352-363_Water Application Rates

7/24/2019 352-363_Water Application Rates

1/12

Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17-19, 2010

351

Water Application Rates for Fixed Fire Fighting Systems

in Road Tunnels

Parsons BrinckerhoffKenneth J. Harris

Sacramento, California USA

ABSTRACT

Road tunnel deluge systems require substantial amounts of water, which can have significant impact on

the storage, delivery and drainage systems. Fixed fire fighting systems (FFFS) are gaining attention as

a means for providing an early response to a road tunnel fire. While these systems have been used for

a considerable time in Japan and Australia, their incorporation into road tunnels in other parts of the

world is now being evaluated. One of the major issues this paper explores is the water application rate.The objectives and strategies, exposure protection, control of burning, suppression and extinguishment

for an FFFS are identified. Fire point theory is then used to quantify the effects of water application

rate on heat flux. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis using varying water application rates

is then performed on shielded and unshielded stacked solid fuel packages that would represent a severe

fire incident. The analysis showed that rather than being a continuum of performance, the effect of

water application rate occurred in discrete effects. In other words, while some minimum water

application rate would accomplish a certain objective, a marginally higher rate would not necessarily

improve the situation. The application of significantly higher rates would move to a different

objective, whereby again marginally higher increases would have little benefit. These confirm the

application of fire point theory to assess how much water is sufficient to accomplish FFFS objectives.

This now allows an objective to be identified within the overall framework of tunnel safety systems

and the FFFS to be sized to accomplish that objective.

KEYWORDS:fixed fire fighting systems, road tunnels, water application rate

INTRODUCTION

Road tunnel deluge systems require substantial amounts of water, which can have significant impact on

the storage, delivery and drainage systems. The required amount of water is determined by the product

of the area of coverage and the water application rate. Flexibility in defining the area of coverage

(sprinkler zone size) is limited due to physical constraints. The zone width is governed by the tunnel

width and the zone length is determined by vehicle dimensions. The other parameter, water

application rate, is usually dictated by prescriptive requirement, but little hard data exists on how

much is sufficient? This paper offers information that may be helpful to the engineer when

attempting to answer that question.

Fixed fire fighting systems (FFFS) are gaining attention as a means for providing an early response to a

road tunnel fire. While these systems have been used for a considerable time in Japan and Australia,

their incorporation into road tunnels in other parts of the world is now being evaluated. One of the

major issues with FFFS is the determination of a suitable water application rate. A FFFS is usually a

deluge sprinkler system that releases water through open nozzles to a selected zone. If an incident

occurs on the boundary between two zones, both may need to be activated. The current practice on

water application rate derives from some early investigative work, the requirements of local authorities

and a body of code work. These application rates and typical zone sizes can result in flow demands in

the range of 7,570 to 15,140 liters per minute (2000 to 4000 gpm), which can have a significant impacton supply and drainage system requirements.


2/12


352

One of the more difficult aspects of this problem is to define the objectives of a FFFS that will dictate

the design. Five possible objectives can be defined for a FFFS.

Prevention of fire. Dissolve, disperse or cool flammable vapor, gases or hazardous materials.

Extinguishment. Complete elimination of the fire heat release rate and all protected surfaces

cooled to prevent flashback. Suppression. Reduction of fire heat release rate such that open flaming is arrested; however, a

deep-seated fire will require additional steps for extinguishment.

Control of burning. Application of water spray to equipment or areas where a fire can occur to

control the rate of burning and thereby limit the heat release from a fire until the fuel can be

eliminated or extinguishment effected.

Exposure protection. Absorption of heat through application of water spray to structures or

equipment exposed to a fire, to limit surface temperature to a level that will minimize damage

and prevent failure.

All five of these objectives can be shown to utilize the same basic mechanism for reduction of heat or

heat release rate. Of these five, prevention is not practical because it implies activation of the system

before the incident can be detected. The remaining four, however, can be influenced by water sprayafter the incident has occurred.

