Assessment of Fire

Resistance Requirements
J. R. M E H A F F E Y and T. Z. HARMATHY
National Research Council of Canada
Division of Building Research

The calculation of normalized heat load, a succinct quantifier of the

potential of compartment fires to spread by destruction, is greatly
simplified by the introduction of two semi-empirical equations. These
afford direct insight into the relation between the destructive poten-
tial of fire and the principal characteristics of the fire compartment
and its contents of combustibles.

A LonT H Ofire
UGH the bases on which code writers bring down their decisions
resistance requirements have changed over the years, the in-
fluence of Ingberg's fire load concept' is stillrecognizable. That concept,
developed some 40 years ago, claims that the destructive potential of com-
partment firesis proportional to the specific fireload {mass of combustibles
per unit floor area}, and that the fire resistance requirement for compart-
ment boundaries should also be allocated in proportion to the specific fire
load.
Although stillwidely used, the concept was soundly disproved by the
results of subsequent experimental research. The outlines of a rational way
of assigning fire resistance requirements has recently emerged, following
the identification of a parameter as a unique quantifier of the potential of
enclosure fires for destructive spread2 With this new understanding, deci-
sions regarding fire resistance requirements are a matter of matching the
values of the parameter calculated for real-world conditions with those
developed for test conditions.
The calculation of the parameter quantifying the destructive spread
potential of fires under real-world conditions is quite straightforward; but
since it involves an iterative technique, it may prove somewhat time con-
suming for those who attempt to perform it without a programmable
calculator. To eliminate the need for iteration, the feasibility of expressing
that parameter by an approximate empirical equation has been examined.
The results of the examination are reported in this paper.

221
222 Fire Technology
DESTRUCTIVE SPREAD AND CONVECTIVE
SPREAD OF FIRES

The belief that the spread of fire in buildings can be prevented by the use
of compartment boundaries of sufficient fire resisting quality originated in
an oversimplified concept of the mechanism of spread of fires in buildings.
That concept pictures all building compartments as perfectly isolated from
each other, and the spread of fire as taking place by successive failures of
the compartment boundaries. The idea of a completely isolated compart-
ment is, however, just a crude abstraction. Fire cannot develop in a fully
isolated compartment; it must have access to air. Consequently, a fire com-
partment must be in communication with at least one other (inside or out-
side) space, e.g. through an open door, a broken window, or some kind of in-
tercompartmental opening or duct. Clearly, there is at least one route along
which a fire can spread by convection -- by the advance of flames and hot
gases. A fire in a compartment has, therefore, two kinds of spread potential
-- destructive and convective.
This paper deals only with one of the two components of fire spread; it is
intended to provide a method of assessing the potential of fires to spread
destructively. The designer must remember that measures implemented to
prevent the spread of fire by destruction will not, of themselves, render a
building firesafe. Observations over the last several decades have clearly
shown that the potential of fires for convective spread far outweighs their
potential for destructive spread.

NORMALIZED HEAT LOAD

The parameter that has been identified as a succinct descriptor of

enclosure fires for spread by destruction is referred to as (overall) "normalized
heat load," H. It is defined as

H _ ~I i qdt (I)
0

where q is the heat flux penetrating the boundaries of the enclosure on fire,
is the duration of fire exposure (usually taken as equal to the fully developed
period of fire), t is time, and ~-~c is the thermal inertia of the boundaries of
the enclosure (k is thermal conductivity, ~ is density, and c is specific heat).
The thermal properties of a number of common construction materials are
listed in Table 1.
Reflecting on Equation 1, the normalized heat load is the heat absorbed
by a unit surface area of the enclosure during fire exposure divided by the
thermal inertia of the enclosure boundaries. If, as is usual, the boundaries of
the enclosure are formed by a number of different materials, the heat flux
Fire Resistance 223
TABLE 1. Typical Values of Thermal Properties of Common Construction Materials
{in Moistureless Condition) for Appropriate Temperature Intervals
Thermal Conductivity Density Specific Heat Thermal Inertia
Material k ~ c x/~
(W re-'K-') (kg m -3) (J kg-'K-') (J m-2s-"2K -')
Steel 42.0 7800 530 13177
Marble 2.0 2650 975 2273
Normal weight concrete 1.68 2200 1300 2192
Fire clay brick 1.15 2600 900 1640
Brick 1.10 2100 1000 1520
Lightweight concrete 0.46 1450 1300 931
Plasterboard 0.27 680 3000 742
Vermiculite plaster 0.25 660 2700 667
Wood 0.15 550 2300 436
Insulating firebrick 0.25 722 1000 425
Mineral wool (fiberfrax) 0.04 160 1150 86

and the t h e r m a l inertia are to be looked upon as weighted averages of values

applicable to the individual b o u n d a r y surfaces.

