Bryce Glenn - 0570731 - MEng Final Year Project

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management Thesis
Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Technologies for Simulation of Fire and Smoke Movement with Large Indoor Spaces within
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Masters Degree Mechanical Engineering with Management Presented to the School Schoo of Engineering of the University of Edinburgh (United Kingdom) by
Bryce Glenn (s0570731) Submitted April 2010 Supervisor: Dr Stephen Welch
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010
I.
Personal Statement
The work contained within this thesis is essentially a continuation from previous analysis of researchers including my dissertation supervisor Dr Stephen Welch and previous masters students including Frazer MacDonald and Roslyn Clarke. While the thesis draws on Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) predictions made using fire specific CFD software no prior attempts have been made within the body of work to use a none fire specific, multipurpose CFD package to model the problem. A great deal of background learning had to take place before the thesis project work could begin fully. Modules in CFD and fire science and fire dynamics were completed as part of the final year of my degree course. These modules aided greatly in learning the background theory to the project. The thesis draws theoretical knowledge from both the previous body of work, and my own research on the topic. Two modelling techniques have been used in separate simulations during the project work, the heat source method and the eddy break up combustion method. While the CFD software used did contain good resources to assist with the setup of the heat source method, the implementation of the eddy break up combustion method was entirely my own. There were a number of problems throughout the project, mainly concerning the operation of the CFD software and the non convergence of the eddy break up combustion models. A significant amount of time was invested in researching and solving the convergence issues with a large number of trial simulations being completed. With the excellent help and advice of Dr Stephen Welch the convergence issues were addressed and overcome. It is definitely true that we can often learn more when things dont go to plan the first time than we would otherwise. I am pleased with the outcomes to the project believing that the initial aims set out at the beginning of the project have been met. I also firmly believe that I have learned a great deal through completing the project both about CFD, fire science as well as an appreciation of fire safety engineering I declare that all work carried out within my thesis is my own and any intellectual contribution derived from other sources has been appropriately referenced.
Signed: Bryce Glenn Date: 22/04/2010
Page 2
II.
Summary
The complex architecture and designs of modern innovative buildings can often make application of prescriptive building regulations with respect to fire safety engineering challenging. Often restrictions are placed on a building which stifles the creative appearance and functionality of the buildings design. There is a definite requirement that innovative buildings be designed under a performance based design process rather than a prescriptive process with respect to fire safety engineering. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is one such performance based tool. The abilities, limitations and typical accuracy of CFD techniques must be understood in order that confidence can be built up in their use. The most effective approach in verifying the predictive abilities of CFD is to compare predictions made against experimental data, measured from fire scenarios under well specified environmental conditions. Data had been made available from a series of fire tests against which verification could take place. The thesis author has modelled a number of the experimental fire scenarios using the multipurpose CFD package STAR-CCM+. Two different CFD modelling methods were used; the eddy break-up combustion method and the heat source method. Comparison would allow an assessment of the models relative predictive abilities. A number of similar simulations were conducted with key parameters such as radiation modelling, temporal disczeration order and mesh refinement altered to assess the influence these parameters have on the simulation outcomes. Predictions have been made regarding the gas temperature and the thermally driven velocity of the fluid flow field within the experimental geometry. These predictions were compared against the experimental data as well as predictions made by previous authors using fire specific CFD technology. Overall the predictive abilities of CFD simulations vary depending on the experimental scenario modelled. In general the heat source models with radiation solvers activated showed the best prediction capabilities while the EBU combustion models tended to overestimate the temperature profiles. In some experimental scenarios the CFD predictions were encouraging, but in general the predictions tended to overestimate the flow field gas temperatures when compared to the experimental values particularly on the first floor level. It was also determined that additional refinement of the simulation meshes would improve predictive capabilities and tend towards a grid independent solution. Mesh refinement was not always feasible for the purposes of the thesis due to the long simulation times which were required.
Page 3
III.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my project supervisor Dr Stephen Welch for his consistent advice, knowledge input and patience throughout this project.
Page 4
IV.
g Hf
Notation
is the acceleration due to gravity. is the heat of formation of the specified substance.
HRR is the defined heat release rates of the simulations at a given time step. ht k k lc mf n Ps T t is the heat transfer coefficient. is the material thermal conductivity. Turbulent Kinetic Energy is the vertical height above the coordinate system origin (located at ground level). is the mass flow rate of fuel per second. is the number of molecules of the specified substance. is the static atmospheric pressure defined in the simulations. is the temperature of species in a grid cell. is the thickness of the material. is a constant as defined in used to define the heat release rate. is the heat of combustion of the fuel used within the experiments i.e. IMS and Kerosine and not the substitute fuels.
Hc (exp)
Hc
is the heat of combustion of the substitute fuel. The Rate of Dissipation of the Turbulent Kinetic Energy is the absorption coefficient. is the density of air, defined in the simulations as 1.2kg/m3. is the density of the fuel in a grid cell, it is determined within STAR-CCM+. is the dimensionless passive scalar quantity released into the model at a given time step.
Page 5
V.
Glossary
Buildings Research Establishment Computational Fluid Dynamics Direct Numerical Simulation
BRE CFD DNS
DOM Participating Media Radiation FDS Fire Dynamics Simulator
HRR Heat Release Rate IMS k- Industrial Methylated Spirits A Turbulence model used in RANS codes to solve the unknown relationships between the Reynolds stresses due to random turbulent fluctuations and the mean flow field quantities.
LBTF Large Building Test Facility LES Large Eddy Simulation
RANS Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes
VI.
Chart Legend Key

Indicates the base size used in the polyhedral heat source mesh First Order Temporal Discretization Second Order Temporal Discretization Eddy Break-Up Combustion Simulation Heat Source Simulation Simulation without Radiation Solvers Activated Simulation with Radiation Solvers Activated Mesh Refined in Run 9 EBU Simulations to give 77 Mesh Resolution around Fire
(0.4m) 1st 2nd EBU HS No Rad Rad Ref Mesh
Page 6
VII.
Summary of Resources
The work contained within this thesis did not require any physical resources custom for the thesis or workshop time typically required by Mechanical Engineering project work. The work did however rely on a large computational effort supplied by the University of Edinburgh, School of Engineering. Computing resources particularly utilised were the machines within Teaching Lab F and via remote login through NX Client the Teaching Lab C Sun Microsystems machines both running Scientific Linux (64 bit) as an operating system. The thesis also required extensive use of use of the CD-adapco Computational Fluid Dynamics software STAR-CCM+ version 4.02.007. The CD-adapco licensing terms require that for each processor core on which a simulation is run a separate licence is required. As simulations carried out for this thesis utilised extensively the parallel processing capabilities of STAR-CCM+ it is acknowledged that multiple academic licenses were used simultaneously.
Page 7
VIII.
I.
Table of Contents
Personal Statement ............................................................................................................. 2
II. Summary............................................................................................................................. 3 III. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ 4 IV. Notation .............................................................................................................................. 5 V. Glossary .............................................................................................................................. 6 VI. Chart Legend Key............................................................................................................... 6 VII. Summary of Resources ....................................................................................................... 7 1. 2. 3. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 10 Project Aims and Objectives ............................................................................................ 12 Performance Based Fire Safety Methods (Literature Review) ......................................... 13 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 4. Scale Models ............................................................................................................. 13 Zone Models .............................................................................................................. 13 Computational Fluid Dynamics ................................................................................ 14
Computational Fluid Dynamics Technology (Literature Review) ................................... 16 4.1. 4.2. Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) ............................................................. 17 Large Eddy Simulation (LES) ................................................................................... 18
5. 6. 7.
Experimental Geometry (Literature Review) ................................................................... 19 Fire Scenarios (Literature Review)................................................................................... 22 Instrumentation Setup (Literature Review) ...................................................................... 24 7.1. 7.2. Gas Temperature ....................................................................................................... 24 Gas Velocity .............................................................................................................. 24
8.
CFD Fire Modelling Setup ............................................................................................... 25 8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4. 8.5. 8.6. 8.7. 8.8. 8.9. Geometry Preparation ............................................................................................... 26 Geometry Meshing .................................................................................................... 27 Defining the Heat Release Rates ............................................................................... 34 Fuel Definition .......................................................................................................... 35 Industrial Methylated Spirits (IMS) Substitution ...................................................... 35 Kerosine Substitution ................................................................................................ 36 Fuel Properties........................................................................................................... 36 CFD Physics Solver Selections ................................................................................. 37 Initial and Boundary Conditions ............................................................................... 45
Page 8
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 9. CFD Simulations Parameter Variations ........................................................................... 48 9.1. Data Extraction .......................................................................................................... 48
10. Model Limitations ............................................................................................................ 51 11. Results .............................................................................................................................. 53 11.1. 11.2. 11.3. 11.4. Temperature Analysis ............................................................................................ 53 Velocity Analysis .................................................................................................. 54 Internal Opening .................................................................................................... 55 External Opening ................................................................................................... 56
12. Parameter Variations ........................................................................................................ 57 12.1. 12.2. 12.3. 12.4. Effect of Radiation Models.................................................................................... 57 Effect of Temporal Discretization ......................................................................... 57 Effect of Refining the Mesh around the Fire Region ............................................ 57 Effect of Base Size on the Polyhedral Mesh Heat Source Models ........................ 58
13. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 60 14. References ........................................................................................................................ 61 15. Run 8 (2MW IMS) Charts ................................................................................................ 67 16. Run 9 (2MW Kerosine) Charts ......................................................................................... 81 17. Run 11 (5MW Kerosine) Charts ..................................................................................... 107 18. STAR-CCM+ Materials Database .................................................................................. 121 19. Grid Refinement Index (GCI)......................................................................................... 124
Page 9
1. Introduction
Across the world there has been a definite modern trend towards constructing larger buildings with wide open internal spaces. There has also been a trend towards increasingly creative, innovative buildings which can often deviate considerably in their shape from the traditional compartmentalised buildings of the past. Typical examples include airport terminals, sports arenas, train stations, open-plan office buildings, hotel reception areas, shopping centres and night clubs. These buildings often contain a large amount of people. It is therefore imperative that the safety of people inside the building is considered in the event of fire. In particular it is important that smoke which often contains toxic combustion products such as carbon monoxide is managed effectively. In the past, design of buildings with respect to fire safety engineering has often been dictated by prescriptive fire safety codes. The codes tend to be targeted at conventional building designs based around closed compartment rectangle forms. The dictatorial nature of these codes can often place restrictions on innovative modern buildings which deviate from a prescribed form. There is a definite requirement therefore that creative building forms be designed under a performance based design process rather than a prescriptive based process with respect to fire safety engineering. A number of technologies are available which allow design engineers to produce a performance based fire safety building design; including physical scale models, zone models and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) based models. It is important that the abilities, limitations and typical accuracy of each of the performance based design approaches be understood in order that confidence is built up in their use. The most effective approach in verifying the design models is to compare predictions made through their use against experimental data from multiple fire scenarios under well specified fire and environmental conditions. While there is a general abundance of data from smaller single compartment fire scenarios there is less data from larger, well instrumented fire scenarios to act as a benchmark for the validation of fire models. As a result only a limited amount of work has been undertaken in very large-scale atrium buildings, because of the lack of data for validation A project was undertaken in 1999 led by the Fire Research Station (FRS) in collaboration with a number of European and UK universities and research establishments with the overall aim of providing increasing confidence in the use of deterministic fire models for their application to fire hazard assessment in buildings. The project initiated a large-scale experimental programme to obtain a detailed data set for the validation of fire models. The comprehensive data set obtained was intended to be used as a benchmark for model validation purposes by comparisons of model predictions with the data set. [Marshall, N. et al. (1999)] The experiments were carried out at the Large Building Test Facility (LBTF) at Cardington with the experimental data being made available through the Buildings Research Establishment Trust (BRE) as part of the Edinburgh Centre in Fire Safety Engineering.
Page 10
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 This thesis will therefore attempt to model three of the experimental scenarios using the multi-purpose commercial CFD package STAR-CCM+ and compare the predictions made with the experimental values. The results will also be compared with the previous work of researchers and masters students using fire specific CFD technology.
Page 11
2. Project Aims and Objectives