BACKGROUND

Most FFFS for road tunnels are deluge sprinkler systems. Zoned deluge systems consist of open

sprinkler heads or nozzles that discharge water sprays through all nozzles when a system activation

valve is opened. This is in contrast to conventional sprinkler systems in which individual nozzles are

activated by the heat generated by a fire. The objective of this approach is to have only those nozzles

near the fire discharge water. These systems are not effective in tunnels. In a tunnel, the hot

combustion gases do not remain over the fire site, but instead travel some distance. Under these

conditions, a conventional sprinkler system would activate nozzles that are not in the vicinity of the fireand thus provide little benefit. In addition, traffic-induced airflows and mechanical ventilation can

spread hot gases downstream, activating many more nozzles. This would cause a drop in system water

pressure and would neutralize the system effectiveness or exhaust the available water supply.

Water application rates for sprinklers and water spray systems in the United States are governed by

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 13, Standard for Sprinkler Systems [1] and

NFPA 15, Standard for Fixed Water Spray Systems [2]. NFPA 13 describes minimum water

application rates by Hazard Classification and area as shown in Figure 1. This derives from work

which characterized water demand by analyzing sprinkler operation in large numbers of building fires

where control was successful [3].

NFPA 15 recognizes four different strategies and gives water application rate ranges. These arecombined and also shown in Figure 1. While not shown on the figure, NFPA 15 also recommends

water application rates up to 20 mm/min (0.5 gpm/sf) for some strategies

One other system that is considered for road tunnel application is water mist. This is covered by NFPA

750, Standard for Water Mist Systems [4]. Water mist systems have traditionally been listed systems

used to protect enclosed areas such as machine rooms on ships. As such, water mist systems have been

tested by listing organizations for particular hazards and may only be used within the limitations and

requirements of the listing.

Japan and Australia each have their own specified water application rates to be used for road tunnel

FFFS design which are 6 mm/min (0.15 gpm/sf) [5] and 10 mm/min (0.25 gpm/sf) [6] respectively. In

full-scale tunnel sprinkler tests conducted in Europe (2nd

Benelux), a water application rate of 14

mm/min (0.35 gpm/sf) [7] has been tested. These values have been added to Figure 1 to demonstrate


3/12


353

the significant variation in prescribed water application rates for which little research has been done to

compare their effectiveness when applied under similar conditions

Figure 1 NFPA 13, NFPA 15, and other International Water Application Rates

FIRE POINT THEORY

In contrast to the empirical methods described above, fire point theory relates the effectiveness of the

suppression agent, water, to fundamental fire properties [8]. This model is based on the interaction

between the heat required to vaporize a solid or liquid fuel and the effect that water has on the

prevention of this vaporization. This interaction is illustrated inFigure 2.

Figure 2 Dynamics of Fire and Extinguishment

It is important to note that a solid or liquid fuel itself will not burn. A fuel will burn only after it is

converted to a gaseous state by vaporization, which requires energy. A heat source (q) is required to

vaporize the fuel. This heat source may either be radiated from the flame itself or radiated from anexternal source, such as an object burning nearby. The rate of conversion from solid or liquid to gas is

the mass loss rate of the fuel (m). The magnitude of the heat required to vaporize the fuel is Hg.

Japan

NFPA 15 range

Australia

European

(Benelux)


4/12


354

The heat that is generated by the burning of the fuel source (HT) times the total amount of fuel gives

the fires total energy potential.

The primary way in which applied water suppresses a fire is by cooling, which occurs when a portion

of the fires energy is used to evaporate the water instead of vaporizing the fuel. Cooling a fire by

applying water causes the mass loss rate of the fuel to be reduced below a critical value, preventingvaporization of the fuel. This cooling occurs at the solid/gas interface. The exact process is not well

understood and is still an active area of fire research. The measure of waters potential to suppress a

fire is its heat of gasification (Hw). The minimum rate of water application to extinguish a fire per

unit area is known as the critical water application rate or critical application density (mw,ex).

Generally speaking, the amount of water required to extinguish a fire (mw,ex) depends on the net heat

flux on the fuel surface, which is the combination of:

The amount of radiation emitted by nearby burning objects, plus

The amount of radiation emitted by the flame itself.

The mass loss rate of the fuel (m) is described by the energy balance at the fuel surface [9] given in

Equation 1.

gH

agentqqqmH

m rerct

+

=

""""

" (1)

Where qeis the heat flux at flame extinction, is the maximum fraction of combustion energy flame

reactions may lose to the surface by convection without flame extinction, described as the kinetic

parameter, and mcris the critical fuel mass loss rate. The heat fluxes are external (qe), reradiated

from the fuel surface (qr), and that removed from the surface or flame (by an extinguishing agent) as

the flame extinction condition is reached (qagent).

