Uso Su Tre Casi Dei Modelli CFD Per Prevedere L'andamento Dei Fumi in Ambienti Chiusi Complessi

HSE
Health & Safety

Executive
Evaluation of CFD to predict smoke

movement in complex enclosed spaces
Application to three real scenarios: an underground station,
an offshore accommodation module and
a building under construction
Prepared by Health and Safety Laboratory

for the Health and Safety Executive 2004
RESEARCH REPORT 255
HSE
Health & Safety

Executive
Evaluation of CFD to predict smoke

movement in complex enclosed spaces
Application to three real scenarios: an underground station,
an offshore accommodation module and
a building under construction
Dr N. Gobeau and Dr X.X. Zhou

Fire and Explosion Group
Health and Safety Laboratory
Harpur Hill
Buxton
SK17 9JN
RI, TD and OD HSE divisions have jointly commissioned HSL to investigate the capabilities and limitations of
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to predict the transport of smoke in complex enclosed spaces. Despite a
lack of validation for this application, CFD is increasingly used in safety cases as a predictive tool to demonstrate
the effectiveness of modern building designs and/or emergency ventilation to control the movement of smoke in
the event of a fire. To meet the objective, HSL has undertaken a research project combining CFD modelling and
experiments. The work consisted of three distinct phases:
Phase 1 comprised CFD calculations relating to three real complex spaces. These were an underground
station, an accommodation module on an offshore platform and a high rise building under construction. Different
CFD modelling approaches were used to investigate their effect on the prediction of smoke movement. The
particular modelling approaches tested were representative of those being employed in fire safety engineering.
Phase 2 produced a benchmark dataset of experimental measurements of the movement of hot smoke in
simple small scale structures. A range of basic geometries were constructed, instrumented and tested, each
addressing a particular aspect of the physical behaviour of smoke layers. While the experiments were
deliberately simplified to concentrate on the fundamental of smoke movement, the geometries were similar to
those found in the three real cases - corridors/tunnels, both horizontal and sloping, larger open spaces and tall
atria.
Phase 3 was a detailed examination of CFD performance in modelling the phase 2 benchmark experiments. The
specific aspects of the modelling process were varied, such as the computational grid, and the discretisation
scheme. The results of each calculation were compared with measurements, allowing the level of agreement to
be quantified. The results of the different modelling approaches were also compared to quantify their relative
effects.
The present report contains the description and conclusions of the work related to Phase 1, the modelling of
three real scenarios by different approaches.
This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents,
including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily
reflect HSE policy.
HSE BOOKS
Crown copyright 2004

First published 2004
ISBN 0 7176 2881 7
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior
written permission of the copyright owner.
Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:
Licensing Division, Her Majesty's Stationery Office,
St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ
or by e-mail to hmsolicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
ii
Summary
Objectives
RI, TD and OD HSE divisions have jointly commissioned HSL to investigate the capabilities
and limitations of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to predict the transport of smoke in
complex enclosed spaces. Despite a lack of validation for this application, CFD is increasingly
used in safety cases as a predictive tool to demonstrate the effectiveness of modern building
designs and/or emergency ventilation to control the movement of smoke in the event of a fire.
To meet the objective, HSL has undertaken a research project combining CFD modelling and
experiments. The work consisted of three distinct phases:
Phase 1 comprised CFD calculations relating to three real complex spaces. These were an
underground station, an accommodation module on an offshore platform and a high rise
building under construction. Different CFD modelling approaches were used to investigate
their effect on the prediction of smoke movement. The particular modelling approaches tested
were representative of those being employed in fire safety engineering.
Phase 2 produced a benchmark dataset of experimental measurements of the movement of
hot smoke in simple small scale structures. A range of basic geometries were constructed,
instrumented and tested, each addressing a particular aspect of the physical behaviour of
smoke layers. While the experiments were deliberately simplified to concentrate on the
fundamental of smoke movement, the geometries were similar to those found in the three real
cases - corridors/tunnels, both horizontal and sloping, larger open spaces and tall atria.
Phase 3 was a detailed examination of CFD performance in modelling the phase 2 benchmark
experiments. The specific aspects of the modelling process were varied, such as the
computational grid, and the discretisation scheme. The results of each calculation were
compared with measurements, allowing the level of agreement to be quantified. The results of
the different modelling approaches were also compared to quantify their relative effects.
The present report contains the description and conclusions of the work related to Phase 1, the
modelling of three real scenarios by different approaches.
Main Findings
All the CFD modelling approaches employed provided results that looked realistic. In each
case they could in principle be used as a basis of an engineered approach to fire safety. In
particular, the effects of complex geometry and forced ventilation on smoke movement are
readily addressed using CFD.
However, a comparison of quantitative data; such as the temperature of the hot layer, the
depth of the smoke layer along the ceilings, and the rate of propagation of smoke, showed that
these key parameters can vary significantly - depending on the modelling approach used. The
iii
particular conclusions we can draw from the modelling approaches applied in these three real
scenarios are:
Surprisingly, differing grid resolution did not lead to significant differences in smoke
movement. This was because both grids employed here, including the coarser one,
were appropriate for the scenario modelled. In general, however, the grid resolution
needs to be fine enough to adequately capture the key flow phenomena.
The use of a high order convection discretisation scheme resulted in the prediction of
more flow detail and a more rapid rate of smoke spread. Ideally, second- or
higher-order accurate schemes should be used. First-order scheme may be acceptable
providing the grid is not too coarse and that the resulting error is shown to be
conservative.
A Boussinesq approximation to account for thermal effects on flow compressibility

under-predicted the temperatures and the rate of smoke propagation when compared to
a more valid approach of calculating the air density from an equation of state. A
Boussinesq approximation should therefore not be used unless there is clear evidence
that the error is conservative.
A standard k-e turbulence model failed to predict the correct behaviour of the flow. An
additional buoyancy-related production term was found necessary to reproduce
successfully the features of the flow. It is highly recommended that it is implemented
in any model of transport of smoke.
A volumetric heat source model and an eddy-break-up combustion model both

provided acceptable and ultimately similar results for smoke propagation.
However, the realistic prescription of the fire source was found to be crucial for both a
volumetric heat source model and an eddy-break-up combustion model. Since a
volumetric heat source model requires more assumptions input to the source (heat and
volume output) than an eddy-break-up model, the latter is likely to provide more
realistic results for situations where the fire shape is a-priori not well defined and/or
may vary with time.
The boundary conditions for heat transfer at the walls were found to have an impact on
the transport of smoke, but this was highly dependent on the scenario - they were more
crucial for a confined fire and in the absence of forced ventilation.
Main Recommendations
A significant, although limited, number of CFD simulations have been undertaken for three
real scenarios. These obviously do not cover all the situations that Fire Safety Engineers are
likely to encounter. Hence the present findings and conclusions must be interpreted with
caution, especially for scenarios in which the flow characteristics could be very different near
the fire source.
iv
All of the existing CFD modelling approaches could not be reviewed in this work. It was
decided to concentrate on those most commonly employed and therefore the most likely to be
presented in safety cases submitted to HSE. Amongst the models not included in this study are
those for simulation of radiation and advanced turbulence models.
Nevertheless, the simulations have examined some of the main modelling approaches being
employed in fire safety engineering. They therefore do allow general conclusions to be drawn.
In particular, the scenario-dependent sensitivity of the results to the detailed modelling
approach employed means that it is vital that the user of CFD for smoke movement
applications is knowledgeable and well trained both in CFD and fire science.
Since, however, the sensitivities to the modelling approaches are not always evident a-priori,
it is also strongly recommended that a set of CFD simulations be undertaken, rather than a
one-off case; which could be misleading. This set of CFD simulations should focus on the
potential key sensitivities.
CFD is under constant development. Any new models made available to the Fire Safety
community should be carefully assessed before trust in their predictions can be gained.
vi
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. SCENARIOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Description of premises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.1. Underground station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2. Offshore accommodation module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.3. Building under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2. Possible fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.1. In the underground station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.2. In the offshore accommodation module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.3. In the building under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. ILLUSTRATION OF CFD CAPABILITY: INITIAL MODELLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. CFD code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Computational domain and grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2.1. Underground station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.2. Offshore accommodation module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.3. Building under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3. Physical sub-models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Fire source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.1. In the underground station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.2. In the offshore accommodation module and the building

under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6. Initial conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.7. Numerical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.8. Convergence criteria
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.9. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.9.1. Underground station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.9.2. Offshore accommodation module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.9.3. Building under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.9.4. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vii
13
13
15
15
16
4. COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MODELLING APPROACHES . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1. Underground station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1.1. Flow compressibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.2. Buoyancy effects in the k-e turbulence model . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.3. Heat transfer at the walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
19
20
22
4.2. Offshore accommodation module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.1. Grid size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2. Discretisation scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.3. Heat transfer at the walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
23
25
25
4.3. Building under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.3.1. Shape of the prescribed heat source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2. Fire growth curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.3. Fire modelling approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
28
29
30
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.1. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6. REFERENCES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
APPENDIX A - Summary of scenarios and initial CFD models
APPENDIX B - Figures related to the initial simulation of the underground

station
Figure B.1 - Layout of the underground station
Figure B.2 - Computational domain and grid
Figure B.3 - Background ventilation inside the underground station
Figure B.4 - Airflow field and iso-surfaces of smoke concentration 3 minutes
after ignition (forced ventilation off)
Figure B.5 - Airflow field and iso-surfaces of smoke concentration 5 minutes
after ignition, just before forced ventilation is switched on.
viii
Figure B.6 - Airflow field and iso-surfaces of smoke concentration 46 seconds

after forced ventilation started.
Figure B.7- Airflow field and iso-surfaces of smoke concentration 65 seconds
after forced ventilation started.
APPENDIX C - Figures related to the initial simulation of the offshore accommodation module
Figure C.1 - Layout of the offshore accommodation module : ground and first
floors.
Figure C.2 -Layout of the offshore accommodation module : first and second
floors.
Figure C.3 - Computational domain and grid.
Figure C.4 - Fire source in the laundry.
Figure C.5 - Iso-surfaces of smoke concentration 60 seconds after ignition.
APPENDIX D - Figures related to the initial simulation of the building under

construction
Figure D.1 - Schematic diagram of the building under construction, side
elevation.
Figure D.2 - Computational domain and grid.
Figure D.3 - Fire source and computational grid on third floor.
Figure D.4 - Smoke iso-surface 30 seconds after ignition.
Figure D.6 - Airflow field and smoke iso-surface 120 seconds after ignition.
ix
APPENDIX E - Comparison between different CFD modelling approaches for

the underground station
Figure E.1 -Temperature distribution near the fire 115 seconds after ignition.
Figure E.2 - Smoke concentration at the walls 60 seconds after ignition
Figure E.4 -Smoke concentration at the walls 115 seconds after ignition
Figure E.5 - Time-dependent smoke fluxes across vertical planes at entrance,
mid-length and exit of the bridge.
Figure E.6 - Time-dependent smoke fluxes across vertical planes at the
entrance of the corridor leading to exit 2 and at exit 2.
APPENDIX F - Comparison between different CFD modelling approaches for

the offshore accommodation module
Figure F.1 - Comparison of the two different grids employed.
Figure F.2 - Temperature distribution and velocities in the laundry, 120 seconds
after ignition.
Figure F.3 - Profiles of excess temperature and vertical velocity in the fire
source, 120 seconds after ignition.
Figure F.4 - Profiles of excess temperature, smoke mass fraction and lateral
velocities near the fire, 120 seconds after ignition.
Figure F.5 - Temperature distribution and velocity vectors on the first floor location of the fire - 45 centimetres above the ground, 120
seconds after ignition.
Figure F.6 - Temperature distribution and velocity vectors on the first floor location of the fire - 2 metres above the ground, 120 seconds after
ignition.
Figure F.7 - Profiles of excess temperature, smoke mass fraction and velocity in
the doorway of the laundry opening to a corridor, 120 seconds
after ignition.
Figure F.8 - Profiles of excess temperature, smoke mass fraction and velocity in
the doorway of the laundry near a stairwell, 120 seconds after
ignition.
Figure F.9 - Smoke iso-surfaces 120 seconds after ignition.
APPENDIX G - Comparison between different CFD modelling approaches for

the building under construction
Figure G.1 - Excess temperature and mesh near the fire 150 seconds after
ignition
Figure G.2 - Vertical profiles of excess temperature and smoke concentration in
the centreline of the fire 150 seconds after ignition
Figure G.3 - Vertical profiles of excess temperature and smoke concentration
ten metres away from the fire, 150 seconds after ignition
Figure G.4 - Horizontal profiles of excess temperature and smoke concentration
4.55 metres above the fire, 0.45 metres from the ceiling 150
seconds after ignition.
Figure G.5 - Excess temperature distribution on the third floor - location of the
fire,150 seconds after ignition.
Figure G.6 - Smoke concentration distribution on the third floor -location of the
Figure G.7 - Smoke concentration distribution in the atrium, 150 seconds after
ignition.
APPENDIX H - Details of the buoyancy modification of the k-e turbulence model

in CFX5.
xi
xii
1.
INTRODUCTION
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is a powerful technique which provides an approxi

