Fire Safety Journal 72 (2015) 7786

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fire Safety Journal

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

New approach to estimate temperatures in pre-ashover

res: Lumped heat case
Franz Evegren a,*, Ulf Wickstrm b
a
b

Fire Research, SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, Box 857, SE-501 15 Bors, Sweden
Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Lule University of Technology, SE-971 87 Lule, Sweden

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 25 June 2014
Received in revised form
12 January 2015
Accepted 1 February 2015
Available online 14 February 2015

This paper presents a model for estimating temperatures in pre-ashover res where the re enclosure
boundaries are assumed to have lumped heat capacity. That is, thermal inertia is concentrated to one
layer with uniform temperature and insulating materials are considered purely by their heat transfer
resistance. The model yields a good understanding of the heat balance in a re enclosure and was used to
predict temperatures in insulated and non-insulated steel-bounded enclosures. Comparisons were made
with full scale experiments and with other predictive methods, including CFD modeling with FDS and the
so called MQH relationship. Input parameter values to the model were then taken from well-known
literature and the heat release rates were provided from the experiments. The re temperature predictions of the model matched very well with experimental data. So did the FDS predictions while the
original MQH relationship gave unrealistic results for the problems studied. Major benets of using the
model in comparison with CFD modeling are its readiness and simplicity as well as the negligible
computation times needed. An Excel application of the presented pre-ashover re model is available on
request from the author.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Temperature prediction
Fire temperature
Zone model
Pre-ashover
Heat transfer
Compartment re

1. Introduction
To model the many and complex effects of res, increasingly
sophisticated computer models have been developed the last few
decades; they are now used routinely both in the re research
scientic community and in applied re safety engineering. The
desire for quick approximate answers has, however, also motivated the development of simple procedures. A key value in assessments of the severity of a compartment re before ashover is
the temperature of the upper hot layer, here referred to as the re
temperature. Commonly used simple methods for pre-ashover
re temperature approximations are often based on [1] the correlation developed by McCaffrey, Quintiere, and Harkleroad [2],
the so called MQH relationship. It builds on a simplied energy
balance and regression correlation with data from numerous test
res.
Whilst the MQH relationship is simple to use it has many limitations which are seldom properly considered. It is for example
often claimed that the relationship is applicable to steady-state as
well as transient re growths [13]. However, the temperature is
solved as a function of the heat release rate at a particular time step

and takes no account to the re growth history (e.g. slow or constant). The applicability in case of a growing heat release rate is
therefore questionable. Furthermore, it has not been generally understood that the original MQH relationship is inappropriate when
surrounding boundaries are thin and highly conductive [cf. 1,3]. To
manage this shortcoming, Peatross and Beyler developed a modied expression for the heat transfer coefcient in the MQH relationship [4]. It gave improved correlation with tests in steelbounded enclosures, similar to the ones studied here, but the
general limitations of the empirical correlation remain.
This paper shows a clear and understandable enclosure re
model for estimating temperatures in pre-ashover res, derived
based on well-known re physics. The model presented here is
limited to re enclosures where the boundaries may be assumed
to have lumped heat capacity, i.e. where thermal inertia is concentrated to one layer of the boundary structure with uniform
temperature. It may be used to predict the upper layer re temperature as well as the temperatures in the boundary structure as
functions of time for given heat release rates varying with time.

2. Method
*

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: franz.evegren@sp.se (F. Evegren),
ulf.wickstrom@ltu.se (U. Wickstrm).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resaf.2015.02.008
0379-7112/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Based on simple heat and mass balance of re enclosures,

Wickstrm has developed a general approach to calculate

78

F. Evegren, U. Wickstrm / Fire Safety Journal 72 (2015) 7786

Nomenclature
A
c
d
H
h
L
l
m
R
T
t
q

area [m2]
specic heat capacity
[J/(kg K)]
core thickness [m]
opening height [m]
heat transfer coefcient
[W/(m2 K)]
ame height [m]
thickness of insulation [m]
mass ow rate of gases [kg/s]
heat resistance [m2 K/W]
temperature [K]
time [s]
heat ux [W/m2]

