1! :ravity ector B: ;et&od
3! Sa' %oot&ed Ceiling BS%C ;et&od
! Frictionless Ceiling BFSC ;et&od
-! /efined Ceiling :rid B/C: ;et&od
*! :ravity ector and Frictionless Jalls B:FSJ ;et&od
.+* E
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
30/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage *:
%a"le G1 furt&er descri"es t&e different e(perimental setups!
ableableableable ....****7 "ettori E
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
31/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage *>
t&eoretical smoke layer formation! %&e smoke layer "oundary is simplified to "e perpendicular tot&e gravity vector!
FigureFigureFigureFigure ....,,,,7 !llustration of E
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
32/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage ,9
FigureFigureFigureFigure ....////7 !llustration of #odified &ravit1 "ector #odels7 !llustration of #odified &ravit1 "ector #odels7 !llustration of #odified &ravit1 "ector #odels7 !llustration of #odified &ravit1 "ector #odels
.+. Sa? oot0ed Ceiling #et0od
As FDS is utilising a Cartesian coordinate grid system, all o"structions are "uilt of su"Gcomponentslarge enoug& to fill one cell! As a result, o"structions 'ill not "e smoot& and flo' patterns nearo"structions may c&ange as a result of vortices! %&e sa' toot&ed sloping ceiling met&od isessentially a copy of t&e models developed "y ettori B388 and utilised "y N2S% in t&e alidation:uide BN2S% , 3818! %&e alidation :uide provides a survey of validation 'ork conducted toevaluate sprinkler activation in FDS!
%&e input files &ave "een o"tained from t&e FDS repository and modified slig&tly! C&anges includemodified VGdirection cell si=e from 8!18 m cells to 8!1 m cells and modified fuel properties inaccordance 'it& t&e latest FDS synta(!
.+/ Frictionless Ceiling #et0od
%&e frictionless sloping ceiling met&od is almost euivalent to t&e sa' toot&ed sloping ceilingmet&od! %&e e(ception is t&at t&e input parameter F/EEWS72P is activated in order to remove t&efriction "et'een specific o"structions and fluids surrounding it, 'it& t&e intent of minimising t&eeffects of vortices near s&arp corners!
F/EEWS72P T !%/9E! &as "een prescri"ed to t&e ceiling!
.+3 Refined Ceiling &rid #et0od
y specifying a second, refined grid cell si=e in t&e vicinity of t&e ceiling, t&e stair stepping can "eminimised, t&ere"y mimicking t&e true ceiling slope to a greater e(tent t&an t&e models 'it& a
coarser grid! %&e reduced cell si=e 'ill result in a greater num"er of cells! %&e greater cell num"erand t&e communication "et'een t&e t'o mes&es 'ill result in longer calculation times, "utpotentially "etter results! %&e refined ceiling grid cells are refined "y a factor of 3, from 8!18 m cellsto 8!8* m cells! Furt&ermore, t&e refined grid &as "een furt&er divided into - mes&es, in order too"tain eual num"er of cells in eac& calculation mes&!
.+6 &ravit1 "ector and Frictionless 4alls #et0od
%&e fift& met&od is "ased on t&e gravity vector met&od "ut modified "y activating frictionless 'allsurfaces "y prescri"ing F/EEWS72P T !%/9E! to t&e 'all surfaces!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
33/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage ,*
.+5 Comparison of Ceiling Slope #et0od
Several aspects &ave "een considered in t&e evaluation of t&e ceiling slope modelling met&od,including0
1! Sprinkler activation times
3! Sprinkler activation accuracy
! Simulation CP9 cost
-! ;odelling setup user cost
.+5+* Sprinkler Activation imes
%&e sprinkler activation time is potentially t&e most critical aspect of t&e ceiling slope modellingmet&od! %&e e(perimentally measured average times Bettori, 388, page 14 and t&e simulatedtimes are presented in %a"le G3 and Figure G* "elo'!
