Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Process Safety and Environmental Protection

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psep

Full-scale experimental study on water mist fire suppression in a

railway tunnel rescue station: Temperature distribution
characteristics
Chuangang Fan, Rongwei Bu, Xiaoqing Xie, Yang Zhou ∗
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Rescue stations are essential for emergency evacuation in super-long railway tunnels. However, the defi-
Received 12 June 2020 ciency of related studies aiming at improving the fire suppression performance of water mist system in
Received in revised form 4 September 2020 fire scenarios limits its application significantly. In this work, 20 sets of full-scale water mist fire suppres-
Accepted 7 September 2020
sion experiments were conducted to examine the impacts of water mist system on smoke temperature
Available online 12 September 2020
characteristics, including water mist activation time (denoted by t), working pressure (P), k-factor (K)
and longitudinal wind speed. Results show that when t = 3 min, P = 12 MPa, and K = 0.5, the best perfor-
Keywords:
mance of temperature control could be achieved. Although there are violent temperature fluctuations in
Rescue station
Longitudinal ventilation
the train side, the smoke temperature could be easily restrained. Moreover, it is found that longitudinal
Water mist parameter ventilation is helpful to improve the visibility at platform and reduce smoke temperature. When P = 12
Temperature distribution MPa, the coupling effect of water mist and longitudinal ventilation on cooling smoke is better. In addition,
the non-dimensional maximum temperature rise is found to show a great cubical dependency on verti-
cal height, and decreases along with a larger longitudinal distance for all cases. Also, under longitudinal
ventilation, the non-dimensional maximum temperature rises are lower than that without longitudinal
ventilation in the coverage area of water mist. Results of this work can provide a significant reference for
the design of water mist system in railway tunnel rescue stations.
© 2020 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Tunnels in railway, highway, and metro play an increasingly
important role in traffic field due to less land occupation, shorter
traffic route, higher transportation capability, and lower operat-
ing cost. However, tunnel fires have now become a big threat to
the safety of passengers and property (Zhou et al., 2019; Fan et al.,
2017; An et al., 2019, Gao et al., 2015; Li et al., 2020; Mei et al.,
2017; Palazzi et al., 2005; Ji et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2018). More-
over, for the super-long railway tunnels (longer than 20 km), the
external rescue is still difficult to achieve (Meng et al., 2012), and
therefore the rescue station, a designated evacuation area, emerges.
Gerber (2006) found that the rescue station could improve the per-
sonnel safety. Currently, water mist system is widely applied as
a very promising fire-extinguishing technology (Liu et al., 2007,
2020b; Lv et al., 2019; Santangelo and Tartarini, 2012; Wang et al.,
2002; Zhang et al., 2016a; Zhou et al., 2018), and a relevant code
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zyzhou@csu.edu.cn (Y. Zhou).
of China states that water mist system can be used in tunnel fire
extinguishment (TB 10020-2012, 2012). The impact of water mist
characterization on fire suppression performance had been con-
cerned (Chiu and Li, 2015; Huang et al., 2011; Qin and Chow, 2005;
Santangelo, 2010; Yao et al., 2012), and its performance on sup-
pressing tunnel fires were also studied (Ingason, 2008; Lemaire
and Kenyon, 2006; Zhang et al., 2016b). Ingason (2008) simulated a
heavy goods vehicle fire and studied the importance of early activa-
tion of water spray system. The system could prevent the spread of
fire and lower the gas temperatures. Zhang et al. (2016b) analyzed
the interaction between fire and water mist in long and narrow
spaces, and found that the radiant heat flux attenuation and the fuel
surface cooling are the controlling fire suppression mechanisms.
Moreover, Liang et al. (2015) and Zhang et al. (2007) also found that
the flame cooling and fuel surface cooling played a dominating role
on suppressing the pool fires and PVC fires. Lemaire and Kenyon
(2006) conducted a series of fire experiments in the Second Benelux
Tunnel, and investigated the effects of detection systems, mechan-
ical ventilation and sprinklers. Some scholars (Liang et al., 2017;
Nmira et al., 2009) numerically studied the capability of water mist
to mitigate tunnel fire using a computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.09.019
0957-5820/© 2020 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 C. Fan et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411
approach. Liang et al. (2017) proposed a simultaneous water mist
screen and transverse ventilation system (WMSTV system), which
could confine the fire and smoke effectively. Nmira et al. (2009)
developed an Eulerian-Eulerian two phase model, and investigated
the efficiency of water mist system in mitigating thermoplastic fires
in a full-scale tunnel configuration. Besides, there were some other
studies involving smoke temperature distribution (Hu et al., 2005;
An et al., 2020; Ji et al., 2012; Meng et al., 2014a), longitudinal ven-
tilation (Chen et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2020a; Chow et al., 2010),
ambient wind (Yi et al., 2013; Wegrzynski and Krajewski, 2017;
Yi et al., 2020) and smoke exhaust mode (Chow and Li, 2001; Fan
et al., 2015).