mate solution to the coupled governing fluid flow equations for mass, momentum and energy
transport. The flexibility of the technique makes it possible to solve these equations for fluid
flow in very complex spaces.
Originally widely used by the aerospace and other manufacturing industries, CFD is now
being increasingly employed in fire safety engineering to predict the movement of smoke
from possible fires in complex enclosed spaces, such as atria, shopping malls, warehouses,
etc... For instance, London Underground Ltd. applied CFD to examine the effectiveness of
smoke control systems in tunnels and stations on the Jubilee Line Extension, particularly in
relation to novel design features such as platform edge doors and smoke canopies. Eurotunnel
commissioned CFD work during the construction of the Channel Tunnel and the incident
investigation following the 1996 fire. CFD has also been employed to predict smoke
movement in the Millenium Dome (Sinai et al., 2000).
In each of the above examples, reliance could not be placed on simpler modelling techniques
to predict smoke movement. This is primarily because these simpler methods assume that the
space of interest is geometrically simple, i.e. a box-shaped room. Also, they often require
empirical input. When the space is geometrically complex and experimental data is absent,
CFD approaches are becoming more commonly used. The growth in the use of CFD for the
prediction of smoke movement is also a result of the shift from prescriptive codes to predic
tive methods - as allowed in fire safety engineered solutions to the problems of fire.
As the use of CFD in fire safety engineering is growing, it is likely that HSE will be increas
ingly faced with assessing fire safety cases which are either entirely or partly based on CFD
simulations. Although CFD is a powerful technique, it does however have its limitations. It is
very important to be aware of these when assessing the conclusions drawn from CFD predic
tions.
Unfortunately, CFD modelling has not been carefully evaluated against reliable data for
complex smoke movement applications. RI, OSD and TD divisions of HSE are therefore
funding a project to address this issue. The main aim of the project is to quantify the advan
tages and limitations of CFD for predicting smoke movement in complex enclosed spaces.
The work comprises:
1. Initial application of CFD to real scenarios of interest to HSE funding divisions to
illustrate the capabilities of CFD modelling;
2. Sensitivity of the CFD results to a range of modelling approaches widely employed by
the Fire Engineering Community;
3. Experimental measurements at small-scale, focusing on areas identified by the initial
CFD simulations as potentially challenging for CFD;
4. CFD modelling of the small-scale experiments and quantification of the accuracy of
the CFD solution by comparing against experimental data; the influence of CFD
sub-models and parameters on the accuracy of the solution will be investigated;
This report presents the CFD modelling of real scenarios in tasks 1 and 2 above. The bench
mark experiments and their CFD modelling in tasks 3 and 4 are described in the report HSL
CM/01/18 (Ledin et al., 2004). The findings of the whole project are the basis of a guidance
note aimed at HSE Inspectors to help them assess CFD results used to support safety cases
(Gobeau et al., 2003). The project is summarised in the report HSL CM/03/15 (Gobeau et al.,
2004).
A total of three real scenarios were simulated: an underground station, an offshore accommo
dation module and a building under construction. They were selected for their complex
geometry and for their relevance to each HSE division funding the project. Possible fires, and
their induced smoke movement, were modelled. It should be stressed that the specific cases
were chosen as being representative of the type of application for which CFD could be
employed. They were not selected because of any outstanding concern over fire safety in these
premises, merely as illustrative examples. They are described in Section 2.
Section 3 presents an initial CFD modelling of these scenarios. Qualitatively, smoke propaga
tion was predicted quite realistically in all three scenarios. The direction and rate of smoke
propagation, together with effects of any ventilation systems, are predicted clearly highlight
ing the potential of CFD. However, in the absence of measurements, the accuracy of these
results cannot be readily assessed. This is due to potential errors from a number of sources;
the adequacy of the modelled governing equations, simplifications in the modelled geometry,
grid and discretisation errors, assumed boundary conditions, etc... It is therefore important to
highlight that these initial simulations informed the design of the small-scale experiments;
ultimately providing a quantitative assessment of CFD for the modelling of the smoke
movement.
Whilst it is not readily possible to draw absolute conclusions on the accuracy with which
smoke movement is predicted for these real scenarios, it is however possible to illustrate the
sensitivity of the results to a range of modelling approaches. When setting up a model, CFD
practitioners have to make numerous numerical and physical assumptions. These will depend
on a number of factors, such as the scenario modelled, the resources available - in computer,
time and fundings, as well as on the user expertise. For example, the physical processes of the
fire itself can be described by a variety of different sub-models of varying complexity. The
simplest approach is a prescribed heat source model; in which the fire is represented by
imposing a heat release rate in a pre-determined volume. Although this is a simple approach,
it is very widely used (Hadjisophocleous et al., 1999; Sinclair, 2001; Tonkelaar, 2001). In
more advanced approaches a combustion model is used - which means that the volume in
which heat is released - the flaming region, is predicted, rather than prescribed. The modelling
of combustion is a whole branch of science in itself. When a combustion model is used in Fire
Safety engineering, often a crude approach is taken - as exemplified by Eddy Break-Up
models (Sinai, 2001; Yau et al., 2001; Drake and Meeks, 2001). Whilst this approach can
often lead to a more realistic representation of a fire than a prescribed heat source, it should be
noted that it is still a gross approximation. Indeed, there are on-going discussions amongst
CFD Fire Safety practitioners on the actual benefits of this approach compared to the simpler
heat source representation (Xue et al., 2001; Kumar and Cox, 2001).
Section 4 therefore compares different CFD modelling approaches, representative of those
commonly employed by the Fire Safety Engineering community and covering those likely to
be encountered in fire safety cases submitted to HSE and other regulations. It is important to
stress that the CFD modelling in this report is very representative of approaches actually
employed. It is not claimed to be state-of-the-art from an academic perspective. Indeed, that
is not its aim. Readers who would like to gain a comprehensive knowledge of the modelling
approaches available to predict smoke movement are invited to refer to Cox (1995) or Grant
and Lea (2001).
The sensitivities which have been explored are as follows:
Different computational grids;
First and second order convection discretisation schemes;
Heat transfer boundary conditions at the walls;
Representation of the fire source: prescribed heat source and simple eddy break-up
combustion model; different prescribed fire growth curves.
This has made it possible to quantify the effects of these differing approaches on the predic
tion of temperature distribution, air flow field and smoke propagation between the different
models as applied to real complex scenarios. This is important: it illustrates where key sensi
tivities may lie in the practical application of CFD to the modelling of smoke movement
information which is significant for both the CFD practitioner and regulator.
It must be noted that for practical reasons it has not been possible to employ each modelling
approach for each scenario. However, lessons can be learnt and extrapolated from one case to
another. Therefore the reader is strongly encouraged to look at all the scenarios, even though
if interested in only one application, for instance railway or construction safety.
Finally, conclusions are drawn on CFDs capabilities and limitations for the prediction of
smoke movement in complex enclosed spaces in Section 5.
2.
SCENARIOS
To illustrate CFD modelling of smoke movement in complex enclosed spaces of interest to

HSE, each sponsoring division provided a representative real scenario. Hence, an under
ground station was investigated for RI; an offshore accommodation module for OSD and a
building under construction for TD. For each of these spaces, a possible fire - its power and
location - was defined.
2.1.
Description of premises
2.1.1.
Underground station
An underground station on the Jubilee Line Extension was chosen as representative of a

complex space for which RI may have to assess a fire safety case. The station was visited by
HSL staff, accompanied by a representative of London Underground Ltd.
The station is on four levels, which are from top to bottom: street level with three exits; a
ticket hall; platforms for the East London line; platforms for the Jubilee line. The ticket hall is
a large space, the floor dimensions of which are roughly 30 m x 30 m. Its height is 3.75m
except where it is roofed by a glass dome housing the main exit. Escalators and stairs lead
from the paid area to the Southbound platform of the East London line on one side and to the
Southbound East London line on the other side. From the ticket hall, three exits lead outside:
one passes directly to surface level via a short flight of stairs; the other two are accessed via a
bridge overlooking the stairs and escalators of the Southbound platform of the East London
line. This bridge is enclosed by glass windows. A layout of the station is presented in Figure
B.1 (in Appendix B).
The station is equipped with smoke detectors and for the purpose of fire safety is divided into
a number of zones. The emergency response upon detection of fire depends upon the zone in
which it is located, but is typically forced ventilation from lower levels exhausting to atmos
phere via the three exits.
2.1.2.
Offshore accommodation module
OSD have a regulatory duty to assess offshore safety cases. These can include the conse
quences of fire in living quarters. An accommodation module on an existing platform was
thus considered suitable for the present study. Diagrams of the layout of the module were
supplied and are presented in Figures C.1 and C.2 (in Appendix C) showing the module has
four main floors. From ground floor to the second floor are the utility and public areas: operat
ing rooms, laundries, kitchen, dining room, recreational rooms, etc...The third floor houses
bedrooms. Two staircases at the opposite ends of the module link all the floors. These stair
cases do not have a central well.
2.1.3.
Building under construction
FOD, advised by TD, is responsible for regulating safety on construction sites. This includes
fire safety during the construction and fitting-out stage of a building. Although the building
will eventually be equipped with a detection system, and mitigation via sprinklers and possi
bly ventilation, these systems are unlikely to be fully operational until construction is finished.
During the building and fitting-out phase, there are also fire hazards present which will not be
seen during normal occupation, i.e. electrical power tools, waste packing material, etc...
An eighteen-storey office building under construction in London was chosen as representative
of a typical large development and visited by HSL staff. A 76m high atrium links all the
floors. With the exception of the first floor, two open bridges cross the atrium at each storey.
In addition, there are two staircases which give access to all floors and offer a possible
additional route for smoke transport. The main part of each floor is an open-plan area. Figure
D.1 presents a schematic diagram of the building.
2.1.4.
Summary
Altogether, the three scenarios provide the opportunity to test CFD in a wide range of real
complex enclosed spaces. The geometrical features of these spaces include: large floor areas
with restricted elevation, i.e. the ticket hall in the underground station and open-plan offices in
the building under construction; large vertical spaces, i.e. building atrium; a complex network
of interconnecting rooms and corridors, i.e. offshore accommodation module; levels intercon
nected by staircases, escalators or atria.
2.2.
Possible fires
Fires were chosen in each case to be as realistic as possible, rather than those leading to worst
case conditions.
2.2.1.
In the underground station
In the underground station, none of the fittings or equipment is highly flammable. It was
therefore assumed that the main fire source in the public areas could be the suitcase of a
passenger, containing clothes of different fabrics. The fire was assumed to occur in the ticket
hall, in front of the shops on the unpaid side of the ticket barrier. This location was suggested
by fire services. This location also allows the consequences of fire in a shop to be inferred,
although it should be noted that no shops were fitted out when the station was visited.
Further details of the fire source are given in Section 3.4.
2.2.2.
In the offshore accommodation module
It is reported that 20% of fires in offshore accommodation modules occur in kitchens or