1
q - A, ~ Aiq, (2)
i

x/kQc - 1 ~_# A, "4-~Q~cl (3)

A, 9

where A, is the surface area of the i-th boundary, A, is the total surface area
of the enclosure, q i is the h e a t flux p e n e t r a t i n g the i-th b o u n d a r y surface,
and ~ oic, is the t h e r m a l inertia of the i-th boundary.
Clearly, it is also possible to define a normalized heat load for each in-
dividual b o u n d a r y of the enclosure. Analogous to E q u a t i o n 1,

_ 1 q, dt (4)
0

It has been proved 3 that, in general,

H -- H, (5}

This E q u a t i o n has been referred to as the t h e o r e m of u n i f o r m i t y of nor-

malized heat load.
As H is a unique descriptor of the potential of fire for d e s t r u c t i v e spread,
E q u a t i o n 5 is an expression of the claim t h a t the potential of a fire is the
same t o w a r d s all boundaries of the enclosure.* This being so, the re-

* This claim is not as obvious as it appears to be. In fact, in s o m e (rare) cases it m a y not be
even approximately valid.
224 Fire Technology
quirements concerning the fire resistance of all boundaries must also be the
same. Conversely, specifying the same fire resistance requirement for all
boundaries of an enclosure is a practice that relies on the validity of the
theorem of uniformity of normalized heat load.

SEMI-EMPIRICAL EXPRESSION FOR THE

NORMALIZED HEAT LOAD

According to statistical data, the fire load in modern buildings, despite

the increasing use of plastics, consists predominantly of cellulosics. Since,
in addition, fires of cellulosics excel in their destructive potential," it ap-
pears to be a safe practice to assume that the fire load consists fully of
cellulosics.
By reflecting on the meaning of Ingberg's fire load concept,' one
recognizes that it has been built on the implicit assumption that in a fire the
bulk of the fuel energy is eventually absorbed by the compartment boun-
daries. The normalized heat load pertaining to the assumption that all heat
release by the fuel is absorbed within the compartment is

1 GAH
Hm - - (6)

where the subscript m has been affixed to H to indicate that it represents

the conceivable absolute maximum, G is the total fire load (total fuel mass},
and AH is the heat of combustion of the fuel.
Fortunately it has been found that the normalized heat load on the com-
partment boundaries is only 10 to 40 percent of Hm. Some of the fuel energy
is released outside the compartment, but even of the portion released inside
some energy will leave the compartment with the fire gases as sensible heat
and some will be lost by radiation through the ventilation opening. A
multitude of calculations performed by the detailed iterative technique
mentioned earlier indicates that the normalized heat load, in other words
the potential of fire for destructive spread,
9 increases less than in proportion to the fire load,
9 decreases as the ventilation of the compartment increases, and
9 decreases as the thermal inertia of the boundaries increases.
The numerical results of these calculations formed the basis for an in-
vestigation that resulted in the following semi-empirical equation:

(11.0 6 + 1.6) G
H = 106 (7)
A,.,/-koc + 935~/-~-G
Fire Resistance 225
Two variables, ~ and r have not been defined. 5 (--_1) is a factor that ac-
counts for the fact that (in general} only part of the heat of combustion is
released inside the compartment. It is to be estimated from the following
equation:

l 0.79,j~c 3/
5 = whichever is less (8)
1

where hc is the height of the compartment.

is a variable that characterizes the ventilation of the compartment. It
is defined as