As mentioned above, water mist system has been successfully
applied in railway tunnels. However, deficient effort was made to
its application in rescue stations, especially when the water mist is
not in direct contact with fire. This study attempts to reveal the
better water mist suppression performance based on measured
temperature data, by adjusting the parameter related to water mist
system, such as water mist activation time, working pressure, and
k-factor. Moreover, the combined effect of water mist system and
longitudinal ventilation is discussed. The obtained results may pro-
vide a significant reference for the design of fire protection and
personnel evacuation strategy in a rescue station.
2. Instrumentation and data acquisition system
Fig. 1 shows the configuration of the full-scale tunnel in exper-
iments which was made of reinforced concrete structure with
dimension of 50 m × 7.7 m × 6.2 m. The tunnel mainly consisted of
three units, railway tunnel, passenger carriage, and rescue plat-
form. The passenger carriage was located in the middle of the
railway tunnel, and was made of iron sheet with dimension of 19
m × 2.8 m × 2.7 m. The rescue platform, 4 m wide and 0.9 m high,
was located on the right side of tunnel. A window separating the
observation room and the tunnel was set to videotape the smoke
spread behaviors.
2.1. Water mist system
High-pressure water mist system was arranged in the tunnel as
shown in Fig. 1. Two rows of nozzles were installed 4.2 m above
the platform, and each row contained nine nozzles arranged at 2.5
m intervals horizontally. A control valve could control the status of
nozzles, and a pump providing three high pressures, 5.0 MPa, 8.0
MPa, and 12.0 MPa, were used in the tests. Moreover, three noz-
zles generating different mist droplet diameters were employed.
A Malvern laser particle size analyzer (STP5692, manufactured by
Zhejiang Woer Technology Co., Ltd.) was utilized to measure the
distribution of mist droplet diameter. Water mist activation time is
defined as the duration between the ignition of fuel and the activa-
tion of nozzles. As the nozzles were activated, water mist droplets
were continually discharged until the end of experiments. During
the tests, doors 1 and 4 (as shown in Fig. 2) kept open, but doors 2
and 3 were closed. Window status (close and open) was considered
in this study. Also, the ‘close’ and ‘open’ in Table 3 denote the close
Table 1
Technical parameters of the nozzles with 12 MPa working pressure.
Nozzle diameter /
Models
cm
XSW-T 0.5 (K = 0.5)  0.54
XSW-T 1.0 (K = 1.0)  0.66
XSW-T 1.5 (K = 1.5)  0.80
397
Table 2
Technical parameters of fans.
Type Power / kW Volume flow rate / m3 /h Total pressure / Pa
SFG-10-6 4 50000 260
SFG-6-4 2.2 18700 300
and open of all windows. The technical parameters of nozzles with
12 MPa working pressure are listed in Table 1.
2.2. Data acquisition system
K-type thermocouples (TC) with 2 mm diameter, and temper-
ature acquisition equipment (NL-CJ3201) were utilized to capture
the smoke temperature. Seven and four thermocouple trees were
longitudinally arranged in the platform and train sides (named A,
B, C, D, E, F and G in the platform side; a, b, c, and d in the train
side) respectively as shown in Fig. 2. Each thermocouple tree was
comprised of seven thermocouples with 0.5 m vertical interval. The
lowest TC was 2 m high above the floor. TC trees A, B, C and D were
located on the same cross section with TC trees a, b, c and d, respec-
tively. Here, TC trees ‘A’ and ‘D’ were positioned in the central line
of fire source and train door, respectively. Moreover, by selecting an
appropriate pixel threshold, a MATLAB script transferred the RGB
images captured by camera into grayscales, and the height of smoke
layer could be identified by selecting the benchmark line. A typical
processing result is shown in Fig. 3. Temperature data analyzed in
Section 3 are the average values of 2–3 repeated tests.
Two axial flow fans (SFG-10-6 and SFG-6-4, manufactured by
SHANGHAI SHENJIN FAN Co., Ltd.) were utilized to create the
required ventilation velocity, and the velocity was measured by the
STA-type anemometer (manufactured by Fieldpiece Co, Ltd). The
technical parameters are listed in Table 2. The longitudinal velocity
could be adjusted by moving fan longitudinally, and the longitudi-
nal velocity was measured at 2 m above the platform in the line of
A-a, where three measuring locations were selected. The measuring
locations (V1, V2 and V3) were shown in Fig. 2, and the longitudi-
nal velocity was the average value of the three locations. Similar to
the water mist activation time, fan activation time is defined as the
duration between the ignition of fuel and the activation of fan. All
test conditions are listed in Table 3.
2.3. Heat release rate
Diesel was selected as the fuel, which was loaded in a 0.7 m
× 0.7 m square pan. At the beginning of the experiment, diesel
was ignited by 50 mL gasoline. Burning rate increases rapidly after
ignition, and then gradually reaches a steady stage, generating a lot
of smoke. During the steady stage, heat release rate (HRR) can be
estimated by
Q̇ =  × ṁfuel × Hc , (1)
where  is the combustion efficiency, taken as 0.75 (Yi et al., 2006);
ṁfuel is the burning rate, kg/s; Hc is the combustion heat, 4.2 × 104
kJ/kg. In this study, an electronic balance (TP-60 K) with a capacity
of 60 kg and an accuracy of 5 g was placed on the bottom of oil pan
to measure the mass loss at 1 Hz. A fire-proof board was placed
K-factor / Droplet diameter / ␮m
L/(min·MPa1/2 )
Dv 0.1 Dv 0.5 Dv 0.99
0.5 39.47 74.33 173.2
1.0 41.06 78 178
1.5 45.81 84.82 192.9
398 C. Fan et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411