When water is the extinguishing agent, then qagent = qwand the heat flux removed from the surface of

a burning material by water evaporation is given by Equation 2.

wwww Hmq = "'' (2)

Where qw is the heat flux removed from the surface by water, wis the water application efficiency

and Hwis the heat of gasification of water (2.58 kJ/g).

If part of the water forms a puddle, such as on a horizontal surface, then the heat flux from the flame

will be blocked from the fuel surface and the fuel vapor can be expected to be blocked from leaving the

surface. Equation 3 shows this modification.

)("" wwwww Hmq += (3)

Where wis the energy associated with the blockage of the flame heat flux and fuel vaporization at the

surface per unit mass of fuel vaporized.

Combining Equations 1 and 3, noting that at flame extinction m = mcr, and solving for the water

application rate, mw, gives Equation 4.

www

gcrrcrT

www

e

w H

HmqmH

H

qm

+

+

+

=""""

" (4)


5/12


355

The first term on the right is the external heat flux component and the second term is the critical water

application rate for flame extinction, which is related to the fundamental fire properties of the material.

In contrast to the second term, the first can be considered to account for general fire effects such as

shape and arrangement of materials. It is not dependent on the particular materials used.

Table 1 reflects the input values and results for polystyrene, commonly used in foam cups, insulationand packing materials as an example, showing the relative importance of the two terms. Water

application efficiency was assumed at 100 per cent with no puddling. The asymptotic flame heat flux

or maximum potential flame heat flux of polystyrene is used as the external heat flux. The case with

no external heat flux essentially represents the process at flame extinction.

Table 1 Effect of External Heat Flux on Water Application Rate (w= 100%)

Polystyrene q"e

kW/

m2

w Hw

kJ/g

w m"cr

g/m2

-sec

g/m2-

sec

HT

kJ/g

Hg

kJ/g

q"r

kW/

m2

m"w,ex

(g/m2-s)

m"w,ex

(gpm/ft2)

w/o ext. flux 0 1.0 2.59 0.0 4.00 0.21 39.2 1.70 13.0 5.07 0.007

w/ext. flux 75 1.0 2.59 0.0 4.00 0.21 39.2 1.70 13.0 34.03 0.050

Table 1 shows that the external heat flux is clearly the more significant factor in determining the

critical water application rate required for flame extinctions. This means that the water application rate

can be based on external heat flux rather than be dependent on specific fuel properties. This suggests

computational modelling can be used to compare the effectiveness of water application rates for solid-

fuel types of fires, provided it makes an accurate representation of the items affecting external heat flux

(convection, radiation, surface cooling, water evaporation, etc). The other significant factor is that the

estimated water application rate is at the low end of standard requirements, lower than required by

most agencies and suggests a lower bound on water application rates.

COMPUTATIONAL MODELING

Introduction

While numerous physical fire tests have been performed, these tests have generally been conducted on

the premise that a given water application rate can be used to control a fire. The method of control is

usually specific to the particular test and may involve cooling, prevention of spread or control and

extinguishment. The question of the variability of water application rate has not been addressed and

how sensitive the control concept is to this.

The purpose of this analysis is to determine the effect of a FFFS on the heat release rate of an

unshielded and shielded fire. The heat release rate (FHRR) was selected to be representative of a

heavy goods vehicle (HGV) fire. In a road tunnel, these types of fires are considered among the mostsevere and are often the controlling scenarios for determining design fire properties. A computational

fluid dynamics (CFD) approach was used. The CFD program used was the Fire Dynamics Simulator

(FDS) Versions 5.4.1 (unshielded) and 5.4.2 (shielded) [10]. FDS solves numerically a form of the

Navier-Stokes equations appropriate for low-speed thermally-driven flow, with an emphasis on smoke

and heat transport from fires. Key elements in its selection were the following:

Ability to track particles (water droplets), especially their interaction with surfaces.

Ability to model the vaporization of water droplets.

Ability to model the absorption of thermal radiation by water droplets.

Ability to model heat transfer from both gas and solid media for water droplets.

Ability to model pyrolysis of solid fuels and determine if a combustion condition exists.