This project aims to extend previous work in order to provide practical guidance to fire safety engineering practitioners in the use of CFD methods as a performance based design tool. The work contained within this thesis is essentially a continuation of previous analysis from the following researchers: [Marshall, N. Kumar, S. Goodall, C. and Smith, D. (1999).] [Kumar, S. Welch, S. and Chitty, R. (1999).] and the following masters students: [MacDonald, F. (2008).] [Clarke, R. (2008).] The objectives of this study are as follows: Identify the assumptions and limitations of CFD fire models. Run CFD simulations for selected fire scenarios and do parameter comparisons where possible. Compare the predictions with the test data in order to evaluate the performance of the models for the different scenarios. Evaluate the predictive capability for different fire phenomena against the large scale experimental data. Identify factors such as reliability and ease of use of the chosen CFD technology. Compare the predictions of alternative CFD technologies, such as RANS and LES codes in order to determine their relative merits for this application.
While the thesis was based on previous CFD predictions made using fire specific CFD software no previous attempts have been made within the previous body of work to use a none fire specific, multi-purpose CFD package to model the problem. While a large degree of freedom was allowed in the modelling direction and setup of the CFD simulations a number of limitations were adhered to in order that a reasonable comparison was able to be made between the codes. These are discussed further in Section 10. As far as was reasonably possible, consistency between the work carried out for this thesis using STAR-CCM+ and the previous modelling efforts was implemented. It was not always possible however to be fully consistent due to technological considerations and differences in the methods used by the CFD packages to define the simulated models.
Page 12
3. Performance Based Fire Safety Methods (Literature Review)

A number of technologies are available which allow design engineers to evaluate the fire safety performance of a building design. The three most prominent methods are physical scale models, zone models and CFD models. It is important that the abilities, limitations and typical accuracy of each of the performance based approaches be understood in order that the tools can be utilised successfully and their use be applied only in situations where the performance will offer a representative view of the physical behaviour of an actual fire event.
3.1. Scale Models

Scale models involve creating a real fire in a controlled environment and recording physical measurements such as temperature, smoke velocity and density. Models can either be conducted at full scale or reduced scale (usually 1/3 scale). It must be taken into consideration however that smaller scale models may not effectively replicate all the flow field features of an actual fire. Scale models produce tangible raw data which must be further analysed for productive use. Real life models are often labour intensive and can be expensive to undertake, particularly at larger scales. Scale models are therefore best suited towards small buildings and compartments and may not always be feasible for large complex buildings.
3.2. Zone Models

Zone models are a deterministic set of equations which use a number of control volumes to describe how the products of a fire behave over time. Zone models typically use the inverted bathtub assumption whereby the products of combustion rise to fill the ceiling level of the computed compartments. The models split the compartment into two zones, an upper hot products layer and a lower clear air layer. The zones are assumed to be homogenous in nature. The zones are therefore defined by average values of properties such as temperature, velocity, gas concentrations and density. The zone models rely on well established empirical relationships to describe the evolution of the zones over time. These empirical relationships are often derived from experimental data and may be valid only under a certain set of conditions or initial assumptions by which the experiments were conducted. Zone models cannot therefore be completely decoupled from the experimental setup. Zone models are fast to compute and can often be performed in common spreadsheet packages. Zone models require a prior knowledge of the flow field in order to determine the model compartment structure and the fire source data such as heat release rate (HRR) to determine the rate of smoke production. Zone models often do not work well in flashover situations where the fire has become oxygen limited or where the flame penetrates the hot smoke layer.
Page 13
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 Due to averaging of smoke layer properties the data resolution produced is poor and local effects such as smoke interaction with ceiling height geometry cannot be accounted for. Zone models also assume that there is a distinct divide between the hot upper products layer and the lower clear air. This is not always the case as although there will be a sharp gradient in temperatures between the two layers there will be a mixing region between the zones. It can also be difficult to define representative compartments where complex building geometry is involved. Zone models may not be suitable for use in large atriums where the fire size is proportionally small. [Rho J.S. and Ryou H.S.( 1999)] The smoke produced by a small fire may not travel all the way to the ceiling in a large space as the smoke may entrain a significant quantity of air as it rises. Air entrainment will lower the smoke temperature and therefore the buoyancy of the smoke. This will invalidate the basic assumption made by all zone models that the smoke will remain stratified in a single upper hot layer.
3.3. Computational Fluid Dynamics

Computational Fluid Dynamics software codes are a mathematically advanced method of solving fire flow field problems. They are based on fundamental laws of fluid mechanics and thermodynamics such as the conservation of physical quantities such as mass, momentum, energy and species concentrations. The air space within the building geometry is divided into a large number of discrete cells. The properties of the fluid contained within each cell are numerically homogenous and are influenced by, but not identical to the numerical properties of the fluid in surrounding cells. A CFD program consists of a pre-processor, solver and post-processor. The pre-processor defines the building geometry, fluid and solid region grids, boundary conditions, computational solvers as well as the selection of fluid and solid material properties. The solver uses the pre-processed inputs and executes the selected computational models to simulate the fire problem and generate a numerical representation of the required physical parameters. The post-processor uses the data generated from the solver and presents the solution in the form specified by the user. Measurements of properties such a temperature, velocity, and gas concentrations can be taken at discrete points or displayed on a scalar or vector field over the entire geometry. The accuracy of a CFD simulation is dependent on factors such as grid resolution and grid quality, initial, boundary conditions, temporal discretization and to what extent the physics are correctly represented through the selection of solvers. Sub models can be inserted into the main flow field model dependant on requirements such as combustion, radiation and turbulence models. Addition of sub models however can often alter the computational effort which a model requires to run. Addition of radiation models and certain types of combustion models can add significantly to the computational power required.
Page 14
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 CFD can look at specific flow field phenomena such as thermal, momentum or chemical properties at any point within the grid geometry. The spatial resolutions which these can be modelled are dependent on the resolution of the grid with finer grids resolving more of the flow field phenomena than coarser grids. CFD models require little prior knowledge of the flow field as the solver will compute flow field properties from fundamental physics laws of fluid mechanics and thermodynamics. Also the smoke layer predicted in CFD simulations will be in heterogeneous in nature which can flow over surfaces through time representing a solution closer to actual conditions. CFD simulation however can monetarily cost more than zone modelling as it is preformed with specialist CFD software requiring significantly greater computational resources. Some types of fire specific CFD software such as the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) package is freely available for download from the internet. Other significant costs include the requirement of greater computational resources on which to run the software than zone models. As the availability of computing power increases the power and achievable accuracy of CFD technologies will also increase. CFD modelling also requires a greater deal of expertise to achieve acceptable outcomes than zone models which can further increase costs. A number of differing CFD codes are currently available for fire safety design simulations and they generally fall into one of two categories. Fire specific CFD software is intended only for modelling fire and smoke movement problems. Examples of fire specific codes include Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), SOFIE and JASMINE. General purpose CFD codes can be used to model a wide range of fluid dynamics problems in a wide range of industries such as aerospace, automotive, marine and fire engineering. Examples of general purpose CFD codes include packages such as CFX, Fluent and STAR-CCM+, the package which the thesis author used to conduct simulations.
Page 15
4. Computational Fluid Dynamics Technology (Literature Review)

CFD simulations can differ on the modelling method which the solver uses to model fluid turbulence. Turbulent movement can be described as the internal swirling of the fluid in the form of fluid eddies. Fluid eddies can occur on very large scales which are visible to the naked eye down to very small scales, the smallest of which is the Kolmogorov microscale at which viscous dissipation of the eddies occurs. Turbulence modelling can therefore be treated in a number of ways depending on the size of the turbulent eddies which are desired to be modelled. Modelling of turbulence scales down to the Kolmogorov microscale is called Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS). DNS requires a very fine grid to resolve the small turbulent eddies. The fine grid required is hugely computationally demanding and is therefore completely impractical for the modelling of fire engineering problems. To get around the computational aspects of DNS, turbulence models are used which time average either all of the turbulence in the flow field or only the smaller eddies in the flow field while directly simulating the larger eddies. Time averaging of all eddies is called Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) while computing the larger eddies and time averaging of the smaller eddies is called Large Eddy Simulation (LES).
Figure 1 Comparison of Eddies Resolved by CFD Turbulence Models [Class Notes].
Page 16
Figure 2 Energy Spectrum of Turbulent Eddy Sizes [Class Notes].
4.1. Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS)

Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) is a turbulence modelling technique whereby all eddies are in the flow field are time averaged, the solution is therefore determined using an average representation of the turbulent eddies. The RANS method achieves this by using the Navier Stokes equations for mass, momentum and energy which are time averaged before being solved discretely. RANS can be performed in either steady state conditions where a solution constant in time is computed or in an unsteady state where the solution varies over time. The time averaging must be defined in such a manner that the stochastically fluctuating turbulence is removed while not affecting the time dependent flow phenomena with time scales distinct from those of turbulence. (Hirsch, C. 2007). The relationships between the Reynolds stresses in the fluid due to the random turbulent fluctuations and the mean flow quantities are unknown. Therefore the RANS method requires a turbulence model to solve these unknown relationships. In practice there are many turbulence models which attempt to model the unknown relationship. The model used most widely in fire safety engineering CFD is the k- turbulence model, where k describes the turbulent kinetic energy and describes the rate of dissipation of the turbulent kinetic energy. SOFIE and JASMINE are CFD codes which implement the RANS method. The simulations conducted by the author in STAR-CCM+ use RANS methods with a k- turbulence solver. It must be noted that due to the general nature of the STAR-CCM+ CFD package it is also possible to conduct simulations using the LES method.
Page 17
4.2. Large Eddy Simulation (LES)

Large Eddy Simulation (LES) is a technique whereby the larger eddies in the flow field are resolved to the smallest size which the underlying computational grid will allow while smaller sub-grid eddies are time averaged. LES relies on the logic that the larger eddies are responsible for the majority of energy transfer and momentum in fluid bodies. As the grid resolution becomes finer the size of eddies which are modelled become smaller, the proportion of eddies which are resolved increases while the proportion time averaged by the sub grid model decreases. A finer grid will therefore be more representative of the actual fluid motion but will be more computationally demanding than coarser grids. LES is computationally demanding when compared to the RANS turbulence modelling method but less so than DNS. LES is gaining in popularity due to the wider availability of powerful computing resources. LES is inherently a time varying representation of the fluid motion and cannot therefore be used to perform steady state simulations as the RANS method can. The LES method can also be difficult to implement effectively in the near wall region of the flow. Hybrid RANS-LES systems such as Detached Eddy Simulation have been developed where the near wall regions are treated in a RANS like manner. The Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) code is based on the LES method.
Page 18
5. Experimental Geometry (Literature Review)

The following information has been derived from Evaluation of Fire Models for Fire Hazard Assessment in Buildings: Part 1 Experimental Programme (Marshall et al. 1999). The large scale experiments on which the CFD studies in this thesis are based were conducted at the Large Building Test facility (LBTF) at Cardington. The LBTF rig is a steelframed eight floor building designed to resemble a modern office development. The experimental geometry was partitioned by plasterboard within the main LBTF building and is comprised of an atrium space spanning two floors with an adjacent single storey space located on the first floor. The dimensions of the rig are shown in Figure 3. The rig contained both an internal and external opening. The internal opening was situated between the atrium and first floor compartment which had otherwise no significant external venting. The external opening was the single significant vent between the atrium and the external atmosphere within the LBTF and provided the means from which combustion products escaped the experiment control volume. A one metre soffit was attached at ceiling level to each opening and would ensure that a satisfactorily deep smoke layer would be established at the ceiling. Pictures of the internal and external opening can be seen in Figure 4 and Figure 5 respectively. The atrium has dimensions of 8.8m wide by 10.8m deep by 8.4m high. The first floor compartment has dimensions of 13.3m wide by 21m deep by 4m high. The width of the internal opening between the atrium and first floor was set at 8.78m for the 2MW and 5MW fire scenarios and was reduced to 3m for the 0.4MW fire scenarios. The combined area of the atrium and first floor compartment provides a smoke reservoir approximately 373m2. It was required that the rig geometry have a large enough ceiling area so that the effects of smoke layer cooling could be examined. The experimental geometry was partitioned within the LBTF using plasterboard and plasterboard with fire retardant paper. The ceiling of the atrium and first floor compartment was formed by a composite floor slab consisting of lightweight concrete bounded by a trapezoidal steel deck and is supported by 300-mm deep steel beams extending the length and breadth of the ceiling. The locations of the steel beams and supporting columns are shown in Figure 3
Page 19
Figure 3 Diagram illustrating the construction of the experimental geometry. [Marshall, N. (1999)]
Page 20
Figure 4 Picture of the internal opening taken from the first floor looking out into the atrium. [Marshall, N. (1999)]
Figure 5 Picture of the external opening looking into the atrium space [Marshall, N. (1999)].
Page 21
6. Fire Scenarios (Literature Review)