Fig. 1. Configuration of the full-scale tunnel used in experiments: (a) top view; (b) side view; (c) front view.

Fig. 2. Experimental layout.

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of data-processing for smoke layer height.

 C. Fan et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411 399

Table 3
Test conditions.

Cases Working K-factor / Water mist Window Ventilation Fan activation

pressure / MPa L/(min·MPa1/2 ) activation time / status velocity / m/s Time / min
min

1 — — — Close 0 —
2 12.0 0.5 3 Open 0 —
3 — — — Open 0 —
4 12.0 0.5 3 Open 0
5 5.0 0.5 3 Open 0 —
6 8.0 0.5 3 Open 0 —
7 12.0 0.5 3 Open 1.5 2
8 12.0 0.5 3 Open 2.5 2
9 12.0 0.5 2 Open 0 —
10 12.0 0.5 4 Open 0 —
11 5.0 0.5 3 Open 1.5 2
12 5.0 0.5 3 Open 2.5 2
13 8.0 0.5 3 Open 1.5 2
14 8.0 0.5 3 Open 2.5 2
15 12.0 1.0 3 Open 0 —
16 5.0 1.0 3 Open 0 —
17 8.0 1.0 3 Open 0 —
18 12.0 1.5 3 Open 0 —
19 5.0 1.5 3 Open 0 —
20 8.0 1.5 3 Open 0 —

Fig. 4. Burning process of diesel pool fire: (a) Case 2; (b) Case 3.

between the oil pan and the electronic balance to protect the bal-
ance. In addition, burning rate is considered as the average value
during the steady stage. Fig. 4 shows the burning processes of Cases
2 and 3 (details of the cases are listed in Table 3). HRRs of Cases 2
and 3 are about 396.9 kW and 406.4 kW, respectively. Since there
is no direct contact between water mist and pool fire, HRR with
water mist is not obviously different from that without water mist.
Therefore, HRR can be considered as constant in all cases of the
experiments in this article.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Smoke layer height
The images of smoke stratification of Cases 3 and 4 are shown in
Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. A large amount of smoke is evolved after
ignition, and impinges the ceiling of train, forming the ceiling jet.
As the smoke layer get thicker, some smoke overflows the carriage,
and another ‘ceiling jet’ is found under the ceiling of tunnel. After
that, the interface of smoke layer gradually becomes lower. The
interface descends to 2 m above the platform at about 125 s, and the
platform is basically full of smoke after 360 s as shown in Fig. 5 (d).
The settlement process of smoke can be divided into three stages
as shown in Fig. 7 (a): formation stage, sedimentation stage and
steady stage.
Before the activation of water mist, smoke layer is relatively
stable as shown in Fig. 6 (a). However, after the activation of
water mist, mist droplets move downward, entraining with smoke,
therefore the smoke layer is destroyed, which suggests the lower
visibility as shown in Fig. 6 (c). The entire process can be also
approximately divided into three stages as shown in Fig. 7 (b).
3.2. Influence of water mist parameter
3.2.1. Water mist activation time
In general, smoke plume is formed above the burning fuel. How-
ever, after the smoke overflows the carriage, ‘another plume’ forms
outside the carriage. The reference point can be considered to be
located at the platform. Based on the fire plume theory (Karlsson
and Quintiere, 2000), the non-dimensional temperature rise T*
can be evaluated as
T ∗ = T/(Q̇∗
2/3
T0 ), (2)
where Q̇ ∗is the non-dimensional heat release rate, expressed as
Q̇ ∗ = Q̇ /(0 cp T0 g 1/2 H 5/2 ); Q̇ (kW) is the heat release rate of pool
fire; 0 (kg/m3 ) is the air density, cp (kJ/kg·K) is the specific heat
capacity, and g (m/s2 ) is the gravity acceleration; H is the height
of temperature measuring point above the platform; T (K) is the
temperature rise calculated as T = T − T0 , where T and T0 refer
to the transient and the initial temperatures, respectively. Fig. 8
shows the evolutions of T* at 2 m high under different water mist
activation times in Cases 4, 9 and 10. Before water mist activa-
tion, smoke temperature keeps basically unchanged in the platform
side. However, temperature rises earlier in the train side due to the
400 C. Fan et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411
Fig. 5. Smoke spread process without the application of water mist.
narrow space. After the activation of water mist, smoke entrained
by mist droplets considerably facilitates the temperature rise, and
the temperature rapidly reaches a maximum value. Subsequently,
continuous cooling of water mist contributes to the temperature
decline after the peak. Since the smoke and heat accumulates easily
in the train side, temperature variations are more drastic as shown
in Fig. 8 (c) and (d). However, in the train side (narrow side), the
descending rate of temperature is higher. It indicates that temper-
ature is easily restrained in the train side. The main reason is that
the narrow space increases the effective collision between mist
droplets and smoke particles. Moreover, the best improvement of
temperature control is found with 3 min activation time, in which
the descending rate of temperature is higher. The main reason is
that water mist activation time affects the thickness of smoke layer
that is important to temperature control effect. When t = 2 min,
the smoke layer is thin, in which combustion is at the steady stage
as shown in Fig. 4. With the activation of water mist, smoke layer
is easily dragged into the lower height. Moreover, due to the con-
tinuous combustion of fire source, smoke temperature is difficult
to decrease. However, when t = 4 min, smoke layer is thick, and is
lower than 2 m, as shown in Fig. 7. With the activation of water
mist, smoke layer is disturbed, and smoke fills the platform, indi-
cating the poor temperature control effect. Therefore, temperature
control effect at 3 min is better.
3.2.2. Working pressure
Fig. 9 shows the evolutions of dimensionless temperature dif-
ference at 2 m high under different working pressures in Cases 3,
4, 5 and 6. In these cases, water mist is activated 3 min after the
ignition. Before water mist is activated, temperature rises easily in
the train side, whereas it increases later in the platform side. After
water mist activation, the increasing rate of temperature in the
train side gets higher. Subsequently, temperature decreases grad-
ually to a value lower than that without water mist, indicating the
importance of water mist system on the improvement of evacu-
ation environment. As shown in Fig. 9 (a) and (b), T* under the
working pressure of 12 MPa achieves the peak faster in the platform
side, and the corresponding maximum value is the lowest. Also, the
relevant descending rate of T* is the highest, suggesting a bet-
ter temperature control effect. However, the worst performance of
water mist in controlling smoke temperature is found when the
working pressure is 8 MPa, reflected by the largest increasing rate
and peak value of T. With the activation of water mist, smoke
temperature in the train side varies greatly, and the working pres-
sure has a limited effect on the temperature control. However, the
most beneficial cooling rate of T* is found with 12 MPa working
pressure, consisting with the trend in the platform side.
In addition, Eq. (2) can be also expressed as
2/3
∗
Tmax = Tmax /(Q̇∗ T0 ), (3)
where the maximum temperature difference Tmax = Tmax − T0 ,
and Tmax is the maximum temperature. The profiles of Tmax ∗ (as
a function of vertical distance) under different working pressures
are shown in Fig. 10. Tmax∗ presents an increasing tendency with
a bigger vertical height, and is higher in the train side. However,
because TC a at 2 m high is close to the window, Tmax ∗ at 2 m
high is bigger as shown in Fig. 10 (c). When P = 12 MPa, due to the
bigger momentum of mist droplets, Tmax ∗ is lower when H ≤ 3 m.
It indicates a better temperature control effect, which is consistent
∗
with Fig. 9. In addition, Zhou et al. (2019) found that Tmax has a
∗
cubical dependency on the vertical height. In this study, Tmax is
also found to fit well with the cubical correlation.
Based on the fact that the maximum temperature is less than
60 ◦ C for all locations, it is reasonably assumed the evaporation
of water mist droplets can be neglected. Therefore, heat transfer
between mist droplets and smoke can be described as:
dTs
cs ms = hA(Td − Ts ) + Q̇loss , (4)
dt
 C. Fan et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411 401