-- ~ o A v ~ (9)

where ~o is the density of environmental atmosphere, A v is the area of ven-

tilation opening {window or door}, h is the height of the ventilation opening,
and g is the acceleration due to gravity. The considerations that have led to
the development of Equation 7 are discussed in the Appendix.
As the specific fire load G/AF {where A~ is the floor area of the compart-
ment) may vary rather markedly from compartment to compartment, the
selection of the value of G for the fire safety design must be based on an
analysis of statistical data. If the compartment boundaries are simple
"dividing elements" without essential structural functions, the design
value for G/A~ is usually taken as the 80th percentile in the cumulative plot
for the applicable occupancy. If, on the other hand, the compartment boun-
daries are "key elements" that play an important part in the structural per-
formance of the building as a whole, some extra degree of safety is justified.
The selection of G may be based on considerations propounded by Lie s and
outlined later by Harmathy.'
The ventilation parameter, ~, is a measure of the minimum ventilation of
the compartment. This occurs under "classic" draft-free conditions. As
discussed by Harmathy, 4 the presence of drafts causes the value of 9 to in-
crease over that calculated from Equation 9 and thus (by virtue of Equation
7) to reduce the value of the normalized heat load, a value for 9 obtained
from Equation 9 may be used in assessing the potential of fires for destruc-
tive spread.
It is of interest to examine the normalized heat load in relation to its
limiting value, as expressed by Equation 6. Combining Equations 6 and 7
and using AH = 18.8 • 106 J kg -1 in the former (because the fire load is
assumed to be cellulosic), the following equation is obtained:

H 0.585 5 + 0.085
H~ 935 x/-Gr (10)
1 -{- A-~Qc
226 Fire Technology
An interesting feature of this equation is that the group ~G~/A,~/--k-~
appears to be the dominant variable. H/H~ is plotted against this variable,
with 5 as a parameter, in Figure 1. It provides insight into the relative ineffi-
ciency of fires from the point of view of spread by destruction.

0.6
I I I

0.5

0.4

E
:i:= 0.3
=i::

0.2

0.1

0 I I I I
0 O. 001 O. 002 O. 003 O. 004 O. 005

V-C$/(AtkV-CT~p~ kg K. j-1

Figitre 1. Normalized heat load imposed on compartment boundaries, as a fraction of

hypothetical m a x i m u m value.

ASSESSMENT OF FIRE RESISTANCE

REQUIREMENTS

As standard test fires are in a sense also enclosure fires, it is possible to

characterize their potential for destruction by the value of the normalized
heat load; this is, among other factors, a function of the duration of the test
fire. Harmathy has recently investigated 3 the effect of those "other factors"
on the normalized value of heat load imposed on the test specimen and
ascertained that the size of the test furnace and the absorption coefficient of
the furnace gas are the most important. He found that, for large, deep fur-
naces {e.g. full-scale floor furnaces} heated by a fuel that produces highly
ernissive combustion gases, the relation between the normalized heat load
{imposed on either the test specimen or the furnace wall, in accordance with
the theorem of uniformity of normalized heat load} and the duration of test
{also denoted by ~} can be approximated by a single curve -- Curve 1 in
Figure 2. Unfortunately, his investigations also indicated that, for the vast
Fire Resistance 227
majority of existing test furnaces, the normalized heat load versus testing
time curve, if determined, would in all likelihood follow a flatter course, the
degree of flatness depending mainly on furnace size, emissivity of furnace
gas, and the nature of the furnace lining materials. From measurements
conducted on the absorption coefficient of the furnace gas, Harmathy
estimated that Curve 2 in Figure 2 is probably applicable to the floor test
furnace at the National Research Council of Canada.
It is rather disturbing that the fire resistance ratings developed for
various building elements in fact may depend to quite an extent on the
laboratory conducting the tests. Uniformity in interpretation of fire test
results can only be achieved by the standardization of test facilities. As long
as non-uniformity exists, the fire resistance requirements should, in a strict
sense, be decided on the basis of test results from specific test laboratories.
Once the normalized heat load versus time of testing curve is available
for a specific furnace (e.g., from measurements described in Reference 3), it
is a straightforward procedure to assign fire resistance requirements for
compartment boundaries to ensure their satisfactory performance in real-
world fires. It involves the following steps:
9 Calculate the (overall) normalized heat load, H, for the compartment
in question, using Equations 7 and 8 (or perhaps the detailed iterative
technique}.
9 Enter this value of H along the ordinate axis of the normalized heat
load versus testing time plot for the designated furnace. (For the floor fur-

I I I I
1

6
:2::

:Z:

~ 2
0
Z

0.5 [.0 1,5 2.0 2.5

Figure 2. Unified correlations between ~tTl~/k-pc and 7, for standard fire tests; Curve 1 --
for a highly efficient test furnace, and Curve ~ -- for the floor test furnace in the author's
laboratory (estimated).
228 Fire Technology
nace at DBR/NRC, this plot is represented by Curve 2 in Figure 2.)
9 Read the corresponding value of the testing time along the abscissa
axis; this time is the fire resistance requirement. Clearly, if specimens of the
compartment boundary elements can survive a test fire of this duration, the
compartment boundaries themselves are capable of resisting the destruc.
tive spread of any fire that may occur in the compartment.