ableableableable ....,,,,7 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation imes7 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation imes7 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation imes7 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation imes#easured#easured#easured#easured8"ettori28"ettori28"ettori28"ettori2,99.;,99.;,99.;,99.;
&"&"&"&" SCSCSCSC FSCFSCFSCFSC RC&RC&RC&RC& &"FS4&"FS4&"FS4&"FS4
SFC .> s /9 s /9 s /9 s
SFD 6. s /9 s // s /9 s // s /9 s
SF4 /* s /: s /: s // s
SSC **> s *9: s **, s **, s
SSD *:3 s *,/ s *// s */: s */: s *,/ sSS4 */3 s *,/ s *,/ s **6 s
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
34/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage ,,
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 50 100 150 200 250
Predicted
Ac
va
on
Time
(s)
MeasuredA c v a o nTime(s)
Ve ori
Sloed
!eilin"
Ac va on
Times
Measured
vs
Predicted
FDS1
FDS6
Non-Free
Slip
FDS6FreeSlip
FDS6ModifiedGravi!"e#or
FDS6
Modified
Gravi!
"e#or
Free
Slip
FDS6$efinedeilin&Grid
Upper/Lower10%
FigureFigureFigureFigure ....33337 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation imes7 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation imes7 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation imes7 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation imes
%&e ratios and average errors "et'een measured and predicted sprinkler activation times arepresented in %a"le G "elo'! %&e ratios are calculated as predicted time divided "y measured time!%&e averaged errors are calculated as t&e inverted average of t&e ratio sums for eac& modellingmet&od!
ableableableable ........7 Ratio bet?een #easured and Predicted Sprinkler Activation imes and Averaged7 Ratio bet?een #easured and Predicted Sprinkler Activation imes and Averaged7 Ratio bet?een #easured and Predicted Sprinkler Activation imes and Averaged7 Ratio bet?een #easured and Predicted Sprinkler Activation imes and AveragedErrorsErrorsErrorsErrors
&"&"&"&" SCSCSCSC FSCFSCFSCFSC RC&RC&RC&RC& &"FS4&"FS4&"FS4&"FS4
SFC *+9. *+9. *+9.
SFD 9+6. 9+59 9+6. 9+59 9+6.
SF4 *+*5 *+*5 *+95
SSC 9+>* 9+>/ 9+>/
SSD 9+65 9+5: 9+:9 9+:9 9+65
SS4 9+:6 9+:6 9+:9
AverageError ./+5/ >+/9 >+3/ **+9. ./+5/
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
35/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage ,.
2t s&ould "e noted t&at t&e average error for t&e gravity vector models only includes t&e t'omodels SFD and SSD! %&e corresponding average error for t&e ot&er ceiling modelling met&odsare as presented in %a"le G- "elo'!
ableableableable ....////7 Ratio bet?een #easured and Predicted Sprinkler Activation imes and Averaged7 Ratio bet?een #easured and Predicted Sprinkler Activation imes and Averaged7 Ratio bet?een #easured and Predicted Sprinkler Activation imes and Averaged7 Ratio bet?een #easured and Predicted Sprinkler Activation imes and AveragedErrors for SFD and SSDErrors for SFD and SSDErrors for SFD and SSDErrors for SFD and SSD
&"&"&"&" SCSCSCSC FSCFSCFSCFSC RC&RC&RC&RC& &"FS4&"FS4&"FS4&"FS4
SFD 9+6. 9+59 9+6. 9+59 9+6.
SSD 9+65 9+5: 9+:9 9+:9 9+65
AverageError ./+5/ ,6+*6 ,:+,3 ,3+9: ./+5/
ased on t&e data presented in t&is section, t&e modified gravity vector models acuire t&e leastaccurate sprinkler activation times! %&e sa' toot&ed ceiling models, i!e! S%C, FSC and /C:,
acuire t&e most accurate results!
.+5+, Sprinkler Activation Accurac1
J&ic& sprinkler t&at activates first can vary depending on a num"er of factors, as illustrated in t&ee(periments carried out "y ettori! ettori B388 conducted t'o runs for eac& e(perimental setup,resulting in sprinklers activating as presented in %a"le G*! %&e num"ers in t&e cells represent t&esprinkler position as indicated in Figure G6!
