Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 72 (2018) 120–130

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

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

Numerical investigation on the maximum ceiling temperature and T

longitudinal decay in a sealing tunnel fire
⁎ ⁎
Youbo Huanga, Yanfeng Lia, , Bingyan Dongb, Junmei Lia, Qiang Liangc,
a
College of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing 100124, China
b
School of Energy and Environmental Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, China
c
Department of Fire Command, Chinese People’s Armed Police Forces Academy, Langfang 065000, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Sealing the tunnel entrance is one of tactic for railway tunnel firefighting. In order to understand the effect of
Tunnel fire tunnel entrance sealing ratio on fire behavior, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is used to simulate tunnel
Sealing ratio fire with different heat release rates and sealing ratios varied from 0% to 100%. Both the maximum temperature
Maximum temperature and the temperature distributions along the tunnel ceiling were calculated by the empirical model and compared
Longitudinal decay
with previous experimental data. Results show that the ceiling temperature increases with sealing ratio due to
Tunnel ceiling
the heat accumulation inside the tunnel when the heat release rate is relatively small. Moreover, the longitudinal
ceiling temperature decreases with the increase of the tunnel entrance sealing ratio at initial stage and then tends
to stability due to less oxygen supply when the heat release rate is relatively large. The maximum temperature
along the tunnel ceiling decays exponentially. The correlations determining the maximum temperature and
temperature decay beneath the tunnel ceiling are proposed to modify the current model taking the tunnel en-
trance sealing ratio into account. The predictions agree well with the experimental and measured data by the
modified equations of this paper.

1. Introduction paid more attention.

Fire in railway tunnel could lead to enormous material loss and
threaten tunnel lining structures especially tunnel concrete roof due to
the confined space. For instance, the fire occurred in Simplon railway
tunnel connecting Switzerland and Italy on July 9, 2011, causing a train
with cargo burned and tunnel structure damaged (Chen et al., 2017).
Tunnel fire happened in the Pear bay railway tunnel of Sichuan in
China in 1990, resulting in 4 deaths and 14 injures, finally the fire was
extinguished by sealing the tunnel entrance to reduce fresh air supply.
Moreover, the fire occurred in Chaoyangba railway tunnel in China in
1998 causing 6 deaths and more than 50 injuries. The fire was caused
by leaked liquefied petroleum gas carried by train. It was extinguished
by sealing tunnel portal to suppress oxygen supply. Also, in Baoji-
Chengdu railway, China, the tunnel fire caused by the train carrying oil
in the tunnel derailed in May 2008, which the tunnel fire actually was
extinguished by sealing the tunnel entrance partly (Li et al., 2011).
From above it can be seen that sealing the tunnel entrance to reduce
oxygen supply is one of the good choices for extinguishing heavy haul
railway tunnel fire (Chen et al., 2017). In order to understand the
sealing effect, fire response behavior inside sealed tunnel should be
The tunnel fire characteristics have been widely studied during past
few years by means of experiments and numerical simulations
(Gannouni and Maad, 2016; Gao et al., 2015; Liang et al., 2017). The
full scale experiments of tunnel fire, such as the EUREKA EU
499—tunnel fire in Repparfjord (Hammerfest, Norway) in 1990–1992
(Haack et al., 1995; Grant and Drysdale, 1995) and the Runehamar fire
tests in 2003 (Ingason et al., 2015a), are important methods used to
reveal tunnel fire behaviors (Liu et al., 2017; Zhong et al., 2016) by
scholars. However, the full scale tunnel fire experiment is limited due to
high cost, wasting time and destructive effect. Therefore, the reduced
scale experiment and numerical simulation are widely used to research
tunnel fire characteristic because of low cost and repeatability. As re-
gard to the reduced scale study, one was carried out by Ingason (2008)
to investigate the extinguishing efficiency of water mist on tunnel fire.
Tang et al. (2013) studied the effect of cross-sectional blockage ratio
and blockage-fire distance on critical ventilation velocity and smoke
back-layering distance by small scale (1:5) tunnel fire experiments. And
some other tunnel fire characteristics (exhaust smoke, temperature
distribution, heat release rate and so forth) were also researched using
reduced scale experiments (Mei et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017a,

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: huangyoubo6@163.com (Y. Huang), liyanfeng@bjut.edu.cn (Y. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.11.021
Received 27 August 2017; Received in revised form 13 October 2017; Accepted 12 November 2017
0886-7798/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Huang et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 72 (2018) 120–130

Nomenclature T temperature (K)

△T temperature rise under ceiling (K)
A, B, C constants in Eq. (8) u velocity vector
cp specific heat of air (kJ/kg·K) V′ dimensionless ventilation velocity
Cs empirical Smagorinsky constant v ventilation velocity (m/s)
D diffusion coefficient (m2/s)
d transverse distance to reference point (m) Greek and other symbols
Fr Froude number
g gravitational acceleration (m/s2) γ and ε coefficients in Eq. (1)
H tunnel height (m) ρ fuel density (kg/m3)
Hd vertical distance between fire source and tunnel ceiling μLES dynamic viscosity (N·s/m2)
(m) Δ a length on the order of the size of a grid cell
h sealing height (m)
K coefficient in Eq. (7) Subscripts and superscripts
kLES thermal conductivity
L tunnel length (m) a ambient
Pr turbulent Prandtl number f full scale
Q heat release rate (kW) i, j Species i, j
Q∗ dimensionless heat release rate m model scale
r radius of fire source (m) max maximum value
S unit vector in direction of radiation intensity 0 at reference point
Sc turbulent Schmidt number x at x point