A total of 13 experimental runs were conducted. The main parameter variations between the experiments were fire size, fire location, and fuel type. The parameters of each experimental run are listed in Table 10 and the locations of the fires scenarios A, B and C are shown in Figure 3 Fire A is located in the atrium corner at ground level while fires B and C are located on the first floor. In total 9 different fires of varying nominal heat release rates and fuel types were located in the corner of the atrium at fire point A with the remaining four fires at located at B and C on the first floor. The experiment used two different types of fuels for the experiment; Industrial Methylated Spirits (IMS) to produce a clean burning fire and Kerosine to produce a smoky fire. The soot content of the smoke will affect the fraction of heat which is lost to heat radiation with smokier fuels loosing a greater percentage of their heat through radiative losses. The experimental setup also varied the fire design size between experiment runs with fire sizes of 0.4MW 2MW and 5MW being used. It was important for this study that the fires chosen had sufficient size to represent a realistically sized design fire. Heat release rates of some 2MW to 5MW are typical of fires in retail premises, with lower levels being appropriate for sprinklered buildings. (Marshall et al. 1999). The atrium had a roof height of 8.4m. A preliminary zone model calculation prior to experimental setup using ASKFRS (Chitty and Cox, 1988) indicated that the continuous flame height of the largest fire size of 5MW would be approximately 2.2m while the intermittent flame height would be approximately 6m. It was predicted that the clear air layer height below the smoke layer would be 5.4m. It is undesirable within the experiment to have the flame penetrate the hot smoke layer because this would invalidate key assumptions made when using the experimental data to validate zone model calculations, i.e. that the fire is situated in the clear air zone and that the clear air zone remains distinct from the hot smoke zone. It was felt by (Marshall et al. 1999) that as the intermittent flame height is only slightly greater than the clear layer height, the flame penetration into the hot layer would be minimal. The 2MW and 5 MW fires were restricted to the atrium in order to minimise flame penetration into the hot gas layer above the fire. The 0.4MW fire size experiments were conducted in both the atrium and on the first floor. It can be seen from Table 1 that each experimental scenario was conducted a minimum of two times in order to check the degree of repeatability of the experiments as a consequence of the changes in the environmental conditions.
Page 22
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 Table1 Experiment Fire Scenarios
Run Nominal Location Fuel Internal Internal Atrium Atrium External Number Fire Ceiling Opening Opening Opening Opening Size Height Height Width Height Width (MW) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) 0.4 C IMS 4.12 3.12 7.33 7.39 3 1 0.4 C IMS 4.12 3.12 7.33 7.39 3 2* 0.4 B IMS 4.12 3.12 7.33 7.39 3 3 0.4 B IMS 4.12 3.12 7.33 7.39 3 4* 0.4 A IMS 8.39 3.12 7.33 7.39 3 5 0.4 A IMS 8.39 3.12 7.33 7.39 3 6* 0.4 A IMS 8.39 3.12 7.33 7.39 3 7** 2 A IMS 8.39 3.12 7.33 7.39 8.78 8 2 A IMS 8.39 3.12 7.33 7.39 8.78 8a** 2 A Kerosine 8.39 3.12 7.33 7.39 8.78 9 2 A Kerosine 8.39 3.12 7.33 7.39 8.78 10* 8.39 3.12 7.33 7.39 8.78 5 A Kerosine 11 5 A Kerosine 8.39 3.12 7.33 7.39 8.78 12*
* **
Repeats Artificial smoke used
Zone model calculations were performed to determine the size of the tray required for each fire. The fire properties and tray sizes are displayed in Table 2 The actual heat release rates of the fires were found in advance of the experiments by measuring the oxygen depletion of the fire combustion products under a 9m hood size calorimeter at BRE facilities separate from the experimental setup. It is realised therefore that there will be discrepancies in the fire sizes as measured by calorimetry and the fire sizes during the experiment itself. Load cells were mounted under the fire trays and were used to determine the mass loss of fuel over the duration of the tests. Each fire tray was given sufficient fuel to last for about 30 minutes. Zone model calculations were used to assess the approximate time of the fire to steady state conditions. Table 2 Fire Properties
Nominal Fuel Fire Size (MW) 5 Kerosine 2 Kerosine 2 IMS 0.4 IMS Area (m2) Perimeter of Fire (m) 6.2 4.4 6.2 3 Tray Size (m) Flame Height (m) 5.9 4.2 4.2 2.2
2.4 1.21 2.4 0.56
1.55x1.55x0.15 1.1x1.1x0.15 1.55x1.55x0.15 0.75x0.75x0.15
Page 23
7. Instrumentation Setup (Literature Review)

A wide range of measurements were taken during the experimental runs. Data types recorded include; gas temperature, surface temperature, gas velocity, gas composition, optical density, heat flux, fuel mass loss, and video and thermal image photography. In total over 400 data streams were recorded. This thesis will focus on comparison of two types of measurements between the codes and the experimental values, i.e. gas temperature and the gas velocity.
7.1. Gas Temperature

Gas temperature was measured using 18 thermocouple columns situated around the experimental geometry as shown in Figure 20 Each thermocouple column was composed of between 5 to 20, K-type 200 micron thermocouples hung vertically from the ceiling to measure the variation of temperature vertically with height. The height of the experimental measurements and CFD predictions are displayed on the graphs within this thesis as the height above the atrium floor. Ten thermocouple columns were located across the first floor with an additional three in the internal opening, two columns were located in the atrium with three positioned at the external opening. Data from the thermocouple columns was logged every 10 seconds.
7.2. Gas Velocity

Velocity measurements were taken at both the internal and external openings. The measurements were taken with McCaffrey low-velocity bi-directional pressure transducers and Pitot static tubes, the instruments measure a pressure difference which can then be converted to velocity. The devices were again like the thermocouples arranged vertically into columns with data being logged at 10 second intervals. The internal opening contains 4 columns of bi-directional probes with either 9 or 5 probes on each. The external opening contained 3 columns with the middle column containing 9 bidirectional probes and the two external columns containing ten Pitot static tubes. The locations for the velocity columns are shown in Figure 21.
Page 24
8. CFD Fire Modelling Setup

The work contained within this thesis is essentially a continuation of the previous work from the following researchers and masters students. [Marshall, N. Kumar, S. Goodall, C. and Smith, D. (1999).] [Kumar, S. Welch, S. and Chitty, R. (1999).] [MacDonald, F. (2008).] [Clarke, R. (2008).] It was decide to focus modelling efforts on only some of the experimental scenarios. The experimental runs selected for which simulations would be created and on which comparisons would be made were as follows: Run 8, (2MW IMS, Fire position A). Run 9, (2MW Kerosine, Fire position A). Run 11, (5MW Kerosine, Fire position A).
The fire scenarios simulations conducted for this thesis by the author all used STAR-CCM+ version 4.02.007 a commercial non fire specific CFD package running on Scientific Linux (64 bit) as an operating system. Computing resources were supplied by the University of Edinburgh, School of Engineering. The simulations utilised extensively the parallel processing capabilities of STAR-CCM+ in order to bring the simulation time within a reasonable duration. Simulation of the first 900 seconds of the experiments after the fires had been lit using two processor cores were typically between 12 hours for coarse mesh simulations with no radiation solvers, to 4 days for fine mesh simulations with radiation solvers activated. All simulations used the RANS method of modelling turbulence with a k- turbulence solver. Comparisons between simulation setups were made by extracting the predicted temperature and gas velocity data from the simulations at a time of 900 seconds and comparing with experimental data and predictions made by previous researchers and masters students using the CFD packages JASMINE, SOFIE and FDS on graphs produced using Microsoft Excel. A time period of 900 seconds (15 minutes) was chosen previously between Dr Stephen Welch and previous masters students on the assumption that at 900 seconds the predictions will have reached steady state conditions. The data supplied for the JASMINE, SOFIE and FDS predictions was therefore at 900 seconds after ignition. Two distinct methods were used to model the problem with a number of variations of each being simulated. The first method which was modelled was a Heat Source (HS) method whereby a predetermined quantity of heat equivalent to that which is produced by the fire is released within the simulation. The second method simulated was the Eddy Break Up (EBU) combustion method whereby a quantity of fuel was injected into the simulation domain and a basic EBU fire model solved following a stoichiometric combustion equation of the fuel with oxygen in the air to produce the products of combustion carbon dixoide, water vapour and heat.
Page 25
8.1. Geometry Preparation

The initial modelling step undertaken prior to beginning simulations was to model the geometry in which the experiments took place. The CAD package used to model the geometry was Solid Edge Version 20. The dimensions of the experimental facility were extracted from Figure 3. It must be noted that the geometry modelled was that of the air contained within the experiment geometry and not that of the containing walls and roof. The modelled geometry can be seen in Figure 6 and is essentially composed of three adjacent volumes, i.e. the atrium, first floor and a portion of the external air. An external air volume was modelled to ensure that the air flowed through the external atrium opening in a realistic manner. This required that the air volume be sufficiently large that hot products could exit through the air volume and ambient air be drawn into the atrium through the air volume without undue interaction or recirculation between the gases.
Figure 6 The Modelled Geometry.
The modelled geometry differed between the simulation types and the experiment run numbers in the treatment of the region around the fire. The experimental runs used different sizes of fire trays to obtain the correct fire heat release rates (HRR), which are replicated within the CFD simulations. The treatment of the fire regions between models is seen in Table 3 The EBU combustion models had a different size of fire tray modelled depending on the experimental run number, through which the fuel would flow into the simulation domain. The geometry for the EBU combustion models was exported directly to STAR-CCM+ using the Parasolid XT file format.
Page 26
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 The heat source models did not have a fire tray modelled. Instead they had a volume in the shape of a cone with the top cut off as an approximate replication of the fire flame through which heat would be released into the model. The model geometry was exported to Star Design a geometric modelling package which accompanies STAR-CCM+ via the Parasolid XT file format for preparation of the heat source cone. The cones were modelled in Star Design by first subtracting the shape of the heat source cone from the model geometry and then remodelling the heat source cone as a separate body. This procedure allowed STARCCM+ to identify the heat source cone as a separate region which allows the separate treatment of the heat source cone form the rest of the simulated domain. The size of the heat source cones differed between the experimental run numbers depending on the size of the fire tray used and the predicted flame height. The top of the cone was cut off in each model for meshing reasons. Table 3 Fire Area Dimensions
Heat Source Models Fire Area Type Plan Dimensions Heat Source Cone Heat Source Cone Heat Source Cone 1.5m Diameter 1.1m Diameter 1.5m Diameter
Run Number Run 8 (2MW IMS) Run 9 (2MW Kerosine) Run 11 (5MW Kerosine)
Cone Height 4.2m 4.2m 5.9m
Cone Top Diameter 0.1m Diameter 0.1m Diameter 0.1m Diameter
EBU Combustion Models Run Number Run 8 (2MW IMS) Run 9 (2MW Kerosine) Run 11 (5MW Kerosine) Fire Area Type Fuel Tray Fuel Tray Fuel Tray Plan Dimensions 1.5m1.5m Square 1.1m1.1m Square 1.5m1.5m Square Tray Height 0.15m 0.15m 0.15m
8.2. Geometry Meshing