FigureFigureFigureFigure ....66667 Sprinkler %aming in t0e "ettori E
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
36/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage ,/
ableableableable ....33337 Sprinkler Activation Accurac17 Sprinkler Activation Accurac17 Sprinkler Activation Accurac17 Sprinkler Activation Accurac1
Run *Run *Run *Run * Run ,Run ,Run ,Run , &"&"&"&" SCSCSCSC FSCFSCFSCFSC RC&RC&RC&RC& &"FS4&"FS4&"FS4&"FS4
SFC , , , , ,
SFD * * * * * * *
SF4 / / / / /
SSC , , , , ,
SSD * / * . / / ,
SS4 / / / / /
%&e SSD Bdetac&ed slo' gro't& fire scenario is t&e only e(periment '&ere t&e activated sprinklervaries in t&e t'o e(perimental runs! %&e correlation "et'een all ot&er e(periments and predictionsis good! As a result of t&e varying e(perimental activation accuracy, it is difficult to reac& anyconclusions for t&e predicted activation accuracy in t&e SSD scenario! %&e accuracy for all ot&ermodelling met&ods is considered to "e good!
.+5+. Simulation CPU Cost
%&e simulations &ave "een run in parallel on t&e computer cluster 7unarc and t&e Alarik system! Att&e time of pro.ect completion, t&e Alarik resource offered t&e follo'ing system specifications0
86U:3 A;D6338 B!8 :&=, Gcore
eor":3G6- :" B3G- :core
Li+u $i%tri(utio+:CentIS 6!3 (6W6- B/?E76 compati"le
%&e num"er of processors used in eac& simulation are presented in %a"le G6!
ableableableable ....66667 %umber of Processors Used7 %umber of Processors Used7 %umber of Processors Used7 %umber of Processors Used
&"&"&"&" SCSCSCSC FSCFSCFSCFSC RC&RC&RC&RC& &"FS4&"FS4&"FS4&"FS4
SFC * * 3
SFD * * * , *
SF4 * * 3
SSC * * 3
SSD * * * 3 *SS4 * * 3
otal , 6 6 ,5 ,
Average * * * /+3* *
%&e simulation CP9 time and t&e average CP9 time per simulation reuired is presented in %a"leG4!
1 Note t&at t&e SFD /C: run 'as done using insufficient num"er of processors, resulting in an increased
CP9 time and ultimately resulting in t&e refined mes& "eing split into - mes&es to reduce t&e CP9 time, "yassigning one processor per mes&!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
37/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage ,3
ableableableable ....55557 CPU ime Reuired 8007mm7ss;7 CPU ime Reuired 8007mm7ss;7 CPU ime Reuired 8007mm7ss;7 CPU ime Reuired 8007mm7ss;
&"&"&"&" SCSCSCSC FSCFSCFSCFSC RC&RC&RC&RC& &"FS4&"FS4&"FS4&"FS4
SFC /7/*73> 379*79* 67/,7**
SFD 67,*7.9 /7/>7/: /7*:7,* ,37,:73:, 37/*7,*
SF4 /7/,79, /7,>7/6 57.:733
SSC 67367// 673/7/: *57997.5
SSD 57,67.9 57/57*/ 57*37*> *.7,379/ :7**7*9
SS4 :7997.: 579>7/, *97/.7*5
otal *.7/:799 .673:7,3 .379:735 :973>79, *.73,7.*
ime perSimulation 673/799 679>7// 373*7.9 *.7,>739 67367*3
%&e data presented a"ove indicates t&at t&e modelling met&od reuiring t&e most CP9 po'er ist&e refined ceiling grid model! %&e increased simulation times are due to an increased num"er ofcells! Furt&ermore, it s&ould "e noted t&at t&e simulation times are not e(plicitly compara"le as t&ecomputer specifications for eac& run may vary slig&tly, e!g! t&e simulation time for t&e samesimulation on t'o different processors can vary significantly due to different amount of memoryetc!
%&e least CP9 e(pensive modelling met&ods are t&e sa' toot&ed ceiling met&od and t&efrictionless ceiling met&od, '&ic& &ave t&e smallest num"er of cells!