2017b). What’s more, the numerical studies on tunnel fire also have
been widely reported (Lin and Chuah, 2008; Vermesi et al., 2017;
Caliendo et al., 2012), of which FDS (Fire Dynamic Simulator) software
is mainly used to simulate the critical velocity (Weng et al., 2016),
smoke temperature (Ji et al., 2015) and other characteristics of tunnel
fire. In order to justify the feasibility of FDS simulated tunnel fires,
numerous researches have been carried out using FDS to simulate the
existing experiments (Gannouni and Maad, 2016; Liang et al., 2017; Ji
et al., 2015). Also FDS is justified a valid tool to simulate the tunnel fire.
In this paper, the numerical code FDS is carried out.
The maximum temperature and longitudinal temperature distribu-
tion beneath the tunnel ceiling during tunnel fire are key factors which
could probably break tunnel lining structure. Much works have been
carried out to investigate the tunnel structure under fire loading.
Amouzandeh et al. (2014) studied the destructive effect of fire tem-
perature on tunnel structure of the concrete lining under different
ventilation conditions. Zhang et al. (2014) proposed a numerical
method to assess the concrete spilling risk of tunnel lining under fire
loading by taking material properties and environment condition into
account. Gawin et al. (2011a, 2011b) studied the physical phenomena
of tunnel concrete lining at high temperature to propose the mathe-
matical model, and the results were compared with some reference
models. The important parameter of risk assessment from tunnel lining
under fire loading is temperature distribution. The researches on tem-
perature distribution during tunnel fire are widely reported and con-
ducted in some theoretical model. Tang et al. (2017a) proposed the
temperature decay coefficient to describe the ceiling temperature at-
tenuation law along the tunnel axis in consideration of transverse gas
burner locations. As for the maximum smoke temperature of tunnel,
plentiful works have been reported in the previous studies of tunnel fire
(Zhou et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2017a, 2017b; Gao et al., 2014, 2017; Hu
et al., 2013a, 2013b; Lönnermark and Ingason, 2005). However, few

Fig. 1. Schematic of the tunnel.

121
Y. Huang et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 72 (2018) 120–130

2. Theoretical model

2.1. Maximum temperature beneath the ceiling

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
The heat produced by tunnel fire can easily accumulate inside the
tunnel to cause high temperature, and then the high temperature in-
Fig. 2. Layout of sealing ratio. fluenced by buoyancy and ventilation velocity will spread vertically
and horizontally. The high temperature as an important parameter can
Table 1
damage the tunnel lining structure, and it can be predicted (Liu et al.,
Scheme of simulated cases. 2016) if the changing law is known. Kurioka et al. (2003) proposed the
empirical model for maximum ceiling temperature rise above fire
Case HRR Sealing ratio Case HRR Sealing ratio source based on a series of model scale experiments with square fire
(MW) (MW)
source, as following.
1 10 0%, 25%, 50%, 4 50 0%, 25%, 50%, ε
ΔTmax Q∗2/3
75%, 100% 75%, 100% = γ ⎛ 1/3 ⎞ ⎜ ⎟

2 20 0%, 25%, 50%, 5 100 0%, 25%, 50%, Ta ⎝ Fr ⎠ (1)

75%, 100% 75%, 100%
3 30 0%, 25%, 50%, 6 150 0%, 25%, 50%, Q∗ = Q/(ρa cp Ta g1/2Hd5/2) (2)
75%, 100% 75%, 100%
Fr = v 2/(gHd ) (3)
1200
∗2/3 1/3
⎧Q / Fr < 1.35,γ = 1.77,ε = 6/5
1100
FDS predictions ⎨ 1.35 ⩽ Q ∗2/3/ Fr 1/3,γ = 2.54,ε = 0
⎩ (4)
Experimental (Chen et al. 2016)
1000 The maximum gas temperature rise beneath the tunnel ceiling can’t
be predicted correctly by Kurioka model at very low ventilation velo-
900 city, which is mainly because the maximum gas temperature rise be-
neath the ceiling will be infinity when the ventilation velocity ap-
800
proaches zero. Ingason et al. (2015a) found that the maximum gas
700 temperature rise depended on the dimensionless ventilation velocity
and could not exceed 1350 °C. Li et al. (2011) proposed the maximum
600 ceiling temperature model as follows:
Q
500 ⎧ vr1/3H 5/3 , V ′ > 0.19
⎪ d
ΔTmax =
400 ⎨17.5 Q2/3 , V ′ ⩽ 0.19
⎪ Hd5/3 (5)
⎩
300
-10 0 10 20 30 40 v
V′ =
Distance from fire source (m) 1/3

Fig. 3. Comparison of FDS predictions with experimental data with entrance sealing ratio
50%.
works (Chen et al., 2016, 2017) are about the temperature distribution
of sealing entrance on putting out tunnel fire in recent years. Sealing
tunnel entrance with incombustible material to extinguish fire is an
important factor for firefighting, rescue and tunnel structure. Sealed
tunnel entrance will lead to temperature distribution broken, the
maximum ceiling temperature and temperature longitudinal decay that
differs from normal tunnel fire. Therefore, it is an important aspect of
tunnel fire needed to be raised more concern. Chen et al. (2016, 2017)
studied the impact of symmetrical and asymmetrical sealing ratios of
tunnel entrance on temperature distributions and heat fluxed using
model scale (1/9) experiments, but no correlation expression was
proposed. It was insufficient to quantitatively identify the impacts of
sealing entrance on temperature distribution in the case of tunnel fire.
In present work, a series of full scale tunnel fire simulated by FDS
have been carried out to investigate the temperature distribution in-
cluding maximum temperature and longitudinal temperature decay
beneath the tunnel ceiling with different sealing ratios at the two en-
trances. The dimensionless analysis is conducted, and then an empirical
model correlating the temperature and sealing ratio is proposed. This
study is expected to provide some references for actual tunnel fire-
fighting.
( gQ
rρa cp Ta ) (6)
The tunnel is a semi-closed space that maximum temperature is
higher than that of an open fire. For a large fire in the tunnel, the heat
feedback plays an important role in the heat balance to enhance tem-
perature with the flame impinges on the ceiling and fire plume spread
along the tunnel. Therefore, the temperature of the flame and hot gas is
higher than that of an open fire (Ingason et al., 2015a). Moreover, when
the combustion zone is present at tunnel ceiling, the maximum tem-
perature approaches constant which ranges from 950 °C to 1150 °C for
model scale tests and from 1150 °C to 1350 °C for large scale tests.
The temperature distribution under tunnel fire with sealing two
entrances are different without sealing due to more hot smoke accu-
mulation and less oxygen supply. Because the tunnel was relatively
enclosing and the heat balance was influenced by more factors. The
predicted model whether can be directly used to calculate the max-
imum temperature in the sealing tunnel need to be verified in further,
however, the investigation of this is seldom. The maximum ceiling
temperature and theoretical model are investigated by numerical si-
mulation in this paper.
2.2. Temperature decay along the tunnel centerline
The ceiling temperature could longitudinally decay due to mixing
with cold air. Oka and Imazeki (2015) proposed an empirical model for
the ceiling temperature distribution along the tunnel axis under in-
clined tunnel. Hu et al. (2005) conducted full scale experiments to
analysis temperature distribution along longitudinal direction and