Greek symbols

constant [kg/(s m2.5)]

emissivity [dimensionless]
temperature difference [K]
core density [kg/m3]
StefanBoltzmann constant
[W/(m2 K4)]
coefcient of proportionality
[dimensionless]

temperatures in enclosure res by simple, often analytical, methods. For ventilation controlled res it was presented [5] assuming
a one-zone model, similar to the models by Magnusson and Thelandersson [6] and the parametric curves in Eurocode 1, EN19911-2 [7]. In this paper a pre-ashover model is derived with the
same approach but based on a two-zone assumption and expressions of the heat transfer through the re enclosure boundaries.
The upper layer re temperature and temperatures throughout the
boundary structure may thereby be predicted as functions of time
for given heat release rate histories. The model presented in this
paper applies only to enclosure boundaries for which lumped heat
capacity may be assumed. Different insulation alternatives can be
considered and the heat capacity of the insulation can either be
neglected or numerically added to the core of the boundaries. To
validate the model, which was derived straight from re physics,
comparisons were made with two large scale experiments performed in a steel container with and without insulation [8].
Comparisons were also made with FDS simulations [9] and calculations based on the MQH relationship [2]. FDS simulations were
performed as they were expected to yield the most accurate theoretical predictions, in particular in comparisons with the more
approximate two-zone models.
2.1. New simple pre-ashover re model
The heat released by combustion in an enclosure is lost in
different ways, as illustrated in Fig. 1. By setting up a heat balance,

can be derived. It equals

the heat loss at enclosure boundaries qW
i which heats up and is
the heat ux into the boundary structures q"
conducted through the structure [10] depending on its
composition.
The heat transfer through the boundaries was modeled assuming that surrounding structures have lumped heat capacity,
which was described in three parts. Together with the description

Superscripts
*
.

pre-ashover model
per unit time
per unit area

Subscripts
1
C
c
core
f
g
h
i
k
L
O
o
p
R
r
s
tot
ult
W

ambient
combustion
convection
core of structure
re
gas
boundary heat transfer
inside
conduction
air replacement
opening
outside
at constant air pressure
radiation
radiation
surface
total
ultimate
walls

Fig. 1. Heat balance components of a re enclosure and an illustration of the

boundary structure assumed.

of the heat ux into the boundary structure the derivation of the

new simple pre-ashover model may thus be described by four
expressions, accounting for:
1.
2.
3.
4.

the
the
the
the

enclosure heat balance;

boundary conditions at the inside of the core;
core's response to heating; and
boundary conditions at the outside of the core.

The model was expressed in electric analogy by identifying the

core as a capacitor and the boundary conditions at each side of the
core as well as heat losses in the enclosure as heat resistances. The
core is thereby the only component of the boundary structure that
can store heat. Temperatures therefore vary linearly between the
temperature in the enclosure and the core temperature as well as
between the core temperature and the ambient temperature. The
temperature rises of the re and of the boundary surfaces are
obtained as weighted averages depending on the thermal resistances. This is illustrated in Fig. 2 and further described in the
following subsections where the model is derived.
2.1.1. Enclosure heat balance (1)
The temperature in a re enclosure can be estimated based on

F. Evegren, U. Wickstrm / Fire Safety Journal 72 (2015) 7786

79

boundary as in Eq. (1), analogy is attained with a description of the

heat ux to a surface. In re safety engineering this is generally
4
written as q = T T 4 + h (T T ) . The parameters included
s

in this expression can be identied in analogy with Eq. (1), where

4
4
p/Atot ,
corresponding parameters are s = AO /Atot f , Tr = T
, h = mc
. Thus, the q /mc
term can be recognized as the
and T = q /mc
g

. This is generally the

ultimate temperature rise, here denoted ult
highest temperature possible to obtain in a re enclosure, reached
and by
if the heat losses by transfer to the surrounding surfaces qW
radiation out through the openings qR are negligible. Then all the
energy released by combustion qC is used to heat the air owing
through the enclosure (m ). In practice this temperature could be
p
obtained in for example a furnace. Furthermore, the term Atot /mc
was recognized as an articial convective heat transfer resistance
(the inverse of the heat transfer coefcient). It is here denoted Rc

and the convection part of Eq. (1) hence becomes 1/Rc(ult

f ).
The radiative part of the equation may also be expressed as a
function of a temperature difference. By an algebraic operation
(linearization) an articial radiative heat transfer resistance Rr was
derived as Eq. (2).