COMPARISON WITH LAW'S FORMULA

Law and her colleagues in Great Britain 6-s developed a simple empirical
formula for fire resistance requirements, rr, in terms of the total fire load
and some geometric characteristics of the compartment:

G
r~ -- 78 (11)
4 A v {A, - A,~)

Although this formula does not take into account the thermal inertia of the
compartment boundaries, and the effect of ventilation is accounted for only
in a simplified way (by the inclusion of the ventilation opening, A v), there
have been claims of its successful application.
A series of calculations has been performed to examine the apparent suc-
cess of Law's formula. In these, the fire resistance requirement, rr, was
studied as a function of the ratio G/A, (fire load per unit surface of compart-
ment boundary} for selected values of thermal inertia, k , f ~ , and ratio, r
the latter characterizing compartment ventilation. The dimensions of the
compartment were selected to be representative of a room in a residential
building: 8 by 3.8 rn, 2.4 rn in height.
Earlier, in testing the accuracy of the results yielded by Equations 7 and
8 against those obtained by the iterative technique, careful consideration
was given to selecting the practical range of variation for all three essential
variables. That for the thermal inertia of the compartment boundaries was
chosen as

436 _< ~ _< 2192 J m-2s-'n K-'

The lowest value corresponds to wood, the highest to normal weight con-
crete (see Table 1). The value 742 {listed in the caption for Figure 3)
represents plaster,and 1080 can be looked upon as typical of residentialor
office space lined with contemporary materials.
For the other two variables, G/A, and &/A,, the following ranges were
selected:

3 < G/A, < 60 kg m -z

0.024 < ~IA, < 1.2 kg m-2s -'

Fire Resistance 229
l(c' /'//'/ '/ J(el
I
i ,,"
t ~IA =
,
0.350

/ .. / ,~y>"

9 I l I I ~ t I i t

, ,/ , ~f)' '/,/~
2 /

/1//
if", , ,- , , , ,
0 I0 20 30 40 50 0 I0 20 )0 40 50 0 I0 20 30 40 50
-2
FIRE LOAD REFERRED TO COMPARTMENT SURFACE AREA, G/At kg'm

F i g u r e 3. Fire r e s i s t a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s , - - a c c o r d i n g to L a w ' s formula, - - a c c o r d i n g to

the s e m i - e m p i r i c a l m e t h o d o f this paper. (x/k~c in J m -2 s - ' 2 K-'; c~/A, in k g m -2 s -I, ~ d i m e n -
sionless).

These cover the majority of conditions to be met in practice. The corre-

sponding range of variation for 5 is, for practical values of the compartment
height (from Equation 8),

0.4<5<1

The results of the study are presented in Figure 3, the dashed curves
representing Law's formula. The full line curves were obtained by using
Equations 7 and 8 to calculate the normalized heat load, H, entering H
along the ordinate axis of Figure 2 and reading the value of the fire
resistance requirement, r, (i.e. the required minimum time of exposure to
standard test) along the abscissa axis. Curve 1 of Figure 2, representing
ideal, well-designed test furnaces, was used in the hope that updating the
test standard ASTM E 119, would invoke steps to improve and equalize the
efficiency of all existing test furnaces. Under existing conditions, the values
of Tr obtained by using Curve 1 are, in all probability, 10 to 30 percent too
low.
In this light, the following conclusions can be drawn from an examina-
tion of Figure 3. Under low and average ventilation conditions, Law's for-
mula yields results in fair agreement with those derived by the procedure
described in this paper, especially if the thermal inertia of the compartment
boundaries is slightly on the high side. Under high ventilation conditions,
the agreement is poor; Law's formula predicts much higher fire resistance
230 Fire Technology
requirements than the calculation method based on Equations 7 and 8 and
Figure 2.
It may be noted that the inability of Law's formula to account for certain
characteristics of the fire compartment was earlier noted by Pettersson '2
who also offered rudimentary measures of correction.