122
Y. Huang et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 72 (2018) 120–130

1200 1200
1100
Sealing ratio Sealing ratio
Sealing 0% 1100 Sealing 0%
1000 25% 1000 25%
900 50% 900 50%
75% 75%
800 800
100% 100%
700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time(s) Time(s)
(a) HRR 10MW (b) HRR 20MW
1200 1200

1100 Sealing ratio 1100

Sealing 0% Sealing
1000 1000
25%
900 50% 900

800 75% 800

100%
700 700

600 600

500 500
Sealing ratio
400 400
0%
300 300 25%
200 200 50%
75%
100 100
100%
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time(s) Time(s)
(c) HRR 30MW (d) HRR 50MW
1300 1300

1200 1200

1100 1100

1000 1000

900 900

800 800

700
Sealing 700 Sealing
600 600

500 Sealing ratio 500

Sealing ratio
400 0% 400 0%
25%
300 300 25%
50%
200 200 50%
75%
75%
100 100% 100
100%
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time(s) Time(s)
(e) HRR 100MW (f) HRR 150MW
Fig. 4. Ceiling temperature with different sealing ratios of six fire source.

proposed a dimensionless model expressed as Eq. (7). Based on the Hu temperature distribution below the tunnel ceiling by taking the sidewall
model, Tang et al. (2017b) proposed the temperature decay coefficient and end wall effect into account. The correlation is hypothetically fitted
to describe the ceiling temperature attenuation law along the tunnel as Eq. (8).
ceiling. Considering tunnel height from experimental data, Ingason
ΔTx T −T
et al. (2015b) suggested that the ceiling temperature distribution along = x a = e−Kx
ΔT0 T0−Ta (7)
the tunnel can be well represented by the sum of two exponential
equations, which correlated to the theory well. Ji et al. (2011, 2015) ΔTx d
conducted the exponential equation to predict the maximum = Ae−B H + C
ΔT0 (8)

123
Y. Huang et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 72 (2018) 120–130

1400 1400
Sealing ratio 0% Sealing ratio 25%
1300 1300 Sealing ratio 50% Sealing ratio 75%
1200 1200 Sealing ratio 100% Li et al. (2011)
Sandzimier and Danziger (1997)
1100 1100 Ingason and Werling (1999)
1000 1000 Chen et al. (2017) Hu et al. (2013)
900 900
Sealing ratio 0%
800 Sealing ratio 25%
800
Sealing ratio 50%
Tmax

700
Sealing ratio 75% 700
600 Sealing ratio 100% 600
500 Li model
Li et al. (2011) 500
400

Tmax
Sandzimier and 400
300 Danziger (1997)
Ingason and Li (2010) 300
200
Chen et al. (2017) 200
100 Hu et al. (2013)
0 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Tmax
Q2/3/Hd5/3
Fig. 7. Comparison of the measured results with predictions by modified equation (Eq.
Fig. 5. Maximum temperature beneath the tunnel ceiling.
(16)) and previous studies. (See above-mentioned references for further information.)

3. Numerical set-up section was arc radius of 2.75 m and vertical wall of 4.5 m. The tunnel
wall material was concrete that was the same with real tunnel material.
3.1. Introduction to FDS The physical properties of this material (thermal conductivity, density
and specific heat) were specified in the FDS model (Gannouni and
This study used commercial CFD software FDS developed by NIST Maad, 2016). The values used for the calculation of wall material were
(National Institute of Standards and Technology), which was widely
such as thermal conductivity of 1.8 W/(m·K), density of 2280 kg/m3
validated and adopted to simulate tunnel fire. LES (Large Eddy and specific heat of 1.04 kJ/(kg·K). The fire source pan along the tunnel
Simulation) model was used because it dispose turbulence and buoy-
axis was 10 m long and 3 m wide considering the geometry of freight
ancy well. The grid size in the simulation field must allow the sub grid- train which was approximate 3 m wide and more than 10 m long for one
scale (SGS) stress model of LES to precisely calculate the flow field
carriage. The tunnel ceiling, floor and side walls set as 1 m thickness
viscous stress. The Smagorinsky model (Zhang et al., 2002) was concrete structure. Moreover, the two ends of tunnel were opened with
adopted to deal with the turbulence. The turbulence viscosity modeled
no initial air velocity, which was natural ventilation condition. And the
in FDS is expressed as Eq. (9) (McGrattan et al., 2010). The other dif- two tunnel entrances were sealed with concrete wall with different
fusive parameters, the thermal conductivity and material diffusivity,
sealing ratios when burning. For this study, the sealing ratio was de-
are related to the turbulent viscosity by Eq. (10). fined as the proportion of sealing height over the tunnel entrance height
2 1 including arch part (Chen et al., 2016), and five different sealing ratios
μLES = ρ (CS Δ)2 [2Sij: Sij− (∇ ·u) 2 ] 2
3 (9) (0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%) were adopted, as shown in Fig. 2. The
μLES cP μLES two tunnel entrances were sealed symmetrically at 100 s. Generally, the
kLES = ,(ρD)LES =
(10) sealing technology was mainly used to disposal railway tunnel fire with
Pr Sc
large heat release rate (HRR), in order to reflect the heat release rate
ranges as much as possible, it was varied from 10 MW to 150 MW
3.2. Numerical cases (Ingason et al., 2015b), and 30 tests were conducted, as shown in
Table 1.
Fig. 1 presents the schematic of tunnel model simulated by FDS as The ambient temperature is 293 K, and the ambient pressure is the
an arched tunnel which was 200 m long and 5.5 m wide, the cross

1.40 1.10
Measured Measured
1.35 1.05
Linear fitting Linear fitting
1.30 1.00

1.25 0.95

1.20 0.90

1.15 0.85

0.80
Ks

1.10
Ks

1.05 0.75

1.00 0.70

0.95 0.65

0.90 0.60

0.85 0.55

0.80 0.50
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
h/H h/H
(a) HRR 50MW (b) HRR 50MW
Fig. 6. Correlation of correction coefficient with different sealing ratios.