A
1
2
= O f (T
+ T2f )(T + Tf )
R r
Atot

(2)

Using these new terms gives the simplied expression of the

heat transfer to the surfaces in the enclosure in Eq. (3).

=
qW

Fig. 2. Electric analogy of the new pre-ashover re model assuming lumped heat.

conservation of energy. The enclosure is then a control volume in

an open system where energy is released by combustion, and
where energy and mass are exchanged in balance with the surroundings. The heat released by combustion qC is an input parameter which in the pre-ashover stage is assumed independent of
the access to oxygen in the enclosure. The heat is lost in a number
of ways, as illustrated in Fig. 1 [6]: by radiation out through
openings qR , by replacement of hot gases with air of ambient
temperature qL and by radiation and convection to the enclosure
. Omitting the relatively small amount enboundary surfaces qW
ergy stored in the enclosure gas volume, the energy balance can be
+ qL + qR .
summarized as qC = qW
The heat loss by replacement of gases can be expressed as
p(Tf T) and the heat loss by radiation through the
qL = mc

4
opening as qR = AO f T f4 T
, where m is the mass ow of gases

out through the opening, cp is the specic heat for air, Tf is the re
(gas) temperature, T is the ambient temperature, AO is the
opening area, f is the emissivity of the elements emitting radiation inside the enclosure, and is the StefanBoltzmann constant.
The radiation out through the opening, from ames, smoke layer
and enclosure surfaces, is thereby calculated assuming a ctitious
emissivity f and a uniform internal temperature equal the re
temperature Tf . Using these expressions and assuming that the
heat is spread evenly to all surrounding surfaces allow expressing
the mean heat ux to the boundaries as in Eq. (1).

=
qW

p qC
mc
AO
4

f T
T f4 +
f
p
Atot
Atot mc

1
1
1
1
f + (ult
f ) = + (max
f )
R r
Rc
Rc
Rr

Eq. (3) can be expressed in an electric analogy, as illustrated in

Fig. 3. It shows how the heat ux depends on the resistances related to convection and radiation as well as the ultimate temperature rise, the re temperature rise, and the ambient temperature rise (i.e. zero). The relation can be further simplied by
introducing the equivalent resistance Rf and the equivalent tem
(cf. electric potential difference). Hence,
perature difference max
the latter represents the maximum temperature rise possible to
reach when the enclosure boundaries are adiabatic, i.e. cannot
absorb any heat. Indifference of the ultimate temperature rise, the
maximum temperature rise includes heat losses due to radiation
out through openings and will therefore be lower. The new terms
give a simple description of the heat exposure of surfaces and will
allow simple linear descriptions of the heat transfer through
boundaries (see Fig. 2).
2.1.2. Boundary conditions at the inside of the core (1)
At the inside surfaces of the enclosure, a boundary condition of
the third kind is applicable. In other words, the heat ux to the
surface depends on convection, driven by the temperature difference between the surface and the gas, and on radiation, driven by
the difference between the incident and emitted radiation. This is
expressed in Eq. (4).

qi = s, i T 4f T s4, i +

1
(Tf Ts, i)
R c, i

(4)

The heat transfer by radiation can be linearized as a function of

the difference between the re and surface temperatures,

(1)

where Atot is the total internal enclosure surface area (i.e. excluding the opening area) and f is the temperature rise Tf T.
When expressing the heat transfer to the surrounding

(3)

Fig. 3. Electric analogy of Eq. (3).

80

F. Evegren, U. Wickstrm / Fire Safety Journal 72 (2015) 7786

(Tf Ts,i). A radiative heat transfer resistance Rr,i may then be derived as Eq. (5). The boundary condition at the inside surfaces can
thereby be simplied and expressed in analogy with the heat
transfer by convection, as shown in Eq. (6). A new heat transfer
resistance for the inside surface of the boundary structure Rh, i ,
which includes both convection and radiation, can thereby be
dened as Eq. (7).