.+5+/ #odelling Setup User Cost
2n addition to t&e actual CP9 time and resources reuired for t&e simulations, t&e models reuirevarying degrees of user input to adeuately represent t&e different scenarios! %&e reuired userinput and kno'ledge is su".ectively rated as per "elo'! %&e least amount of reuired user input isat t&e top and t&e greatest amount at t&e "ottom!
1! Sa' %oot&ed Ceiling ;et&od
3! Frictionless Ceiling ;et&od
! /efined Ceiling :rid ;et&od
-! :ravity ector ;et&od
*! :ravity ector and Frictionless Jalls ;et&od
%&e gravity vector met&od models are significantly more comple( to setup t&an t&e standardgravity vector models! ;ultiple iterations of t&e gravity vector models 'ere reuired due to userinput errors in t&e model setup p&ase!
.+: Flo? Field Comparison
2n order to ascertain '&et&er t&e models used are appropriate for t&e application, t&e flo' fieldsnear t&e ceiling &ave "een "riefly visually investigated! Figure G4 to Figure G11 "elo' are e(tractsfrom Smokevie', s&o'ing velocity slice file averaged over 8 s for t&e different models!
3 Note t&at t&e SFD /C: run 'as done using insufficient num"er of processors, resulting in an increased
CP9 time and ultimately resulting in t&e refined mes& "eing split into - mes&es to reduce t&e CP9 time, "yassigning one processor per mes&!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
38/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage ,6
FigureFigureFigureFigure ....55557 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 &" #et0od7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 &" #et0od7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 &" #et0od7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 &" #et0od
FigureFigureFigureFigure ....::::7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 SC7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 SC7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 SC7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 SC #et0od#et0od#et0od#et0od
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
39/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage ,5
FigureFigureFigureFigure ....>>>>7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 FSC #et0od7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 FSC #et0od7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 FSC #et0od7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 FSC #et0od
FigureFigureFigureFigure ....*9*9*9*97 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 RC& #et0od7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 RC& #et0od7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 RC& #et0od7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 RC& #et0od
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
40/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage ,:
FigureFigureFigureFigure ....********7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 &"FS4 #et0od7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 &"FS4 #et0od7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 &"FS4 #et0od7 "elocit1 in t0e SFD Enclosure Centre7 &"FS4 #et0od
As can "e seen a"ove, t&e flo' fields are in fact not perfect Bi!e! pockets of lo' speed fluids can "eseen '&ere a more &omogenous flo' field velocity is e(pected in t&e models 'it& stair steppedceilings, S%C and FSC especially! ?o'ever, t&e effect of t&e potentially slig&tly inaccurate flo'fields due to t&e stair stepping does not seem to affect t&e sprinkler activation results in a slope of1 +! ased on t&e results presented in previous Section !4!1 to Section !4!-, it is considered t&att&e flo' field inaccuracy &as a negligi"le impact on t&e sprinkler activation predictions for t&isceiling slope of 1 + and ot&er c&aracteristics for t&e models!
.+> Conclusion
For t&e purpose of t&is report and "ased on t&e correlation "et'een measured and predictedsprinkler activation times, t&e sprinkler activation accuracy, t&e simulation CP9 cost and t&emodelling setup user cost, it is deemed most suita"le to use t&e sa' toot&ed ceiling modellingmet&od! 2t is noted t&at t&e suita"ility of t&e ceiling modelling met&od is dependent on t&e grid cellsi=e used in t&e simulations and t&e ceiling slope angle! ?o'ever, "ased on t&e limited amount ofvalidation data, t&e sa' toot&ed ceiling modelling met&od is deemed to "e t&e most suita"lemet&od for t&e purpose of t&is report!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
41/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage ,>
/ REP)RSPEC!F!C FDS #)DE((!%& SEUP
%&e follo'ing specific input parameters &ave "een evaluated in varying degrees and are descri"ed&erein0
Design fire
:rid cell si=e
Sprinkler specifications
Ceiling slope angles to model
Fire locations
Ceiling &eig&t
2n determining t&e specific input parameters for t&e final simulations, some &ave "een ualitativelydiscussed '&ilst some &ave "een uantitatively evaluated! Luantitatively evaluated inputs include
t&e ceiling slope angle modelling met&od Bas descri"ed in Section , t&e grid cell si=e, sprinkler /%2and activation temperature!