laundries (Connolly, 2000). In this work, a mix of 50% cotton-50% polyester linen was
assumed to burn in the laundry on the first floor. The main interest is in the transport of smoke
out of the laundry into corridors and upper levels via the stairwells.
Further details of the fire source are given in Section 3.4.
2.2.3.
In the building under construction
Most fires on construction sites happen close to the end of completion, when part of the furni
ture has already been brought in (Buckland, 2000). An armchair, made of PU foam 23 was
therefore assumed to catch fire on the first floor. The main interest here is the transport of
smoke to remote upper storeys of the building, via the stairwell and atrium.
Further details of the fire source can be found in Section 3.4.
3.
ILLUSTRATION OF CFD CAPABILITY: INITIAL MODELLING
This section explains the initial selection of physical and numerical models, and boundary
conditions, used to set up the CFD models, a summary of which can be found in Table 1 in
Appendix A.
3.1.
CFD code
A commercial CFD code, rather than an in-house or academic code, is most likely to be used
by a fire safety consultant or industry sector to carry out a fire safety assessment. This is
because it is more cost-effective than developing and maintaining an in-house code and
academic codes tend not to offer the full range of geometric flexibility required.
The codes known as CFX (formerly FLOW3D), developed and marketed by AEA
Technology, were used in all cases. This was for several reasons. AEA technology is possibly
the market leader for fire safety applications, having been contracted by HSL to model the
Kings Cross Fire as part of the subsequent investigation (Fennel, 1988) and having had well
publicised success and technical development opportunities as a consequence. The codes
embody most, if not all, of the physical and numerical sub-models included in other commer
cial codes. In addition, AEA Technology is the main code supplier for HSL: we have thus
established a strong relationship over several years with AEA Technology and we have gained
a significant experience of using their codes for our CFD calculations.
Two codes were used: CFX4 and CFX5. Their main difference is the structure of the mesh,
i.e. how the geometry is subdivided into smaller volumes called grid cells. In CFX4, a mesh
must be structured: being based on distorted brick-like cells grouped in blocks. With CFX5
an unstructured approach is used, based on tetrahedra. The latter allows the modelling of very
complex geometries much more easily and more efficiently.
CFX5 is still under major development. As a consequence, the current version of CFX5 CFX5.4 - includes fewer physical and numerical models than CFX4, for instance until very
recently no combustion model has been available in CFX5. However this does not preclude its
use for fire safety applications. Indeed, CFX5 was used to investigate the consequences of a
fire in the Millenium Dome (Hiorns and Sinai, 1999). AEA Technologys long-term objective
is to stop developing CFX4. Therefore in the future, state-of-the art models will be imple
mented in CFX5 solely.
The use of these two codes ensures that many of the different meshing, physical sub-models
and numerical techniques embodied in the CFD codes presently available on the market can
be represented in this study.
3.2.
Computational domain and grid
The geometry of the problem, i.e. computational domain, needs to be defined for the CFD
code and then subdivided into grid cells. One transport equation for each flow variable is
solved at each cell. Hence, even though modern workstations are powerful, CFD calculations
still require large computer resources. The computational domain is therefore often a compro
mise between the complete interior space and a more limited region in which smoke
movement is of concern. Where necessary, boundary conditions must be applied to take into
account the effect of the flow external to the reduced geometry.
The computational domains for the three real scenarios, and their grids, are described below.
3.2.1.
Underground station
The underground station is on four levels. In this study, however, only two levels were consid
ered: the ticket hall where the fire occurs and the dome at the upper level. This was for
reasons of computational economy. The two platform levels below the ticket hall were
excluded from the computational domain. Half of the escalators and stairs leading to the
platforms were represented though, in order to be able to reproduce reasonably well the
natural or forced-ventilation flow that enters the ticket hall from the platforms below.
The model was created in CFX5.4 and thus an unstructured mesh approach was used. The
mesh was refined at strategic locations, such as in the vicinity of the fire, where key features
may need to be captured. However, to allow small geometrical features to be resolved by the
mesh, refinement was also necessary in other areas. As a result, the grid consisted of 93,052
nodes. Figure B.2 in Appendix B illustrates the computational domain and grid for the under
ground station.
3.2.2.
The fire was assumed to occur in the first floor laundry, making it most unlikely that the
smoke would be transported to the ground floor. Therefore only floors one to three were
represented in the CFD model. Rooms, whose doors were likely to be closed, were also
ignored in the computational domain. However, doors leading from the laundry to the corridor
on the first floor and those opening onto the stairwells were assumed to be open.
In contrast with the underground station, CFX4.3, based on a structured mesh, was used for
this scenario. This was possible because of the reduced complexity of the interior space. The
grid density was refined in the fire region. Elsewhere the grid density was near-uniform. A
grid of 28,214 cells distributed in 54 blocks was created.
3.2.3.
In this scenario the main interest is the transport of smoke from a lower level to a remote
upper level via either the atrium or stairwells. The fire was assumed to break out on the third
floor. The next three floors are represented in the computational domain, as well as the upper
most floor on the 18th storey and of course the atrium and stairwells. Doors giving access to
open-plan offices on one side of the atrium from floors seven to seventeen and on the ground
and first floors were assumed to be closed. Hence these areas were not represented in the CFD
model.
Figure D.1 in Appendix D shows the whole geometry of the building and the highlighted areas
are the parts included in the computational domain. Figures D.2 and D.3, show the computa
tional domain and its subdivision into grid cells. The geometry was simplified somewhat and
so the two staircases are assumed to be vertical empty spaces; the stairs are not represented.
Again this is a less complex geometry than the underground station and so the structured mesh
approach of CFX4.3 was used. The grid was also refined at the fire location. A total of
155,734 cells and 109 blocks were employed.
3.3.
Physical sub-models
Transport of smoke was, in all cases, initially simulated by modelling the fire as a prescribed
source of heat and smoke, with an additional passive scalar transport equation solved for
movement of the smoke. Compared to using a combustion model - which could be expected
to better reproduce the characteristics of the fire source, the use of a prescribed heat source is
known to lead to poorer results near the fire but may nevertheless produce reasonable results
in the far-field (Ivings, 1999). The use of a prescribed volumetric heat source was the
preferred approach here, since smoke movement is being predicted in large spaces and the
far-field behaviour is of most interest. In addition, this is the approach most commonly used
by fire consultants. Furthermore, it involves solving fewer transport equations than acquired
by a combustion model, thus easing computational run-times.
The sensitivity of the results to the modelled fire source for smoke movement in the building
under construction are explored in Section 4.3. Initially, the model used to represent the
changes in air density was a weakly compressible (i.e. Low Mach number) approach, in
which air density is assumed independent of pressure fluctuations and air kinetic energy is
negligible compared to its internal energy. An equation of state is used to couple temperature,
pressure and determine density. However, internal numerical problems in CFX5 alone (see
Section 4.1) required the use of a simpler model based on the Boussinesq approximation; the
density here being assumed constant except in the gravity term in the momentum equation.
This approximation is strictly only valid for temperature variations over a range of a few tens
of centigrade. This is in fact likely to be the case in most parts of the computational domain
away from the fire. That said, this approach could result in errors in calculated air velocities
induced by the fire, which could be propagated elsewhere. However, the adoption of the
Boussinesq approximation is again one which is sometimes used by others in this field. This
is often as a means of increasing the rate of convergence of a problem and therefore reducing
the run-time. The effect of this approximation is explored in Section 4.1.1.
A standard k-e turbulence model, modified to account for buoyancy effects, was employed.
The k-e model is certainly the most widely used turbulence model for fire safety applications,
although it does have its limitations. Its main advantages are that it is computationally
unexpensive and is relatively stable numerically. Its main limitations in the context of smoke
movement is that it assumes an isotropic eddy viscosity, which does not account for the
non-isotropic effects of buoyancy on turbulent mixing. The buoyancy modification, referred to

above, aims, for example, to account for the reduced mixing due to stable stratification, i.e. as
exhibited by a hot smoke layer, but it does not by any means represent all of the important
effects of buoyancy on turbulent mixing. This issue, and its consequences, is discussed in
more details in Section 4.1.2.
The overall approach used here is a compromise of a relatively simple set of physical
sub-models, which will allow solutions to be obtained in practical timescales. The approach is
in fact widely used by fire safety consultants and industry for predicting smoke movement in
complex enclosed spaces.
3.4.
Fire source
3.4.1. In the underground station

In the underground station, a fire with a peak heat output of 0.2 MW was estimated from
previous HSL work involving tests on a suitcase containing a range of clothes; the peak heat
output was determined from the mass loss rate measured by Thyer (1999). The plan area of
the fire was set the same as the dimensions of the container (1 m x 1m) in which the suitcase
was tested. The height of the flaming region was fixed at 2.5 m, from observations during this
experiment. The heat output was increased linearly over one minute in a volume of grid cells
corresponding to the above dimensions, i.e. 1 m x 1 m x 2.5 m. After one minute, a constant
heat release rate of 0.2 MW was imposed. The production of smoke was deduced from values
of smoke yield assuming the products burning consisted of 50% cotton - 50% polyester (The
SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 1995). Note however, that the volume over
which heat was reduced in the subsequent simulations, since predicted temperatures with the
above source prescription were found to be unrealistically low. Section 4.1 provides more
details.
3.4.2. In the offshore accommodation module and the building under
construction
For both the offshore accommodation module and building under construction, a fire of 1
MW was considered to be a realistic fire size, following discussion with fire safety specialists
(Atkinson, 2000). Radiation can be modelled but was not included here since, other than very
simple approaches can lead to greatly increased run-times. A fixed percentage of the fire
power, based on the combustible materials, was hence assumed to be lost by radiation. This is
a common practice, although it is strictly only valid for materials producing small quantities
of smoke. Therefore, the fire sources in the models were set at 0.7 MW in the offshore accom
modation module and at 0.55 MW in the building under construction; these quantities repre
senting the convective heat output - primarily responsible for the transport of smoke (Table
3-4.11 of the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 1995).
For the offshore accommodation module, linen made of 50% cotton and 50% polyester were
assumed to burn. For the building under construction the combustible was assumed to be an
armchair made of PU foam 23. A realistic plan area for each fire was decided. The height was
deduced from the fire power and plan area using an empirical relation (Hekestad, 1983). The
fixed volume in which heat was distributed was assumed to be a simple parallelepiped. The
10
fire was assumed to grow to its steady heat output following a time-squared growth rate (Rho
and Ryou, 1999). As previously, smoke production was deduced from empirical data on the
burning materials (Table 3-4.11 of the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 1995).
3.5.
Boundary conditions
The offshore accommodation module and the building under construction were considered
completely sealed and therefore no inlet nor outlet boundary conditions were defined.
For the underground station, the ventilation strategy in the event of a fire in the unpaid side of
ticket hall is to generate a ventilation flow aiming to clear smoke from the ticket hall and
exhaust it via the passenger exits. This ventilation is created by large fans in the Jubilee line
tunnels. To model this situation, imposed flow boundary conditions were applied on the
surfaces of the computational domain which correspond to connections between the ticket hall
and East London line level. These surfaces appear in red in Figure B.2 - Appendix B. Normal
velocities were imposed, however their values and area distribution were not easy to deter
mine: the operational conditions of the ventilation fans are known but as the platform levels
are not modelled, the distribution of air velocities is unknown. This velocity distribution will
depend on the complex geometrical shape of the unmodelled platform levels and on interven
ing obstacles. The values eventually imposed at these boundaries were deduced from
measurements of mass fluxes carried out by LUL. The values were gradually increased from a
low velocity of 0.1 m/s representative of normal operating conditions, to a forced ventilation
of 0.21 m/s from the Southbound platform and of 0.36 m/s from the Northbound platform.
The forced-ventilation was assumed to begin five minutes after ignition - which includes a
delay for detection. The full power was assumed to occur after a further minute. At the three
exits, fully-developed flow was assumed by imposing pressure boundaries.
At the walls, a no-slip condition was applied. Standard turbulent logarithmic wall functions
are used. Adiabatic walls were imposed at the underground station, i.e. no heat flux was
allowed, whilst constant ambient temperatures were set for all walls in the offshore accommo
dation and building under construction. The effect of these assumed conditions is explored in
Section 4.1.3.
3.6.
Initial conditions
As the offshore accommodation module and the building under construction are assumed to
be well sealed, quiescent conditions at ambient temperature were imposed at the start of the
calculations.
For the underground station, a small background ventilation flux of 119 kg/s was imposed and
used as the initial conditions for the transient fire simulation. The initial temperature was
ambient. This small background ventilation flow is assumed to correspond to air movement
induced by train movements. Note that setting an initial low ventilation flow also helps the
code to converge.
11
3.7.
Numerical methods
Default first-order numerical schemes are used for the discretisation of convection, apart from
the simulation of the offshore accommodation module; where second-order schemes were
used for all equations except the pressure equation. Results obtained by first-order schemes
will suffer to a greater or lesser degree from the spurious effects of numerical diffusion - a
tendency for over-rapid mixing. First-order schemes are, however, often more stable and less
costly in computational time than more accurate higher order schemes, hence this approach is
commonly encountered in fire safety applications of CFD. It is explored in Section 4.2.2.
The Algebraic Multigrid solver in CFX4 was required for solution of the pressure equation for
both the offshore accommodation module and the building under construction. This was made
necessary by the complexity of the geometry. Unfortunately it ruled out the possibility of
running these simulations in parallel over multiple processors, which would have reduced
run-times.
The time steps for the simulations of the offshore accommodation module and building under
construction were gradually increased to a maximum of 0.5 second - see details in Appendix
A. Smaller time steps of 0.2 second were used for the underground station. Larger time steps
of 1 second were employed after two minutes, once the fire was fully developed, to simulate
the movement of smoke up to the start of the forced ventilation. The time steps were then
reduced to 0.2 second to ensure convergence of the computed time-dependent forced velocity
field. A sensitivity test of the predictions to the value of the time step was undertaken for the
offshore accommodation module and the value of 0.5 second was found acceptable. Although
ideally a sensitivity test should have been undertaken for the two other scenarios, the values
chosen were expected to be adequate on the following grounds: the heat output of the fire in
the building under construction was identical to that in the offshore accommodation module
and so a similar time step should successfully reproduce the flow induced by the fire; the fire
in the underground station was less powerful but influenced by a small background ventilation
flow, hence a smaller time step was fixed to capture the interaction between the flow induced
by the fire and the ventilation flow. The time step was later increased for reducing the
computing time, once the flow was fully developed.
3.8.
Convergence criteria
For the underground station, simulated with CFX5, the normalised residuals were decreasing
and their values at the end of a time-step were below the criteria advised by the code supplier
by a factor of ten. It was difficult to establish if the results were fully converged but this was
the best convergence that could be achieved.
CFX4, used for the simulations of the building under construction and the offshore accommo
dation module, provides non-dimensionalised residuals (actually the sum of the absolute
values for all cells). The residuals of the enthalpy equation were normalised by the time
dependent heat output. These were found to be typically below 0.002 for the simulations of
the building under construction and about 0.1 for the simulations of the offshore accommoda
tion module. The residuals for the mass conservation were compared with the total mass in
12
the computational domains. Once the fire was fully developed the residuals of the mass
equation in the building were around 1 kg/s, i.e. 0.5 kg per time step - as the time step was 0.5
s. This was very small compared to the overall mass of air of 110,000 kg. In the offshore
accommodation module, the mass residuals corresponded to 4.3 kg for a total mass of air of
2,000 kg. The low values of the ratio of the mass residuals to the total mass of air - respec
tively 10-5 and 2.10-3 for the building under construction and the offshore accommodation
module -suggest that mass is being conserved to a good degree of accuracy. Ideally, however,
the mass residuals should be compared with a reference flux indicative of the air flow inside
the domain - which will be far lower than the total mass of air. Unfortunately, for both scenar
ios, such a reference flux is not easy to determine a priori.
The residuals of the smoke transport equation were compared with the smoke source term.
The ratios of the residuals to the source terms were of the order of 0.005 for both the building
under construction and the offshore accommodation module.
In addition, the values of all solved variables were monitored at a point near the fire. The
values were found to reach a steady-state level at each time step.
Ideally, the mass and heat balances should be checked globally and in a region including the
fire. However, this is in practice difficult for a complex geometry divided into a large number
of blocks.
In order to gain more confidence that the results were converged, a sensitivity test to the
number of iterations per time step was performed for the building under construction. No
significant difference was found in the results by doubling the number of iterations per time
step over the first minute.
Although the above checks indicate that the solutions were adequately converged, there might
still be some uncertainty: a) there was only limited information on the residuals and overall
balances in the version CFX5.3 of the CFD code employed to carry out the simulations of the
underground station; b) it was difficult to determine the values characteristic of the flow to
compare the residuals against for the scenarios where the fire occurred in a closed building
and was driving the flow - scenarios of the building under construction and offshore accom
modation module. These situations are, however, typical of the challenges faced by CFD
practitioners. The sensitivity tests to numerical parameters such as the number of iterations
per time step have been undertaken to increase the confidence that the convergence achieved
was good enough not to affect the overall conclusions of this work.
3.9.
Results and discussion
3.9.1.
Underground station
The work reported here must certainly be viewed as initial results only, due to a number of
shortcomings in the modelling approach - outlined below. Nevertheless, despite these limita
tions, the approach taken in these simulations is not untypical of the wider CFD fire commu
nity. It is therefore instructive to examine these results, both to highlight the capabilities of
13
CFD as a tool for modelling smoke movement and to speculate on the possible consequences
of these shortcomings.
Figures B.3 to B.7, Appendix B, illustrate the predicted flow and movement of smoke in the
station at various times - before ignition, prior and subsequent to forced emergency ventilation
being initiated.
In the five minute period before forced ventilation is initiated, Figures B.4 and B.5 show that
smoke is transported throughout most parts of the ticket hall and appears to extend to the main
exit routes. In particular, the bridge to two of the exits is smoke-logged. It is worth noting
that other emergency routes do exist on the platforms that enable the passengers and staff to
escape without going through the ticket hall.
Following the start-up of forced ventilation, smoke is cleared from large parts of the paid side
of the ticket hall, by being convected towards the exits and into the dome. After one minute,
Figure B.7 shows that the bridge is still not quite clear of smoke. However, by one and half
minutes after start-up of forced ventilation, the bridge is clear of smoke.
The benefits of CFD simulations of smoke movement around such a complex space are well
illustrated by this application: for example, the consequences of delays in starting emergency
ventilation, and its effectiveness once operational, can readily be assessed. In principle this
can even be done at the design stage, allowing alternative strategies to be examined.
These CFD results are in broad agreement with cold smoke tests conducted at the station. It is
encouraging that this is the case. Indeed, the CFD results show the behaviour that would intui
tively be expected . However the shortcomings referred to above need to be examined. Firstly,
the initial fire source described in Section 3.4 was abandoned because predicted temperatures
were unrealistically low. A much reduced fire volume, made of a plan area of 0.5m x 0.5m,
and a height of 0.6 m, was instead specified. Predicted temperatures were now far higher, with
a peak of just 450oC. Note that unconfined flame temperatures are more typically 600oC
700oC. This under-prediction in temperature may in part be a problem due to lack of grid
resolution in the fire source region. However the use of a prescribed volumetric heat source to
represent a fire is likely to be the prime reason, since to produce a realistic fire source, it
involves ad-hoc specification and adjustment of the heat release rate and volume over which
heat is liberated. The sensitivity of results to the fire source are addressed in Section 4.
Secondly, the use of the Boussinesq approximation - necessitated due to restrictions within the
code, is strictly only valid when temperature differences are small, i.e. of the order of a few
tens of Centigrade. That is clearly not the case here. It is difficult to state with certainty the
effects of this approximation, but it will affect the calculation of buoyancy-induced flow. The
impact of errors is thus most likely to be felt when forced ventilation flows are small, i.e.
before start-up of emergency ventilation. Again sensitivity tests are required and these are
provided in section 4.
In summary, simulation of this real scenario shows that whilst plausible results can be
obtained for certain flow parameters - such as smoke transport, there is still considerable
uncertainty in the predicted flows. This uncertainty can however be reduced by sensitivity
studies.
14
3.9.2.
All the figures related to the accommodation module can be found in Appendix C.
A prescribed volumetric heat source is again used to represent the fire. This is illustrated in
Figure C.4. The predicted peak temperatures inside the laundry are high, at just over 1000oC
immediately above the fire. In this case, this could conceivably be a broadly realistic tempera
ture, since the laundry is relatively small, at 10 m x 10 m, and ventilated through only two
doors.
Analysis of the results shows that initially smoke is confined to the laundry. At approximately
60 seconds after ignition, it makes its way into the adjoining corridor (Figure C.6). By 90
seconds, it has spread to the bottom of the nearest staircase (Figure C.7). It rises nearly half
way up this staircase some 30 seconds after entering the stairwell, whilst at the same time it
just reaches the other staircase, at the opposite end of the first floor corridor (Figure C.8). It
reaches the third floor 180 seconds after ignition (Figure C.9) and it then propagates along it
(Figure C.10). Although the third floor has become fully smoke-logged, little smoke has
travelled onto the middle second floor dining room (Figure C.11).
Whilst fire doors should prevent such rapid transport of smoke around an accommodation
module, they can be left, or wedged, open. CFD clearly illustrates the risks which are then
posed by rapid smoke movement.
3.9.3.
An isometric view of the floor on which the fire is located is shown in Figure D.3, Appendix
D.
The movement of smoke is illustrated by a series of figures, D.4 to D.8, which show the
flowfield on a plane through the fire and an iso-surface of smoke concentration, at differing
times.
Initially the smoke spreads as a ceiling layer within the third floor open plan office. Figure
D.4 shows its progress 30 seconds after ignition. Shortly after one minute, smoke has entered
the atrium; Figure D.5 shows the position at 80 seconds. By 40 seconds later, smoke has risen
a further five storeys, Figure D.6. By 150 seconds after ignition, smoke reaches the upper
storeys of the atrium, Figure D.7, however it has only just begun to rise in the open stairwell.
At just four minutes after ignition, smoke has found its way from the atrium into the upper
most floor, Figure D.8. By this time, it is also rising in the stairwell.
This simulation illustrates the potential rapid progress of smoke around a building in which
fire and smoke protection measures are not yet operational. This could obviously be of signifi
cant benefit when assessing and controlling risks during construction. Clearly CFD would be
a useful tool in this context.
However, although the simulated movement of smoke appears physically plausible, there are
uncertainties in its rate of progress. These arise because the maximum predicted temperature
in the fire plume is around 300oC. For a 1MW fire, application of the Mc Caffreys plume
15
relationship (McCaffrey, 1979) indicate that a peak temperature of about 900oC. could be
expected. Since the simulated flow is entirely driven by the effects of buoyancy, errors in
temperature at the source are likely to be reflected in the rate at which smoke is transported. In
this case, since temperatures are under-predicted, rates of transport may also be under
predicted. This could mean that smoke would propagate even faster in practice i.e. the simula
tions may well be non- conservative.
Again the use of a prescribed volumetric heat source is likely to be the prime reason for the
unrealistically low temperatures. It is probable that the volume in which heat is introduced is
too large; this volume is currently set as a parallelepiped, whilst in reality it more closely
approximates a cone.
The need for sensitivity tests, here to the representation of the fire source, is well illustrated by
this scenario.
It should be noted that the simulation could not be continued after 260 seconds, since the
solution diverged. This is believed to be due to the somewhat unrealistic assumption that the
building is completely sealed. A simulation using a fully compressible flow model, rather than
a weakly compressible model in which the pressure is assumed constant in the solution of the
equation of state, should allow the calculations to be continued, with no significant differ
ences in the predictions. This is a useful point to make: practical difficulties in applying CFD
codes may well result in truncated simulations.
3.9.4.
Summary
Three fire scenarios, in an underground station, an offshore accommodation module and a