1
= s, i (T2f + Ts2, i)(Tf + Ts, i)
R r, i
qi =

1
1
(Tf Ts, i) + R (Tf Ts, i)
R r, i
c, i

1
1
1
=
+
Rh, i
R c, i
R r, i

(6)

If no insulation is provided at the inside of the construction, the

temperature of the inside surfaces equals the temperature of the
core, i.e. Ts, i = Tcore . However, in case the construction includes
insulation, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the conduction heat resistance
through the insulation must be considered in order to nd the
core temperature. Since no inertia was assumed for the insulation,
the conduction heat resistance may be added to the combined
convection and radiation heat transfer resistance, Ri = Rh, i + Rk, i .
This totals the heat resistance at the inside (re exposed side) of
the core. It gives the simplied expression of the heat transfer to
the surrounding surfaces as a function of the temperature difference between the core and the re, as expressed in Eq. (8). Here
the temperatures are also expressed as differences in relation to
the same initial temperature, generally assumed to be the ambient
.
temperature. Note that qi = qW

(8)

2.1.3. Lumped heat at the core (4)

For this paper, all inertias were assumed lumped into the core
of the structure, which in electric analogy is represented by a capacitor, as illustrated in Fig. 2. If such a structure is exposed to
heating, its temperature may be estimated by Eq. (9). As the heat
= qi qo the increase in the core
balance of the core yields qcore
temperature over a time step may be derived as Eq. (10).

= cd
qcore

dTcore
dt

i+1
i
Tcore
Tcore
=

(9)

t
(q " qo ")
cd i

(10)

2.1.4. Boundary conditions at the outside (3)

The heat lost at the outside surfaces of the structure can also be
expressed with the third kind of boundary condition, as expressed
in Eq. (11).

4
qo = s, o T s4, o T
+

1
(Ts, o T)
R c, o

qo =

1
1
(Tcore T) =
core
Ro
Ro

(12)

(5)

(7)

1
1
qi = (Tf Tcore) = (f core)
Ri
Ri

i.e. Ts, o = Tcore . In case the construction includes insulation at the

outside, the heat resistance of the insulation may be added to the
heat transfer resistance by convection and radiation, i.e.
Rh, o + Rk, o = Ro. This gives the concluding expression in Eq. (12) for
the heat losses from the core at the unexposed side.

(11)

Similar to above, the heat transfer by radiation can be expressed as a function of the temperature difference (Tf Ts, o) if
expressing the radiation heat transfer resistance in analogy with
Eq. (5). A total heat transfer resistance for radiation and convection
combined at the unexposed side of the core can then be dened in
analogy with Eq. (7).
If there is no insulation at the unexposed side of the core, the
outside surface temperature equals the temperature of the core,

2.1.5. Constructing the pre-ashover re model

By combining the equations derived in Sections 2.1.12.1.4 it is
possible to calculate the re temperature and temperatures in the
boundary construction depending on the heat release rate (and an
expression for the mass ow). Knowing that the heat ux to the
enclosure boundaries q W is equal to the heat ux to the core q i
allows deriving a new expression for the incoming heat ow.
Solving Eq. (8) for f and inserting it into Eq. (3) gives an expression which can be rearranged into Eq. (13). The core temperature
as a function of time can now be derived by inserting Eqs. (13) and
(12) for the incoming and outgoing heat ows into Eq. (10), resulting in Eq. (14).

qo =

1
R R*
Ri + Rc* + i c
R r*

i+1
i
core
= core

*
ult

R * + R * core
c
Ri + r

R r*Rc*

(13)

1
t
+
*

R R * ult
cd
Ri + Rc* + i c

R r*

1
1 i

+
core
*
*
R o

R + R r + Rc

R r*Rc*

(14)

i
where core
is the core temperature rise at the time increment i ,
t is the length of the time step, c and are the specic heat
capacity and the density of the core material, respectively and d is
the core thickness. R is heat resistance with subscripts indicating
radiative, convective, or conductive at the inside or outside of the
core. The core temperature of time increment (i 1) is hence calculated by determining the parameters on the right hand side of
Eq. (14) at time increment i. This may be determined only from the
current heat release rate and known constants, as shown in Section 2.3.
Based on the core temperature, the re temperature and temperatures throughout the boundary structure may be calculated
depending on the various thermal resistances according to the law
of proportion (see Fig. 2). The calculation procedure is demonstrated step by step in Appendix A.
Eq. (14) is expressed in terms of the ultimate temperature,
which may be the easiest for calculation purposes. Alternatively

the maximum temperature rise max

, dened according to Eq. (15),
may be used to express the core temperature as in Eq. (16). This
expression may also be derived directly from Fig. 2.