Fig. 6. Smoke layer distributions: (a) before water mist activation (Position 1); (b) water mist activation (Position 1); (c) 10 s after water mist activation (Position 1); (d)
before water mist activation (Position 2); (e) water mist activation (Position 2); (f) 10 s after water mist activation (Position 2).

Fig. 7. Smoke layer height vs. time: (a) Case 3; (b) Case 4.

where cs (kJ/(kg·k)), ms (kg), and Ts (K) are the specific heat, mass, roundings. A is the contact area between mist droplets and smoke,
and temperature of smoke particles, respectively; Td (K) is the tem- 
i

perature of mist droplets, h (kW/(m2 ·K)) is the convective heat which can be approximated as A ≈ Aid ≈ n4r 2 = nd2 , where
transfer coefficient between mist droplets and smoke particles, and 1
Q̇loss (kW) is the heat loss from the smoke particles to the sur- Aid denotes the surface area of the i-th droplet; r (m) and d (m) are
402 C. Fan et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411

Fig. 8. Temperature variations at 2 m high with different water mist activation times: (a) TC C; (b) TC D; (c) TC a; (d) TC b.

Fig. 9. T ∗ vs. time at 2 m high under different working pressures: (a) TC C; (b) TC D; (c) TC a; (d) TC b.
 C. Fan et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411 403

∗
Fig. 10. Tmax vs. vertical height with different working pressures: (a) TC C; (b) TC D; (c) TC a; (d) TC b.

the radius and diameter of mist droplets; n is the number of mist Convective heat transfer coefficient h can be calculated by the
droplets transferring heat, and it is positively related to the total following correlation (Yao and Chow, 2005)
number of mist droplets N, n = f (N)∼N. Consequently, Eq. (4) can
hds
be rewritten as Nu = = 2.0 + Re1/2 Pr 1/3 , (10)
kg
dTs
cs ms = hd2 f (N)(Td − Ts ) + Q̇loss , (5)
dt where Nu is the Nusselt number; ds (mm) is the diameter of smoke
particles; kg (W/(m·k)) is the thermal conductivity of mist droplets;
Assuming that the diameter of mist  droplets d is only dependent
Pr is the Prandtl number; Re is the Reynolds number (Hua et al.,
on K, and the initial temperature is Ts t=0 = T , Eq. (5) can be solved


2002),
as
 
 hf (N)d2 Q̇loss hf (N)d2  vd − vs  ds
− t − t Re = , (11)
Ts = Td + (T − Td )e cs ms + (1 − e cs ms ) (6)
hf (N)d 2 g