CFD simulations require a mesh of the air volume geometry on which the calculations are performed. There are a number of different meshing techniques available within STARCCM+ by which the air volume can be meshed. It was required that the mesh constructed be similar to the mesh used by the previous CFD simulations of JASMINE, SOFIE and FDS to allow a fair comparison of the predictive abilities of the CFD codes. The mesh generated for SOFIE was a structured hexahedral mesh containing approximately 68,400 active cells in the atrium, first floor and air volume. A SOFIE script file containing the mesh definition for the 2MW IMS case was provided on which comparisons between the STAR-CCM+ generated meshes could be compared with the SOFIE mesh. Two different meshing techniques were employed for the heat source models and the EBU combustion models. The EBU combustion models used a hexahedral mesh composed mainly
Page 27
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 of rectangular elements while the heat source model used an unstructured polyhedral mesh composed of many faced elements. The SOFIE mesh was a structured rectangular element mesh built by first defining a structured mesh larger than the experiment geometry then assigning blockages to the mesh to form the geometry walls roof and ground. The SOFIE mesh has different lengths of mesh elements along the x, y and z dimensions with each mesh spacing remaining constant on a plane which is normal to the specified dimension. The SOFIE mesh is shown in Figure 7
Figure 7 The mesh used in the SOFIE CFD simulations. [Welch, S.]
Mesh generation in STAR-CCM+ was completed by a different method whereby the geometry was first imported into STAR-CCM+ and the mesh developed from this. The hexahedral mesh for the EBU combustion models was developed by fitting a number of control volumes around the imported geometry and specifying different mesh dimensions within the control volumes. The control volumes used were fitted to the atrium, external air volume, the front of the first floor to the depth of the atrium and the rear of the first floor. An additional control volume was used to refine the mesh around the fire tray for run 9 (2MW Kerosine) refined mesh series of simulations. The control volumes used are shown in Figure 8 and the customised anisotropic mesh sizes defined within each control volume shown in Table 4 The customised values were defined by taking averages of the corresponding SOFIE mesh sizes within each control volume for each dimension. The coordinate system used in the definition of the control volumes has its origin located at ground level at the left back corner of the first floor compartment as if looking through the external atrium opening. The coordinate system used was defined as follows:
Page 28
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 X +ve Across rear of compartment. Y +ve Vertically. Z +ve Out of compartment.
The coordinate system can also be seen in Figure 8
Figure 8 Control volumes used in the generation of the hexahedral mesh. Table 4 EBU Combustion Model Mesh Control Volume Anisotropic Sizes X Coordinate Atrium First Floor Front First Floor Rear External Air Volume Fire Tray* 0.426m 0.617m 0.617m 1.125m 0.169m Y Coordinate 0.286m 0.272m 0.272m 1.125m As atrium Z Coordinate 0.407m 0.407m 0.459m 1.125m 0.159m
Used only in the Run 9 refined mesh series of simulations.
The mesh also had 2 prism layers applied around all surfaces to help improve the boundary layer definition between the smoke layer and the roof including the roof beams.
Page 29
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 The cell counts of the generated mesh were as follows: 67916 Cells without the prism layers. 102041 Cells with the prism layers. 102829 Cells with the refined fire tray region added in the Run 9 refined mesh series of simulations.
It is noticed that the cell count of the mesh without prism layers is within 0.7% of the 68400 active cells contained within the SOFIE mesh. When the 2 prism layers are added the cell count jumps dramatically to 102041 cells. This can be accounted for by the large number of cells it takes to mesh around complex geometry such as the roof beams. Such additional cells are located adjacent to walls and surfaces and not towards the centre of the volumes. It is therefore assumed that the prism layer will have negligible effect on the flow field within the centre of the compartments. The mesh generated is shown in Figure 9 which looks into the atrium towards the internal opening with the atrium right hand wall hidden from view. The fire tray can be seen in the bottom corner of the atrium. The difference in cell size especially between the air volume inside the experimental setup and the external volume is also apparent. Figure 10 Shows the mesh on planes around the Run 9, 1.1m fire tray on which the prism layers are also apparent. Figure 11 Shows the additional refinement in cells around the fire in the Run 9 refined mesh series of simulations.
Figure 9 EBU Combustion model mesh looking towards the internal opening with atrium wall hidden from view.
Page 30
Figure 10 EBU combustion model mesh of the fire area shown on planes around which the prism layers are apparent.
Figure 11 EBU combustion model mesh showing the refined fire area in the Run 9 refined mesh series of simulations.
The heat source models use an unstructured polyhedral mesh were the mesh is composed of elements containing a different number of faces. These types of meshes are generally used when a complex shape is required to be meshed as they are computationally more demanding than structured meshes containing the same number of grid cells. They have been used however in the case of the heat source models as it was required that a mesh be constructed in STAR-CCM+ between two regions, i.e. the air region composing of the majority of the simulation domain and the heat source cone region. It is not currently possible to mesh between different regions within STAR-CCM+ using a hexahedral mesh as was used for the EBU combustion models so it was required that the polyhedral mesh be used instead. The polyhedral mesh was generated with a base size of 0.4m through the internal geometry with the exception of the external air volume which had a base size of 1.2m applied. The base size with reference to the polyhedral mesh is the target size of any element within the mesh. The mesh also had two prism layers applied over all surfaces if the geometry. Page 31
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 The mesh generated is shown in Figure 12 which looks into the atrium towards the internal opening with the atrium right hand wall hidden from view. The heat source cone is the yellow region which can be seen in the bottom corner of the atrium. Figure 13 shows the mesh on planes throughout the geometry where the difference in cell size between the air volume inside the experimental setup and the external volume is apparent. Figure 14 shows the refinement of the mesh on planes around the heat source cones. The refinement is done automatically by the polyhedral mesh generator when it meets a complex or curved surface. The prism layers applied over all surfaces are also apparent in the picture.
Figure 12 Heat source combustion model showing the polyhedral mesh, the yellow region in the corner of the atrium is the heat source cone region.
Page 32
Figure 13 Heat source mesh shown on planes, the larger mesh size in the external air volume is apparent.
Figure 14 The mesh was automatically refined around the heat source cone.
The cell counts of the generated mesh were as follows:
Page 33
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 106,616 Cells in the air region including prism layers. 2,436 Cells in the heat source cone region. 109,052 Cells in totalled in both regions.
Coarser polyhedral meshes were also generated for the heat source models using base sizes of 0.8m and 1.6m with cells in the external air volume having base sixes of 2.4m and 4.8m respectively. The purpose of generating the coarser meshes was to judge the degree of convergence between the mesh sizes.
8.3. Defining the Heat Release Rates

As previously mentioned the actual heat release rates of the fires were found in advance of the experiments by measuring the oxygen depletion of the fire combustion products under a 9m hood size calorimeter at BRE facilities separate from the experimental setup. Each fire tray was given sufficient fuel to last for about 30 minutes. Conditions were replicated as closely to the experimental conditions as possible with a corner wall scenario being constructed around the fire to replicate the conditions at fire position A. The experimental setup measured the amount of oxygen depleted around the fire and from this determined the heat released by the fire by assuming stoichiometric combustion. Approximately 13.3MJ of energy is released per kilogram of oxygen consumed in a hydrocarbon fire. It is realised however that as the heat release rate of the actual experiments were not measured there will be discrepancies in the fire sizes as measured by calorimetry and the fire sizes during the experiment itself. The heat release rates for the simulations were defined by using a constant plateau heat release rate until the 900 second time step which the fires reached during their burn time. Time squared (t2) ramp ups were also defined at the start of the runs to simulate the build up of the fire and to aid convergence of the simulations. The measured and defined heat release rates are shown on Figures 22, 23 and 24.. The heat release rate t2 ramp ups were defined by the following equation until the heat release rate plateau values were reached: = Where: is a constant as defined in Table 5
Page 34

Table 5 Heat Release Rate Values Run Number Run 8 (2MW IMS) Run 9 (2MW Kerosine) Run 11 (5MW Kerosine) 0.5 0.5 1 HRR Plateau Value 2.077MW 2.163MW 5.6MW
The heat release rate plateau for run 8 and 9 are the same as those defined for the SOFIE Simulations. The value for run 11 where this information was unavailable was defined from the graph. The values for heat release over time were used directly in the heat source models. The EBU combustion models required however that an equivalent fuel mass flow rate be used to obtain the required heat release rate.
8.4. Fuel Definition

The EBU combustion model requires the definition of a combustion equation which the model will solve at the location of the fuel injection into the simulation domain. The reaction will occur in cells around the fuel tray where the combustion equation is fulfilled by meeting the correct mixture fraction of fuel and oxygen. In these cells the EBU solver will numerically deplete the fuel and oxygen in proportions as defined by the combustion equation and numerically produce the products of combustion along with heat. STAR-CCM+ uses a multi component gas solver with the EBU combustion solver and therefore treats each gas separately, i.e. air is treated as O2 and N2 with initial mass fractions defined as 0.233 and 0.767 respectively. The properties which STAR-CCM+ uses for each of the gases present within the simulations are derived from the STAR-CCM+ materials database. An excerpt from the materials database showing the properties of the gases used is shown in Section 18. It was found that the materials database did not include properties of either ethanol (in vapour form), methanol or kerosene. A number of substitutes with similar molar masses and carbonhydrogen ratios were instead used with the mass flow rates of the substitute fuel corrected for difference in heat of combustion (Hc) between the experiment fuel and the substitute fuel.
8.5. Industrial Methylated Spirits (IMS) Substitution

The composition of the Industrial Methylated Spirits (IMS) used in the experiments was 96% ethanol and 4% methanol. It was assumed for simplicity that the chemical composition of the fuel was 100% ethanol. The stoichiometric combustion equation for ethanol (C2H5OH) is as follows: C2H5OH + 3O2 = 2CO2 + 3H2O +Hc The properties of ethanol are not included in the materials database, therefore a substitute fuel was derived. It was decided to define a reaction from component molecules which when summed contained the same number of moles of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen as ethanol. The reaction would be treated in the same manner by the STAR-CCM+ EBU combustion Page 35
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 solver as the stoichiometric ethanol combustion equation. It was decided to use the methyl group (CH3) and methoxy group (CH3O) molecules which would produce the following substitute combustion equation: CH3 + CH3O + 3O2 = 2CO2 + 3H2O +Hc
8.6. Kerosine Substitution

Kerosine is a fuel which is formed from the fractional distillation of petroleum. As a result it is a mixture of hydrocarbons with no specific chemical formula. It is often approximated by the chemical equation C12H23 or C12H26., the properties of kerosene are not listed in the STAR-CCM+ materials database. The reaction has therefore been defined using dodecane (C12H26) as a substitute fuel. Dodecane has approximately the same molecular mass and carbon-hydrogen ratio as the assumed chemical composition of kerosine. The heat of combustion for the two fuels is also similar as shown in Table 6. The stoichiometric combustion equation for dodecane is as follows: C12H26 + 18.5O2 = 12CO2 + 13H2O +Hc
8.7. Fuel Properties

The mass flow rate of each substitute fuel is defined using the following equation: = Where:
mf is the mass flow rate of fuel per second. Hc is the heat of combustion of the substitute fuel.
The heat of combustion was determined for each substitute fuel from the following equation: = Where: ( ) ( ) ( )
Hf is the heat of formation of the specified substance. n is the number of molecules of the specified substance.
The properties of the combustion equation reactants and products are found in Table 6. The properties were derived where possible from the STAR-CCM+ materials database.
Page 36

Table 6 Properties of Combustion Equation Reactants and Products Fuels Molecular Mass Weight Fraction [g/mol] Fuel 46.07 15.04 31.00 46.04 N/A 170.33 1 0.32667 0.67333 1 1 1 Hf [J/ mol] -234,848 0 0 0 N/A -288,823 Hf [J/ kg] -5,105,390 0 0 0 N/A -1,698,960 Hc [J/ mol Fuel] 1,278,679 756,764 756,764 1,513,527 N/A 7,582,354 Hc [J/ kg Fuel] 27,797,371 50,450,900 24,411,726 32,902,761 43,434,000 44,602,081
Ethanol (C2H5OH) CH3 CH3O CH3 + CH3O Kerosine Dodecane (C12H26)
Oxygen (O2) Carbon Dixoide (CO2) Water (H2O)
32.00 44.01 18.02
N/A N/A N/A
Oxidizer/Products 0 0 -393768 -8,941,600 -241997 13,423,800
N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A
The fuel mass flow rates determined for use in the simulations are shown in Table 7. It should be noted that the mass flow rates stated are the flow rates which correspond to the heat release rate plateau values. In the EBU combustion simulations the fuel mass flow rate incorporated the t2 ramp in the heat release rates at the start of the simulations by defining the flow rate which corresponded to the t2 ramp ups illustrated on Figures 22, 23 and 24
Table 7 Heat Release Rate Values Run Number Run 8 (2MW IMS) Run 9 (2MW Kerosine) Run 11 (5MW Kerosine) HRR Plateau Value 2.077MW 2.163MW 5.6MW Mass Flow Rate Fuel 0.06313kg/s 0.0474kg/s 0.1232kg/s
The setups of the simulations are explained in the following sections.
8.8. CFD Physics Solver Selections