1
1

( max
) + ( max
)0
Rc ult
Rr

(15)

F. Evegren, U. Wickstrm / Fire Safety Journal 72 (2015) 7786

i+1
i
core
= core

t
+

cd
*
R f +

Rk, o

1
i
* core
max
R R

r, i c, i + Rk, i
R r , i + R c, i

1
i
core

R R

r , o c, o

R r , o + R c, o

(16)

A similar simple model can be developed if the boundary

structures are assumed semi-innite with constant thermal
properties, which has been demonstrated for post-ashover res
[5]. For other types of boundary structures the same approach for
modeling the re may be applied but more laborious numerical
procedures are then needed to solve for the re temperature.
2.2. Full-scale experimental arrangements
The model was validated by comparisons with full-scale experiments performed in a standard 20 ft. steel dry cargo container with
panels of corrugated steel. The gables and roof panels were 2.0 mm
thick and side walls 1.6 mm. The inner measurements of the container were (L  W  H) 5.90  2.35  2.39 m3. One of the container
gables had a 1  2 m2 opening constructed, as illustrated in Fig. 4.
Two different experimental set-ups were used. In the rst experiment the container had no insulation while in the second the
outside walls and roof were covered with nominally 95 mm thick
rock wool (Rockwool FlexiBattss), as shown in Fig. 4. The oor of
the container was in both tests covered with calciumsilica boards.
The re source was a heptane pool in a tray with a diameter of
0.89 m, standing on supports with the fuel surface 0.60 m above
the oor level. It was placed 2.95 m from the opening, just beyond
the center of the container oor, as illustrated in Fig. 5. Theoretically this re source gives a maximum heat release rate of about
1200 kW [11].
The heat release rate as a function of time was recorded by
measuring the oxygen consumption with a large scale so called
Industry Calorimeter. Gas temperatures in the container were

81

measured with thin type K thermocouples (0.25 mm) mounted in

three trees with six thermocouples in each. The measuring heights
were 0.6 m, 0.9 m, 1.2 m, 1.5 m, 1.8 m, and 2.1 m from the oor and
the trees were positioned along the centreline of the container, as
illustrated in Fig. 5. As the thermocouples were thin and placed
either in a relatively homogeneous thermal environment inside
the re enclosure or in the opening with high gas velosities, the
thermocouple measurements were not corrected for radiation
error but interpreted to yield true gas/re temperatures [cf. 12].
The steel core temperature was measured with thermocouples
welded to the walls at 0.9 m, 1.5 m, and 2.1 m from the oor next
to the thermocouple trees and re source, as shown in Fig. 5. In the
experiments with insulated boundaries, thermocouples were also
placed in the middle of and on the outer side of the insulation in
the corresponding locations.
2.3. Setup of the pre-ashover re model
To model the experimental conditions with the pre-ashover
re model, input parameters must be specied. No insulation was
provided at the inside (re exposed side) of the enclosure
boundaries and therefore Rh, i is the only heat resistance at the
inside of the enclosure boundaries, i.e. Rk, i = 0 and Rh, i = Ri . In the
tests with insulation added on the outside boundaries, the heat
resistance at the outside is expressed as Ro = Rh, o + Rk, o . Similarly,
for the non-insulated case, Ro = Rh, o since Rk, o = 0.
A number of constants must be dened related to the geometrical and material properties. The thicknesses of the corrugated steel panels were assumed to be 1.8 mm, close to a
weighted average of the exposed roof and wall panels. The
specic heat capacity of the insulation may vary with temperature increase but was here assumed to be constant in MQH
and FDS calculations. The conductivity of the insulation was in
FDS described as a function of the temperature in C,
k(T ) = 3 107 T 2 + T 104 + 0.033 W/(m K), based on SP Fire
Research internal tests on similar rock wool products. In calculations with the new model and the MQH relationship a
constant insulation conductivity of 0.09 W/(m K) was assumed,
representing the conductivity at 300 C. The conductivity of
steel in the FDS and MQH calculations was set to 45 W/(m K),

Fig. 4. Dimensions of the test enclosure and a photo of the insulated test enclosure.