Water mist flow rate can be expressed as (Fang, 2006) where  (kg/m3 ), g (N·s/m2 ) and vd (m/s) are the density, the
√ dynamic viscosity, and the velocity of mist droplets, respectively;
N
L=K× 10P = d3 , (7) vs (m/s) is the velocity of smoke particles. For a small enough control
6
volume, temperature control effect can be described quantitatively
where L (L/min) is the flow rate; K (L/(min·MPa1/2 )) is the k-factor; by Eqs. (9)–(11).
P (MPa) is the working pressure of water mist. According to Eq. (7), for a fixed k-factor, the velocity of mist
Substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (6), one yields droplets increases with increasing working pressure. It indicates
 that dynamic mixing effect increases as the working pressure
hf (N)
−c m 3 360K 2 P t increases. Moreover, for a fixed k-factor, the total number of mist
 s s N2
Ts = Td + (T − Td )e droplets increases with a bigger working pressure, suggesting the
  increase of the effective collision between mist droplets and smoke
−c m
hf (N) 3 360K 2 P t
Q̇ 3 N2 s s N2 particles. Therefore, the heat transfer between mist droplets and
+ loss (1 − e ), (8)
hf (N) 2
360K P smoke particles is enhanced, which indicates a better cooling effect.
As a result, smoke is better controlled at 12 MPa working pressure.
As the magnitude of the total number of mist droplets is about However, when P = 8 MPa, a large amount of smoke is dragged into
109 estimated from Eq. (7), the third term on the right side of Eq. the lower position near 2 m high. It can be proved from Fig. 10 that
(8) can be neglected. Therefore, Eq. (8) can be simplified as when P = 8 MPa, dimensionless maximum temperature is higher
 when H ≤ 3 m. Therefore, with the activation of water mist, the
hf (N)
−c m 3 360K 2 P t increasing rate of temperature is higher at 8 MPa, suggesting a poor
 s s N2
Ts = Td + (T − Td )e (9) temperature control effect.
404 C. Fan et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411
Fig. 11. T ∗ vs. time at 2 m high under different k-factors (12 MPa): (a) TC C; (b) TC D; (c) TC a; (d) TC b.
3.2.3. K-factor
Figs. 11 and 12 show the variation of T ∗ and Tmax ∗ versus
time at 2 m high above the platform under three k-factors (0.5, 1.0
and 1.5) in Cases 4, 15 and 18. Before the activation of water mist,
smoke temperature maintains stable in the platform side and the
temperature increases earlier in the train side. After water mist is
applied, T ∗ increases rapidly in the platform side, and the ris-
ing rate and maximum of T ∗ are the lowest under the k-factor
of 0.5. Moreover, the descending rate at K = 0.5 is higher. It indi-
cates a better temperature control effect. Although there are violent
fluctuations in the train side, temperature can be easily restrained.
Moreover, there are a slight superiority at K = 0.5. The diameter
of mist droplet decreases with a smaller k-factor, corresponding
to the larger specific surface area of mist droplets, which indicates
more effective convective heat transfer between smoke and mist.
However, according to Eq. (7), for a fixed working pressure, the flow
rate of water mist decreases along with decreasing k-factor. It indi-
cates that the number of mist droplets increases with the increase
of k-factor. Although the number of mist droplets increase, the
droplet diameter increases. Therefore, it can be concluded that cool-
ing effects caused by mist droplet diameter plays a significant role
in temperature suppression when 5.48(L/min) ≤ L ≤ 16.43(L/min).
∗
In Fig. 12, Tmax shows an increasing tendency with a higher
height, and presents a cubical relationship with the vertical height
well. When P = 12 MPa and K = 1.5, Tmax∗ is lower when H > 3 m.
∗
Also, when H ≤ 3 m, Tmax is lower when P = 12 MPa and K = 0.5.
It indicates the bigger mist droplets present a better temperature
control effect for H > 3 m, and the smaller mist droplets are impor-
tant in cooling smoke for H ≤ 3 m. The main reason is that when
K = 1.5, flow rate and mist droplet diameter are higher, in which
the higher flow rate increases the effective collision and the bigger
mist droplets, and then enhance the disturbance of smoke layer.
However, when H ≤ 3 m, due to the thicker smoke layer, the influ-
ence of mist flux is lower, but smaller droplets play an important
role on cooling smoke.
Figs. 13 and 14 show the non-dimensional temperature rise
evolutions under the working pressures of 5.0 MPa and 8.0 MPa,
respectively. The temperature control effect under the k-factor of
0.5 has no obvious superiority in the platform side, therefore it
is inferred the impact of working pressure on suppressing effect
is higher than that of k-factor. When k-factor is 0.5, temperature
control effect at the location ‘C’ is better, but no essential improve-
ment is found at the location ‘D’, which may be explained by the
difference of spatial distribution of mist flux. In the train side, T ∗
varies appreciably under different k-factors, and the descending
rate of T ∗ is higher, indicating better temperature control effect.
Although there is no best temperature control effect among the
three k-factors, temperature can be easily restrained in the con-
fined space. Figs. 15 and 16 show Tmax ∗ versus H under the working
pressures of 5.0 MPa and 8.0 MPa. The cubical dependency of Tmax ∗
is still found valid. Although Tmax∗ is higher in the train side, the
average descending rate increases along with a decreasing height.
Accordingly, temperature control effect is better in the train side,
coinciding with Figs. 13 (c)–(d) and 14 (c)–(d).
3.3. Influence of longitudinal wind
3.3.1. Smoke distribution under longitudinal wind
In tunnel fires, longitudinal wind has significant influence on
smoke movement (Fan et al., 2013; Li and Ingason, 2018). Smoke
movement process under longitudinal ventilation is shown in
Fig. 17. After fan activation, outflow of smoke from the window and
the door of the carriage presents a trend of longitudinal movement.
Moreover, the stable smoke layer induced by thermal buoyancy
is disturbed after 30 s. A large amount of smoke spreads down-
stream along the longitudinal direction of the rescue station. With
 C. Fan et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411 405

∗
Fig. 12. Tmax vs. H under different k-factors (12 MPa): (a) TC C; (b) TC D; (c) TC a; (d) TC b.