2n t&e final simulations, t&e outputs &ave "een compared to a similar "uilding configuration "ut'it& sprinklers installed in a code compliant ceiling!
An e(ample FDS input file is provided in Appendi( C!
/+* Enclosure Description
%&e enclosure &as "een modelled as a simple generic and relatively open geometry in order torepresent a greater range of "uilding configurations! %&e modelled enclosure is 3- m long "y 1 m
'ide, 'it& a ceiling &eig&t varying from 3!- m to 1*!- m! Ipenings remain unc&anged t&roug&outt&e simulations, and are euivalent in all simulations! %&e openings comprise of 6 openings of 3 m"y 3 m eac&, resulting in a total opening area of 3- m3! %&ese are evenly distri"uted along t&e 'allsin order to provide a pro"a"le natural ventilation!
/+, Design Fire
%&e design fire is euivalent for all modelled scenarios, ignoring any suppressing effects anactivated sprinkler system 'ill &ave on t&e fire ?//! %&e specific inputs for t&e selected design fireis as listed in %a"le -G1 "elo'! %&e design fire &as "een designed to represent a spectrum ofpossi"le fires, and is t&erefore of a relatively generic nature!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
42/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage .9
ableableableable ////****7 Design Fire Specifications7 Design Fire Specifications7 Design Fire Specifications7 Design Fire Specifications
ParameterParameterParameterParameter "alue"alue"alue"alue DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription
Fire (ocation
*
,
A single fire is located verticall1 belo?7
0e lo?est point of t0e ceiling
0e centre of t0e ceiling slope
All different fires are located bet?een four sprinklers+Refer to Figure /* and Figure /, for illustrations of t0efire locations and t0e radial distances from t0e fuel centreto t0e sprinkler 0eads for fire location *+ 0e samepattern is applicable for fire location ,+ 0e fire locationis revealed in t0e model name2 e+g+ F*i means firelocation * and F,i means fire location ,+
Reaction Propane 0e fuel is c0osen based on it being relativel1 ?elldocumented fuel2 commonl1 used in fire e
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
43/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage .*
FigureFigureFigureFigure ////,,,,7 Fire (ocation !llustration2 Plan "ie?7 Fire (ocation !llustration2 Plan "ie?7 Fire (ocation !llustration2 Plan "ie?7 Fire (ocation !llustration2 Plan "ie?
/+. &rid Cell SiGe
%&e FDS 9serRs :uide BN2S% 1, 3818 provides a "enc&mark e(ample "ased on a 9!S! /egulatoryCommission validation study to assist in selecting an appropriate grid cell si=e! A c&aracteristic firediameter, DX, is introduced and defined as in Euation -G1!
EuationEuationEuationEuation ////****7 #i
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
44/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage .,
ableableableable ////,,,,7 "alidation Stud1 C0aracteristics7 "alidation Stud1 C0aracteristics7 "alidation Stud1 C0aracteristics7 "alidation Stud1 C0aracteristics
ParameterParameterParameterParameter "alue"alue"alue"alue DDDDescriptionescriptionescriptionescription
Cell siGe 9+* m d< based on t0e simulations in t0e FDS "alidation &uide8%!S .2 ,9*9;+
#a
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
45/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage ..