building under construction, each of interest to sponsoring HSE divisions, have been
modelled using a state-of-the-art CFD code. Each has a complex geometry. All three scenar
ios provide the opportunity to demonstrate CFDs capabilities and limitations for the model
ling of smoke movement
Initial simulations have here been undertaken to primarily give an indication of CFDs
capabilities. The gross features of the flow certainly appear to be plausibly predicted: a less
well ventilated area on the bridge between the ticket hall and the exits in the underground
station is identified; smoke transport can be tracked along corridors and staircases in an
accommodation module; the rapid rise of smoke in the atrium of a building under construction
is illustrated. These simulations also appear to provide key information on the effectiveness of
forced ventilation on smoke clearance, as well as the generally rapid rate of transport of
smoke in complex enclosed spaces.
However, whilst these calculations appear plausible, they are nevertheless subject to consider
able uncertainty due to shortcomings in the representation of the fire source, use of simplified
physical sub-models, assumed boundary conditions and unquantified numerical errors. The
approach taken in modelling these scenarios is, however, typical of that employed by others
active in this field, and the predictions are similar to those that would be likely to be presented
should CFD have been used in support of a safety assessment for these situations.
16
In the absence of experimental data, it is thus imperative that sensitivity tests be undertaken to
attempt to reduce some of the uncertainty in these, and similar, CFD simulations.
Ultimately, however, comparison with experimental data is essential to quantify the capabili
ties of CFD. The physics involved in the development of a fire and production of smoke is
complex. Key areas of concern, i.e. those of importance for smoke transport and for which
CFDs capabilities are still uncertain are:
Readers are invited to consult the HSL report on benchmark experiments and CFD modelling
(Ledin et al., 2002) which aims to elucidate the capability of CFD to reproduce the key
physics of the flow; the complexity of which is increased, in part, by the geometrical features
of the spaces in which a fire occurs. The benchmark experiments were designed to retain
those aspects of the geometry that led to complex physics. They comprised:
influence of a ventilation flow;
transport along corridors and in areas with large floor plan ;
transport in vertical spaces, such as escalator shafts, stairwells or atria;
transport between interconnected large open spaces, or large open spaces and
corridors: either large horizontal spaces, as per the ticket hall of an underground
station, or large vertical spaces such as building atria.
The next section investigates the effect that different CFD modelling approaches have on the
prediction of smoke movement for the three scenarios.
17
4.
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MODELLING APPROACHES
When using a CFD package to create a CFD model, the user has to select physical and
numerical sub-models, ways of defining the source, mesh sizes, locations of the boundaries,
etc... In some cases, the user is forced to make compromises: for instance because of the
contradictory requirements of the different sub-models implemented or because of practical
limitations on resources available. The latter situation is very likely to be the case for simula
tions of smoke transport in large and complex spaces, which are demanding of computer
resources. Simple mathematical models, or relatively coarse grids, for example, might have to
be employed in order to achieve reasonable run-times. The objective of this part of the work is
to report the extent to which the CFD results are influenced by the parameters chosen by the
CFD practitioners i.e. the sensitivity of simulations.
A range of CFD modelling approaches, representative of those commonly used by many
consultants, have therefore been employed to simulate the three real scenarios. These include
different physical models, numerical schemes and fire source representations, as summarised
in Table 1. More advanced models, which embody more details of the physics of the flow, do
exist. However, they are more demanding in computer resources and therefore are less likely
to be applied to smoke movement scenarios in large and complex spaces, certainly as
presented to HSE in safety cases.
Table 1 - The different modelling approaches employed
Scenarios
Physical modelling
Numerical parameters
CFD
parameters
Underground station
Offshore module
Initial grid
Vs
Grid cells doubled on
floor where fire is
located
First-order accurate
(upwind)
Vs
Higher order accurate
(CCCT)
Grid
dependence
Spatial discretisation schemes
Flow
compressibility
Turbulence
modelling
Boussinesq approximation
Vs
Compressible
k- e model:
C3=0
Vs
C3=1
Volume heat source model
(no combustion)
Vs
Eddy-break-up combustion
model
Boundary
conditions
Fire modelling
Wall heat
transfer
Adiabatic wall
Vs
Wall at ambient temperature
18
Adiabatic wall
Vs
Wall at ambient
temperature
The temperatures, velocities and transported smoke concentrations predicted by the different
modelling approaches. This provides an insight into the sensitivity of the results and conse
quently indicated where there is uncertainty.
4.1.
Underground station
Four simulations have been carried out using CFX5.4.1 for the scenario of the underground
station. One modelling parameter has been changed from one simulation to another, as
outlined in Table 2 below.
Table 2 - The different simulations for the underground station scenario

Initial
Compressibility
Buoyancy effect
in the k-e model
Heat transfer
wall boundary
conditions
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Boussinesq
approximation
C3=0
Compressible
model
C3=0
Compressible
model
C3=1
Compressible
model
C3=1
Adiabatic wall
Adiabatic wall
Adiabatic wall
Wall at ambient
temperature
This allowed us to investigate the influence of the following parameters:

Boussinesq approximation compared to a compressible flow model
(by comparing simulations Initial and Run 2);
buoyancy modification term in the k-e turbulence model
(by comparing simulations Run 2 and Run 3)
heat transfer at the walls
(by comparing simulations Run 3 and Run 4).
4.1.1.
Flow compressibility
The Boussinesq approximation assumes a constant density and takes into account the air
movement due to thermal effects by an additional term in the momentum equations. Details of
its implementation in CFX5 are given in Appendix H. This approach is valid for small
temperature gradients and is typically recommended in CFX-5 when temperature variations do
not exceed 30oC. Despite this limitation, we are aware that this model is sometimes used to
predict the transport of smoke from a fire in large volume spaces. The argument presented to
us is that the model assumption will be valid in most parts of the domain with the exception
19
of the vicinity of the fire and that the difference in the end result will therefore be small. The
benefit is the relatively modest need in computing resources.
The fire plume temperatures predicted by the compressible flow model are 95 K higher than
those calculated using the Boussinesq approximation model. They are still only about half of
the theoretical value of at least 1000 K. - based on empirical correlations for unconfined
flames. Even so, air density goes down to 0.4 kg/m3 with the compressible model. However,
the region where the density is below 1.0 kg/m3, and for which the Boussinesq approximation
is not recommended is limited to the vicinity of the fire. One may therefore initially expect the
two simulations to be very similar, and the argument in the preceding paragraph validated.
However this is not the case.
The buoyancy term added in the momentum equations by the Boussinesq approximation
model is not sufficient to correctly account for the convection of such hot, and light, air. As a
result, the vertical velocity induced by the fire plume is underestimated. It is believed that the
relatively low momentum and somewhat less buoyant, plume is then more strongly influenced
by the background ventilation: the plume is transported further away from the fire before it
impinges on the ceiling and the resulting lateral velocities after impingement are also more
influenced by the local background ventilation. The geometry of the station may also empha
sise the differences in the predicted smoke transport as it generates a flow with rapid varia
tions in space. As a consequence, a small difference in the prediction of the fire plume can
lead to a significant difference in the transport of smoke.
Figures E.2 to E.4 show the smoke concentration close to the walls for the two models 60, 90
and 115 seconds after ignition. Up until 60 seconds, i.e. During the period of fire growth of
the fire, the contours appear to look similar. However, at later times the smoke is propagating
more rapidly across the bridge in the case of the Boussinesq approximation. This is confirmed
by the smoke fluxes evaluated across vertical planes at mid-span and at the end of the bridge
(see Figure E.5). Comparison with fluxes evaluated across planes along the corridor leading to
exit 2 shows that a larger amount of smoke will be transported through exit 2 than over the
bridge (see Figure E.6) .
Interestingly, and in contrast, there is no significant difference between these two modelling
approaches in the transport of smoke along the corridor towards the exit 2. This is almost
certainly due to the specific geometry of the station.
4.1.2.
Buoyancy effects in the k-e turbulence model
The weakly compressible model was adopted. A sensitivity test to the turbulence modelling
was undertaken, in particular to modifications to the k and e turbulence equations to account
for the gross effects of buoyancy on turbulent mixing. Thus two different values of the
constant C3 - a multiplying factor of the buoyancy production term in the e equation - were
tested: 0 and 1 (respectively Run 2 and Run3).
The specific form of the k-e turbulence model in CFX5 can be found in Appendix H.
To summarise, the characteristics of the models as implemented in CFX codes are as follows:
20
Both C3=0 and C3=1 include a buoyancy production term in the k equation;
C3=0 corresponds to no buoyancy production term in the e equation;
C3=1 corresponds to adding a buoyancy source term in the e equation in the case of unsta
ble density gradients i.e. as found in a fire plume. Its aim is to counteract the increase of
turbulent kinetic energy caused by the buoyancy source term in the k equation. The term is
neglected in CFX in the case of stable density gradients (attributed to Viollet et al., 1983)
i.e. horizontal smoke flow under a ceiling.
In previous studies, this buoyancy-modified version of the k-e model was found to give good
results for stable stratified flows and for vertical buoyant jet flows in calm surroundings.
However, even with C3=1, for unstable density gradients, it still overestimates the turbulent
mixing due to buoyancy effects (Viollet et al., 1983).
In fact, several ways of accounting for buoyancy effects in a k-e turbulence model have been
proposed all based essentially on Rodi (1979). They all include a multiplying factor C3 in the
e transport equation but it is important to note that this factor has different interpretations.
Therefore the same value of C3 does not necessarily mean the same equations are being
solved. However, for the special case of C3=1, it so happens that the implementation in CFX
attributed to Viollet (1983), then becomes the same as that of Markatos et al. (1982), whose
work is based on Rodis 1979 proposal.
For the present scenario, the temperature distributions near the fire (see Figure E.1) are very
different for the two values of C3. When C3=1, the temperature reaches a more realistic value
of 860 K, compared to a maximum of just 560 K when no buoyancy term is added in the e
equation. An unstable density gradient zone develops in the rising plume and it is believed
that the turbulent mixing in this region is overestimated, this to a far greater extent when
C3=0. The background ventilation, by curving the plume, might lead to stronger density
gradients and hence further increase the over-estimate of the turbulent mixing. As a result, the
hot air in the plume is mixed more effectively with the cooler ambient air and this reduces the
plume temperature. This under-prediction in temperature is particularly pronounced when
C3=0. It might not be solely due to the shortcomings of the models to take into account
buoyancy effects on the turbulent mixing. Hence, the coarse nature of the grid might also play
a role in the under-prediction in temperature.
There is then, unsurprisingly, a significant difference in the transport of smoke predicted by
the two values of C3. This can be seen 60 seconds after ignition (Figure E.2), where smoke has
already been convected along the bridge with C3=1, whilst it just enters the bridge with C3=0.
The smoke fluxes also show that a value of 1 for C3 will favour the bridge as a route for
smoke, at the expense of exit 2. Importantly the smoke propagates twice as fast over the
bridge with C3=1 than with C3=0. What appears to be a minor change to just one of the turbu
lence model parameters thus has a profound effect. With C3=1, the buoyancy-induced
horizontal flow is more important, thus propagating the smoke more rapidly inside the whole
domain. If the smoke is more dispersed laterally, it is however less dispersed vertically. This
21
is due to the more pronounced stratification of the flow, believed to be mainly the result of the
higher temperatures predicted by C3=1.
In summary, inclusion of a buoyancy term in the k equation alone is known to adequately
reproduce the gross effects of buoyancy on turbulent mixing for stable density gradients
(Launder, 1975; Rodi, 1979; Markatos et al., 1982). Previous work based on Rodis 1979
proposal has also shown that a further term must be embedded in the e equation if unstable
density gradients - as found in a fire plume, are to be adequately modelled (Markatos et al.,
1982; Viollet et al., 1983). In the present study, such a model has been applied to a scenario
where the flow was stably-stratified in most parts of the domain, except of course in the
region of the fire. It was found that introducing this additional term in the e equation, achieved
by setting C3=1 in the CFX codes, had a significant effect on the temperature predicted in the
plume: as a consequence, transport of smoke in the whole domain was predicted to be much
more rapid.
4.1.3.
Heat transfer at the walls
The two extreme situations of no heat transfer at the walls (adiabatic walls) and complete loss
of heat (walls fixed at ambient temperature) have been investigated. The aim is to examine the
maximum sensitivity of the predictions to the wall heat transfer as modelled by CFD. The
heat transfer close to walls is in fact not fully resolved by CFD since this would require too
many computing resources. Instead, prescribed wall functions are applied. These implicitly
correspond to considering only the effects of forced convection and neglecting the effects of
buoyancy and natural convection to heated surfaces. Although these wall functions do not
fully describe the physics of heat transfer, they are widely used. In this section, their sensitiv
ity to the heat transfer value is examined.
The transport of smoke is hardly affected by the different wall heat transfer conditions, as can
be seen both from the smoke concentration at the walls (Figures E.2 to E.4) and from the
smoke fluxes along the bridge and through exit 2 (Figures E.5 and E.6).
In Figure E.1, which shows the temperature distributions close to the fire source, the tempera
ture at the ceiling is effectively at ambient temperature and the temperature of the hot layer is
slightly cooled down by the cold wall but it does not seem to affect the layer depth.
This finding is not in agreement with some other work in this field, for instance Ivings (1999)
who simulated a 0.3 MW fire in a 2.4 m x 3.6 m x 2.57 m room, and found a marked sensi
tivity to the boundary condition for wall heat transfer. The reasons for the lack of sensitivity in
the present scenario are likely to be that the fire heat output is lower, thus producing a cooler
hot layer that will exchange less heat at the walls; the fire is located in a much larger space
thus encountering a smaller wall surface area than an enclosed fire, again limiting the loss of
heat at the walls; a background ventilation flow will exchange heat, mass and momentum with
the hot layer; this could also be due to a poor representation of the boundary layer close to the
ceiling by the turbulent wall functions because of the requirement on the size of the grid cells
could not be met.
22
To gain further insight into the sensitivity of smoke transport to wall heat transfer, it was
decided to investigate the effect of heat transfer at the walls for another scenario, the offshore
accommodation module where a larger fire occurs in a room.
4.2.
The sensitivity to two different numerical modelling refinements were tested for this offshore
accommodation module scenario:
the size of the computational grid;
the discretisation scheme employed for the convection terms in the governing trans
port equations;
In addition the effects of the heat transfer boundary conditions at the walls was also investi
gated, as per the underground station scenario.
Table 3 summarises the different modelling approaches investigated for the offshore accom
modation module.
Table 3 - The different simulations for the offshore accommodation module.
Grid
Discretisation
scheme
Wall heat
transfer
4.2.1.
Initial
Coarse
CCCT
(second order)
Fixed
temperature
Run 2
Coarse
Hybrid
(first order)
Fixed
temperature
Run 3
Fine
CCCT
(second order)
Fixed
temperature
Run 4
Coarse
CCCT
(second order)
Adiabatic
Grid size
A fine mesh, in which each cell edge was divided by two on the first floor and in the stair
wells, was employed in Run 3 (see Figure F.1). The average dimensions of the grid in the
laundry - in fire source is located, are given in Table 4. The overall number of grid cells
increases from a relatively coarse 28,214 for the initial simulation, to 149,934. For this finer
grid case.
23
Table 4 - Comparison of grid cell dimensions in the laundry

Direction
Room
dimensions
Number of grid cells

Coarse
X
Y
Z (height)
10.2 m
5.4 m
3.2 m
Fine
25
14
11
50
28
22
Average grid cell