FDS models the absorption and scattering of thermal radiation as well as the heating and evaporation


6/12


356

of liquid droplets. Reasonable correlation has been shown for absorption and scattering of thermal

radiation for single spray nozzles. It is noted in the FDS validation references that the model can

accurately predict the attenuation of thermal radiation in a single spray or as quoted ...when the

hydrodynamic forces are weak. Review of the data shows that the correlation improved as the water

flow rate increased, and that the correlation was 88 percent when the flow was less than 10 percent of

that proposed to be used in the simulations. Accordingly, any change in FHRR could be evaluatedwith respect to change in heat flux.

FDS assumes that combustion is mixing-controlled, and that the reaction of fuel and oxygen is

infinitely fast, regardless of the temperature. For large-scale, well-ventilated fires, this is a good

assumption. The physical mechanisms of the combustion process are still an active area of fire

research. However, since the purpose of this analysis was to determine the impact on FHRR of

different water application rates, all fire parameters were kept identical, so any biases were applied to

all cases.

For solid fuels, if the surface of the fuel is planar, it is possible to characterize the decrease in the

pyrolysis rate as a function of the decrease in the total heat feedback to the surface. Unfortunately,

most fuels of interest in fire applications are multi-component solids with complex geometry at scalesunresolvable by the computational grid. Work has been done in this area that has resulted in empirical

formulae for a few specific situations. These however are based on global water flow and burning

rates. FDS assumes that the global nature of this action also applies locally. If this method is used,

input of an empirical constant is required. This method has not been used in these simulations.

Flame extinction is controlled in the gas phase by lowering temperature and reducing oxygen supply.

FDS uses a simple algorithm that, in effect, says that a flame is extinguished if it is below a certain

temperature or oxygen concentration.

Model details

The tunnel is modeled as a rectangular grid with no slope. The overall dimensions are 30 meters long,

9 meters wide and 6 meters high. This cross section is typical of a two-lane road tunnel. Each cell is a

cube of 0.125 meters on each side. A 3-meter per second air velocity is maintained through the tunnel

at all times. Two identical fuel piles are used. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the plan and elevation of

the model. Each pile consists of a stacked crib of material with each component being 0.125 meters

wide and high with a length as necessary to form the crib, generally either 6 meters or 3 meters long.

Stacking was selected to permit air circulation. A noncombustible shield is used in half of the

simulations on the incident crib to prevent the water spray from impinging directly on the fire. Figure

3 shows the plan view without the shield and Figure 4 shows the elevation with the shield in place.

Figure 3 Model Plan View

T


7/12


357

A thermocouple (T) was placed on the face of the target crib (upstream pile) at the top on the side

facing the downstream pile to measure material surface temperature. This location was observed to be

the one that ignited first on the upstream crib with no suppression activated. The downstream crib has

a 300 kW burner that is activated for the first 20 seconds of the simulation to ignite the fire. The crib

material is not a real substance, but was devised for this comparative study. Its thermodynamic

properties were selected to provide a fire that would grow reasonably quickly to a high heat release ratethat would be sustained for a reasonable period of time. The selected properties are defined in Table 2.

Table 2 Model Combustion Properties

Figure 4 Shielded Model Elevation View

Deluge nozzles are spaced on a 3.8 meters by 3.66 meters grid. Figure 5 shows the placement of the

nozzles over the fuel piles for the unshielded case. The shielded model is similar. The droplet velocity

is 10 meters per second, and the spray angle is between 30 and 80 degrees. The mean water droplet

diameter is 750 microns. The deluge nozzles were activated at 15 seconds, a time equivalent to the

FHRR attaining a magnitude of approximately 12 MW FHRR. The nozzle flow rates are listed in

Table 3. They are adjusted to achieve the required coverage.

Table 3 Water Application and Flow Rates

Specific Heat 1.0 kJ/kg/K

Conductivity 0.05 W/m-K

Density 100 kg/m3

Reference Temperature 350 C

Heat of Reaction 2500 kJ/kg

Heat of Combustion 20000 kJ/kg

Design Density Nozzle flow rate(mm/min) (gpm/ft

2) (liters/min) (gpm)

0 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 0.05 28.25 7.46

4 0.10 56.50 14.92

6 0.15 84.75 22.39

8 0.20 113.00 29.85

10 0.25 141.25 37.31

12 0.30 169.50 44.78

16 0.40 226.00 59.71

20 0.50 282.50 74.64

T

Shield


8/12


358

Figure 5 Enlarged Plan View Showing Deluge Nozzles (circled) for Unshielded Pile.