124
Y. Huang et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 72 (2018) 120–130

1200 1200

1100 Sealing ratio 1100 Sealing ratio

0% 0%
1000 1000
25% 25%
900 900 50%
50%
800 75% 800 75%
100% 100%
700 700

600 600

Tx
Tx

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200
100 100
0 0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance from tunnel center(m) Distance from tunnel center(m)

(a) HRR 10MW (b) HRR 20MW

1200 1200

1100 Sealing ratio 1100 Sealing ratio

0% 0%
1000 1000 25%
25%
900 900 50%
50%
75%
800 75% 800 100%
700
100%
700
600 600
Tx

Tx

500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance from tunnel center(m) Distance from tunnel center(m)
(c) HRR 30MW (d) HRR 50MW
1400 1300

1300 Sealing ratio 1200 Sealing ratio

1200 0% 0%
1100
25% 25%
1100 1000
50% 50%
1000 900 75%
75%
900 100%
100% 800
800
700
700
Tx
Tx

600
600
500
500
400
400
300 300
larger temperature difference 200 larger temperature difference
200
near tunnel entrance near the tunnel entrance
100 100
0 0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance from tunnel center(m) Distance from tunnel center(m)
(e) HRR 100MW (f) HRR 150MW
Fig. 8. Ceiling temperature decays along tunnel with different sealing ratios.

standard atmosphere pressure (101.32 kPa). In order to get better re-
sults, the extended computational regions were added in every tunnel
end with 10 m long and 20 m high, because it shows that the FDS model
with extended computational domain will obtain better results than
without it (Wu et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2010; He et al., 2008).
The slices which can measure whole plane temperature and plot 3D
function of FDS were carried out to obtain the detailed temperature
distribution inside tunnel. A series of thermocouples of 1 mm diameter
was mounted along the tunnel centerline. The thermocouples were
fixed 0.25 m beneath the ceiling (Ingason et al., 2015a) to measure the
ceiling temperatures in detail. The longitudinal and vertical intervals of
every thermocouple were 1 m and 6 m, respectively. Furthermore, 2
thermocouple trees were mounted near every side of the tunnel portals
to measure the temperature of flame jet.

125
Y. Huang et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 72 (2018) 120–130

1.1 1.1
Sealing ratio 0% Sealing ratio 0%
Sealing ratio 25% Sealing ratio 25%
1.0 1.0
Sealing ratio 50% Sealing ratio 50%
Sealing ratio 75% Sealing ratio 75%
0.9 Sealing ratio 100% 0.9 Sealing ratio 100%
Fitted curve 0% Fitted curve 0%
Fitted curve 25% Fitted curve 25%
0.8 0.8
Fitted curve 50% Fitted curve 50%
Fitted curve 75% Fitted curve 75%

T0
T0

0.7 Fitted curve 100% 0.7 Fitted curve 100%

Tx/
Tx/

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(x-x0)/H (x-x0)/H
(a) HRR 10MW (b) HRR 20MW
1.1 1.1
Sealing ratio 0% Sealing ratio 0%
Sealing ratio 25% Sealing ratio 25%
1.0 1.0
Sealing ratio 50% Sealing ratio 50%
Sealing ratio 75% Sealing ratio 75%
0.9 Sealing ratio 100% 0.9 Sealing ratio 100%
Fitted curve 0% Fitted curve 0%
Fitted curve 25% Fitted curve 25%
0.8 0.8
Fitted curve 50% Fitted curve 50%
Fitted curve 75% Fitted curve 75%
T0

T0
0.7 Fitted curve 100% 0.7 Fitted curve 100%
Tx/
Tx/

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(x-x0)/H (x-x0)/H
(c) HRR 30MW (d) HRR 50MW
1.1 1.1
Sealing ratio 0% Sealing ratio 0%
Sealing ratio 25% 1.0 Sealing ratio 25%
1.0
Sealing ratio 50% Sealing ratio 50%
Sealing ratio 75% Sealing ratio 75%
0.9 Sealing ratio 100% 0.9 Sealing ratio 100%
Fitted curve 0% Fitted curve 0%
0.8 Fitted curve 25% 0.8 Fitted curve 25%
Fitted curve 50% Fitted curve 50%
Fitted curve 75% Fitted curve 75%
T0
T0

0.7 Fitted curve 100% 0.7 Fitted curve 100%

Tx/
Tx/

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(x-x0)/H (x-x0)/H
(e) HRR 100MW (f) HRR 150MW
Fig. 9. Distribution of dimensionless ceiling temperature along the tunnel.

2/5
3.3. Grid independence test Q
D∗ = ⎜⎛ ⎞
⎟
⎝ ρa c p Ta g ⎠ (11)
The grid size is a key parameter to influence the result accuracy and
computation time. The grid size can be derived by fire characteristic
In order to obtain the optimum scheme based on reasonable result
diameter D∗, and it is recommended the ratio of fire characteristic size
and save running time, the multi-grid system was employed and com-
to gird size (D∗/δx) range from 4 to 16 by McGrattan et al. (2010). Lin
pared with the single grid system. The whole tunnel domain was di-
and Chuah (2008) designed D∗/δx = 24 to get feasible smoke extraction
vided into three continuous subdomains. The near fire 60 m region
prediction. It is widely validated by full scale and small scale experi-
covering from x = 80 m to x = 140 m (downstream and upstream area
ments that δx = 0.1 D∗ can get reliable results. The D∗ can be calculated
were 30 m respectively) was defined as Middle Domain. The
by:

126
Y. Huang et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 72 (2018) 120–130

0.60 0.50

0.55 Measured Measured

Linear fitting 0.45 Linear fitting
0.50

0.45 0.40

0.40
0.35
0.35

0.30
y0

0.30

y0
0.25
0.25
0.20

0.15 0.20
0.10
0.15
0.05

0.00 0.10
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
h/H h/H
(a) HRR 50MW (b) HRR 50MW
0.80 1.00
Measured
Measured 0.95
0.75 Linear fitting
Linear fitting
0.90
0.70
0.85

0.65 0.80

0.60 0.75
b
b

0.70
0.55
0.65
0.50
0.60
0.45
0.55

0.40 0.50
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
h/H h/H
(c) HRR 50MW (d) HRR 50MW
0.50 0.50
Measured
0.45 Measured 0.45
Linear fitting
Linear fitting
0.40 0.40

0.35 0.35

0.30 0.30

0.25 0.25
k
k

0.20 0.20

0.15 0.15

0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00
-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
h/H h/H
(e) HRR 50MW (f) HRR 50MW
Fig. 10. Fitting coefficients of measured results.