Fig. 13. T ∗ vs. time at 2 m high under different k-factors (5.0 MPa): (a) TC C; (b) TC D; (c) TC a; (d) TC b.
406 C. Fan et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411

Fig. 14. T ∗ vs. time at 2 m high under different k-factors (8.0 MPa): (a) TC C; (b) TC D; (c) TC a; (d) TC b.

∗
Fig. 15. Tmax vs. H under different k-factors (5.0 MPa): (a) TC C; (b) TC D; (c) TC a; (d) TC b.
 C. Fan et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411
∗
Fig. 16. Tmax vs. H under different k-factors (8.0 MPa): (a) TC C; (b) TC D; (c) TC a; (d) TC b.
the commencement of water mist, smoke stratification is destroyed
seriously as shown in Figs. 17 (c) and (f). Meanwhile, the visibil-
ity in the platform is deteriorated. Here, smoke layer is impacted
by three forces, thermal buoyancy, drag force imposed by water
mist, and push force imposed by forced ventilation. Under the cou-
pling action of the three forces, smoke and mist droplets spread in a
sloping downward way together. However, under the longitudinal
ventilation, the visibility in the platform side is improved in com-
parison to that without longitudinal ventilation as shown in Fig. 6.
It also indicates that longitudinal ventilation is helpful to amelio-
rate the air environment. In addition, longitudinal ventilation can
strengthen the mixing effect between mist droplets and smoke. It
may increase the temperature suppression performance of water
mist. The temperature suppression performance is discussed in the
next section.
3.3.2. Longitudinal wind speed
T ∗ under the coupling effect of longitudinal ventilation and
water mist are shown in Figs. 18–21 in Cases 4–8 and 11–14. The
mixing effects between water mist and smoke are dominated by
wind speed and working pressure. Here, the longitudinal and verti-
cal disturbances of smoke are influenced by longitudinal ventilation
and working pressure, respectively. Figs. 18 and 19 show the pro-
gression of T ∗ with the time under different working pressures
when wind speeds are 1.5 m/s and 2.5 m /s, respectively. Compared
with Fig. 9, smoke is cooled under the longitudinal ventilation, as
shown in Figs. 18 and 19. It can be seen from Fig. 18 (c) and (d),
and Fig. 19 (c) and (d) that when P = 12 MPa, T ∗ is lower after fan
activation, and the decreasing rate of T ∗ is higher after water mist
activation. It indicates that under longitudinal ventilation, temper-
ature control effect is better when P = 12 MPa in the train side. In
addition, for TC C, T ∗ is lower, and the descending rate of T ∗ is
407
higher for TC D, which indicates a better temperature control effect
at 12 MPa in the platform side. The main reason is that the dynamic
mixing effect is better when P = 12 MPa in the train side. Moreover,
the results presented in Figs. 18 and 19 are consistent with Fig. 9.
Figs. 20 and 21 show the relationship between Tmax ∗ and lon-
gitudinal distance under different wind speeds. Under different
working pressures, Tmax ∗ decreases along with a bigger longi-
tudinal distance (S). For S > 0, Tmax∗ declines slowly with the
increasing distance. Without longitudinal ventilation, Tmax ∗ is
slightly higher than that with ventilation in the coverage area of
water mist, but lower beyond the coverage area. The main reason
is that in the coverage area of water mist, longitudinal ventilation
intensifies the mixing between mist droplets and smoke, which
benefits the convective heat transfer. Beyond the coverage area of
water mist, longitudinal ventilation not only disturbs smoke layer,
but also brings upstream smoke to the coverage area. In the train
∗
side, Tmax is higher due to the confined space.
4. Conclusions
In this work, the impacts of water mist parameter and longitudi-
nal wind on smoke temperature distribution in the tunnel rescure
station were investigated through a series of full-scale experiments.
Main conclusions are summarized as follows:
(1) With the activation of water mist, the smoke layer height is
lowered, reducing the visibility at the platform. However, water
mist is an effective technique to control smoke temperature
in the rescue station. Moreover, in the train side, temperature
increases drastically due to the confined space, but temperature
can be easily restrained.
408 C. Fan et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411

Fig. 17. Smoke distributions under longitudinal ventilation: (a) 10 s after fan open (Position 1); (b) 30 s after fan open (Position 1); (c) Nozzles open (Position 1); (d) 10 s
after fan open (Position 2); (e) 30 s after fan open (Position 2); (f) Nozzles open (Position 2).

(2) When the water mist activation time, working pressure and
k-factor are 3 min, 12 MPa and 0.5 respectively, the best tem-
perature control effect can be achieved, which can create a
better environment at the platform. Dynamic mixing and the
specific surface area of mist droplets have a greater impact on
∗
the temperature suppression effect. Moreover, Tmax presents
a cubical dependency on vertical height.
(3) Longitudinal ventilation can improve visibility and reduce
smoke temperature. Moreover, under longitudinal ventila-
tion, the cooling effect is better when working pressure is
12 MPa. Dimensionless maximum temperature differences
decrease along with a bigger longitudinal distance under dif-
ferent ventilation velocities. In the coverage area of water mist,
temperature control effect has a slight superiority under the
influence of longitudinal wind.
 C. Fan et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411 409

Fig. 18. T ∗ vs. time at 2 m high under different working pressures when wind speed is 1.5 m/s: (a) TC C; (b) TC D; (c) TC a; (d) TC b.

Fig. 19. T ∗ vs. time at 2 m high under different working pressures when wind speed is 2.5 m/s: (a) TC C; (b) TC D; (c) TC a; (d) TC b.
410 C. Fan et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411

Fig. 20. Dimensionless maximum temperature difference vs. distance from the fire source in the platform side: (a) 12 MPa; (b) 8 MPa; (c) 5 MPa.