STAR-CCM+ contains a large range of computational solvers by which to define the setup of the simulations in order to replicate the physical behaviour of the experiments. The solvers are in modular form and are activated by the user depending on the type of simulations which are to be performed and the level to which real world physics are to be modelled. The physics modelling realism level often has to be traded against the added computational expense which the additional extra solvers will add.
Page 37
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 The following physics models were used within either the EBU combustion models or heat source simulations or both. A reference has been included with each solver indicating with which models it has been used. Three Dimensional
Used by: The EBU combustion models and the heat source models. The three dimensional solver defines that the fluid geometry to be modelled is in three dimensions and selects the three dimensional version of all subsequent solver selections. STAR-CCM+ can also model two dimensional problems. Stationary
Used by: The EBU combustion models and the heat source models. The stationary physics model defines that there are no moving parts within the simulation such as moving meshes and sliding reference planes. The stationary solver also does not allow solid body motion due to fluid-body interaction. Multi Component Gas
Used by: The EBU combustion models. The multi component gas model allows the simulation of a mixture of two or more different gases in the same phase. In the modelled simulations it allowed the modelling of combustion of gaseous fuel and oxidizer to generate product gases. The air in the EBU combustion simulations is defined using the properties in the STAR-CCM+ materials database for O2 and N2 with the with mass concentration fraction of 0.233 and 0.767 respectively. Gas
Used by: The heat source models. The gas model allows the simulation of a single gas only. The air in the heat source models is defined by overall properties of air as listed in the STAR-CCM+ materials database. Ideal Gas
Used by: The EBU combustion models and the heat source models. The ideal gas model uses the ideal gas equation to express density as a function of temperature and pressure. The ideal gas model can also allow or remove the dependency on
Page 38
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 pressure. In all simulations completed for the thesis the dependency on pressure was included within the models. Gravity
Used by: The EBU combustion models and the heat source models. The Gravity model permits the inclusion of the buoyancy source terms in the momentum equations when using the segregated flow model. This is important in fire simulations as it allows the hot products of combustion to rise to ceiling level. When the ideal gas model is used to define a variable density problem, the buoyancy source term is included in the momentum equation without modelling. The gravity was set at 9.81m/s2.
Implicit Unsteady
Used by: The EBU combustion models and the heat source models. The implicit unsteady model allows the advancement of the simulation through time. In each time step a number of inner iterations are completed to converge the solution for that step. A time step of 1 second was used with 20 inner iterations throughout all simulations. The implicit unsteady solver allows the selection of either a 1st order or 2nd order temporal discretization options. A number of parameter variation simulations were conducted for the thesis by changing the temporal discretization between 1st order and 2nd order. Segregated Flow
Used by: The EBU combustion models and the heat source models. The Segregated Flow model solves the velocity and pressure components of the flow equations separately in a segregated, or uncoupled, manner. The linkage between the momentum and continuity equations is achieved with a predictor-corrector approach. The segregated solver uses two under-relaxation factors to control the solution update of the velocity and pressure models. The under-relaxation factors govern the extent to which the old solution is replaced by the newly computed solution at each iteration. In STAR-CCM+ a high under-relaxation factor advances the solution faster than a low under-relaxation factor. Higher factors can make the solution faster to compute but can often cause convergence problems within the simulations. Under-relaxation factors of 0.7 and 0.3 were used for the velocity and pressure factors respectively for the EBU combustion model solvers, while under-relaxation factors of 0.7 and 0.5 were used for the velocity and pressure factors respectively for the heat source model solvers. These values were used for the majority of simulations, however in a small number of simulations a STAR-CCM+ error message was encountered midway through the
Page 39
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 simulation indication a floating point error exception which would be replicated when the simulation was re-ran. The error was fixed by rolling the simulation back to the last good save point and reducing the pressure relaxation factor by 0.1. Segregated Fluid Enthalpy
Used by: The EBU combustion models. The segregated fluid enthalpy model is a form of fluid energy model which solves the total energy equation with chemical thermal enthalpy as the independent variable. Temperature is then computed from enthalpy according to the equation of state. The STAR-CCM+ user manual recommends the use of this model for any simulation involving combustion. The segregated fluid enthalpy model in the case of multi-component gas simulations uses two under-relaxation factors to control the solution update for the energy and species models as was used in the EBU combustion models. The under-relaxation factors govern the extent to which the old solution is replaced by the newly computed solution at each iteration. As previously mentioned a high under-relaxation factor advances the solution faster than a low under-relaxation factor making it faster to compute but again raising the possibility of convergence problems within the simulations. An under-relaxation factor of 0.7 was used with the EBU combustion models for both the segregated energy and species solvers. The STAR-CCM+ user manual states that it is important that the under-relaxation factors for the species and energy are kept the same in order to ensure the two solutions remain synchronised. Segregated Fluid Temperature
Used by: The heat source models. The segregated fluid temperature model is a form of fluid energy model which solves the total energy equation with temperature as the independent variable. Enthalpy is then computed from temperature according to the equation of state. This model is appropriate for simulations that do not involve combustion. The segregated fluid temperature model uses a single under-relaxation factor to control the solution update for the energy model. The heat source models do not use a multi-component gas solver so therefore do not require the use of a segregated species solver. An underrelaxation factor of 0.9 was used in the heat source models for the energy solver.
Page 40
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 Segregated Species
Used by: The EBU combustion models. The segregated species model solves the species continuity equations for a multi-component fluid mixture. The equations provide a means of updating the flow field mass fractions which define the mixture composition. Turbulent
Used by: The EBU combustion models and the heat source models. The turbulent solver defines that the flow field is non-laminar and sets up the simulation accordingly allowing further selection of turbulence modelling methods. Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS)
Used by: The EBU combustion models and the heat source models. RANS is the turbulence modelling method which was used within the simulations. The RANS technique has been discussed previously. K- Turbulence
Used by: The EBU combustion models and the heat source models. The k- turbulence model is used in RANS codes to solve the unknown relationships between the Reynolds stresses due to random turbulent fluctuations and the mean flow field quantities. The k- turbulence model has been discussed previously. Standard k- Low Re
Used by: The EBU combustion models and the heat source models. The standard k- low Reynolds number has identical coefficients to the standard k- model but provides additional damping functions which allow it to be applied in the viscous affected region near walls. The model is recommended by the STAR-CCM+ user manual for use in natural convection problems such as convection driven by a combustion model or heat source. Boundaries within the simulation geometry had a no-slip shear stress specification applied if they were located within the internal experimental geometry such as the atrium and first floor roof, ground and walls. The boundaries of the external air volume used for modelling the air external to the experimental geometry however had a slip shear stress specification applied as no viscous sub-layer will exist in actuality at these locations.
Page 41
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 All y+ Wall Treatment
Used by: The EBU combustion models and the heat source models. The all y+ wall treatment is a model within STAR-CCM+ which applies a set of near wall modelling assumptions for use with each turbulence model. The wall treatments have been specialized according to each turbulence model, since assumptions specific to that model need to be made for the wall boundary conditions concerning the turbulence quantities. The STAR-CCM+ users manual defines the all y+ wall treatment as a hybrid treatment that attempts to emulate the high y+ wall treatment for coarse meshes and the low y+ wall treatment for fine meshes. The high y+ wall treatment implies an empirical wall-function approach while the low y+ wall treatment is suitable only for low-Reynolds number turbulence models in which the viscous sub-layer is properly resolved. Reacting
Used by: The EBU combustion models. The reacting model allows the components of the multi component gaseous mixture to react chemically with one another. Non Pre-Mixed Combustion
Used by: The EBU combustion models. The non pre-mixed combustion solver defines that a non pre-mixed diffusion flame is to be modelled as was the case in the experiments rather than a pre-mixed flame.
The EBU Combustion Model
Used by: The EBU combustion models. The EBU combustion model tracks individual mean species concentrations on the grid using transport equations. Mixing of the fuel and oxidizer is a function of the turbulent mixing time scale. The reaction rate used by the EBU solver within a grid cell is defined by the mean species concentrations within that grid cell.
Passive Scalar
Used by: The EBU combustion models and the heat source models. The passive scalar solver allows the addition of a scalar species to the flow field. The passive scalar is transported around the fluid volume with the flow field but does not interfere with
Page 42
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 flow field velocity or pressure terms. The passive scalar is a dimensionless quantity used within the simulations to model soot which is injected into the simulation domain through the fire tray or heat source cone. The passive scalar concentration is used by the radiation solvers. The quantity of passive scalar released at a given time step is defined using the following equation: = () Where: is the dimensionless passive scalar quantity released into the model at a given time step. HRR is the defined heat release rates of the simulations at a given time step. Hc (exp) is the heat of combustion of the fuel used within the experiments i.e. IMS and Kerosine and not the substitute fuels. Soot Yield is the mass fraction of soot produced per mass unit of fuel burnt. is the density of the fuel in a grid cell, it is determined within STAR-CCM+. The quantities used within the passive scalar equation are shown in Table 8 It must be noted that the values used are those of the fuels used within the experiments and not the substitute fuels.
Table 8 Passive Scalar Definition Quantities Soot Yield [kg/kg] IMS Kerosine 0.02 0.1 Hc (exp) [J/kg FUEL] 26,502,000 43,434,000
Radiation
Used by: The EBU combustion models and the heat source models (where specified). This model enables the STAR-CCM+ radiation modelling capabilities. It allows the further selection of a radiative transfer model and a radiation spectrum model. Participating Media Radiation (DOM)
Used by: The EBU combustion models and the heat source models (where specified). The participating media radiation model is a radiative transfer model which defines the overall solution method for the governing radiative transfer equation. The DOM model allows the consideration of participating media within the flow field. This radiation model interacts with the passive scalar previously discussed which represents soot in the air that can absorb, emit, and scatter thermal radiation.
Page 43
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 The DOM model uses an absorption coefficient which varies with temperature. The absorption function defines the amount of absorption of thermal radiation per unit length as it passes through a species or in the case of the simulations the passive scalar. The absorption a function was defined by STAR-CCM+ STAR in the following manner: For temperatures of less than 323K: . For temperatures of between 323K 323 and 700K: . For Temperatures greater than 700K: . . .
Where: is the absorption coefficient. T is the temperature of species in a grid cell. The function has been plotted and is shown in Figure 15.
Figure 15 Variation of absorption coefficient with temperature as defined by function.
Page 44
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 Gray Thermal Radiation
Used by: The EBU combustion models and the heat source models (where specified). The gray thermal radiation model is a radiative spectrum model which defines how the radiation wavelength spectrum is considered within the context of the radiative transfer model. The Gray Thermal radiation model simulates the diffuse radiation independently of wavelength. The radiation properties of the media and the surrounding surfaces are therefore considered the same for all wavelengths.
8.9. Initial and Boundary Conditions

The simulations required a number of initial and boundary conditions to complete the setup of the model which are listed and discussed as follows. The initial ambient air temperature was set at 279.15K or 6C. This temperature was selected to replicate the ambient air temperature on the days when the experimental runs were conducted. The pressure outlet boundary temperature was also set at 279.15K. This means that any air entering the simulation domain through the pressure boundary would have a temperature of 279.15K. The atmospheric pressure defined in the simulations was 101.325kPa. The air mass fractions were set at 0.233 for O2 and 0.767 for N2 for the multi component gas EBU combustion models. The pressure outlet boundary mass fractions were also set at these values to ensure that any air entering the simulation domain would be at ambient conditions. An external air volume was modelled to ensure that the air flowed through the external atrium opening in a realistic manner. The top surface of the external air volume which is coloured orange in Figure 16 was defined as a pressure outlet boundary. A pressure outlet boundary condition is a condition where the static pressure across the boundary face has been specified. STAR-CCM+ allows species to pass in both directions across the boundary. The boundary will therefore permit the buoyancy driven hot gases to exit the simulation domain while allowing ambient air to be drawn into the domain through the boundary. It was necessary when the gravity model is active to enable convergence of the simulation that a pressure gradient corresponding to the gravitational head varying with height be imposed on all pressure outlet boundaries. This pressure gradient across a surface will vary linearly depending on the vertical distance of that point above the simulation coordinate system origin, defined at ground level. The pressure gradient is defined using the following formula: Where: Ps is the static atmospheric pressure defined in the simulations. is the density of air, defined in the simulations as 1.2kg/m3. g is the acceleration due to gravity. lc is the vertical height above the coordinate system origin (located at ground level).
Page 45
Figure 16 The simulation geometry domain shown with the pressure outlet boundary coloured orange.
Boundaries within the simulation geometry had a no-slip shear stress specification applied where they were located within the internal experimental geometry such as the atrium and first floor boundaries. The boundaries of the external air volume had a slip shear stress specification applied as no viscous sub-layer will exist in actuality at these locations. The internal simulation geometry had a convective thermal specification boundary value applied to the internal walls, roof and ground. The thermal specification controls the means by which the energy transfer across the boundaries will be solved. The convective thermal specification uses a heat transfer coefficient to specify the rate of heat transfer across a boundary. The heat transfer coefficient applied to a boundary is determined using the following formula: Where: ht is the heat transfer coefficient. k is the material thermal conductivity. t is the thickness of the material.
Table 9 lists the boundary construction material properties and the heat transfer values used in the simulations.
Page 46