downstream region covering from x = 0 m to x = 80 m and the up-
stream region covering from x = 140 m to x = 220 m were defined as
Left Domain and Right Domain, respectively. A series of system sensi-
tive analysis of numerical grid (multi-grid system and single grid size)
have been done before simulation to ensure the results accuracy.
Generally, the value of δx varied from 0.0625D∗ to 0.25 D∗. After grid
independence test, the multi-grid system with δx = 0.1 D∗ for Middle
Domain and δx = 0.2 D∗ for Left and Right Domain were set.
3.4. Model validation
The feasibility of FDS simulated the tunnel fire has been extensively
validated using experiment and theory model (Gannouni and Maad,
2016; Liang et al., 2017; Ji et al., 2015, 2017). The FDS predicted
tunnel ceiling temperatures with entrance sealing ratio 50% have been
compared with a 1/9 small scale experimental results (Chen et al.,
2016), shown in Fig. 3. The Froude scale law was carried out to convert
the small scale parameter to full scale one. The scaling relationships are:

127
Y. Huang et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 72 (2018) 120–130

1400
the simulated data of maximum temperature beneath ceiling plotted as
1300 Predicted by Eq.(22) 20% error bars
Li model
a function of Q2/3/Hd5/3 and compared with Li model and previous
1200 experimental data, as shown in Fig. 5. It should be noted that the tunnel
Chen et al. (2017)
1100 Sandzimier and Danziger (1997) entrance sealing effect was not taken into account in those data of most
Ingason and Li (2010)
1000 experiments and results predicted by Li model. Only experimental data
900 conducted by Chen et al. (2017) considered the tunnel entrance sealing.
800 Due to no forced ventilation, the dimensionless ventilation velocity is
20% error bars equal to or less than 0.19 (V′ ≤ 0.19) in all cases, and V′ > 0.19 is not
700
600 taken into consideration in this study. It can be found that the simulated
500
data with the sealing rate of 0% agree well with the results predicted by
400
Li model and experimental data, and the maximum temperature in-
Tx

creases with HRR increases. When HRR is larger than 100 MW, the
300
maximum temperature tends to be a constant near 1300 °C. Because the
200
flame impinges on the tunnel ceiling, the maximum temperature be-
100
neath the tunnel ceiling may be the flame temperature. The maximum
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 temperature increases with tunnel entrance sealing ratio when HRR is
Tx equal to and less than 50 MW. When HRR is larger than 50 MW, the
maximum temperature with the sealing ratio of 25%, 50%, 75% and
Fig. 11. Comparison of measured data with predictions by proposed model and previous 100% are less than that with the sealing ratio of 0%, and the maximum
studies. (See above-mentioned references for further information.)
temperature decreases with HRR increases. The tunnel entrance sealing
ratio impacts the maximum temperature greatly, and sealing ratio is
5/2
Qm L considered to modify the current equation.
= ⎜⎛ m ⎟⎞ A dimensionless coefficient factor Ks is proposed to account for the
Qf ⎝ Lf ⎠ (12)
entrance sealing ratio effect. The maximum temperature beneath the
Tm = Tf (13) tunnel ceiling can be expressed as Eq. (15). The maximum temperature
prediction model with sealing is only for V′ ≤ 0.19.
1/2
vm L
= ⎜⎛ m ⎟⎞ Q 2/3
vf ΔTmax = K s 17.5 , V ′ ⩽ 0.19
⎝ Lf ⎠ (14) Hd5/3 (15)
The heat release rates of small scale is 201 kW in the experiments
When seals the tunnel entrance, the maximum temperature rise lies
(Chen et al., 2016). For a full scale using the Froude scaling law, the
on the relative prevailingness of oxygen supply decay effect and heat
corresponding fire size is 48.8 MW which was simulated by FDS. It was
accumulation effect. The maximum temperature rise increases as the
shown that the ceiling temperatures predicted by FDS were in good
sealing ratio increases when HRR is relatively small. That is because
agreement with experimental data.
heat accumulation effect plays a leading role compared with oxygen
supply decay effect, and vice versa. From above analysis, this study
4. Results and discussion
divided HRR into two groups to analysis the relationship between
maximum temperature and sealing ratio. The tunnel entrance sealing
4.1. Ceiling temperature
height (h) is normalized by tunnel height (H) that is h/H (Chen et al.,
2016, 2017). The dimensionless modification coefficient Ks against
Fig. 4 shows the ceiling temperature versus time with the different
sealing ratio (h/H) is shown in Fig. 6. The coefficient Ks is deduced from
sealing ratios. When HRR is relatively large, the temperature increased
measured value and theoretical model. Then the linear relationship can
to peak value and then decreased with burner time. This phenomenon is
be obtained and substituted into Eq. (15), a modified equation ex-
similar with experiment results conducted by Chen et al. (2016, 2017).
pressed as following.
The maximum ceiling temperature became higher with the increase of
heat release rate, and then kept steady when the temperature near 2/3
⎧ ΔTmax = (0.965 + 0.352(h/ H ))17.5 Q 5/3 , V ′ ⩽ 0.19, Q ⩽ 50 MW
1200 °C. From Fig. 4, it is obvious that sealing the tunnel entrance ⎪ Hd

caused the temperature rise when HRR was less or equal 50 MW
(HRR ≤ 50 MW), and the temperature difference increased with sealing
ratios increased. However, when HRR was larger than 50 MW
(HRR ＞ 50 MW), this phenomenon is not obvious. When HRR is rela-
tively large, the temperature declined sharply because combustion
consumed more oxygen. After the sealing, the combustion was in-
sufficient due to less fresh air drawn in from the entrance, which agrees
well with small scale experiment conducted by Chen et al. (2017). The
maximum ceiling temperature declined obviously with the sealing ratio
of 75% and 100%, and declined slower with the sealing ratio of 75%
than that of 100%. When the heat release rate is large, the maximum
temperature begins declining at the small sealing ratio. The corre-
sponding temperature declined faster and earlier with the same sealing
ratio and larger heat release rate. The mainly reason is that larger heat
release rate need more oxygen supply to maintain complete combus-
tion. And the oxygen concentration is relatively low with the increase of
sealing ratio, which causes the fire inside tunnel exhausting and tem-
perature decreasing.
The Kurioka model could not be applied to predict maximum tem-
perature as taking no account of the mechanical ventilation. Therefore,
⎨ ΔT = (0.946−0.097(h/ H ))17.5 Q2/3 , V ′ ⩽ 0.19, Q > 50 MW
⎪ max Hd5/3
⎩
(16)
Fig. 7 shows the comparison of maximum temperature beneath the
tunnel ceiling among simulated results, previous experimental data and
theoretical predictions by Eq. (16). It can be found that the predictions
by modified equation are good agreement with the simulated and ex-
perimental values. The proposed maximum temperature model beneath
the tunnel ceiling can predict the results correctly.
4.2. Temperature longitudinal distribution in tunnel
The ceiling temperature symmetrically decays along tunnel center-
line with different sealing ratios due to symmetry sealing and no me-
chanical ventilation, as shown in Fig. 8. The temperature distributions
along the tunnel ceiling are nearly symmetrical from fire upstream and
downstream, which is similar with scale experiment results (Chen et al.,
2016, 2017). From Fig. 8(a) it can be found that the maximum ceiling
temperature appears when the sealing ratio is 100% with HRR 10 MW.