dimension
Coarse
|Fine
41 cm
20.5 cm
38 cm
19 cm
29 cm
14.5 cm
Overall, examining Run 3, the same gross trends are seen in the transport of smoke as with the
initial coarser grid. In the laundry, a hot gas layer develops and is directed downwards to the
ground after impinging on the side wall (see Figure F.2 - Initial Vs Run 3). The hot gas layer
behaviour - in particular its depth, overshoot against the side walls, and temperature- is similar
to that obtained with the coarse grid (see Figure F.3).
There is, however, more flow detail predicted by the fine grid: for instance, eddies are clearly
seen on both sides of the door near the stairwell at 0.45 metres above the ground (Figure F.5).
See also Figure F.6. They are not apparent with the coarse grid predictions although a similar
air entrainment into the room is predicted (see Figure F.8). As expected, the coarser grid tends
to smooth the flow details and gradients in flow variables, in effect averaging flow variables
over a larger volume.
Overall, there is no significant difference in the prediction of smoke propagation - see Figures
F.7 to F.9. The fact that grossly similar flow behaviour is predicted by both grids increases
confidence that they are both of a resolution adequate for predicting the main features of the
flow. Consistent predictions of smoke movement - distribution and propagation speed- are
obtained, although in lesser detail with a coarser grid.
The CFD user needs to have a good understanding of the flow behaviour when constructing
the grid, in order to adapt its size to the flow phenomena to be resolved. Commercial CFD
codes offer the possibility to refine the grid at specific locations within the computational
domain. This flexibility enables the user to limit the number of grid cells, thus the run-time,
without significantly compromising the accuracy of the results. In practice, it can prove diffi
cult, prior to any simulation, to determine the appropriate size of the grid and to identify the
regions that need refinement. Ideally, the CFD practitioner should undertake a series of
simulations refining the grid until there are no significant differences in flow predictions.
Unless such checks are undertaken it is not possible to be sure of the extent to which the CFD
grid is determining the end result. This, however, is time-consuming process and often not
practical. In this work, for instance, a grid refinement test was undertaken only for the present
scenario. Ideally, a similar check should have been carried out for the underground station and
for the building under construction. In such circumstances, a limited grid refinement check
may be all that can be managed but with resulting uncertainty in the results.
24
4.2.2.
Discretisation scheme
Commercial CFD codes generally allow the user to choose a discretisation scheme for the
convection term of each transport equation solved. The scheme provides discrete approxima
tion for the convection term based on the values of the surrounding flow variables. For
example, perhaps the simplest scheme consists of an extrapolation from upwind values. A
wide range of schemes, of varying orders, do exist. The order of a scheme corresponds to the
rate at which the error tends to zero as the grid is refined. For example, a simple upwind
scheme is a first order scheme. The higher the order of the scheme, the more accurate the
representation of flow convection should be, providing that an adequate grid resolution is
employed. First order schemes are prone to what is called numerical diffusion. This corre
sponds to an error purely caused by the numerical discretisation and the effect of which is
equivalent to spuriously increase rates of diffusion. Higher order schemes are less sensitive to
this effect but they tend to be less stable, therefore more difficult to apply successfully.
Here, two schemes are compared: a first-order hybrid scheme - which can be expected to
default to upwind at most locations- (Run2) and a second order CCCT - Curvature Compen
sated Convective Transport - scheme (Initial run). Mathematical details of these schemes can
be found for example in Versteeg and Malalasekera (1995).
Comparing the initial run to Run 2, temperature distributions across the laundry in Figures
F.2, F.5 and F.6 show a much less distinct hot layer in the case of the first order scheme. In
essence, the hot air from the fire has been subject to increased, spurious mixing with the
ambient air as a result of numerical diffusion. As a consequence, the vertical profile of excess
temperature near the fire source is almost uniform except very close to the ceiling. The excess
temperature profiles at the doors are however similar, certainly due to the supply of fresh air at
low level from the corridors.
This results in a more efficient mixing of smoke with air with a first order scheme, leading to
a more uniform distribution of smoke. The lateral propagation of smoke is less rapid, since
contrary to the second order scheme the smoke is not concentrated in the hot layer where the
velocities are higher.
4.2.3.
Heat transfer at the walls
As for the underground station, two different boundary conditions for heat transfer were
applied at the walls: adiabatic (i.e. no heat transfer: the walls will be at the temperature raised
by the fire) and a fixed temperature imposed at the walls (i.e. maximum heat transfer: all the
heat produced by the fire would ultimately be lost at the walls). In reality, walls will have a
thermal behaviour between these two extreme situations that will depend on the materials they
are made of and the coatings they are covered with. It is technically possible to define bound
ary conditions that will match experimental data on the transfer of heat at the walls (see for
example Ivings, 1999), when such data is available. Here, since all the possible heat transfer
conditions could not be investigated, it was decided to investigate these two extremes. The
wall boundary conditions applied in both cases remain, however, a crude representation of the
heat transfer since only the convective transfer is taken into account.
25
Comparing Run 4 to the initial run, higher temperatures are unsurprisingly reached in the hot
gas layer with adiabatic walls (see Figure F.2). Indeed, since no heat is lost at the walls, all the
heat released by the fire is transferred to the surrounding air. There is a difference of about
50oC above the fire after two minutes (see Figure F.3) as well as in the hot air leaving through
the door closest to the fire (see Figure F.7). The difference is even more significant, reaching
nearly 100oC, at the door to the stairwells (see Figure F.8).
The mixing between the hot plume and the ambient air is less important, evidenced the
horizontal temperature contours across the room in Figure F.2 and the well stratified excess
temperature profiles in Figures F.3, F.4, F.7, F.8. The mixing principally occurs where the hot
layer impinges on the side walls and is directed downwards along these, towards the cool air.
In the case of walls at ambient temperature, the presence of cool air above the hot layer
creates an instability that increases the mixing. As a result the flow is less stratified in the
room.
Due to the absence of mixing between hot and cool air with adiabatic walls, the smoke gener
ated by the fire raises with the hot air and remains concentrated in the hot layer close to the
ceiling. The velocities induced by the fire are equivalent for both wall conditions: velocities of
the plume as well as the horizontal convective velocities of the hot layers along the ceiling
and at the doors (see Figures F.4, F.7 and F.8). However, since with adiabatic walls, smoke is
principally in the hot layer where the velocities are higher, it is transported more rapidly inside
the module as can be seen in Figure F.9. It is as well clear from the smoke iso-surfaces of
Figure F.9 that the smoke remains closer to the ceiling, potentially at a lower risk for the
public.
It is interesting to note in Figure F.2 the continuity of the temperature contours across the
laundry and corridor in the case of adiabatic walls. These are due to the unphysical representa
tion of the walls: in the CFD model, they have no thickness. That means that both sides of the
wall have the same temperature. Therefore, the air in the corridor is heated first by diffusion
from the laundry wall and not by convection of hot air through the door as in the case of walls
fixed at ambient temperature.
For the underground station, a similar test was undertaken but no difference in the CFD
predictions was found. This lack of sensitivity of the results to the heat transfer boundary
condition at the walls could be because the fire heat output was lower for the underground
station scenario, thus producing a cooler hot layer that exchanged less heat at the walls; the
fire was located in a more open area - thus encountering a smaller wall surface area than an
enclosed fire, limiting the loss of heat at the walls; a background ventilation exchanged heat,
mass and momentum with the hot layer.
26
4.3.
The simulations carried out for the building under construction are presented in Table 5.
This allowed us to investigate the effects of :
The shape of the prescribed volume in the volumetric heat source model
by comparing a parallelepedic volume (Initial) and an approximately conic volume
(Run2)
The prescribed fire growth curve
by comparing a time-squared (Run 2) and a constant (Run 3) heat release rate;
The fire modelling approach:
By comparing a prescribed volumetric heat source model (Initial, Run 2 and 3)
and an eddy combustion model (Run 4).
Table 5 - The different simulations for the building scenario
Model
Fire source
volume
Number of
grid cells in
the source
Convective
heat output
Initial
Volumetric heat
source
Parallelepiped
Run 2
Volumetric heat
source
Cone
Base=1x1=1 m2
Height=2.2 m
Volume=2.2 m3
Diameter=1.2m.
Height=2.1 m.
Volume=0.74 m3
128
(=4x4x8)
H(t)=a t2 , t<109s
H=0.55 MW, t>109s
52
H(t)=a t2 , t<109s
H=0.55 MW, t>109s
27
Run 3
Volumetric
heat source
Cone
Identical to
Run 2
52
H=0.55 MW
Run 4
Eddy Break-Up
Combustion
Parallelepiped
Base=1x1=1 m2
Height= 0.2 m. (one
grid cell high)
Area = 1 m2
16
(=4x4)
H(t)=a t2 , t<109s
H=0.55 MW, t>109s
4.3.1.
Shape of the prescribed heat source
Two different shapes, as shown in Figure 1, were tested.
Cone
Parallelepiped
Radius= 0.58 m.
Height=2.1 m.
Theoretical volume = 0.7394 m3
Actual volume = 0.7378 m3
Number of cells= 52
Width= 1 m.
Height=2.2 m.
Volume = 2.2 m3
Number of cells =128
Figure 1 - The different shapes of the fire source in the volumetric heat source models
(black lines: parallelepiped; red volume: cone)
Figure G.1 presents the temperature distribution in a plane across the fire: temperatures are
higher in the cone (Run 2) than in the parallelepiped (Initial Run) but appear to be rapidly
similar away from the fire. Values of predicted temperatures along the centreline of the fire
are plotted in Figure G.2 and peak temperatures are given in Table 6. The difference in
temperature is due to the larger volume of the parallelepiped in which the heat is released: the
parallelepiped is nearly three times as big as the cone. The temperatures from the conic source
are more realistic, though still somewhat underestimated.
Table 6 - Peak temperatures for the different shapes of the volumetric heat source
with 0.55 MW power output.
McCaffrey
relation
900 C
Volume =
parallelepiped
300 C
Volume = cone
750 C
Further away from the source, a hot air layer develops along the ceiling and, for both volume
sources, its temperature and depth are similar (see Figures G.3 and G.4). The depth is slightly
greater on the side of the fire opposite to the atrium: this is believed to be due to the presence
of walls further away which constrain and deepen the hot layer.
The smoke accumulates in this hot layer and the levels reached are similar for both models.
Figure G.5 shows that this behaviour can be observed at a given height close to the ceiling
28
along the length of the floor. A near identical lateral dispersion of the smoke on the third floor
is also predicted by both models, as can be seen in Figure G.6.
In the atrium, a similar distribution of smoke is also observed (Figure G.7). Table 7, which
compares the arrival time of smoke predicted at several heights in the atrium, shows that the
propagation of smoke in the atrium is similar for both models.
Table 7 - Estimated arrival time of smoke at different heights in the atrium
(to within 10 seconds)
Level reached by the smoke
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
(number of floors above the fire)
90 s.
90 s.
40 s.
90 s.
two floors
120 s.
120 s.
50 s.
120 s.
five floors
sixteen floors
170 s.
170 s.
100 s.
170 s.
(top of the atrium)
In conclusion, the two models present a marked difference very close to the fire source. There
is, however, no significant difference in the predicted movement of smoke at locations more
remote from the source.
The smaller volume of the cone compared to the parallelepiped explains the higher tempera
tures predicted near the fire. Intuitively the smoke would subsequently be expected to be
transported more rapidly by higher velocities but this is not the case: these high velocities near
the source might lead to increased mixing which ultimately lowers the temperatures and
velocities further away from the source.
It is also possible that the first order discretisation scheme (that adds a spurious numerical
diffusion) and that the heat transfer boundary condition at the walls (that will cool down the
hot layer at the ceiling to an imposed temperature identical in both models) contribute to
increasing the similarities between the two source prescriptions.
4.3.2.
Fire growth curve
Two different heat release rates were tested: a constant and a t-squared fire over a period of
109 seconds. Both heat release rates are represented in Figure 2. The smoke production rate is
proportional to the heat release rate and so will have the same profile.
Figures G.1 and G.2 show that the temperatures reached in the fire plume 150 seconds after
ignition are identical. The vertical profiles of excess temperature and smoke concentration 10
metres away from the fire (Figure G.3) are near identical on the side nearest the atrium, but on
the other side the hot layer is deeper and has a higher temperature when the heat output is
constant. The distribution of smoke on the third floor (Figure G.6) and in the atrium (Figure
G.7) show a more rapid propagation in the case of a constant heat output source: smoke has
already filled the atrium at just 150 seconds after ignition whilst with a t-squared fire it has
only reached a 2/3 of the height of the atrium.
29
0.6
Heat output (MW)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
50
100
150
200
Time (seconds)
Figure 2 - Heat release rates for the building scenario

These differences are due to the fire growth phase, during which temperatures, and thus
velocities, are higher with a constant heat output. Therefore the convection of both tempera
ture and smoke will be more rapid; hence the different distributions on the third floor and in
the atrium. This also explains the different vertical profiles on the third floor between the two
models: the constant heat output source will predict a deeper hot layer since the hot air will
have reached the walls before the t-squared fire and will have accumulated over a longer
period.
Table 6 shows that smoke starts rising in the atrium just 40 seconds with a constant heat
output whilst it takes 90 seconds with a t-squared fire. This means that there will be a time lag
of about one minute between the two models only one and a half minutes after ignition.
The fire growth rate that needs to be prescribed in any CFD model can have a profound effect
on rates of smoke transport. A constant heat output was found to lead to conservative
predictions.
4.3.3.
Fire modelling approaches
The previous approach for introducing the fire source was compared with an eddy-break-up
combustion model, whereby the region in which the heat is released does not need to be
prescribed, but is instead predicted by the model. There is still however the need to specify the
fire growth curve: the t-squared curve in Figure 2 was applied. The smoke concentration was
deduced from the mass fraction of combustion products and a constant smoke yield factor.
The excess temperature predicted by the eddy-break-up combustion model is between the
temperatures predicted by a conic and parallelepipedic volume source. Note that, in the
combustion model, the temperature at the floor underneath the fire was set at a value to reflect
that needed to pyrolyse the fuel. This explains the difference in excess temperature between
the models at ground level. Importantly, however, the temperature predicted with this
30
application of an eddy-break-up model is still under-estimated. The peak temperature is just