Table 9 Boundary Heat Transfer Properties Heat Transfer Coefficien t [W/m2K] 13.33 11 11 6.03 1 1 1
Boundary Walls Roof First Floor Atrium Roof above Fire Atrium Ground Beams and Columns External Air Volume
Construction Material Plasterboard Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Deck Reinforced Concrete Deck + Plasterboard Concrete + Earth Rolled Steel Joist N/A
k [W/mK] 0.16 1.1 1.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
l [m] 0.012 0.1 0.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
The concrete deck lined with plasterboard which formed the atrium roof above the fire, had its heat transfer coefficient determined by assuming a composite wall with All other heat transfer coefficient values were given a small value of 1 to minimise the heat transfer across the boundaries but fulfil the requirement of providing a value.
Page 47
9. CFD Simulations Parameter Variations

A number of different simulations were conducted on each experimental run number. As previously mentioned there was two simulation methods conducted for each run. These were the heat source method and the EBU combustion method. In addition to these a number of variations of the simulations were conducted to investigate the influence which certain simulation parameters had on the CFD predictions. The parameters investigated were as follows: Effect of including radiation solvers within the simulations. Effect of the temporal discretization order within the simulations. Effect of refining the mesh around the fire region in the Run 9 scenarios. Effect of changing the polyhedral mesh base size in the heat source simulations.
The list of final simulations conducted for the thesis by the author along with key parameter variations are shown in Table 10.
9.1. Data Extraction

It was required for the purposes of the CFD model validation exercise that suitable data be extracted from the CFD simulations in order that the performed simulations could be compared with both the experimental values and the results produced by previous researchers and masters students. Gas temperature and velocity data was extracted from STAR-CCM+ by placing line probes within the STAR-CCM+ simulation geometry at the positions where the thermocouple and velocity probe columns were located during the experiment. Measurements could then be taken within the simulation for the required quantities and these recorded using the STAR-CCM+ post processing capabilities. The temperature and velocity data could then be exported from STAR-CCM+ in a comma separated value (.CSV) file format. The .CSV files could then be imported, collated and graphed along with the corresponding data from the experiments and previous CFD predictions generated using the SOFIE, JASMINE and FDS software in Microsoft Excel.
Page 48
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 Table 10 Properties List of Compared Simulations
Run 8 (2MW IMS) Simulation Type Temporal Radiation Solver Discretization Heat Source 2nd Order DOM Gray Thermal Heat Source 2rd Order None Heat Source Heat Source Heat Source Heat Source EBU Combustion EBU Combustion EBU Combustion EBU Combustion 2nd Order 2rd Order 2nd Order 2rd Order 1st Order 1st Order 2rd Order 2rd Order DOM Gray Thermal None DOM Gray Thermal None DOM Gray Thermal None DOM Gray Thermal None
Simulation Reference HS 2nd Rad (0.4m Base Size) HS 2nd No Rad (0.4m Base Size) HS 2nd Rad (0.8m Base Size) HS 2nd No Rad (0.8m Base Size) HS 2nd Rad (1.6m Base Size) HS 2nd No Rad (1.6m Base Size) EBU 1st Rad EBU 1st No Rad EBU 2nd Rad EBU 2nd No Rad
Mesh Type
Polyhedral Polyhedral Polyhedral Polyhedral Polyhedral Polyhedral Hexahedral Hexahedral Hexahedral Hexahedral
Simulation Reference HS 2nd Rad (0.4m Base Size) HS 2nd No Rad (0.4m Base Size) HS 2nd Rad (0.8m Base Size) HS 2nd No Rad (0.8m Base Size) HS 2nd Rad (1.6m Base Size) HS 2nd No Rad (1.6m Base Size) EBU 1st Rad
Run 9 (2MW Kerosine) Simulation Type Temporal Radiation Solver Discretization Heat Source 2nd Order DOM Gray Thermal Heat Source 2rd Order None Heat Source Heat Source Heat Source Heat Source EBU Combustion 2nd Order 2rd Order 2nd Order 2rd Order 1st Order DOM Gray Thermal None DOM Gray Thermal None DOM Gray Thermal
Mesh Type
Polyhedral Polyhedral Polyhedral Polyhedral Polyhedral Polyhedral Hexahedral
Page 49