ableableableable ////....7 Sprinkler Specifications7 Sprinkler Specifications7 Sprinkler Specifications7 Sprinkler Specifications
ParameterParameterParameterParameter "alue"alue"alue"alue DescriptionDescriptionDescriptionDescription
R! 39 8ms;*,
*/: 8ms;*,
A Response ime !nde< of */: 8ms;*,?as used in t0eU(%FPRF e
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
46/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage ./
ableableableable ////////7 Ceiling Slope Angles and Specifications7 Ceiling Slope Angles and Specifications7 Ceiling Slope Angles and Specifications7 Ceiling Slope Angles and Specifications
#odel#odel#odel#odel%ame%ame%ame%ame
Ceiling Slope AngleCeiling Slope AngleCeiling Slope AngleCeiling Slope Angle CentreCentreCentreCentreCeilingCeilingCeilingCeiling@eig0t@eig0t@eig0t@eig0t
#inimum Ceiling#inimum Ceiling#inimum Ceiling#inimum Ceiling@eig0t 8sloped;@eig0t 8sloped;@eig0t 8sloped;@eig0t 8sloped;
#a
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
47/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage .3
3 FDS #)DE((!%& RESU(S J F(A CE!(!%&
%&e results for t&e flat ceiling models are presented in t&is section! %&e different sections aredivided as per t&e follo'ing0
Ultr) Slo# Re%po+%e> /%2 of 1- Bms13and %actof 4- +C
Slo# Re%po+%e> /%2 of 1- Bms13and %actof 6 +C
e$iu Re%po+%e> /%2 of *8 Bms13and %actof 4- +C
)%t Re%po+%eG /%2 of *8 Bms13and %actof 6 +C
%&e sprinklers activate in a strict radial pattern in all modelled flat ceiling models 'it&in t&is report!%&is means t&at t&e four sprinklers located 3!* m from t&e fuel centre activate first, and t&e fift&sprinkler to activate is located -!)3 m from t&e fuel centre!
%&e models also s&o' t&at an increased ceiling &eig&t results in longer activation times!
elo' are t&e results for eac& sprinkler response model presented in individual sections, after'&ic& a summary is presented! %&e complete results are presented in Appendi( E!
3+* Ultra Slo? Response Sprinkler #odels
3+*+* Results
%&e sprinkler activation times are s&o'n Figure *G1 for fire location 1 and in Figure *G3 for firelocation 3!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
48/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage .6
Sprin'ler1
Sprin'ler2
Sprin'ler3
Sprin'ler4
Sprin'ler5
F1iUlraSlow 1(5 1(5 200 200 2)5
F1iiUlraSlow 205 205 210 220 2(5
F1iii
Ulra
Slow
215
215
225
225
305
F1iv
Ulra
Slow 225 225 240 240 3)0
F1vUlraSlow 235 240 260 265 3)0
F1viUlraSlow 250 250 2*0 2*5 350
F1viiUlraSlow 260 265 2(0 2(5 365
150
200
250
300
350
400
Time
(s)
Ultra
Slo#
Resonse
Flat
!eilin"
Fire
Loca on
$
FigureFigureFigureFigure 3333****7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Ultra Slo? Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation *7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Ultra Slo? Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation *7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Ultra Slo? Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation *7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Ultra Slo? Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation *
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
49/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage .5
Sprin'ler1
Sprin'ler2
Sprin'ler3
Sprin'ler4
Sprin'ler5
F2iUlraSlow 1(0 1(0 1(5 200 2*0
F2iiUlraSlow 200
200
205
205
2(0
F2iii
Ulra
Slow 210
210
215
225
300
F2iv
Ulra
Slow
220
220
225
225
305
F2vUlraSlow 230 235 235 235 320
F2vi
Ulra
Slow 250 250 250 250 325
F2viiUlraSlow 255 260 260 260 335
150
200
250
300
350
400
Time
(s)
Ultra
Slo#
Resonse
Flat
!eilin"
Fire
Loca on
%
FigureFigureFigureFigure 3333,,,,7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Ultra Slo? Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation ,7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Ultra Slo? Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation ,7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Ultra Slo? Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation ,7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Ultra Slo? Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation ,
3+, Slo? Response Sprinkler #odels
3+,+* Results
%&e sprinkler activation times are s&o'n Figure *G for fire location 1 and in Figure *G- for firelocation 3!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