440oC, compared to 750oC for the prescribed conic volume and an expected 900oC .
Smoke seems to be produced in a larger quantity by applying an eddy break-up combustion
model. This is believed to be due to the slightly different way smoke was treated in the two
models: in the combustion model, an equation was solved for a smoke mass fraction which
was later transformed into a concentration by multiplying it by density. In the volumetric heat
source model, it is smoke concentration that was solved directly. The smoke concentration
profile is also smoother near the ground - Figure G.2, which is certainly to be due to the
higher wall temperature at the source.
Away from the fire, the differences between the models rapidly diminish. A hot layer of
essentially the same temperature and depth is predicted with both a combustion model or a
volumetric heat source model - irrespective of the shape of the volume. Smoke is more
concentrated in this layer with the combustion model, but this is purely due to the higher
production of smoke at the source. The rates of propagation of smoke on the third floor and in
the atrium also look similar (Figures G.6 and G.7).
Xue et al. (2001) have compared different fire modelling approaches - that included a
volumetric heat source and an eddy break-up model - in three configurations: a room, a
shopping mall and a tunnel. The relative performance of the different approaches was evalu
ated by comparing the predictions against experimental data. However, no consistent perform
ance of any one model was found: one model was found to be better for one situation but gave
poor results in another scenario. The shopping mall simulation was the most similar to the
building considered in this work, yet it had a much smaller volume. Its simulation was
two-dimensional although the authors recognised that the mechanisms involved were likely to
be three-dimensional. All modelling approaches were found to agree well with measured
temperatures.
In the present case, it is not certain why use of an eddy break-up combustion model has led to
predicted temperatures which are far lower than expected. It could be a consequence of a
relatively coarse grid resolution in the fire source region; just 4 x 4 cells were used to intro
duce the fuel. It could be the use of a diffuse, first-order accurate , convection scheme - but in
that case it could be expected that all modelling approaches would be similarly affected
unless there is a more marked sensitivity to convection discretisation in the modelling of
transport equations for fuel and product mass fractions. It may be that the turbulent equations
for fuel and product mass fractions. It may be that the turbulent time-scale - which the eddy
break-up model uses to compute the rate of reaction, is in error. However, in the absence of
experimental data, there is no easy way to check this. It is interesting that other applications of
the eddy break-up combustion model at HSL (Ivings, 1999; Ledin et al., 2002) report tempera
tures which tend to be too high.
The eddy break-up model is actually a very crude combustion model. It also still relies on a
certain amount of user input; area/volume into which fuel vapour is introduced, rate of fuel
vapour supply so as to match a prescribed heat release rate. In common with other combustion
models, its performance relies heavily on the ability of the turbulence model to return realistic
predictions.
31
Nevertheless the eddy break-up combustion model can give realistic predictions (Kumar and
Cox, 2001). In particular, its ability to predict the region over which heat is released is an
important feature. This is particularly where circumstances could result in a tilted fire plume
or one affected by the presence of nearby surfaces. In these cases it would be difficult to set up
and check the adequacy of a prescribed heat source approach. Use of a combustion model then
has distinct advantages. In the present scenario the fire plume rises eventually undisturbed
(see Figure G.1), since the source is located in a large open-plan office. Hence in these
circumstances it could perhaps be expected that a prescribed volumetric heat source approach
would be adequate.
What is clear, however, is that irrespective of whether a combustion model or a prescribed
volumetric heat source is used to represent the fire source, the resulting properties of the
source should be checked (Kumar and Cox, 2001). It also does appear to be the case in the
present scenario that other factors in the prescription of the fire source can be more
significant, i.e. fire growth rate.
32
5.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1.
Conclusions
CFD has been successfully applied to three real scenarios of interest to HSE sponsoring
divisions: an underground station, a building under construction and an offshore accommoda
tion module. The three-dimensional nature of the technique meant that it was possible to
closely represent the complex geometries, and to predict the temperature, air velocities and
smoke concentration at a large number of points inside the domain. This, therefore, resulted in
predictions of spatial and temporal variations of the flow caused by the presence of the fire
taking into account the complex shapes of the geometries: a large plan area hall surmounted
by a dome; building with multiple floors connected by an atrium and/or stairwells, etc... In
each scenario investigated the transport of smoke predicted by CFD looked realistic and
could, in principle, he used as a basis of a fire safety engineered approach.
However, when creating a model, the CFD practitioner has to make assumptions and select
appropriate parameters. The choice depends on the scenario modelled, as well as on the
expertise of the user. As a result, various CFD modelling methods are being used amongst the
Fire Safety Engineering community to predict the transport of smoke. In this study, a range of
modelling approaches typically employed was applied, and results compared to an initial set
of simulations. This demonstrated that, in some circumstances, the parameters chosen can
have a significant influence on the predicted rate of smoke propagation and its distribution.
The sensitivity of the results to the following CFD parameters was investigated:
numerical parameters: grid resolution and convection discretisation scheme;
physical parameters: compressibility of the flow, inclusion of buoyancy effects in the
k-e turbulence model, volumetric heat source model Vs an eddy break-up combustion
model;
boundary conditions of heat transfer at the walls.
It was not practical to undertake all of these sensitivity tests for all three scenarios. Where
there may, as a consequence, be bias in the resulting predictions, this is indicated below. In
any case, general lessons learnt are stated below, rather than conclusions specific to a particu
lar scenario.
In examining the effect of grid resolution, two very different mesh sizes were employed for
the offshore accommodation module. Both grids led to similar results. This indicates that the
results are here relatively insensitive to the level of grid resolution employed. However, in
general, if the grid is too coarse compared to the length scales of the key flow phenomena, it
could easily result in the generation of misleading results. Unfortunately, it is quite often diffi
cult to foresee what may be an appropriate resolution for the mesh. Ideally, the grid would be
refined until no significant difference is found. This process is, however, time-consuming,
often impractical and therefore usually neglected. Thus even in the present study, such a test
was carried out only for one simulation, whilst ideally a similar test should have been
undertaken for all three scenarios. Unless such a check is undertaken, or has already been
33
done for a closely similar flow and geometry, the results will be uncertain to an unquantifiable
degree.
The use of a high order convection discretisation scheme for the accommodation module
resulted in the prediction of more flow detail and a more rapid rate of smoke spread. It is
therefore recommended that first-order accurate schemes are not used - or if they are, that the
resulting error is shown to be conservative.
The use of the Boussinesq approximation to account for the thermal effects on flow
compressibility, as opposed to calculating the air density from an equation of state, is appeal
ing since it reduces the computing time. This is an especially attractive feature when applying
CFD to complex and large spaces. This approximation, sometimes used on the grounds that
compressibility effects will be limited to a small portion of the whole computational domain
i.e. in the vicinity of the fire, has however here been shown to ultimately result in significant
differences in the transport of smoke compared to a more soundly-based approach which
solves an equation of state for the density. Again, unless otherwise shown to be conservative,
this approach should not be used for modelling smoke movement from flaming fires.
As regard to the effects of buoyancy on turbulence, it was found important that, in the case of
unstable density gradients, an additional buoyancy-related production term be included in the
e equation. The conclusion is consistent with previous work (Cox, 1995) and recent advice
(Kumar and Cox, 2001). When this term was omitted, the simulated fire plume for the under
ground station was more strongly affected by a background ventilation flow.
The effect of differing prescribed heat source volume was investigated for the building under
construction. The choice of the shape of the volume led to significant differences in predicted
source temperature. If this approach to the modelling of the fire source is taken, the volume
should therefore be prescribed such that it leads to representative temperatures. Nevertheless,
for this scenario, temperatures became similar for the two prescriptions as the distance from
the source increased. This may be specific to this scenario. The choice of a fire growth curve
was also investigated for the building under construction. This led to significant differences
during the growth period and these had an impact on smoke movement at later times. If no
experimental information is available, constant fire heat output at a credible maximum value
should be a conservative assumption in most cases.
Two methods of modelling the fire source were also investigated for the building under
construction; an eddy-break-up combustion model and a prescribed volumetric heat source. In
this case the combustion model predicted a fire plume which was no more credible than that
using a prescribed volumetric heat source. However, in other circumstances to those investi
gated here - particularly those where the plume may be tilted, the use of a combustion model
even a crude model such as an eddy break-up model, should result in a more realistic predic
tion of the fire source. There are fewer user assumptions of the source in the combustion
model, but as with the volumetric heat source model, the input values need to be chosen with
care in order to lead to realistic temperatures in the plume region. These should be checked.
Two radically differing boundary conditions for heat transfer at walls (adiabatic and constant
temperature) were found to have a significant influence on smoke transport for the offshore
accommodation module, but not for the underground station. Clearly the modelling of wall
34
heat transfer is important, but the degree of importance depends on the particular scenario.
The present study indicates that it is more likely to be significant for situations in which
smoke movement is constrained by the presence of nearby walls or in the absence of forced
ventilation.
5.2.
Recommendations
This study investigated the influence of a range of CFD modelling approaches on the predic
tion of smoke movement in three real complex enclosed spaces. The results could only be
compared qualitatively, since no measurements were available: another phase of the present
project consists of small-scale experiments to allow a quantitative evaluation of CFD. The
outcome is described in the HSL report CM/01/18-FS/01/13 (Ledin et al., 2002).
The present phase of research has provided an insight into both the capabilities, and limita
tions, of CFD modelling approaches for real complex fire scenarios. However, due to time
and budget constraints, the investigation of the performance of any particular CFD modelling
approach was usually limited to one scenario. This means that the findings and conclusions
from this work must be interpreted with caution, since other could give very different
behaviour.
For example, Kumar and Cox (2001) found that the prescribed shape of the fire in the
volumetric heat source model can strongly influence the CFD results. They instead recom
mend the use of a combustion model that will be able to predict the volume of the flaming
region. In the present study, however, no significant advantage was found between using a
more carefully prescribed volumetric heat source model and an eddy-break-up combustion
model, at least when applied to the building under construction. However, in a situation such
as the underground station where a ventilation flow exists and is likely to tilt the flame, there
could be expected to be a noticeable difference between the two models, with the combustion
model providing more realism. Similarly, the flow induced by the fire inside the laundry of
the offshore accommodation module is quite complex due to the proximity of the walls. This
is likely to affect the flaming region and air entrainment into the fire plume: these effects can
not be readily represented when using a prescribed volumetric heat source.
Likewise the test of heat transfer condition at the walls was undertaken for the underground
station and repeated with the offshore accommodation module. However, the conclusions
were different and this was believed to be due to the specific details of each scenario: the fire
outputs were different; the fire was located in a small room in one scenario whilst it was in a
large hall in the other; the presence or absence of a ventilation flow.
So extrapolation from the present findings and conclusions should be undertaken with caution
and only for scenarios with similar flow characteristics, particularly in the near-source region.
For instance, if the fire in the underground station was instead assumed to have started in a
shop next to the ticket hall, this scenario would be physically closer to the fire in the laundry
of the offshore accommodation module.
35
This scenario-dependent sensitivity to the detail of the modelling approaches means that it is
vital that the user of CFD for smoke movement applications is knowledgeable and well
trained. Understanding of the physical and numerical modelling approaches in CFD - their
basis, capabilities and limitations, must be coupled with an understanding of fire science: In
particular, what is needed is an understanding of how the fire dynamics and smoke movement
dynamics is affected by the CFD approach employed.
All of the existing CFD modelling approaches could not be reviewed in this work. It was
therefore decided to concentrate on those most commonly employed and therefore the most
likely to be presented in safety cases submitted to HSE. Amongst the models not included in
this study are those for simulation of radiation. In principle, these can lead more realistic
predictions of temperature distribution. Some models are available in commercial CFD codes.
They are, however, often quite a crude representation of the real mechanisms. More sophisti
cated turbulence models, such as Large Eddy Simulation (L.E.S.) do exist. They are, however,
very demanding in computer resources and therefore their application is typically limited to a
simple geometry, i.e. a fire in a single room (McGrattan et al, 1998).
CFD is under constant development. As faster computers are developed, CFD users are
provided with more and more sophisticated models that embody more physics, and thus are in
principal more accurate. CFD is already playing an important role in Fire Safety Engineering.
It thus seems set to play a wider role in the future.
However, CFD clearly has its limitations, not least that of sensitivities which are not always
evident a-priori. New models or modelling approaches made available to the Fire Safety
community will need to be carefully assessed before trust in their predictions can be gained.
As regards existing modelling approaches for smoke movement in complex spaces, the sensi
tivities demonstrated in the present study serve to illustrate the need for a set of CFD simula
tions to be undertaken, rather then a one-off case; which could be misleading at best. This set
of CFD simulations should focus on the potential key sensitivities.
36
6.
REFERENCES
Atkinson G.T. (2000)
Personal communication.
Buckland I. (2000)
Connolly S. (2000)
Cox G. (1995)
Chapter 1 - Basic considerations.
Combustion fundamentals of fire.
Ed. G. Cox, Academic Press.
Drake S.N., Meeks K.R. (2001)
Computer simulation of an emergency tunnel ventilation design.
Tunnel Management International, Vol. 4, No 3, pp. 31-36.
Drysdale D. (1998)
An introduction to fire dynamics.
Chapter 4.
2nd edition. Ed. John Wiley & Sons.
Fennel D. (1988)
An investigation into the Kings Cross underground fire.
HMSD.
Gobeau N., Ledin H.S., Lea C.J. (2003)
Guidance for HSE Inspectors - Smoke movement in complex enclosed spaces: assessment of
Computational Fluid Dynamics.
HSL report 02-19
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2002/hsl02-29.pdf
Gobeau N., Ledin H.S., Ivings M.I., Lea C.J., Allen J.T., Bettis R.J. (2004)
Evaluation of Computational Fluid Dynamics for the prediction of smoke movement in
complex enclosed spaces - Executive summary
HSL report CM/03/15. To be published.
Grant G., Lea C.J. (2001)
A review of the modelling of fire in buildings and structures.
HSL report CM/01/01.
Hadjisophocleous G.V., Lougheed G.D., Cao S. (1999)
Numerical study of the effectiveness of atrium smoke exhaust systems
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia. CH-99-8-3 (RP-899) pp.699-715.
37
Heskestad G. (1983)
Luminous heights of turbulent diffusion flames.
Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 103-108.
Hiorns N., Sinai Y. (1999)
Comfort and safety in the Millennium Dome.
CFXUpdate, Vol. 20, Spring.
Ivings M.J. (1999)
Computational Fluid Dynamics of the generation and transport of smoke
HSL report CM/99/02.
Kumar, S. And Cox, C. (2001)
Some guidance on correct use of CFD models for fire applications with examples
9th International Interflam Conference Proceedings, Vol 2, pp. 823-834.
Launder B.E. (1975)
'On the effect of a gravitational field on the turbulent transport of heat and momentum'
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 67, No 3, pp. 569.
Ledin H.S., Allen J.A., Bettis R., Ivings M. (2004)
Evaluation of Computational Fluid Dynamics for the prediction of smoke movement in
complex enclosed spaces - Production of small-scale experimental data and assessment of
CFD
HSL report CM/04/07. To be published.
McCaffrey B.J. (1979)
Purely buoyant diffusion flames: some experimental results.
National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 79-1910.
McGrattan K.B., Baum H.R., Rehm R.G. (1998)
Large Eddy Simulations of Smoke Movement
Rho J.S., Ryou H.S. (1999)
A numerical study of atrium fires using deterministic models.
Rodi W. (1979)
Influence of buoyancy and rotation on equations for the turbulent length scale.
2nd Symposium Turbulent Shear Flows proceedings, London, July 1979.
Sinai, Y.L. (2001)
Validation of CFX5 for a compartment fire.
CFX Update, Vol. 21, Winter
Sinclair R. (2001)
CFD simulation in atrium smoke management system design.
38
ASHRAE Transactions. AT-01-11-1. pp. 711-719.
The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering (1995)
2nd edition. Ed. National Fire Protection Association and Society of Fire Protection
Engineers.
Thyer A. (1999)
Comparison of the behaviour of cold artificial smoke used in the JLE station tests and hot
smoke from real fires.
HSL report FS/99/18.
den Tonkelaar, E. (2001)
Breakthrough in Fire Safety assessment.
CFX Update, Vol. 20, Spring.
Versteeg H.K. and Malalasekera W. (1995)
An introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics.
Ed. Longman
Viollet P. L., Benque J. P., and Goussebaile, J. (1983)
Two-dimensional numerical modelling of nonisothermal flows for unsteady thermal
hydraulic analysis.
Nuclear science and engineering, Vol. 84, pp. 350-372.
Xue, H., Ho J. C., and Cheng, Y. M. (2001)
Comparison of different combustion models in enclosure fire simulation.
Yau R., Cheng V., Lee S., Luo M., Zhao L. (2001)
Validation of CFD models for room fires and tunnel fires.
Interflam 2001, pp. 807-817.
39
7.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgements are due to Mr Barry Hodges, London Underground Ltd; Mr David Martin,
FOD and Graham Moon, Canary Wharf Management who made it possible for HSL staff to
visit respectively the underground station and the building under construction. Their help in
providing the information necessary to carry out this work was greatly appreciated.
HSL is also grateful to Mr Dennis Streeter, London Fire Brigade, who helped in defining a
realistic scenario of fire in the underground station.
The support received from AEA Technology in implementing the CFD models in the CFX
codes and to run simulations on their computers was greatly appreciated. Special thanks are
due to Dr Y. Sinai, Dr C. Hope, Mr P. Everitt and Ms S. Simcox.
40
Appendix A - Summary of scenarios and initial CFD models
41
PHYSICAL
MODELLING
SCENARIOS
Inlet boundary
conditions
Wall boundary
conditions
Steady/ Transient
Compressibility
Turbulence
Fire location
Fire power
Ventilation
Fire combustible
Premises
No slip
Turbulent logarithmic wall
functions
Adiabatic
Background natural ventilation
(t=0 to 5 minutes):
u=0.1 m/s from escalators to
platforms
Transition from background to
forced ventilations
(t=5 to 6 minutes):
linear increase from background to
forced ventilation values
Forced ventilation
(t>6 minutes):
u=0.36 m/s from North escalator
u=0.21 m/s from South escalator
Standard k-e
Suitcase containing clothes

made of various fabrics
Ticket hall - unpaid side
0.2 MW
Background ventilation during
five minutes;
Forced ventilation after five
minutes, once fire detected.
Transient
Boussinesq approximation
Underground station
None
Transient
Weakly compressible
Standard k-e
with buoyancy effects (C3=1)
No slip
functions
Constant ambient temperature
None
Transient
Weakly compressible
Standard k-e
with buoyancy effects (C3=1)
No slip
functions
Constant ambient temperature
None
Open space on third floor

1MW
Laundry on first floor

1 MW
None
PU Foam GM23
50% cotton - 50% polyester linen
Offshore accommodation
module
Table A.1 - Summary of the scenarios and initial CFD modelling approaches
NUMERICAL
MODELLING
Fire power
FIRE SOURCE
1.5 x 1.5 x 1.9 = 4.3 m3

10-5 m2/s
0.5 x 0.5 x 0.6 = 0.15 m3

10-6 m2/s
Structured
54 blocks - 28,214 cells
Second order for all variables
Multigrid algorithm for pressure
17,954 m3
Unstructured
380,963 elements
First order for all variables
Default
Computational
volume
Computational
grid
Discretisation
schemes
Linear algebraic
equations solver
1,701 m3
CFX 5.4
CFX 4.3
Convective heat rate =