EBU 1st No Rad EBU 2nd Rad EBU 2nd No Rad EBU 1st Rad Ref Mesh EBU 1st No Rad Ref Mesh EBU 2nd Rad Ref Mesh EBU 2nd No Rad Ref Mesh EBU Combustion EBU Combustion EBU Combustion EBU Combustion EBU Combustion EBU Combustion EBU Combustion 1st Order 2rd Order 2rd Order 1st Order 1st Order 2rd Order 2rd Order None DOM Gray Thermal None DOM Gray Thermal None DOM Gray Thermal None Hexahedral Hexahedral Hexahedral Hexahedral Refined around Fire Hexahedral Refined around Fire Hexahedral Refined around Fire Hexahedral Refined around Fire
Simulation Reference HS 2nd Rad (0.4m Base Size) HS 2nd No Rad (0.4m Base Size) HS 2nd Rad (0.8m Base Size) HS 2nd No Rad (0.8m Base Size) HS 2nd Rad (1.6m Base Size) HS 2nd No Rad (1.6m Base Size) EBU 1st Rad EBU 1st No Rad EBU 2nd Rad EBU 2nd No Rad
Run 11 (5MW Kerosine) Simulation Type Temporal Radiation Solver Discretization Heat Source 2nd Order DOM Gray Thermal Heat Source 2rd Order None Heat Source Heat Source Heat Source Heat Source EBU Combustion EBU Combustion EBU Combustion EBU Combustion 2nd Order 2rd Order 2nd Order 2rd Order 1st Order 1st Order 2rd Order 2rd Order DOM Gray Thermal None DOM Gray Thermal None DOM Gray Thermal None DOM Gray Thermal None
Mesh Type
Polyhedral Polyhedral Polyhedral Polyhedral Polyhedral Polyhedral Hexahedral Hexahedral Hexahedral Hexahedral
Page 50
10.Model Limitations
The CFD simulations conducted for this thesis have had a number of limitations identified in their setup which deviate from the preferred first choice modelling solution. The work carried out for this thesis tried to maintain consistency with the previous modelling efforts using SOFIE, JASMINE and FDS. It was not always possible however to be fully consistent due to technological considerations and differences in the methods used by the CFD packages to define the simulated models. The main limitation adhered to was in the modelling of the meshes where it was desired that the mesh used in STAR-CCM+ be as similar as possible to the mesh used within the SOFIE simulations. While an approximation of cell aspect ratio and cell count throughout the simulation domain was achieved through the use of mesh volumetric controls the automated nature of the STAR-CCM+ mesh generation process did not allow full control over individual cell sizes. The 2 mesh prism layers which were added on all surfaces adds considerably to the total amount of cells in the mesh. The STAR-CCM+ mesh cell sizes were based on the number of real cells and the aspect ratio of these cells within each region of the SOPHIE mesh before the prism layers were added. As the SOPHIE mesh also contains refined cells around the geometry surfaces it apparent that the average cell size in the STAR-CCM+ mesh will be smaller than the average cell size in the SOPHIE mesh producing a more refined mesh. The heat source models use an unstructured polyhedral mesh which deviates greatly in construction from the structured mesh which is defined in the SOFIE simulations. A polyhedral mesh has been used in the heat source models as it was required that a mesh be constructed in STAR-CCM+ between two regions, i.e. the air region and the heat source cone region. It is not currently possible to mesh between different regions within STAR-CCM+ using a hexahedral mesh as was used for the EBU combustion models. The heat source cone used within the simulations has a base which is circular in shape while the actual fuel tray used was square. It was required that a cone shape be used because the Star Design geometry modeller in which the heat source cones were created could not define the shape of a square pyramid. The actual fuels used in the experiments, IMS and Kerosine were not available in the STARCCM+ materials database. Instead substitute fuels had to be used which had a similar molar mass and carbon-hydrogen molecular ratio. The mass flow rate of these fuels was adjusted to account for the difference between the heats of combustions of the experimental fuel and the substitute fuel so the desired heat release rate could be theoretically achieved. This would however alter the total amount of products released from the EBU combustion model per unit of heat output. This will affect the predicted concentrations of products within the flow field. In SOFIE a conjugate heat transfer model is employed whereby the solid walls of the experimental geometry have been modelled and meshed along with the fluid region. The walls have a conduction model applied where the heat flow across the wall is determined
Page 51
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 numerically. It was not possible to do this in STAR-CCM+ as a coherent mesh could not be created through the fluid region to the wall region using a hexahedral mesher. The walls were therefore not included in the modelled geometry. Instead the fluid region was modelled and the wall boundaries of the simulation geometry had a convective thermal specification boundary value applied. The convective thermal specification uses a heat transfer coefficient to specify the rate of heat transfer across a boundary. While the walls roof and first floor ground have had theoretical heat transfer coefficients specified, all other boundaries were given a small value of 1 to minimise the heat transfer rate. It is necessary when the gravity model is active to enable convergence of the simulation that a pressure gradient corresponding to the gravitational head varying with height be imposed on all pressure outlet boundaries. This pressure gradient across a surface will vary linearly depending on the vertical distance of that point above the simulation coordinate system origin, defined at ground level. The only pressure outlet defined in the simulation domain is horizontal and therefore has a constant pressure gradient across its surface. It has been noticed however that when the gravity head pressure gradient is applied to a vertical boundary or a number of boundaries at different vertical heights there will be an inflow of species at the lower level where the pressure gradient is greatest and an outflow at the higher level where the pressure is less. This is obviously unphysical. As the gravity head pressure gradient is required for convergence purposes it was only possible to have one horizontal pressure boundary on the top surface of the air volume. It would be ideally desired to have all walls in the external air volume as pressure boundaries. The SOFIE, JASMINE, FDS and experimental data was unavailable for a number of the velocity probe columns and has therefore not been included on the corresponding graphs. The SOFIE and JASMINE thermocouple column temperature data was unavailable for run 11 and therefore has not been included on the corresponding graphs.
Page 52
11.Results
All temperatures and velocities listed within this section were recorded at a time of 900 seconds after fire ignition. A time period of 900 seconds was chosen for comparative purposes during previous projects on the topic as it was anticipated that the predictive models will have reached steady state conditions at this time point. The CFD predictions have been and graphed along with the corresponding data from the experiments and previous CFD predictions generated using the SOFIE, JASMINE and FDS software. The effect of the parameter variations listed in Table 10 have been examined and trends within the data have been stated.
11.1.
Temperature Analysis
Thermocouple column predictions made by SOFIE and JASMINE were unavailable for run 11 and therefore a comparison was unable to be made. In general the gas temperatures predicted by STAR-CCM+ tended to be over predicted. This is true of the 2MW fire size for both types of fuel. The run 8 (2MW IMS) simulations generally show higher temperatures than the experimental values. This is especially true for the temperature data from the thermocouple columns located on the first floor (thermocouple columns 1-8). The heat source model with radiation activated is the best method at predicting temperatures on the first floor as it tends to not over predict temperatures to the same extent which the EBU combustion models with radiation activated does. The temperature data measured in the internal opening while still being over predicted fairs better than the SOFIE predictions at the corresponding measurement locations. This time the EBU combustion model outperforms the heat source models in its predictions as the heat source models tend to be fairly erratic through the internal opening (thermocouple columns 911). This is thought to be caused by the polyhedral heat source mesh not being refined enough through the internal opening. The temperature data for the external opening (thermocouple columns 12-14) shows that the heat source method outperforms the EBU combustion method. The EBU combustion method does make predictions closer to the experimental values however than the SOFIE predictions in the external opening. The predictions for run 9 (2MW kerosine) follow the same trends as the predictions for the run 8 values. Predictions again tend to overestimate the temperatures, particularly on the first floor. Again on the first floor the heat source models tend to make better predictions than the EBU combustion models. The EBU combustion models with radiation do tend to estimate the temperature of the air at the internal opening which is being expelled from the first floor due to the inflow of hot products very well but then over estimate the temperature of the hot product layer. The heat source models make good predictions for the temperature of the hot products in the centre of the atrium at thermocouple column 15. The EBU combustion model also predicts the temperature at this position more accurately than JASMINE by producing a deeper cooler prediction of the hot layer thermal profile.
Page 53
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 In general the predictions made by STAR-CCM+ for the 5MW kerosine scenario have been the most accurate. The best results were achieved on the first floor with the EBU combustion with radiation models activated. The predictions for most of the thermocouple columns tend to be within a few degrees of the experimental values. Unlike the other two fire scenarios the EBU combustion model out performs the heat source model on the first floor. In the internal opening the EBU combustion model actually begins to under predict the temperatures and as a result the heat source models tend to produce better predictions at this point. The EBU combustion model also tends to under predict the temperature of the hot products layer on the atrium roof heat source model again faring better. A general trend can be noticed of the EBU combustion model where the temperatures on the upper floor tend to be over predicted to a greater extent than those in the atrium or in the openings to the atrium. This could be due to the greater regulating effect which the relatively larger ambient air flow through the atrium has on its temperature. Also the first floor has a greater surface area to volume ratio than the atrium. This will make the first floor more prone to temperatures errors due to a misrepresentation of the heat flow through the simulation boundaries. Figure 17. Shows the thermal profile of the an EBU combustion model simulation at 900 seconds.
Figure 17 Thermal Profile of an EBU Combustion Simulation at 900 Seconds
11.2.
Velocity Analysis
The experimental velocity data was unavailable and therefore has not been included within the analysis of this report. Velocity predictions from SOFIE and JASMINE were also unavailable. Velocity predictions have however been included for FDS for the internal and
Page 54
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 external velocity columns located in the centre of the openings at thermocouple positions 10 and 13 respectively. It must be noted that Velocity columns A and B have been swapped from as defined in the BRE report to correspond to the numerical positions provided in electronic format. A note of this has been made on Figure 21. It should be noted that positive velocity quantities on the graphs represent an air flow which is leaving the atrium i.e. towards the external atmosphere or into the fires floor air volume.
11.3.
Internal Opening
The velocity probes in the internal opening hang under the internal opening 1m deep soffit. The top level of velocity predictions will therefore be 1m below roof level. It can be noticed from all the internal opening velocity column (10) diagrams that a 3 layer air flow structure is predicted. The top layer is the hot products of combustion which travel from the fire and through the internal opening under the soffit. The intermediate air flow is air which flows from the first floor as it is replaced by the inward flow of hot products. It can also be seen that there is a thin layer of air entering the first floor from the atrium. This is driven by an area of recirculation in the atrium which drives air up the left atrium wall below the internal opening until it collides with the air flowing from the first floor into the atrium causing some of the up-flowing air to be redirected into the first floor along the ground. This flow phenomena is illustrated on Figure 18.
Figure 18 Air Velocity Vectors through the Internal Opening
The FDS velocity value predictions match the predictions made by STAR-CCM+ reasonably well. The exception to this is the flow field adjacent to the bottom of the internal soffit. While
Page 55
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 it is unknown what boundary layer treatment which the FDS simulations apply to the wall it is known that Large Eddy Simulations (LES) tend to have difficulties in resolving the flow field in near wall scenarios.
11.4.
External Opening
It can be observed from all the external opening velocity column (13) diagrams that for all fire scenarios the hot, buoyant gas products exit the atrium at roof level. The hot gas layer is quite thin when compared to the thickness of the flow of air into the atrium through the external opening so therefore the outflow gasses travel much faster than the inflow gasses. Again there is a discrepancy between the FDS predictions and those of STAR-CCM+ concerning the velocity of air adjacent to the bottom of the external opening soffit. Conversely FDS predicts a reduction in gas velocity adjacent to the soffit while STARCCM+ does not. The velocity flow field through the external opening is shown on Figure 19. It can also be seen the extent to which the roof beams disturb the flow of air across the roof causing areas of recirculation downstream of the roof beams.
Figure 19 Air Velocity Vectors through the External Opening
Page 56
12.Parameter Variations
12.1. Effect of Radiation Models
In all experimental scenarios and when considering both the results for the heat source models and the EBU combustion models it can be seen that the activation of the radiation models has the effect of reducing the temperatures of the flow field. This is as expected because in the radiation enabled models heat will be radiated from the passive scalar which represents soot in the hot products layer to the surrounding boundary surfaces where it is numerically dissipated from the simulation domain. The radiation models also tend to regulate fluctuations in temperature across all three runs. This is best illustrated on the volume averaged temperature plots where it is apparent that without radiation the temperatures in the simulation domain fluctuate in a random manner. With the radiation models activated the volume averaged temperature in the geometry tends to become steady after the initial heating up period of the fluid field.
12.2.
Effect of Temporal Discretization
The temporal disczeration order makes little difference in the eddy break up combustion models when the radiation models are activated. This consistency between predictions is apparent across the three experimental scenarios in both the temperature and velocity data. This is contrasted with the predictions made when the radiation models are turned off as there tends to be large differences between the temperature and the velocity predictions between the 1st order and 2nd order temporal disczeration simulations. While there are no definite trends in the overall effect of the disczeration order it is apparent that using a 1st order temporal disczeration will tend to produce a more stable and consistent flame. A 2nd order temporal disczeration will in some but not all simulations cause the flame to fluctuate in size as well as move around local geometry above the fire tray. While this may be more realistic as to what happens in real life fire scenarios there is no evidence in the predictions that a 2nd order simulation offers improved predictive capacity over a 1st order simulation.
12.3.
Effect of Refining the Mesh around the Fire Region
It is important to obtain a suitably resolved EBU combustion model that the grid resolution around the fire tray be capable of properly representing a fire using the EBU combustion method. As a general rule of thumb [FDS-SMV (2008)] it is recommended that a mesh resolution of 77 grid cells be in place across the fire. In the run 8 and run 11 experimental scenarios where the 1.55m1.55m fire tray was used the 77 grid resolution is obtained through the default mesh generation. In the run 9 experimental scenarios where a smaller
Page 57
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 1.1m1.1m fire tray was used this grid resolution was not obtained. A mesh was therefore created with local refinement around the fire tray to resolve this area to 77 grid cells. It is noticed from the comparative Figures 52-86 that while the fire tray refined mesh temperature predictions tend to be in the same region as the corresponding non refined mesh predictions there is a difference in about 5C between the values. This discrepancy indicates that the solution is not grid independent and that additional grid refinement will have beneficial effects in achieving a grid independent solution. It is observed from the volume averaged temperature plot Figure?? that the refined meshes simulations have lower average temperatures than the corresponding non-refined mesh simulations. The run 9 CFD predictions tend to overestimate the temperatures when compared to the experimental values. It can therefore be inferred that the refined mesh offers an improvement in predictive capabilities over the non refined mesh. The trend of the refined mesh to predict lower temperatures is general shown across the thermocouple column temperature data.
12.4.
Effect of Base Size on the Polyhedral Mesh Heat Source Models
A grid convergence study was undertaken on the heat source models to ascertain the dependency of the simulations on the grid. The grid convergence study involved running 3 different simulations for each of the experimental runs analysed using different polynomial mesh base sizes. The base size with reference to the polyhedral mesh is the target size of any element within the mesh. Base sizes of 0.4m, 0.8m and 1.6m were used. It must be noted that the heat source models included for comparisons with the EBU combustion models all use the finest 0.4m base size. [Salter, J. (2008)] describes a Grid Convergence Index (GCI) which provides a consistent mechanism whereby a grid refinement study can be analysed. The GCI also provides an error band on the grid convergence of the solution. The GCI is shown in Section 19 and has been applied to the heat source models for each experimental run number the results of which can be found in Table 11. A small value of GCI indicates that the drag force is closer to the asymptotic numerical value where additional refinement of the grid will have no additional benefit on the results of the simulations. An asymptotic range check has also been computed where a value of 1 indicates that the finest mesh size has reached the asymptotic value and additional refinement of the grid will have no additional benefit for the solution. The quantity chosen on which to base the GCI is the volume averaged temperature rise of the simulation domain at 900 seconds. Figures 44, 87 and 123 show the volume averaged temperature rise of the polynomial mesh heat source models used in the study.
Page 58

Table 11 Grid Convergence of the Polyhedral Heat Source Mesh at 900 Seconds Polyhedral Mesh Base Size 0.4m 0.8m 1.6m Grid Convergence Index (GCI) Run 8 (2MW IMS) 0.135 0.214 13.5% 21.4% 0.946 Asymptotic Range Check
0.4m 0.8m 1.6m
Run 9 (2MW Kerosine) 0.077 7.7% 0.180 18.0% Run 11 (5MW Kerosine) 0.056 5.6% 0.126 12.6% -
0.928 -
0.4m 0.8m 1.6m
0.950 -
It can be seen from Figures 44, 87 and 123 that as the mesh is refined the volume averaged temperature within the domain increases. It can also be seen that the difference in temperature between the 0.4m and 0.8m meshes is less than the difference in temperature between the 0.8 and the 1.6m mesh for all the simulations. It can be seen that for run 8, run 9 and run 11 the 0.4m mesh size has a 13.5%, 7.7% and a 5.6% error band on the predicted values proximity to the asymptotic volume averaged temperature value. It is therefore expected that additional refinement of the mesh would result in a decrease in the grid dependency of the solutions as the 0.4m mesh size has not yet fully approached the asymptotic range. Additional refinement of the grid suffers however from diminishing returns on reducing the solutions dependency on the grid while requiring much greater computing resources. As the 0.4m base size polyhedral mesh heat source models with radiation solvers activated took approximately 4 days to run using 2 CPU cores, it was thought impractical for the purposes of this thesis to refine the mesh any further.
Page 59
13.Conclusions
Two different modelling techniques were employed; the eddy break-up (EBU) combustion models and the heat source models. Temperatures tended to be overestimated by all models especially on the first floor. The heat source models with radiation activated provided the best predictions with run 8 and run 9. The EBU combustion model provided the best solutions for run 11. The three flow layers were recreated in the velocity profiles through the internal opening. All simulations could have benefited from an additional refinement in mesh sizes. Refinements in mesh sizes increase the computational cost of the simulations. Addition of radiation models increases the computational cost of the simulations. Addition of a radiation model brought down the volume averaged temperature of all simulations to which it was applied. The temporal disczeration did not have a major effect when the radiation models were activated. Significant convergence issues for the EBU combustion models were encountered and overcome in the early stage if the project. It is believed that applying a t2 ramp-ut to the fuel supply as well as adding prism layers on the mesh over the fire tray mitigated this problem. STAR-CCM+ has capabilities which are far in advance of the specific fire CFD packages. STAR-CCM+ however requires more manual intervention to set up fire problems which in fire specific CFD codes can be automated. STAR-CCM+ can sometime suffer from errors such as memory access errors and JAVA runtime errors which are not the fault of the user. These errors can often corrupt data.
Page 60
14.References
CD-adapco. (2008). STAR-CCM+ Version 2.02.007 User Guide. CD-adapco Group. Chang, C. Et al. (2003). Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation of the Progress of Fire Smoke in Large Space, Building Atria. Tamkang Journal of Science and Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 151-157 (2003). Chitty, R. and Cox, G. (1988). "ASKFRS - An Interactive Computer Program for Conducting Fire Engineering Estimations," Building Research Establishment, Department of the Environment, Borehamwood, UK. Clarke, R. (2008). Fires in Large Atrium Buildings. MEng Thesis. The University of Edinburgh. Drysdale, D. (1998). An Introduction to Fire Dynamics. 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Chichester. FDS-SMV (2008). Gris Sensitivity Analysis, User Group Discussion. [Online] http://groups.google.com/group/fdssmv/browse_thread/thread/6a7804115cdadef1/93422 accc651a8ac?fwc=2 [Accessed: 18/01/2010]. Hirsch, C. (2007). Numerical Computation of Internal and External Flows, The Fundamentals of Fluid Dynamics. 2nd Edition. Butterworth-Heinemannan, an imprint of Elsevier. Oxford. Kumar, S, Chitty, R. and Welch, S. (1999). Development and Validation of Integrated Fire Modelling Methodology for Smoke Ventilation Design and Hazard Assessment in Large Buildings. Fire Research Station, Building Research Establishment Ltd. Kumar, S. Welch, S. and Chitty, R. (1999). Evaluation of Fire Models for Fire Hazard Assessment in Buildings; Part 2 Evaluation of Fire Models. Fire Research Station, Building Research Establishment Ltd. MacDonald, F. (2008). Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics for Use in Large Compartment Fires. MEng Thesis. The University of Edinburgh. Marshall, N. Kumar, S. Goodall, C. and Smith, D. (1999). Evaluation of Fire Models for Fire Hazard Assessment in Buildings; Part 1 Experimental Programme. Fire Research Station, Building Research Establishment Ltd. Rho J.S. and Ryou H.S.( 1999). A Numerical Study of Atrium Fires using Deterministic Models. Fire Safety Journal, 33 213-229. Slater, J. (2008). Examining Spatial Grid Convergence. [Online] http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/wind/valid/tutorial/spatconv.html NASA. [Accessed: 12/04/2010].
Page 61
Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010 Yeoh, G H. Yuen, K K. (2009). Computational Fluid Dynamics in Fire Engineering, Theory Modelling and Practice. 1st Edition. Butterworth-Heinemann, an imprint of Elsevier. Oxford.
Page 62
Figure 20 Location of Thermocouple Columns [Marshall, N. (1999)]
Page 63
Figure 21 Location of Pitot and Bi-Directional Probes [Marshall, N. (1999)]
Page 64
Figure 22 Defined Heat Release Rate Run 8 (2MW IMS)
Figure 23 Defined Heat Release Rate Run 9 (2MW Kerosine Kerosine)
Page 65
Figure 24 Defined fined Heat Release Rate Run 11 (5MW Kerosine)
Page 66
15.Run 8 (2MW IMS) Charts
Figure 25
Figure 26
Page 67
Figure 27
Figure 28
Page 68
Figure 29
Figure 30
Page 69
Figure 31
Figure 32
Page 70
Figure 33
Figure 34
Page 71
Figure 35
Figure 36
Page 72
Figure 37
Figure 38
Page 73
Figure 39
Figure 40
Page 74
Figure 41
Figure 42
Page 75
Figure 43
Figure 44
Page 76
Figure 45
Figure 46
Page 77
Figure 47
Figure 48
Page 78
Figure 49
Figure 50
Page 79
Figure 51
Page 80
16.Run 9 (2MW Kerosine) Charts
Figure 52
Figure 53
Page 81
Figure 54
Figure 55
Page 82
Figure 56
Figure 57
Page 83
Figure 58
Figure 59
Page 84
Figure 60
Figure 61
Page 85
Figure 62
Figure 63
Page 86
Figure 64
Figure 65
Page 87
Figure 66
Figure 67
Page 88
Figure 68
Figure 69
Page 89
Figure 70
Figure 71
Page 90
Figure 72
Figure 73
Page 91
Figure 74
Figure 75
Page 92
Figure 76
Figure 77
Page 93
Figure 78
Figure 79
Page 94
Figure 80
Figure 81
Page 95
Figure 82
Figure 83
Page 96
Figure 84
Figure 85
Page 97
Figure 86
Figure 87
Page 98
Figure 88
Figure 89
Page 99
Figure 90
Figure 91
Page 100
Figure 92
Figure 93
Page 101
Figure 94
Figure 95
Page 102
Figure 96
Figure 97
Page 103
Figure 98
Figure 99
Page 104
Figure 100
Figure 101
Page 105
Figure 102
Figure 103
Page 106
17.Run 11 (5MW Kerosine) Charts
Figure 104
Figure 105
Page 107
Figure 106
Figure 107
Page 108
Figure 108
Figure 109
Page 109
Figure 110
Figure 111
Page 110
Figure 112
Figure 113
Page 111
Figure 114
Figure 115
Page 112
Figure 116
Figure 117
Page 113
Figure 118
Figure 119
Page 114
Figure 120
Figure 121
Page 115
Figure 122
Figure 123
Page 116
Figure 124
Figure 125
Page 117
Figure 126
Figure 127
Page 118
Figure 128
Figure 129
Page 119
Figure 130
Page 120
18.STAR-CCM+ Materials Database