Fig. 5. Position of thermocouple trees and surface measurements.

82

F. Evegren, U. Wickstrm / Fire Safety Journal 72 (2015) 7786

also representing a value at 300 C. Densities were assumed as

at room temperature. In the new model the conductivity of the
steel was assumed innite (lumped heat capacity) and insulation density and specic heat are assumed negligible and
therefore not required information.
The elements emitting radiation through the opening were
represented by a blackbody surface having the re temperature at
the opening, i.e. f = 1. The emissivities of the inside and outside
surfaces of the boundary structure were set to 0.7, based on
Eurocode 3, EN1993-1-2 for steel [12]. A slightly higher value may
be motivated as most used building materials have a surface
emissivity of 0.80.9. The choice has, however, very little inuence
on the calculated re temperatures. The convective heat transfer
coefcients at the inside (re exposed) and outside surfaces were
set to 25 W/(m2 K) and 4 W/(m2 K), respectively, according to
Eurocode 1, EN1991-1-2 [13]. The value for the re exposed surfaces is strictly speaking meant for fully developed res but as it
has limited inuence on the nal results it was used in absence of
any obvious alternative. The derived heat transfer resistances are
specied in Table 1 along with the other input parameters used in
the models.
As outlined in Section 2.1.1, the re heat transfer resistance Rf

as well as the ultimate temperature difference ult

depend on the
mass ow rate of gases out through the opening. According to
two-zone models the mass ow rates in and out through the
opening and into the re plume must be equal. It is here denoted
m . The re plume may be seen as a pump. Equating expressions for
the three mass ow rates will give solutions to all the unknowns
(the smoke layer height, the height of the neutral layer, and the
mass ow) since the re temperature is solved by the pre-ashover re model. The mass ow rate was obtained by an iteration
procedure, which was coded as a macro in Excel.
Alternatively the mass ow rate can be approximated without
iterations from re plume ow predictions, e.g. those of Zukoski
et al., Thomas or Heskestad (see e.g. [13] for a review). To demonstrate this procedure the Heskestad re plume ow correlation [13] was used in parallel with the iterations. Fire plume ow
predictions require, however, input on the smoke layer height,
which is not easily determined and is at the same time a very
sensitive parameter to the calculation of the re temperature. In
this paper the smoke layer height was derived based on a simplied correlation derived by Johansson and van Hees [14] between the mass ow rate through the opening and the smoke

layer height. The correlation was optimized for a ratio between the
re temperature and the ambient temperature of Tf /T = 1.7, giving the coefcient a value of 0.684, and is given in Eq. (17). As the
correlation is independent of the neutral layer height it may be
solved for the smoke layer height, z. The result was at each time
step inserted into the Heskestad re plume ow correlation, see
Eq. (18), for a less uncertain approximation of the mass ow rate
m .

z
m = AO HO 1

HO

(17)

1
L
1

+
m=
AO HO
0.0056cqC HO

(18)

The Heskestad re plume ow correlation includes the convective proportion of the total heat release rate qC . The average
convective part of the heat release rate c was measured to approximately 0.67 in the experiments, which was adopted.
2.4. FDS simulations
For comparison, the experiments were modeled in FDS, Fire
Dynamics Simulator, version 5.5.3 [9]. The heat release rate recorded in the experiments was used as input to the simulations.
Since circular objects cannot be specied in FDS, a square re
source with the same surface area was assumed, placed at the
same height as in the experiments. Heptane was used as fuel in
FDS and the soot yield was set to 0.037 [15]. The walls and roof of
corrugated were assumed plane in the FDS model. The walls, oor,
and ceiling of the construction were given material properties for
steel or steel and insulation, as presented in Table 1. The oor was
not insulated in any of the simulations, as it was never insulated in
the experiments. Neither was any consideration taken to the
concrete oor on which the container was placed. The size of the
grid cells was set to 50 mm cubes, which gives a D*/x value of 16
after about 50 s in the simulations (a value of at least 416 is recommendable to adequately resolve re plume dynamics [9]). A
mesh sensitivity study was performed, which showed grid independent results.
For comparison, output devices were specied in FDS which
predict temperatures as the 0.25 mm thick thermocouples used in
the experiments. The core (wall) temperatures were derived directly from the model.