0.55 MW
Q = b t2
over 109 seconds

0.7 MW
Q = b t2
over 122 seconds
Multigrid algorithm for pressure
First order for all variables
Structured
109 blocks - 155,734 cells
97,277 m3
CFX 4.3
10-5 m2/s
1 x 1 x 2.2 = 2.2 m3
Quiescent flow at ambient

temperature
None
Quiescent flow at ambient

temperature
None
Pressure boundary at exits
Background ventilation at ambient

temperature (obtained from an
initial steady-state calculation)
0.2 MW
Q=at
over 60 seconds
Offshore accomodation module
Underground station
CFD code
Smoke diffusivity
Fire size
Fire growth
Premises
Outlet boundary
conditions
Initial condition
SCENARIOS
PHYSICAL
MODELLING
Appendix B
Figures related to the initial simulation
of the underground station
Figure B.1 - Layout of the underground station

Figure B.2 - Computational domain and grid
Figure B.4 - Airflow field and iso-surfaces of smoke concentration 3 minutes after
ignition (forced ventilation off)
Figure B.5 - Airflow field and iso-surfaces of smoke concentration 5 minutes after the
ignition, just before forced ventilation is switched on.
Figure B.6 - Airflow field and iso-surfaces of smoke concentration 46 seconds after
forced ventilation started.
Figure B.7 - Airflow field and iso-surfaces of smoke concentration 65 seconds after
forced ventilation started.
42
Initial simulation of the underground station
Figure B.1 - Layout of the underground station.
Appendix B
Figure B.2 - Computational domain and grid for the underground station
(Ticket hall roof is removed to allow visualisation of the geometry inside the station)
(Red surfaces illustrate areas with imposed flow boundary conditions; blue surfaces areas with pressure boundaries.)
Appendix B

The arrows represent velocity vectors above the ticket hall floor and at the exits; their lengths and colours are linked to their strengths.
Appendix B
Figure B.4 - Airflow field and smoke iso-surfaces 3 minutes after ignition.
Indicative values of smoke concentration (g/m3) for the three iso-surfaces: red: 3e-5; pink:1e-7; grey:1e-10
Appendix B
Figure B.5 - Airflow field and smoke iso-surfaces 5 minutes after ignition, just before forced ventilation is switched on.
Appendix B
Figure B.6 - Airflow field and smoke iso-surfaces 46 seconds after forced ventilation started
Appendix B
Figure B.7 - Airflow field and smoke iso-surfaces 65 seconds after forced ventilation started
Appendix B
Appendix C
Figures related to the initial CFD simulation
of theoffshore accommodation module
Figure C.1 - Layout of the offshore accommodation module : ground and first floors.
Figure C.2 - Layout of the offshore accommodation module : first and second floors.
Figure C.3 - Computational domain and grid.
Figure C.4 - Fire source in the laundry.
43
Appendix C
Initial simulation of the offshore module
Figure C.1 - Layout of the offshore module: ground and first floors.
Highlighted areas are the parts included in the computational domain.
Appendix C
Figure C.2 - Layout of the offshore module: second and third floors.
Figure 3 - Computational domain and grid
Appendix C
Figure C.4 - Fire source in the laundry
Appendix C

Indicative values of smoke mass fractions: pink 0.0025; grey: 0.001.
Appendix C
Indicative values of smoke mass fractions: red: 0.005; blue:0.004; pink 0.0025; grey: 0.001.
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix D
Figures related to the initial CFD simulation
of the building under construction
Figure D.1 - Schematic diagram of the building under construction, side elevation.
Figure D.2 - Computational domain and grid.
Figure D.3 - Fire source and computational grid on the third floor.
44
Appendix D
Figures related to the building under construction
Figure D.1 - Schematic diagram of the building under construction, side elevation.
Appendix D
Figure D.3 - Fire location and computational grid on third floor:

The fire source is the red volume.
Appendix D
Appendix D
Appendix D
Appendix D
Appendix E
Comparison between CFD modelling approaches
for the underground station
Figure E.1 -Temperature distribution near the fire 115 seconds after ignition.
Figure E.4 -Smoke concentration at the walls 115 seconds after ignition
Figure E.5 - Time-dependent smoke fluxes across vertical planes at entrance,
mid-span and exit of the bridge.
Figure E.6 - Time-dependent smoke fluxes across vertical planes at the entrance of
the corridor leading to exit 2 and at exit 2.
45
Appendix E
l
Comparison for the underground station
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Mesh
Figure E.1 - Temperature distribution near the fire 115 seconds after ignition
Appendix E
Figure E.2 - Smoke concentration near the walls 60 seconds after ignition
Appendix E
Appendix E
Appendix E
Figure E.5 - Time-dependent smoke flux across the bridge

(top: entrance; middle: mid-length; bottom: exit)
Appendix E
Figure E.6 - Time-dependent smoke flux along the corridor to exit 2
(top: entrance; bottom: exit )
Appendix F
for the offshore accommodation module
Figure F.1 - Comparison of the two different grids employed.

Figure F.2 - Temperature distribution and velocities in the laundry, 120 seconds after
ignition.
Figure F.3 - Profiles of excess temperature and vertical velocity in the fire source,
120 seconds after ignition.
Figure F.4 - Profiles of excess temperature, smoke mass fraction and lateral veloci ties near the fire, 120 seconds after ignition.
Figure F.5 - Temperature distribution and velocity vectors on the first floor - location
of the fire - 45 centimetres above the ground, 120 seconds after
ignition.
Figure F.6 - Temperature distribution and velocity vectors on the first floor - location
of the fire - 2 metres above the ground, 120 seconds after ignition .
Figure F.7 - Profiles of excess temperature, smoke mass fraction and velocity in the
doorway of the laundry opening to a corridor, 120 seconds after ignition.
Figure F.8 - Profiles of excess temperature, smoke mass fraction and velocity in the
doorway of the laundry near a stairwell, 120 seconds after ignition.
Figure F.9 - Smoke iso-surfaces 120 seconds after ignition.
46
Appendix F
Comparison for the offshore accommodation module

Temperature (K)
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Figure F.2 - Temperature contours and velocities in the laundry
120 seconds after ignition.
Appendix F
z (m)
vertically upwards
-4.2
-0.75
-3.6
(Figure F.3)
Profile across the fire
1.9
(Figure F.4)
Horizontal profile
3.2
A) Excess temperature
0.75
1.8
y (m)
B) Vertical velocity
3
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
z(m)
2.5
z(m)
2.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
0
0
50
100
150
200
Temperature (K)
250
300
350
0.5
1
1.5
Vertical velocity (m/s)
2.5
Figure F.3 - Profiles of excess temperature and vertical velocity in the fire source
120 seconds after ignition
Appendix F
B) Smok e mass fraction
250
0.014
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
0.012
200
150
Smoke
0.008
0.006
100
0.004
50
0.002
0
-3
-2
-1
-3
-2
y(m)
-1
y(m)
1.5
0.5
C) lateral velocity
Vertical velocity (m/s)
Excess temperature
0.01
-0.5
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
-1
-1.5
-3
-2
-1
y(m)
Figure F.4 - Profiles of excess temperature, smoke mass fraction and lateral
velocities near the fire, 120 seconds after ignition.
Appendix F
Initial
Run 2
Temperature
(K)
Run 3
Run 4
Figure F.5 - Temperature distribution and velocity vectors

45 centimetres above the ground in the laundry, 120 seconds after ignition.
Appendix F
Initial
Run 2
Temperature
(K)
Run 3
Run 4
Figure F.6 - Temperature distribution and velocity vectors

2 metres above the ground, 120 seconds after ignition.
Appendix F
B) Smoke mass fraction
3
3
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
z(m)
2.5
z(m)
2.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
0
0
50
100
150
250
200
0.001
0.002
0.003
Excess temperature
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
Smoke
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
2.5
C) Velocity normal to
the doorway
z(m)
1.5
0.5
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
Velocity normal to doorway (m/s)
Figure F.7 - Profiles of excess temperature, smoke mass fraction and velocity
in the doorway of the laundry opening to the corridor, 120 seconds after ignition.
Appendix F
B) Smoke mass fraction
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
z(m)
2.5
z(m)
2.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
0
0
50
100
150
250
200
0.001
0.002
Excess temperature
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
Smoke
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
2.5
z(m)
C) Velocity normal to
the doorway
1.5
0.5
-1
-0.5
0.5
1.5
Velocity normal to doorway (m/s)
Figure F.8 - Profiles of excess temperature, smoke mass fraction and velocities
in the doorway of the laundry near a stair well, 120 seconds after ignition.
Appendix G
for the building under construction
Figure G.1 - Excess temperature and mesh near the fire 150 seconds after ignition
Figure G.2 - Vertical profiles of excess temperature and smoke concentration in the
centreline of the fire 150 seconds after ignition
Figure G.3 - Vertical profiles of excess temperature and smoke concentration ten
metres away from the fire, 150 seconds after ignition
Figure G.4 - Horizontal profiles of excess temperature and smoke concentration 4.55
metres above the fire, 0.45 metres from the ceiling 150 seconds after
ignition.
Figure G.5 - Excess temperature distribution on the third floor - location of the
Figure G.6 - Smoke concentration distribution on the third floor -location of the
Figure G.7 - Smoke concentration distribution in the atrium, 150 seconds after
ignition.
47
Appendix G
Comparison for the building under construction
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Mesh
Figure G.1 - Excess temperature distribution near the fire 150 seconds after ignition
and mesh (bottom picture)
(the red cells correspond to the volume where heat is prescribed in the volumetric
heat source model).
Appendix G

along the centreline of the fire 150 seconds after ignition
Excess temperature
30
Initial
Appendix G
Run 2
Comparison
for the building under construction
Run 3
Run 4
25
20
15
10
-5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
z (m)

ten metres away from the fire 150 seconds after ignition
(top: on the side nearest the atrium; bottom: furthest away from the atrium)
Appendix G
Figure G.4 - Horizontal profiles of excess temperature and smoke concentration

4.55 metres above the fire, 0.5 m below the ceiling
Appendix G
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Figure G.5 - Excess temperature distribution on the third floor - location of the fire -
at 4.55 m above the floor, 150 seconds after ignition.
(The temperature scale has been fixed between 0 and 25 oC.)
Appendix G
Initial
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Figure G.6 - Smoke concentration (kg/m3) distribution on the third floor - location of
the fire - at 4.55 m above the floor, 150 seconds after ignition.
(The temperature scale has been fixed between 0 and 25 oC.)
Appendix G
Initial
Run2
Run3
Figure G.7 - Smoke concentration (kg/m3) distribution in the atrium
Run4
Appendix G
Z = 5.2 m.
Z= 31.3 m.
Z=51.6 m.
Figure G.8 - Time-dependent smoke flux rising

into the atrium at different heights
Appendix H
Buoyancy modified turbulent equations in CFX
48
Appendix H
Buoyancy modified equations in CFX
The transport equations for the turbulent kinetic energy k and turbulence dissipation rate are
(CFX4 and CFX5 manuals, Ed. AEA Technology, CFX International, UK):
where:
k + (Uk ) + t
t
k

k = P + G
+ (U ) + t
t
= C1 (P + C3 max(G ,0)) C2
k
k

is the fluid density

U is the fluid velocity
is the fluid viscosity
t is the turbulent viscosity
C1, C2, C3, k, are constants
P is the shear production term
G is the production due to the body force
The values of the constants employed for the simulations presented in this report were the
well-accepted standard values:
1.44
C1
1.92
C2
C3 0 (no buoyancy modification) or
1 (with buoyancy modification)

1
1.3
The influence of buoyancy on turbulence is accounted for by the production term G, which is
expressed by:
G=
t
g. where g is the gravitational force.
t
Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive

C30 1/98
Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive
C1.10 09/04
ISBN 0-7176-2881-7
RR 255
25.00
9 78071 7 62881 0

Uso Su Tre Casi Dei Modelli CFD Per Prevedere L'andamento Dei Fumi in Ambienti Chiusi Complessi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uso Su Tre Casi Dei Modelli CFD Per Prevedere L'andamento Dei Fumi in Ambienti Chiusi Complessi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HSE

Health & Safety

Evaluation of CFD to predict smoke

an offshore accommodation module and

a building under construction

Prepared by Health and Safety Laboratory

RESEARCH REPORT 255

Health & Safety

Evaluation of CFD to predict smoke

an offshore accommodation module and

a building under construction

Dr N. Gobeau and Dr X.X. Zhou

Crown copyright 2004

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in

any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior

written permission of the copyright owner.

Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:

Licensing Division, Her Majesty's Stationery Office,

St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ

A Boussinesq approximation to account for thermal effects on flow compressibility

A volumetric heat source model and an eddy-break-up combustion model both

2.1. Description of premises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2. Possible fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. ILLUSTRATION OF CFD CAPABILITY: INITIAL MODELLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.1. CFD code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.2. Computational domain and grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.3. Physical sub-models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.4. Fire source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.4.1. In the underground station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.4.2. In the offshore accommodation module and the building

3.5. Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.6. Initial conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.7. Numerical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.8. Convergence criteria

3.9. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MODELLING APPROACHES . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.1. Underground station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2. Offshore accommodation module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.3. Building under construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

APPENDIX A - Summary of scenarios and initial CFD models

APPENDIX B - Figures related to the initial simulation of the underground

Figure B.6 - Airflow field and iso-surfaces of smoke concentration 46 seconds

APPENDIX D - Figures related to the initial simulation of the building under

APPENDIX E - Comparison between different CFD modelling approaches for

APPENDIX F - Comparison between different CFD modelling approaches for

APPENDIX G - Comparison between different CFD modelling approaches for

APPENDIX H - Details of the buoyancy modification of the k-e turbulence model

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is a powerful technique which provides an approxi

To illustrate CFD modelling of smoke movement in complex enclosed spaces of interest to

An underground station on the Jubilee Line Extension was chosen as representative of a

Offshore accommodation module

Building under construction

In the underground station

In the offshore accommodation module

It is reported that 20% of fires in offshore accommodation modules occur in kitchens or

In the building under construction

ILLUSTRATION OF CFD CAPABILITY: INITIAL MODELLING

Computational domain and grid

Offshore accommodation module

Building under construction

non-isotropic effects of buoyancy on turbulent mixing. The buoyancy modification, referred to