PROPERTY *STANDARD PROPERTIES DATABASE* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! THIS IS THE STANDARD PROPERTIES DATA BASE IN STAR-CCM+ ! ! THE USER CAN ADD TO/MODIFY THE LIST IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER. ! THE FORMAT FOR EACH SUBSTANCE IS: ! ! FIRST LINE (FORMAT(A20,A60)) ! Molecular Name, Generic Name (including symbol indicating phase) ! ! KEY TO SYMBOLS INDICATING PHASE APPEARING AFTER SUBSTANCE NAME:! (V) - VAPOR/GAS ! (L) - LIQUID ! (S) - SOLID ! ! FOR VAPOR/GAS (V) AND LIQUID (L) PHASES THERE ARE FOUR LINES TO FOLLOW, ! THE 2ND THROUGH 5TH LINES ARE: ! ! SECOND LINE (FORMAT(5G14.6)) ! Reference Temperature (K), Density (kg/m^3), Beta (1/K), Cp (J/kgK), ! Molecular viscosity (Ns/m^2) ! ! THIRD LINE (FORMAT(5G14.6)) ! Conductivity (W/mK), Heat of Formation (J/kg), Temperature of Formation (K), ! Critical Temperature (K), Critical Pressure (Pa) ! ! FOURTH LINE (FORMAT(5G14.6)) ! Normal Boiling Temperature (K), Saturation Pressure (Pa), ! Saturation Temperature (K), Heat of Vaporisation (J/kg), ! Surface Tension Coefficient (N/m) ! ! FIFTH LINE (FORMAT(G14.6,F14.3,2G14.6)) ! Mass diffusivity of vapor into air (m^2/s), Molecular Weight (kg/kmol), ! Speed of sound (m/s), Reference Pressure (Pa) ! ! FOR THE SOLID (S) PHASE THERE IS ONE LINE TO FOLLOW, THE 2ND LINE IS: ! ! SECOND LINE (FORMAT(7G10.5,A20)) ! Reference Temperature (K), Density (kg/m^3), Cp (J/kgK), ! Thermal Conductivity (W/mK) Youngs Modulus(MPa), Poisson Coeff., ! Coeff. of Thermal Expansion(m/mK) DataSource ! DataSource is either MATWEB(www.matweb.com),EFUNDA(www.efunda.com),UNKNOWN or ! BOOK(William Callister's Materials Science and Engineering - An Introduction) ! ! Notes: ! ! Reference pressure for all fluids is 101325 Pa.
Page 121

! ! Fluid property data has been supplied by PPDS2 software from:! Physical Property Data Service ! National Engineering Laboratory ! East Kilbride ! Glasgow ! G75 0QU ! United Kingdom ! http://www.ppds.co.uk/ ! ! Molecular weights are from: ! National Institute of Standards and Technology ! http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry ! ! *** Note on Heat of Formation *** ! ! The heat of formation is given for the vapor/gas phase in all cases, ! even where the other properties of a substance are given for the liquid ! phase. ! ! ! *** Polynomials for Specific Heat *** ! ! There are two thermo databases available for Cp polynomials ! ! Sandia's CHEMKIN Thermo Table ! ! NASA's Chemical Equilibrium Codes Thermo Table ! ! Note that polynomials will generally apply to the gas state of the ! substance in question. ! ! DISCLAIMER!!!!! ! Added species : H, H202(V), HCO, HO2, O, OH, C, CH, CH2, CH2+S, ! CH3 CH2O CH3O SICL3H SICL2 SICL2H2 HSICL ! SICL4 SIH2 H2CLSISICL3 SI2CL5H SI2CL5H ! SI2CL6 ! All the fields except the molecular weight are wrong and are ! defaulted to air. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901 234567890 BEGIN MODIFICATIONS AFTER THIS LINE+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Air 298.15 2.60305E-02 081.75 0.0 Air(V) 1.18415 0.0E+0 1.247872E+08 28.9664
0.0 298.15 081.75 0.0
1003.62 132.55 9.605509E+02 1.01325E+05
1.85508E-05 3.769000E+06 0.0
Page 122

CO2 298.15 1.69665E-02 194.60 0.0 Carbon Dioxide(V) 1.80817 0.0 -8.9416E+6 298.15 6.430737E+06 184.48 44.01 0.0 850.566 304.21 1.214686E+05 1.01325E+05 1.49396E-05 7.382500E+06 0.0
CH3O 298.15 2.60305E-02 081.75 0.0
CH2OGroup(V) 1.18415 0.0 0.0E+0 298.15 1.247872E+08 081.75 31.00 0.0
1003.62 132.55 9.605509E+02 1.01325E+05
1.85508E-05 3.769000E+06 0.0
CH3 298.15 2.60305E-02 081.75 0.0
CH3Group(V) 1.18415 0.0 0.0E+0 298.15 1.247872E+08 081.75 15.04 0.0
1003.62 132.55 9.605509E+02 1.01325E+05
1.85508E-05 3.769000E+06 0.0
C12H26 500.00 2.50567E-02 489.48 0.0
Dodecane(V) 4.43143 0.0 -1.69896E+6 298.15 1.293243E+05 489.48 170.33 0.0
2535.781 658.65 2.514084E+05 1.01325E+05
7.79824E-06 1.835000E+06 0.0
N2 298.15 2.55984E-02 077.35 0.0
Nitrogen(V) 1.14527 0.0 0.0E+0 298.15 1.144341E+08 077.35 28.008 0.0
1040.763 126.20 1.04325E+03 1.01325E+05
1.78837E-05 3.400000E+06 0.0
O2 298.15 2.60712E-02 090.18 0.0
Oxygen(V) 1.30878 0.0 0.0E+0 298.15 9.268663E+07 090.18 32.00 0.0
920.425 154.58 1.470412E+03 1.01325E+05
2.05428E-05 5.043000E+06 0.0
H2O 373.12 2.53325E-02 373.12 0.0
Water(V) 0.59531 0.0 -1.34238E+7 298.15 1.013251E+05 373.12 18.02 0.0
1938.188 647.12 2.257097E+06 1.01325E+05
1.26765E-05 2.2055000E+07 0.0
Page 123
19.Grid Refinement Index (GCI)

||
Where: Fs: is the Factor of Safety:
(1.25 when used with 3 meshes) (3 when used with 2 meshes)
: is the Relative Error: p: is the Order of Convergence )(
f: is the interested quantity` r: is the grid refinement ratio
= h: is the Grid Spacing h1 = (Finest)
h2 = (Intermediate) h3 = (Coarsest)
Asymptotic Range Check (Tends towards 1 for values approaching the Asymptotic Range)
Page 124

Bryce Glenn - 0570731 - MEng Final Year Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bryce Glenn - 0570731 - MEng Final Year Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management Thesis

Bryce Glenn (s0570731) Submitted April 2010 Supervisor: Dr Stephen Welch

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

Signed: Bryce Glenn Date: 22/04/2010

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

BRE CFD DNS

DOM Participating Media Radiation FDS Fire Dynamics Simulator

LBTF Large Building Test Facility LES Large Eddy Simulation

RANS Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes

Chart Legend Key

(0.4m) 1st 2nd EBU HS No Rad Rad Ref Mesh

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

2. Project Aims and Objectives

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

3. Performance Based Fire Safety Methods (Literature Review)

3.1. Scale Models

3.2. Zone Models

3.3. Computational Fluid Dynamics

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

4. Computational Fluid Dynamics Technology (Literature Review)

Figure 1 Comparison of Eddies Resolved by CFD Turbulence Models [Class Notes].

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

Figure 2 Energy Spectrum of Turbulent Eddy Sizes [Class Notes].

4.1. Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS)

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

4.2. Large Eddy Simulation (LES)

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

5. Experimental Geometry (Literature Review)

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

6. Fire Scenarios (Literature Review)

Repeats Artificial smoke used

2.4 1.21 2.4 0.56

1.55x1.55x0.15 1.1x1.1x0.15 1.55x1.55x0.15 0.75x0.75x0.15

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

7. Instrumentation Setup (Literature Review)

7.1. Gas Temperature

7.2. Gas Velocity

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

8. CFD Fire Modelling Setup

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

8.1. Geometry Preparation

Figure 6 The Modelled Geometry.

Cone Height 4.2m 4.2m 5.9m

Cone Top Diameter 0.1m Diameter 0.1m Diameter 0.1m Diameter

8.2. Geometry Meshing

The coordinate system can also be seen in Figure 8

Used only in the Run 9 refined mesh series of simulations.

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

The cell counts of the generated mesh were as follows:

8.3. Defining the Heat Release Rates

Masters of Mechanical Engineering with Management April 22, 2010

8.4. Fuel Definition

8.5. Industrial Methylated Spirits (IMS) Substitution