CONCLUSIONS

The discovery that the potential of fires for destructive spread can be
quantified by a single parameter, the overall normalized heat load, has af-
forded a new perception of the problem of the assessment of fire resistance
requirements. The evaluation of that parameter for real-world fires is,
however, encumbered by computational difficulties. These can be overcome
by the use of a semi-empirical calculation technique based on Equations 7
and 8; it also offers the advantage of direct insight into the nature of the
relation between the normalized heat load and the most essential
characteristics of the compartment and its contents of combustibles. A fur-
ther outcome of the semi-empirical investigations is the discovery that the
normalized heat load, as a fraction of its maximum conceivable value, can be
expressed with the aid of two variables (see Equation 10 and Figure 1), the
principal variable including essentially all characteristics of the compart-
ment and the fuel.
Once the normalized heat load for a compartment is known, the fire
resistance requirement for the compartment boundaries can be determined
by means of a graph depicting the normalized heat load for the fire test fur-
nace as a function of the length of fire test. This method of assessment of
fire resistance requirement is examined against that based on Law's for-
mula and its versatility illustrated.

NOMENCLATURE

A ~. area, boundary surface area, m s

C specific heat; without subscript: specific heat in the expression of
overall thermal inertia, J kg-'K-'
C empirical factor, dimensionless
g = acceleration due to gravity, 9.81 m s -2
G = total fire load, kg
h = height; without subscript: height of ventilation opening, m
H = normalized heat load, s'nK
AH = heat of combustion, J kg-'
i = 1,2,3 ....
k = thermal conductivity; without subscript: thermal conductivity in
the expression of overall thermal inertia, W m-'K-'
hypothetical flame height, m
q = heat flux, W m -2
Fire Resistance 231

= overall h e a t flux, W m -2
Q = r a t e of h e a t evolution within the c o m p a r t m e n t , W
R = r a t e of " b u r n i n g , " k g s-'
U = m a s s flow rate, k g s -1
t = time, s
T = average t e m p e r a t u r e , K
= fraction of fuel e n e r g y released within the c o m p a r t m e n t , dimen-
sionless
0 = density; w i t h o u t subscript: d e n s i t y in the expression of overall ther-
mal inertia, k g m -3
r = d u r a t i o n of (fully developed period of) fire; length of fire exposure;
fire resistance time, s
= ventilation p a r a m e t e r , k g s-I
Subscripts
a = of a t m o s p h e r i c air
C = of c o m p a r t m e n t
F = of floor
g = of c o m p a r t m e n t gas
i - of or for the i-th b o u n d a r y or b o u n d a r y surface
m = maximum
r = required
t = total for the c o m p a r t m e n t
V = of the ventilation opening

REFERENCES
' Ingberg, S. H., "Tests of Severity of Building Fires," N F P A Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1
(1928), pp. 43-61.
2 Harmathy, T. Z., "The Possibility of Characterizing the Severity of Fires by a Single
Parameter," Fire and Materials, Vol. 4, No. 2 {1980), pp. 71-76.
3 Harmathy, T. Z., "The Fire Resistance Test and Its Relation to Real-World Fires," To be
published.
4 Harmathy, T. Z., "Fire Severity: Basis of Fire Safety Design," presented at International
Symposium on Fire Safety of Concrete Structures, ACI Fall Convention, Puerto Rico,
September 1980.
Lie, T. T., "Safety Factors for Fire Loads," Can. J. CivilEngineering, Vol. 6, No. 4 (1979},
pp. 617-628.
6 Thomas, P. H., "The Fire Resistance to Survive a Burn-Out," Joint Fire Research
Organization, England, Fire Research Note 901 {1970}.
' Law, M., "A Relationship between Fire Grading and Building Design and Contents,"
Joint Fire Research Organization, England, Fire Research Note No. 877 (1971}.
s Law, M., "Prediction of Fire Resistance," Symposium No. 5, Joint Fire Research
Organization, Her Majesty s Stationery Office, London, England (1973}, p. 16.
9 Pettersson, O., Structural Fire Protection," Lund Institute of Technology, Lund,
Sweden, Bulletin 80 {1978}.

APPENDIX

The iterative technique for calculating the process variables for a com-
p a r t m e n t fire, and t h r o u g h t h e m the overall norma!ized heat load, has
already been described in several publications, m o s t recently b y Har-
232 Fire T e c h n o l o g y

mathy.4 Only a brief outline of the technique will be presented here.