Fig. 21. Dimensionless maximum temperature difference vs. distance from the fire source in the train side: (a) 12 MPa; (b) 8 MPa; (c) 5 MPa.
 C. Fan et al. / Process Safety and Environmental Protection 146 (2021) 396–411
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors report no declarations of interest.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Nos. 51804338, 51974361), Natural Science
Foundation of Hunan Province of China (No. 2020JJ3046) and the
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Cen-
tral South University (Grant Nos. 502501004 and 502045009). The
authors would also like to thank Zhejiang Woer Technology Co.,
Ltd. for their great help in the experiments of this article.
References
An, W., Li, Q., Liang, K., Yin, X., Wang, Z., 2019. Study on Combustion Character-
istics and Evacuation during Intake Airway Fire in Coal Face under Different
Ventilation Conditions. Combustion Science and Technology, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00102202.2019.1695607.
An, W., Tang, Y., Liang, K., Cai, M., Wang, T., Wang, Z., 2020. Study on temperature
distribution and CO diffusion induced by cable fire in L-shaped utility tunnel.
Sustainable Cities and Society 62, 102407.
Chen, H.X., Liu, N.A., Chow, W.K., 2011. Wind tunnel tests on compartment fires with
crossflow ventilation. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 99 (10), 1025–1035.
Chiu, C., Li, Y., 2015. Full-scale experimental and numerical analysis of water mist
system for sheltered fire sources in wind generator compartment. Process Saf.
Environ. 98, 40–49.
Chow, W.K., Li, J.S.M., 2001. Case study: vehicle fire in a cross-harbour tunnel in
Hong Kong. Tunnel. Undergr. Sp. Tech. 16, 23–30.
Chow, W.K., Wong, K.Y., Chung, W.Y., 2010. Longitudinal ventilation for smoke con-
trol in a tilted tunnel by scale modeling. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Tech. 25, 122–128.
Fan, C., Ji, J., Gao, Z., Sun, J., 2013. Experimental study on transverse smoke temper-
ature distribution in road tunnel fires. Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Tech. 37, 89–95.
Fan, C., Ji, J., Sun, J., 2015. Influence of longitudinal fire location on smoke character-
istics under the tunnel ceiling. Fire Mater. 39, 72–84.
Fan, C., Ji, J., Li, Y., Ingason, H., Sun, J., 2017. Experimental study of sidewall effect
on flame characteristics of heptane pool fires with different aspect ratios and
orientations in a channel. Proc. Combust. Inst. 36, 3121–3129.
Fang, Y., 2006. Study on Interaction of Water Mist with Fire Smoke. University of
Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China.
Gao, Z., Ji, J., Wan, H., et al., 2015. An investigation of the detailed flame shape and
flame length under the ceiling of a channel. Proceedings of the Combustion
Institute 35, 2657–2664.
Gerber, P., 2006. Quantitative risk assessment and risk-based design of the Gotthard
Base Tunnel. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference Safety in Road and
Rail Tunnel, 395–404.
Hu, L.H., Huo, R., Li, Y.Z., Wang, H.B., Chow, W.K., 2005. Full-scale burning tests on
studying smoke temperature and velocity along a corridor. Tunnel. Undergr. Sp.
Tech. 20, 223–229.
Hua, J., Kumar, K., Khoo, B.C., Xue, H., 2002. A numerical study of the interaction of
water mist spray with a fire plume. Fire Safety J. 37, 631–657.
Huang, X., Wang, X., Liao, G., 2011. Characterization of an effervescent atomiza-
tion water mist nozzle and its fire suppression tests. Proc. Combust. Inst. 33,
2573–2579.
Ingason, H., 2008. Model scale tunnel tests with water spray. Fire Safety J. 43,
512–528.
Ji, J., Fan, C., Zhong, W., Shen, X., Sun, J., 2012. Experimental investigation on influence
of different transverse fire locations on maximum smoke temperature under the
tunnel ceiling. Int. J. Heat Mass Trans. 55, 4817–4826.
Ji, J., Wan, H., Gao, Z., et al., 2016. Experimental study on flame merging behav-
iors from two pool fires along the longitudinal centerline of model tunnel with
natural ventilation. Combustion and Flame 173, 307–318.
Karlsson, B., Quintiere, J.G., 2000. Enclosure Fire Dynamics. CRC Press, New York.
Lemaire, T., Kenyon, Y., 2006. Large scale fire tests in the Second Benelux Tunnel.
Fire Technol. 42, 329–350.
Li, Y.Z., Ingason, H., 2018. Overview of research on fire safety in underground road
and railway tunnels. Tunnel. Undergr. Sp. Technol. 81, 568–589.
Li, H., Liu, J., Ge, J., 2020. Phenomenological characteristics of continuous spill fires
in a tunnel with longitudinal ventilation. Process Saf. Environ. 138, 108–116.
Liang, T., Liu, M., Liu, Z., Zhong, W., Xiao, X., Lo, S., 2015. A study of the probabil-
ity distribution of pool fire extinguishing times using water mist. Process Saf.
Environ. 93, 240–248.
411
Liang, Q., Li, Y., Li, J., Xu, H., Li, K., 2017. Numerical studies on the smoke control by
water mist screens with transverse ventilation in tunnel fires. Tunn. Undergr.
Sp. Tech. 64, 177–183.
Liu, Z., Kim, A., Carpenter, D., 2007. A study of portable water mist fire extinguishers
used for extinguishment of multiple fire types. Fire Safety J. 42, 25–42.