128
Y. Huang et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 72 (2018) 120–130

However, when HRR varies from 20 MW to 50 MW, the maximum ΔTx ⎧ (0.431−0.091h/ H ) + (0.569 + 0.091h/ H ) e
−(0.157 + 0.044h / H )(x − x 0)/ H , HRR ⩽ 50 MW
=
temperature appears with the sealing ratio of 75% shown in ΔT0 ⎨ (0.251 + 0.019h/ H ) + (0.749−0.019h/ H ) e−(0.171 + 0.046h / H )(x − x 0)/ H , HRR > 50 MW
⎩
Fig. 8(b)–(d), and the temperature difference along tunnel is larger in (22)
these cases. When HRR is more than 50 MW, the temperature along
The predictions calculated by theoretical model Eq. (22) are com-
tunnel with sealing ratio of 0% is higher, the temperature distribution is
pared with the measured and experimental data, as shown in Fig. 11.
similar when the sealing ratio is more than 25%, as shown in
The Li model (Ingason et al., 2015b) is also carried out, but Li model
Fig. 8(e) and (f).
can only calculate temperature without tunnel entrance sealing. It is
The reasons for above phenomenon are discussed below. For small
obviously that the results predicted by proposed model perform good
fire, the temperature increases with sealing ratio increases because of
agreement with experimental values and the predictions of temperature
remaining sufficient oxygen to support combustion inside tunnel when
distribution beneath the tunnel ceiling with different entrance sealing
the tunnel entrance is sealed. And higher sealing ratio produces rela-
ratio agree well with measured data.
tively more heat accumulation which leads temperature rise. When
HRR ranges from 20 MW to 50 MW, the required oxygen for the com-
5. Conclusions
plete combustion increases with HRR increases and the burning in
tunnel is depressed because of insufficient air supply from sealed en-
A series of simulations are carried out in this paper to investigate the
trance. The combustion inside tunnel could be more obviously influ-
effect of tunnel entrance sealing ratio on the gas temperature beneath
enced by the relatively smaller sealing ratio when HRR is larger than
the tunnel ceiling under various heat release rate of the fire. The em-
50 MW. The reason is that oxygen supply decay effect surpasses the
pirical model for tunnel ceiling maximum temperature and temperature
heat accumulation. And the temperature near the tunnel entrance area
longitudinal decay with different sealing ratios was proposed. The
is more obviously influenced by the sealing ratio due to oxygen supply
major conclusions are as following:
from entrance.
The results of maximum temperature decay beneath the tunnel
1. The ceiling temperature increases with the heat release rate, and the
ceiling have been processed as the dimensionless temperature rise
temperature increases with sealing ratio when HRR is 10 MW. The
against with distance from reference point. Due to the symmetric
maximum temperature appears at the sealing ratio of 75% when
temperature distribution, the upstream and downstream temperature
heat release ratio ranges from 20 MW to 50 MW, because of the
distributions are both taken into account. In order to extrapolate the
relatively sufficient air for combustion and the relatively less heat
measured results, the dimensionless temperature beneath the tunnel
loss. But the ceiling temperature changes small when sealing ratio is
ceiling can be plotted as a function of a dimensionless distance from the
larger than 25% and HHR is larger than 50 MW.
fire (x-x0)/H (Ingason et al., 2015b), as shown in Fig. 9. Where x is
2. The temperature distribution is symmetrical along the tunnel up-
distance to reference point (m), x0 is distance from reference point to
stream and downstream when sealing entrance, and the temperature
fire source (m). It can be found that the dimensionless temperature is
under the ceiling decays exponentially along the tunnel. When heat
exponential decay with dimensionless distance. When the HRR is larger
release rate is relatively large, the ceiling temperature increases near
than 50 MW, the temperature near the tunnel entrance area at sealing
the entrance with the sealing ratio of 75%, which mainly because of
ratio of 75% isn’t included in the exponential fitting due to vapor
unburned vapor burning again with more oxygen supply from
burning again that results in temperature rise again.
opening areas.
The correlation between dimensionless temperature rise and di-
3. A dimensionless analysis has been made to deduce empirical model
mensionless distance is hypothetically fitted as:
for calculating the maximum ceiling temperature and temperature
ΔTx x−x0
= y0 + be−k ( H ) longitudinal decay where the effect of the tunnel entrance sealing
ΔT0 (17) ratio is taken into account. The results predicted by empirical model
are in good agreement with measured and previous experimental
where y0, b and k are coefficients related to sealing ratio.
data.
The coefficients against tunnel sealing ratio are divided into two
groups according to the HRR as shown in Fig. 10. The coefficients are
Acknowledgements
well correlated linearly with sealing ratios. Account for tunnel entrance
sealing, the linear relationships can be expressed as the following
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support from the
functions.
‘Beijing Natural Science Foundation’ – ‘China’ under Grant No.
0.407−0.093h/ H , HRR ⩽ 50 MW 8172006 and the ‘National Natural Science Foundation of China’ –
y0 = ⎧
⎩ 0.258 + 0.016h/ H , HRR > 50 MW
⎨ (18) ‘China’ under Grant Nos. 51378040 and 51474151.