The input information needed to determine the characteristics of coin.
partment fires of cellulosics has been listed in Table 4 of Reference 4. It
shows that almost half the input data consist of either constants or quasi.
constants and thus can be ignored. Those that must be included relate
either to the fuel, namely its quantity, or to the compartment, its geometric
characteristics and thermal inertia.
It has been pointed out 4 that six equations are needed to describe the
process of fully developed compartment fires. Of the six, three are energy
balances -- one over the fuel surface, the second over the ventilation open-
ing, and the third over the compartment surface.
The energy balance over the fuel surface usually serves in developing an
equation for the rate of "burning", R, or more exactly for the rate of con-
sumption of fuel by pyrolysis. With cellulosic fuel, however, such an energy
balance is not needed because R can be described by the following empirical
equations

R = t 0.0236 ~b if @/G < 0.034 (Al[a])

( 0.0008 G if @/G >_ 0.034 (Al[b])

If the first equation is applicable, the fire is referred to as ventilation con-

trolled, if the second, it is fuel surface controlled.
The second energy balance can be utilized in developing an expression
for the heat flux absorbed by compartment boundaries. By disregarding the
radiant heat loss from the compartment (consistently much lower than the
convective heat loss), the following equation results:

_ l__[Q
l _ 1150(Uo -t-R) (1.05 T8 - 293.2)] (A2)
q- A,

where ~ is the heat flux absorbed by the compartment boundaries, averaged

over all boundaries and temporally over the period of full-fire development,
Q is the (average} rate of evolution of heat from the fuel within the compart-
ment, Uo is the rate of flow of air into the compartment, and T, is the
average temperature of the compartment gases (average "fire temper-
ature"), averaged spatially over the compartment volume and temporally
over the period of full-fire development. {The meaning of the constants and
the various terms in Equation A2 are explained in Reference 4.)
The third energy balance, that over the compartment boundaries, can be
rearranged in an expression for T,

Ts= [l'96X107x/q+ ( 2 9 3 " 2 + 0 " 8 q ' ~x/~

k x / -)f4f ~] - (A3)
Fire Resistance 233
(see Reference A1 for further details), r, as earlier discussed, is the duration
of (fully developed) fire. As the rate of consumption of fuel, R, is fairly con-
stant during the period of full development, r can be expressed as

= G/R (A4)

The remaining two equations are as follows:

Uo -- 0.138~ -- 0.53R (A5)

and
Q = R(12.456 -b 1.82) X 106 (A6)

(See Reference 4 for further information concerning these equations.) 5 ac-

counts for the fact that, in general, only part of the energy of the volatile
decomposition products of the fuel is released inside the compartment.
In the earliest models of compartment fires, the possibility of combus-
tion outside the compartment was disregarded for mathematical conve-
nience. In subsequent models, the rate of entry of air through the ventila-
tion opening was regarded as the sole factor that determines whether com-
bustion takes place outside. Assuming perfect mixing between the air and
the volatile pyrolysis products, these models led to the suggestion that com-
bustion outside the ventilation opening is an unmistakable characteristic of
ventilation controlled {poorly ventilated) fires. Experimental data reported
by Butcher et al.A2.A3did not support this suggestion.
After examining these and other data, Harmathy came to the conclu-
sion 1~that the presence or absence of outside combustion depends not so
much on rate of entry of air into the compartment as on rate of entrainment
of air already in the compartment into the flames. He argued that since the
bulk of air is entrained by the rising fire plume, the height of the compart-
ment, hc, ought to be an important factor in the entrainment. He recom-
mended the following empirical equations for the calculation of 5:

l (hc/l)3/2 (A7[a])
5 = whichever is less
1 {A7[b])

where l is a hypothetical flame height to be calculated as

l = ~ 1"17~"3 if~/G < 0.034 {A8[aD

t 0.38G'/3 if ,~/G >_ 0.034 {AS[b])

Six equations, A1 to A6, are now available for calculating the process
variables: R, Uo, Q, ~, T~, and r. The values of R, Uo, Q, and T are obtained
234 Fire Technology

directly from Equations A1, A5, A6 and A4. ~ and T~ may then be
calculated by an iterative solution of two simultaneous equations, A2 and
A3. Once ~ and r are known the normalized heat load is obtained from the
following equation:
q~
H ~ ........
~/-koc (A9)

which follows from Equation 1 by virtue of the fact that

r

~lr = I q dt (A10)
0

In developing a semi-empirical approximation for the normalized heat

load, it is essential to ensure that any error in the approximation is on the
safe side. Consider first a very destructive fire, one for which (as known
from earlier discussions) G is large and 9 and x/-~c are small. Such a fire is
expected to be ventilation controlled; according to Equations A1 and A4 its
duration is