Liu, W., Chen, C., Shu, Y., Chen, W., Shu, C., 2020a. Fire suppression performance
of water mist under diverse desmoking and ventilation conditions. Process Saf.
Environ. 133, 230–242.
Liu, Y., Wang, X., Liu, T., Ma, J., Li, G., Zhao, Z., 2020b. Preliminary study on extin-
guishing shielded fire with water mist. Process Saf. Environ., http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.psep.2020.05.043.
Lv, D., Tan, W., Zhu, G., Liu, L., 2019. Gasoline fire extinguishing by 0.7 MPa water
mist with multicomponent additives driven by CO2 . Process Saf. Environ. 129,
168–175.
Mei, F., Tang, F., Ling, X., Yu, J., 2017. Evolution characteristics of fire smoke layer
thickness in a mechanical ventilation tunnel with multiple point extraction.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 111, 248–256.
Meng, N., Hu, L., Liu, S., Wu, L., Chen, L., Liu, B., 2012. Full-scale experimental study on
fire suppression performance of a designed water mist system for rescue station
of long railway tunnel. J. Fire Sci. 30, 138–157.
Meng, N., Hu, L.H., Wu, L., Yang, L.Z., Zhu, S., Chen, L., Tang, W., 2014a. Numerical
study on the optimization of smoke ventilation mode at the conjunction area
between tunnel track and platform in emergency of a train fire at subway station.
Tunnel. Undergr. Sp. Tech. 40, 151–159.
Nmira, F., Consalvi, J.L., Kaiss, A., Fernandez-Pello, A.C., Porterie, B., 2009. A numerical
study of water mist mitigation of tunnel fires. Fire Safety J. 44, 198–211.
Palazzi, E., Currò, F., Fabiano, B., 2005. A study on road tunnel fires using hazmat,
with emphasis on critical ventilation velocity. Process Saf. Environ. 83, 443–451.
Qin, J., Chow, W.K., 2005. Bench-scale tests on PMMA fires with water mist. Polym.
Test. 24, 39–63.
Santangelo, P., 2010. Characterization of high-pressure water-mist sprays: exper-
imental analysis of droplet size and dispersion. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 34,
1353–1366.
Santangelo, P.E., Tartarini, P., 2012. Full-scale experiments of fire suppression in
high-hazard storages: a temperature-based analysis of water mist systems. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 45-46, 99–107.
Tang, F., Cao, Z., Palacios, A., Wang, Q., 2018. A study on the maximum temperature
of ceiling jet induced by rectangular-source fires in a tunnel using ceiling smoke
extraction. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 127, 329–334.
TB 10020-2012, 2012. Code for Design on Evacuation Engineering Disaster Preven-
tion and Rescue of Railway Tunnel. China Railway Publishing House., Beijing.
Wang, X., Liao, G., Qin, J., Fan, W., 2002. Experimental study on the effectiveness of
the extinction of a pool fire with water mist. J. Fire Sci. 20, 279–295.
Wegrzynski, W., Krajewski, G., 2017. Influence of wind on natural smoke and heat
exhaust system performance in fire conditions. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 164,
44–53.
Yao, B., Chow, W.K., 2005. Extinguishment of a PMMA fire by water spray with high
droplet speeds. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 44, 410–419.
Yao, B., Cong, B.H., Qin, J., Chow, W.K., 2012. Experimental study of suppressing
poly(methyl methacrylate) fires using water mists. Fire Safety J. 47, 32–39.
Yi, L., Huo, R., Zhang, J., Li, Y., Zhang, H., 2006. Characteristics of heat release rate of
diesel oil pool fire. J. Combust. Sci. Technol. 12, 164–168 (In Chinese).
Yi, L., Gao, Y., Niu, J.L., Yang, S.J., 2013. Study on effect of wind on natural smoke
exhaust of enclosure sire with a two-layer zone model. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
119, 28–38.
Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Huang, X., Jin, X., Qin, J., 2007. Experimental study of the interac-
tion between the water mists and PVC fire. Process Saf. Environ. 85, 39–44.
Yi, L., Luan, D., Yang, L., Chen, T., Tao, H., Xu, Z., Fan, C., 2020. Flow field and fire
characteristics inside a tunnel under the influence of canyon cross wind. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 105, 103575.
Zhang, T., Du, Z., Han, Z., Liu, K., 2016a. Performance evaluation of water mist
additives in suppressing cooking oil fires based on temperature analysis. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 102, 1069–1074.
Zhang, P., Tang, X., Tian, X., Liu, C., Zhong, M., 2016b. Experimental study on the
interaction between fire and water mist in long and narrow spaces. Appl. Therm.
Eng. 94, 706–714.
Zhou, Y., Bu, R., Gong, J., Zhang, X., Fan, C., Wang, X., 2018. Assessment of a clean and
efficient fire-extinguishing technique: continuous and cycling discharge water
mist system. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 682–693.
Zhou, Y., Bu, R., Zhang, X., Fan, C., Gong, J., 2019a. Performance evaluation of
water mist fire suppression: a clean and sustainable fire-fighting technique in
mechanically-ventilated place. J. Clean. Prod. 209, 1319–1331.
Zhou, Y., Yang, Y., Jiao, S., et al., 2019b. Large Eddy Simulation of effectiveness of
solid screen on improving natural ventilation performance in urban tunnels.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 86, 174–185.