Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf

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


2/134


3/134

Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping

Ceilings using FDS 6

Erik Carlsson

Lund '&()


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


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


6/134

Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 Erik CarlssonPage b


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!


8/134


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!


10/134


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


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 $


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!


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!


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


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!


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.


18/134


'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!


19/134


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


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


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


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


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!


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


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


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


27/134


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 *!*!!


28/134


%&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!


29/134


. 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


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


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


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!


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


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


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/


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


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


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


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&!


37/134


ableableableable ....55557 CPU ime Reuired 8007mm7ss;7 CPU ime Reuired 8007mm7ss;7 CPU ime Reuired 8007mm7ss;7 CPU ime Reuired 8007mm7ss;


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&!


38/134


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


39/134


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


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!


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!


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


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


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


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


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


47/134


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!


48/134


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 *


49/134


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!


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 *


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!


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 *


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!


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

Documents

Comparison of Sprinkler Activation in Flat and Sloping Ceilings using FDS 6 -Erik Carlsson.pdf