G
r - (All)
0.0236(~

Since r is very large, T, can be approximated as follows (see Equation A3):

T~--- 293.2 + 0.8~ ~]}

,,ffkoc (A12)

This equation is expected to yield an overestimate for ~ and naturally also

for H, and thus will result in an error on the safe side.
By substituting into Equation A2 the expressions Q, U,, and T~ from
Equations A6, A5, and A12, respectively (using the approximation [1.05T~
- 293.2] = 1.05 [T~ - 293.2]), then eliminating from the resulting equation
first r (with the aid of Equation A l l ) and then R (using Equation Al(a)),
after rearrangement the following equation will result
0.0236~ k ~ (12.455 + 1.82)/A,
= X 10 6

~fkoc + 935 ~ - ~ ~ (A13)

A,
An expression for the normalized heat load, H, can now be obtained by
multiplying the left side of Equation A13 by d~/koc (according to Equa-
tion A9} and its right side by the equivalent term G/(0.0236~ ~fkoc) (see
again Equation All}. The result is
Fire Resistance 235
G
(12.455 + 1.82)
H -- C A, X 106
(A14)
kx/k~+935~-~ ~ -~
A,

where C is a dummy constant {here C = 1) introduced to allow for further

empirical modification of the equation. Under ventilation controlled condi-
tions, Equations A7 and A8(al are applicable to the calculation of 5; this fact
is reflected by Equation 8.
Although Equation A14 has been arrived at by considerations ap-
plicable only to ventilation controlled fires, it seems to indicate for any kind
of fire the nature of dependence of the normalized heat load on the three
principal variables, GIA, r and .,,/~-Qc. It is natural to speculate,
therefore, that {possibly after some further empirical adjustment} its ap-
plicability may be extended to fuel-surface controlled fires as well.
To examine the tenability of this speculation a multitude of calculations
were performed, using both the detailed iterative technique and the semi-
empirical method based on Equations 8 and A14. The calculations covered
the same ranges for the three principal variables as those given earlier in
connection with Law's formula. The results selected for illustration in
Figures A1 and A2 also relate to a room 8 by 3.8 m and 2.4 m in height.
Only a small fraction of the calculation results, those deemed to substan-
tiate the principal conclusions, have been plotted in Figures A1 and A2. The
open circles in Figure A1 represent values obtained by the detailed iterative
technique; the solid curves, values obtained by the use of the semi-empirical
method represented by Equations 8 and A14 with C in Equation A14 set
equal to 0.833.
It is noteworthy that for the most common range of the thermal inertia,
436 < .~-~c < 1080, the semi-empirical method yields an accuracy better
than 5 percent. For .,/~-Oc = 2192 {the case of normal weight concrete} its
accuracy is poorer, especially at larger values of the ventilation parameter,
but the error is on the safe side.
The most important, and to some extent surprising, result of the study
is that although Equation A14 was developed for severe ventilation con-
trolled conditions, with the C --- 0.833 adjustment it appears to be ap-
plicable to both ventilation controlled and fuel-surface controlled fires. The
equation presented in the main text {Equation 7) is that adjusted form of
Equation A14. The study also showed that the accuracy of the empirical
method is somewhat better if 5 is calculated for any fire from Equation 8,
which (as Equations A7 and A8 indicate} was originally recommended for
ventilation controlled conditions only.
Although the total surface area of the compartment, A,, may vary
widely under practical conditions, compartment height, hc, usually stays
approximately constant, about 2.4 m. Consequently, the variables G/A, and
236 Fire Technology
I ,/ I/, V' I '/<~ ' I '..--'1 _ o /
s h -/<~,/~yo ,~/o 1 ~ 1 7 6 -4 I- -1:.~7 ~/ ~1~ _o.,~
W.,/o/p.o-i _~ I / o7 / / 7 ,,'0-~
F/7,Tj~/jo ~ ,~ 4 rb ~ ~l / :. .,/ -, .So . . - -"~o - io~_?o.~
z ~<>~ o--
~. ~ t-II/.o o ~o
I IIi,' / io,.,,~
l/
r!,!-:,
l 9
< - ,,
sO b~ ~"
(o, I
~
~//j///.FT!//:>~'~.
,,-,-,..---..--:~'
- ,0,,,,
i l# o / 1 ~