50/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage .:
Sprin'ler1
Sprin'ler2
Sprin'ler3
Sprin'ler4
Sprin'ler5
F1iSlow 1*5 1*5 1(0 1(0 265
F1iiSlow 1(5
1(5
200
205
2*0
F1iii
Slow 205
205
210
215
2(0
F1iv
Slow
210
215
225
255
305
F1vSlow 225 225 245 255 355
F1vi
Slow 235 235 2)0 2)0 335
F1viiSlow 245 255 2*0 2*0 345
1)5
1(5
215
235
255
2)5
2(5
315
335
355
3)5
Time
(s)
Slo#
Resonse
Flat
!eilin"
Fire
Loca on
$
FigureFigureFigureFigure 3333....7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Slo? Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation *7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Slo? Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation *7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Slo? Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation *7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Slo? Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation *
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
51/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage .>
Sprin'ler1
Sprin'ler2
Sprin'ler3
Sprin'ler4
Sprin'ler5
F2iSlow 1*0 1*0 1(0 1(5 2)0
F2iiSlow 1(0
1(0
1(5
1(5
2)5
F2iii
Slow 200
200
205
210
2*5
F2iv
Slow
210
210
215
215
2(5
F2vSlow 220 220 225 225 305
F2vi
Slow 235 235 235 235 305
F2viiSlow 245 245 245 245 325
1)5
1(5
215
235
255
2)5
2(5
315
335
Time
(s)
Slo#
Resonse
Flat
!eilin"
Fire
Loca on
%
FigureFigureFigureFigure 3333////7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Slo? Response2 Fl7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Slo? Response2 Fl7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Slo? Response2 Fl7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 Slo? Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation ,at Ceiling2 Fire (ocation ,at Ceiling2 Fire (ocation ,at Ceiling2 Fire (ocation ,
3+. #edium Response Sprinkler #odels
3+.+* Results
%&e sprinkler activation times are s&o'n in Figure *G* for fire location 1 and in Figure *G6 for firelocation 3!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
52/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage /9
Sprin'ler1
Sprin'ler2
Sprin'ler3
Sprin'ler4
Sprin'ler5
F1iMedi+, 165 1)5 1)5 1*0 255
F1iiMedi+, 1)5
1)5
200
205
260
F1iii
Medi+, 1*5
1*5
215
225
2*5
F1iv
Medi+,
1(5
1(5
230
230
335
F1vMedi+, 205 210 235 2(0 345
F1vi
Medi+, 225 225 260 2*0 320
F1viiMedi+, 230 235 2*0 2*5 340
150
1)0
1(0
210
230
250
2)0
2(0
310
330
350
Time
(s)
Medium
Resonse
Flat
!eilin"
Fire
Loca on
$
FigureFigureFigureFigure 333333337 Sprinkler Activation ime2 #edium Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 #edium Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 #edium Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 #edium Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation *(ocation *(ocation *(ocation *
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
53/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage /*
Sprin'ler1
Sprin'ler2
Sprin'ler3
Sprin'ler4
Sprin'ler5
F2iMedi+, 160 165 200 200 250
F2iiMedi+, 1)0
1)5
200
210
265
F2iii
Medi+, 1*0
1*5
1(0
215
2)5
F2iv
Medi+,
1(0
1(5
1(5
230
2*0
F2vMedi+, 200 205 210 240 2(5
F2vi
Medi+, 215 220 220 220 305
F2viiMedi+, 230 230 230 230 325
150
1)0
1(0
210
230
250
2)0
2(0
310
330
350
Time
(s)
Medium
Resonse
Flat
!eilin"
Fire
Loca on
%
FigureFigureFigureFigure 333366667 Sprinkler Activation ime2 #edium Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation ,7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 #edium Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation ,7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 #edium Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation ,7 Sprinkler Activation ime2 #edium Response2 Flat Ceiling2 Fire (ocation ,
3+/ Fast Response Sprinkler #odels
3+/+* Results
%&e sprinkler activation times are s&o'n in Figure *G4 for fire location 1 and Figure *G for firelocation 3!
7/26/2019 Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf
54/134
Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage /,
Sprin'ler1
Sprin'ler2
Sprin'ler3
Sprin'ler4
Sprin'ler5
F1iFas 155 160 165 165 245
F1iiFas 165
165
1*0
1*5
250
F1iii
Fas 1)5
1*0
1*0
205
2)0
F1iv
Fas
1*0
1*0
215
240
315
F1vFas 1(5 1(5 220 265 330
F1vi
Fas 205 205 240 260 305
F1viiFas 215 215 260 260 325
150
1)0
1(0
210
230
250
2)0
2(0
Recommended