RESULTS AND IMPLEMENTATION

Simulation Results

The results of the simulations are presented in Figures 6 through 9. The heat flux on the tunnel wall

adjacent to the fire is shown in Figure 6. With no water application, boundary heat fluxes are 80 and

85 kW/m2for the shielded and unshielded fires, respectively. With the unshielded fire, heat flux drops

linearly with water application rate until about 6 mm/min 0.15 gpm/ft2) at which there is only marginal

improvement with more water. With the shielded fire, the maximum boundary heat flux drops

somewhat then stabilizes as more water is applied. Above 10 mm/min, there is another decrease that

plateaus, even as more water is applied. These high heat fluxes are from the fire under the shield

where the water cannot directly reach. In areas where the water can reach the fuel surface, i.e. the

other fuel pile, the heat fluxes drop to low levels that do not sustain combustion. In other worlds the

fire is prevented from spreading. For reference, the ignition of wood requires about 12 kW/m2[11].

Figure 6 Heat Flux on Boundary Surfaces vs. Water Application Rate

Figure 7 shows the surface temperatures in the target fuel pile. These temperatures are measured by a

thermocouple located at the top of the target face adjacent to the incident pile. It was determined fromsimulations without suppression that this area experienced the highest heat fluxes. The results suggest


9/12


359

that any amount water above 2 mm/min (0.05 gpm/ft2) would prevent the fire from spreading to the

adjacent fuel pile. The target temperature reached a maximum of 168 degrees C.

Figure 7 Surface Temperatures at Target vs. Water Application Rate

Figure 8 Fire Heat Release Rate for Varying Water Application Rates-Unshielded Fires


10/12


360

Figures 8 and 9 show the net result in FHRR for both shielded and unshielded fires. Figure 8 for the

unshielded fire shows the FHRR being controlled to varying levels with increasing amounts of water

up to about 6 mm/min (0.15 gpm/ft2). Adding more water has little incremental affect. Figure 9 shows

the effect of water application rate on shielded fires. The results break into distinctive groups. The

first is the fire with no suppression. Then two distinct application rate bands and a transition rate are

observed. The upper band, with water application rates between 2 and 6 mm/min, (0.05 and 0.15gpm/ft2) shows that the FHRR peaks at about 90 MW and then declines. This is consistent with the

incident fire being unaffected by the water spray, but the fire not being able to spread to adjacent fuel

sources.

Figure 9 Fire Heat Release Rate for Varying Water Application Rates-Shielded Fires

The lower band, with application rates between 10 and 20 mm/min (0.25 to 0.50 gpm/ft2), results in a

peak FHRR of about 50 MW suggesting that there is a significant reduction in the heat flux on the

incident pile from surrounding surfaces. An application rate of 8 mm/min (0.20 gpm/ft2) appears to be

a transition point. In this case, the FHRR appears to be controlled for a while, but at approximately

160 seconds it begins to rise and peaks at 80 MW then following the upper band. This indicates that

particularly for shielded fires, there are optimum water application rates that achieve certain results.

Implementation

Four strategies for the use of FFFS in road tunnels can be considered:

Exposure protection - This can be achieved by the absorption of heat through the application

of water spray to structures or equipment exposed to a fire to limit the surface temperature to a

level that will minimize damage and prevent failure. A FFFS can reduce heat and limit surface

temperatures for both shielded and unshielded fires. The results presented suggest that

exposure protection can be provided with as little as a 2 mm/min (0.05 gpm/ft2) water

application rate. The application of water can assist in controlling surface temperatures and

can absorb radiative heat flux.

Control of burning - This can be achieved by applying water to control the rate of burning andthereby limit the rate of heat release from a fire until the fuel can be eliminated or


11/12


361

extinguishment effected. Control of burning can be expected for both shielded and unshielded

fires (although the mechanisms are different). A FFFS reduces the heat flux and prevents the

spread of fire. This action can prevent the initial incident from becoming a much more serious

one. The results suggest that the spread of fire beyond the initial point could be controlled

with as little as 2 mm/min (0.05 gpm/ft2) for both an unshielded and a shielded fire. This is

similar to exposure protection and shows that significant benefit can be obtained even withrelatively light water application rates.