~ o
' I I' ~' ' il , I '.It" ' I ' I ' I/ ' I/ ~ I '/ I '

i 8 -I ~/ ~7,'~ /"~ i-
o
f
c~ o #
,-;, o*/
o
-
o/1>7 77 o~i i.
-- 6
o/
/
o / OX- , . ~ o~o
o -
_

I /)
~/ o
"~ o ~13 -

Jo/_/ o ,~
4
Io/ / / o/'lo
..z l 'o( ~<(~ u (cJ
i i / , ~ : ~ : , ~~1 "o; ~, ,<,
r/i<,'
l"Z" ~
./..-
/io //o/~o

,v'c~p<= ,o8o
hL/~);;o"
flIXI..oo~~/,,~
. . i.~ _ '~
~ : ,,,~
~'I"o
I-=~ <'
, I h I L I ~ I ~ I i I,~" , I , I , I , I , I ,

10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-2
FIRE LOAD REFERRED TO COMPARTMENT SURFACE AREA, O/A t kg, m

Figure A1. Comparison of calculation results obtained by the iterative technique (circles) and
by the semi-empirical method of this paper (lines). Solid curves and dashed curves indicate
ventilation controlled and fuel-surface controlled conditions, respectively. (~-O'c in
J m -2 s - " K-'; ~/A, in k g m -2 s - ' ; 5 dimensionless).

<~/A, do not scale in the same way as 75when A, is doubled or halved. (The
design values for G/A, and ~/A, are expected to remain roughly unaltered,
when A, is doubled, and 5 will probably decrease.) It is, therefore, crucial to
examine the predictive ability of Equation 7 in combination with Equation
8 at variable values of 75, while G/A,, ~/A,, and ~ - 0 c are held constant. The
results of such an examination are illustrated in Figure A2. The agreement
of results obtained by the iterative technique (open circles) and the em-
pirical method (full lines) appears to remain good as 75is varied. It is evident,
therefore, that the semi-empirical method is indeed capable of predicting
with fair accuracy the normalized heat load, i.e. the potential to spread by
destruction, of fires of cellulosics under either ventilation controlled or fuel-
surface controlled conditions.
In reflecting on the semi-empirical method described in this paper, one
may object to the fact that its validity has been established only against a
supposedly more accurate method, theoretical in nature, not against ex-
perimental data. The principal difficulty in supplying experimental confir-
mation is that using the normalized heat load in characterizing the potential
of fires for destructive spread is a relatively new development,2 and until
recently 3 no experimental technique has been available for its evaluation.
There are two arguments, however, that the authors can offer in support
Fire Resistance 237
9

<"~" 7
-/ ~;.7o ~o~,.~>" j
6
/ j,,-~ o~op"
,o / ol/
/ / > /
-

:z:

'-
,.<,
4
///o
w
N
3 o//) / ,-, _
~2
1
~~
IzY
0 I I I I I I
0 ].0 20 30 40 50 60
-2
FIRE LOAD REFERRED TO COMPARTMENT SURFACE AREA, GIA i kg-m

Figure A2. Comparison of calculation results obtained by iterative technique (circles) and
semi-empirical method of this paper (lines).

of the semi-empirical method. The first is that the detailed iterative tech-
nique on which the method has been founded was proved earlier '~ to yield
satisfactory agreement with experimental data. The second is that, irrespec-
tive of its foundation, the method affords conclusions consistent with those
derived from a multitude of observations over the years.

REFERENCES
,, Harmathy, T. Z., "A New Look at Compartment Fires, Parts I and I I , " Fire Technology,
Vol. 8, No. 3 and 4 {1972}, pp. 196-217, 326-351.
A2 Butcher, E. G., Chitty, T. B., and Ashton, L. A., "The Temperatures Attained by Steel
in Building Fires," Joint Fire Research Organization, England, Fire Research Technical Paper
No. 15, 1966.
A~Butcher, E. G., Bedford, G. K., and FardeU, P. J., "Further Experiments on
Temperatures Reached by Steel in Buildings," Proceedings of Symposium held at Fire
Research Station, January 1967, Joint Fire Research Organization, England, 1968, p. 1.

This paper is a contribution from the Division of Building Research, National Research
Council of Canada, and is published with the approval of theDirector of the Division.