0.569 + 0.091h/ H , HRR ⩽ 50 MW Conflict of interest

b=⎧
⎩ 0.749−0.019h/ H , HRR > 50 MW
⎨ (19)
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
0.154 + 0.044h/ H , HRR ⩽ 50 MW
k=⎧
⎩ 0.171 + 0.046h/ H , HRR > 50 MW
⎨ (20) Appendix A. Supplementary material

The temperature beneath the tunnel ceiling along the longitudinal
direction can be expressed as Eq. (21). When x equals x0, the di-
mensionless temperature rise should equal 1 which indicates the y0 add
b equals 1 in theory. Therefore, when HRR ≤ 50 MW and HRR >
50 MW, (0.431–0.091 h/H) and (0.251 + 0.019 h/H) are taken as the
equation of y0 based on method conducted by Fan et al. (2013). The
dimensionless temperature rise expression is shown as Eq. (22).
−(0.157 + 0.044h / H )(x − x 0)/ H , HRR ⩽ 50 MW
ΔTx ⎧ (0.407−0.093h/ H ) + (0.569 + 0.091h/ H ) e
=
ΔT0 ⎨ (0.258 + 0.016h/ H ) + (0.749−0.019h/ H ) e−(0.171 + 0.046h / H )(x − x 0)/ H , HRR > 50 MW
⎩
(21)
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.11.021.
References
Amouzandeh, A., Zeiml, M., Lackner, R., 2014. Real-scale CFD simulations of fire in
single- and double-track railway tunnels of arched and rectangular shape under
different ventilation conditions. Eng. Struct. 77, 193–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.engstru ct.201 4.05.027.
Caliendo, C., Ciambelli, P., Guglielmo, M.L.D., Meo, M.G., Russo, P., 2012. Numerical
simulation of different HGV fire scenarios in curved bi-directional road tunnels and