Suppression - This can be achieved by applying water to reduce the fire heat release rate such

that open flaming is arrested; however, a deep-seated fire will require additional steps for

extinguishment. The results suggest that unshielded fires can be suppressed with as little as 2

mm/min (0.05 gpm/ft2), although 4 to 6 mm/min (0.1 to 0.15 gpm/ft

2) gives significantly better

results. Application rates above this level did not appear to offer additional benefit. The

situation with shielded fires is more complicated. While minimal suppression is predicted to

occur with application rates as low as 2 mm/min (0.05 gpm/ft2), no significant improvement

was predicted up to 6 mm/min (0.15 gpm/ft2). By increasing the water application rate to 10

mm/min (0.25 gpm/ft2), a significant reduction in FHRR was predicted. However, increasing

the application rate above this value appears to offer minimal benefit.

Extinguishment This can be achieved by applying water to completely suppress a fire and by

cooling protected surfaces to prevent a re-ignition. This can realistically only be considered for

unshielded fires.

CONCLUSIONS

Deluge systems which are the type of FFFS system most commonly used in road tunnels can require

large amounts of water. In many cases, it may not be desirable or possible to select arbitrary water

application rates. Fire point theory shows that there are optimum rates of water application that can

control a fire and are significantly less than the rates generally prescribed. Furthermore, this theory

suggests that there are minimum water application rates that can reduce the heat flux below certain

critical limits required to sustain combustion and once these limits are reached, more water offers littleor no benefit. The selection of a water application rate for a FFFS can be made by assessing both the

strategy to be used and a water application rate appropriate for that strategy. The results of the

comparative analyses described in this paper suggest that water application rates as low as 2 mm/min

(0.05 gpm/ft2) can offer some benefits by cooling exposed surfaces and assisting in limiting the spread

of fire from the initiating point.

In the study addressed in this paper, computer modelling was used with the full understanding that

especially in fire modelling; all computer programs are simplifications of many complex processes. An

engineer should use caution and judgement in determining if the results accurately reflect the situation

being considered. While this analysis has been useful in understanding the mechanisms of fire

suppression, full-scale testing under road tunnel conditions would validate that these strategies could

be used in real world applications.

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

I would like to thank Matt Bilson, Bill Connell, Joe Gonzalez, Bill Kennedy, Bob Melvin, and Tom

ODwyer of Parsons Brinckerhoff for their comprehensive reviews and input on the subject. I would

also like to thank Parsons Brinckerhoff for their support to be able to attend this conference.


12/12


362

REFERENCES

1. NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, National Fire Protection

Association, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 2007 edition.

2. NFPA 15, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection, National Fire

Protection Association, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 2007 edition.

3. Bratlie, Ernest H. Jr, Automatic Sprinklers: How Much Water? Fire Journal, January

1968.

4. NFPA 750 , Standard for the Installation of Water Mist Systems, National Fire Protection

Association, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 2006 edition.

5. Chiyoda Engineering Consultants, Sprinklers in Japanese Road Tunnels, Report

commissioned by the Center for Tunnel Safety of the Netherlands Ministry of Transport,

2001.

6. Bilson, M., Purchase, A., and Stacey, C., Deluge System Effectiveness in Road Tunnels

and Impacts on Operating Policy, 13thAustralian Tunneling Conference, Melbourne, May

2008.

7. Project Safety Test, Report on fire Tests, Report on fire tests conducted in the Second

Benelux Tunnel, Netherlands for the Directorate of Public Works and Water Management,

Center for Tunnel Safety, August 2002.

8. Rasbash, D. J., The Extinction of Fire with Plain Water: A Review, FireSafety Science-

Proceedings of the First International Symposium,pp.1145-1163, Hemisphere Publishing

Co., New York, 1986.

9. Tewarson, A., Generation of Heat and Chemical Compounds in Fires. In The SFPE

Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering 2nd

Edition(Phillip J. DiNenno, Ed.), National

Fire Protection Association, One Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101, 1995.

10.McGrattan, Kevin, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Fire Dynamic

Simulator (Version 5) Technical Reference Guide, October 18, 2009.

11.Lees, F.P. (Editor), Ch. 16.22, Effects of Fire: Injury. InLoss Prevention in the

Process Industries, Second Edition, Vol. 2, p. 246, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, OX2

8DP, 1996.

Documents

352-363_Water Application Rates