129
Y. Huang et al.
safety evaluation. Tunn. Undergr. Space Tech. 31, 33–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.tust.2 012.04.004.
Chen, C.K., Zhu, C.X., Liu, X.Y., Yu, N.H., 2016. Experimental investigation on the effect
of asymmetrical sealing on tunnel fire behavior. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 92, 55–65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfe r.2015.08.07 9.
Chen, C.K., Xiao, H., Wang, N.N., Shi, C.L., Zhu, C.X., Liu, X.Y., 2017. Experimental in-
vestigation of pool fire behavior to different tunnel-end ventilation opening areas by
sealing. Tunn. Undergr. Space Tech. 63, 106–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.
20 17.01.0 01.
Fan, C.G., Ji, J., Gao, Z.H., Sun, J.H., 2013. Experimental study on transverse smoke
temperature distribution in road tunnel fires. Tunn. Undergr. Space Tech. 37, 89–95.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2013.04.005.
Gannouni, S., Maad, R.B., 2016. Numerical analysis of smoke dispersion against the wind
in a tunnel fire. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 158, 61–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jweia.2016.09.009.
Gao, Z.H., Ji, J., Fan, C.G., Sun, J.H., Zhu, J.P., 2014. Influence of sidewall restriction on
the maximum ceiling gas temperature of buoyancy-driven thermal flow. Energy
Build. 84, 13–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.07.070.
Gao, Z.H., Ji, J., Wan, H.X., Li, K.Y., Sun, J.H., 2015. An investigation of the detailed
flame shape and flame length under the ceiling of a channel. P. Combust. Inst. 35,
2657–2664.
Gao, Z.H., Ji, J., Wan, H.X., Zhu, J.P., Sun, J.H., 2017. Experimental investigation on
transverse ceiling flame length and temperature distribution of sidewall confined
tunnel fire. Fire Safety J. 91, 371–379.
Gawin, D., Pesavento, F., Schrefler, B.A., 2011a. What physical phenomena can be ne-
glected when modelling concrete at high temperature A comparative study. Part 1:
Physical phenomena and mathematical model. Int. J. Solids Struct. 48, 1927–1944.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.03.004.
Gawin, D., Pesavento, F., Schrefler, B.A., 2011b. What physical phenomena can be ne-
glected when modelling concrete at high temperature? A comparative study. Part 2:
Comparison between models. Int. J. Solids Struct. 48, 1945–1961. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijsol str.2011.03.003.
Grant, G.B., Drysdale, D.D., 1995. Estimating heat release rates from large–scale tunnel
fires. Fire Safety Sci. 5, 1213–1224. http://dx.doi.org/10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.5-1213.
Haack, A., Casale, E., Ingason, H., 1995. EUREKA-Project EU 499: FIRETUN-Fires in
Transport Tunnels, Report on Full Scale Tests, Studiengesellschaft Stahlanwendung e.
V. D-40213 Dusseldorf, Germany.
He, Y., Jamieson, C., Jeary, A., Wang, J., 2008. Effect of computation domain on simu-
lation of small compartment fires. Fire Safety Sci. 9, 1365–1376. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.9-1365.
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. Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 20, 223–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2004.08.007.
Hu, L.H., Tang, W., Chen, L.F., Yi, L., 2013a. A non-dimensional global correlation of
maximum gas temperature beneath ceiling with different blockage fire distance in a
longitudinal ventilated tunnel. Appl. Therm. Eng. 56, 77–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.appltherm aleng.2013.03.021.
Hu, L.H., Chen, L.F., Wu, L., Li, Y.F., Zhang, J.Y., Meng, N., 2013b. An experimental
investigation and correlation on buoyant gas temperature below ceiling in a slopping
tunnel fire. Appl. Therm. Eng. 51, 246–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2012.07.043.
Ingason, H., 2008. Model scale tunnel tests with water spray. Fire Saf. J. 43, 512–528.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2007.12.002.
Ingason, H., Li, Y.Z., 2010. Model scale tunnel fire tests with longitudinal ventilation. Fire
Saf. J. 45, 371–384. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2010.07.004.
Ingason, H., Werling, P., 1999. Experimental study of smoke evacuation in a model
tunnel. FOA Defence Research Establishment. FOA-R–99-01267-311–SE, Tumba,
Sweden.
Ingason, H., Li, Y.Z., LÖnnermark, A., 2015a. Runehamar tunnel fire tests. Fire Saf. J. 71,
134–149. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2014.11.0%2015.
Ingason, H., Li, Y.Z., LÖnnermark, A., 2015b. Tunnel Fire Dynamic, first ed. Springer,
New York, London, pp. 207–230. ISBN 978-1-4939-2198-0. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/978-1-4939-2199-7.
Ji, J., Zhong, W., Li, K.Y., Shen, X.B., Zhang, Y., Huo, R., 2011. A simplified calculation
method on maximum smoke temperature under the ceiling in subway station fires.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Tech. 26, 490–496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2011.02.
001.
Ji, J., Wan, H.X., Li, K.Y., Han, J.Y., Sun, J.H., 2015. A numerical study on upstream
maximum temperature in inclined urban road tunnel fires. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
88, 516–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.05.002.
Ji, J., Guo, F.Y., Gao, Z.H., Zhu, J.P., Sun, J.H., 2017. Numerical investigation on the
effect of ambient pressure on smoke movement and temperature distribution in
tunnel fires. Appl. Therm. Eng. 118, 663–669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
appltherma leng.2017.03.026.
Kurioka, H., Oka, Y., Satoh, H., Sugawa, O., 2003. Fire properties in near field of square
fire source with longitudinal ventilation in tunnels. Fire Saf. J. 38, 319–340. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0379-7112(02)00089-9.
Li, Y.Z., Lei, B., Ingason, H., 2011. The maximum temperature of buoyancy-driven smoke
130
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 72 (2018) 120–130
flow beneath the ceiling in tunnel fires. Fire Saf. J. 46, 204–210. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.firesaf.2011.02.002.
Li, L.B., Wang, Y.X., Zhang, Y.M., 2011. Application of plugging tactics in railway tunnel
firefighting and rescue. Fire Sci. Tech. 30, 955–959.
Liang, Q., Li, Y.F., Li, J.M., Xu, H., Li, K.Y., 2017. Numerical studies on the smoke control
by water mist screens with transverse ventilation in tunnel fires. Tunn. Undergr.
Space Tech. 64, 177–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.01.017.
Lin, C.J., Chuah, Y.K., 2008. A study on long tunnel smoke extraction strategies by nu-
merical simulation. Tunn. Undergr. Space Tech. 23, 522–530. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.tust.2007.09.003.
Liu, F., Yu, L.X., Weng, M.C., Lu, X.L., 2016. Study on longitudinal temperature dis-
tribution of fire-induced ceiling flow in tunnels with different sectional coefficients.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Tech. 54, 49–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.01.
031.
Liu, C., Zhong, M.H., Shi, C.L., Zhang, P.H., Tian, X.L., 2017. Temperature profile of fire
induced smoke in node area of a full-scale mine shaft tunnel under natural ventila-
tion. Appl. Therm. Eng. 110, 382–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.
2016.0 8.147.
Lönnermark, A., Ingason, H., 2005. Gas temperatures in heavy goods vehicle fires in
tunnels. Fire Saf. J. 40, 506–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2005.05.003.
McGrattan, K., McDermott, R., Hostikka, S., Floyd, J.E., 2010. Fire Dynamics Simulator
(Version 5), Technical Reference Guide. National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, pp. 15–44.
Mei, F.Z., Tang, F., Ling, X., Yu, J.S., 2017. Evolution characteristics of fire smoke layer
thickness in a mechanical ventilation tunnel with multiple point extraction. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 111, 248–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.09.
064.
Oka, Y., Imazeki, O., 2015. Temperature distribution within a ceiling jet propagating in
an inclined flat-ceilinged tunnel with natural ventilation. Fire Saf. J. 71, 20–33.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.firesa%20f.2014.11.002.
Sandzimier, J.R., Danziger, N.H., 1997. Memorial tunnel fire ventilation test program: the
memorial tunnel test facility. ASHRAE Trans. 103, 575–582.
Tang, W., Hu, L.H., Chen, L.F., 2013. Effect of blockage-fire distance on buoyancy driven
back-layering length and critical velocity in a tunnel: an experimental investigation
and global correlations. Appl. Therm. Eng. 60, 7–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthe rmaleng.2013.06.033.
Tang, F., Li, L.J., Chen, W.K., Tao, C.F., Zhan, Z., 2017a. Studies on ceiling maximum
thermal smoke temperature and longitudinal decay in a tunnel fire with different
transverse gas burner locations. Appl. Therm. Eng. 110, 1674–1681. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.applthe rmaleng.2016.09.054.
Tang, F., Cao, Z.L., Chen, Q., Meng, N., Wang, Q., Fan, C.G., 2017b. Effect of blockage-
heat source distance on maximum temperature of buoyancy-induced smoke flow
beneath ceiling in a longitudinal ventilated tunnel. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 109,
683–688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.02.021.
Vermesi, I., Rein, G., Colella, F., Valkvist, M., Jomaas, G., 2017. Reducing the compu-
tational requirements for simulating tunnel fires by combining multiscale modelling
and multiple processor calculation. Tunn. Undergr. Space Tech. 64, 146–153. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.12.016.
Wang, Y.F., Sun, X.F., Li, B., Qin, T., Liu, S., Liu, Y., 2017a. Small-scale experimental and
theoretical analysis on maximum temperature beneath ceiling in tunnel fire with
vertical shafts. Appl. Therm. Eng. 114, 537–544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
appltherma leng.2016.12.040.
Wang, X.Y., Spearpoint, M.J., Fleischmann, C.M., 2017b. Investigation of the effect of
tunnel ventilation on crib fires through small-scale experiments. Fire Saf. J. 88,
45–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fir esaf.2017.01.002.
Weng, M.C., Lu, X.L., Liu, F., Du, C.X., 2016. Study on the critical velocity in a sloping
tunnel fire under longitudinal ventilation. Appl. Therm. Eng. 94, 422–434. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.10.059.
Wu, Z.K., Yang, M.J., Wang, J., He, Y.P., 2006. Selection of computational domain in
numerical simulation of building fires. Fire Safety Sci. 15, 232–240. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3801/IAFSS.FSS.9-1365.
Zhang, W., Hamer, A., Klassen, M., Carpenter, D., Roby, R., 2002. Turbulence statistics in
a fire room model by large eddy simulation. Fire Safety J. 37, 721–752. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0379-7112(02)00030-9.
Zhang, X.C., Yang, M.J., Wang, J., He, Y.P., 2010. Effects of computational domain on
numerical simulation of building fires. J. Fire Prot. Eng. 20, 225–251. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/1042391510367349.
Zhang, Y.M., Zeiml, M., Pichler, C., Lackner, R., 2014. Model-based risk assessment of
concrete spalling in tunnel linings under fire loading. Eng. Struct. 77, 207–215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014. 02.033.
Zhong, M.H., Shi, C.L., Hei, L., Shi, J.H., Liu, C., Tian, X.L., 2016. Smoke development in
full-scale sloped long and large curved tunnel fires under natural ventilation. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 108, 857–865. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.07.
141.
Zhou, T.N., He, Y.P., Lin, X., Wang, X.H., Wang, J., 2017. Influence of constraint effect of
sidewall on maximum smoke temperature distribution under a tunnel ceiling. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 112, 932–941. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.10.
111.