Table 1
Input parameters to the models and correlations.
Parameter

Value

Unit

Ho
Ao
Atot
T1
cp (air)
kcore (steel)
(steel)
c (steel)
d (steel thickness)
k (insulation)
ins (insulation)
cins (insulation)
l (insulation thickness)
f
s,i
Rc,i
s,o
Rc,o

2
2
65.33
293
1012
45
7820
460
1.8
0.09
30
800
95
1
0.7
0.04
0.7
0.25
0.684
0.67

m
m2
m2
K
J/(kg K)
W/(m K)
kg/m3
J/(kg K)
mm
W/(m K)
kg/m3
J/(kg K)
mm
dimensionless
dimensionless
m2 K/W
dimensionless
m2 K/W
dimensionless
dimensionless

3. Results
Two full scale experiments were performed. The measured heat
release rates were input to the calculation models. Then the
measured core and re temperatures were compared with the
corresponding temperatures predicted by the models.
3.1. Observations and heat release rates from experiments
Flames reached the ceiling 10 s after ignition and thereafter the
res grew quickly, reaching a heat release rate of 700 kW in about
1 min. In the non-insulated enclosure the re grew slower than in
the insulated, reaching about 950 kW after 500 s. The re was
extinguished after 960 s. In the experiment with insulated
boundaries, small ames emerged at the opening already after
375 s. After 465 s the re was considered to have reached ashover and was extinguished. The walls were then glowing red.
The measured heat release rates from the experiments were
directly input to the new pre-ashover re model and to the MQH

F. Evegren, U. Wickstrm / Fire Safety Journal 72 (2015) 7786

83

relationship. However, for the FDS simulations the data were

evened out, as shown in Fig. 6. The peaks at the end of the graphs
are due to extinguishment.

measured.

3.2. Core temperature comparison

To compare predicted re temperatures with values measured

in experiments there are several different data reduction approaches, of which Weaver [16] provides a good review. In this
case a simple arithmetic average of the re temperature was calculated from data inside the smoke layer in the enclosure, both for
experiments and FDS simulations. The smoke layer height was
calculated from the pre-ashover re model and was consistent
with video observations. In the insulated enclosure the smoke
layer height was calculated to about 1.0 m, descending to about
0.8 m at the end of the test. In the non-insulated enclosure the
smoke layer was at the same average height but varied less
throughout the test. Thus, data from thermocouples at the heights
1.2 m, 1.5 m, 1.8 m, and 2.1 m were used from the two thermocouple trees inside the insulated as well as the non-insulated
enclosure to estimate re temperatures. The temperature in the
upper layer is also deemed well represented by the temperature of
the smoke exiting through the opening as they have been mixing
with the rest of the enclosure before exiting. An arithmetic average
was therefore calculated also from the thermocouples in the
smoke exiting the enclosure. Measured temperatures from 1.2 m
above the oor and below were here excluded since they were not
in the smoke layer at the opening. Hence, only data from 1.5 m and
1.8 m were used to calculate the re temperature from the hot
gases exiting the opening. The average temperatures from measurements were compared with predictions from the pre-ashover re model, as shown in Fig. 9 for the insulated and non-insulated enclosures. Figs. 10 and 11 includes comparisons with
predictions by FDS simulations as well as calculations based on the
MQH relationsship.
The calculated re temperatures by the new model matched
very well with the experimental results for the insulated enclosure. FDS gave a delayed response at the start and then 2045 K
lower predictions than measurement, a difference which increased
throughout the test. The MQH relationship gave unrealistic results.
For the non-insulated enclosure the new model predicted re
temperatures well, although constantly about 30 K above the
measured. FDS gave results similar to those from the experiment
in the rst half of the test. The re temperature predictions differed the most, about 30 K. In the second half of the test FDS gave
under predictions of 2060 K. The original MQH relationship gave
again unrealistic results. However, the modied relationship with
a corrected heat transfer coefcient as suggested by Peatross and
Beyler [4] predicted the experiments well.

The new pre-ashover re model yields the temperature of the

core of the surrounding structure, from which the re (gas) temperature is calculated by the law of proportion. The MQH relationship predicts only a re temperature. From experiments and
FDS simulations on the other hand, distributions of both temperatures were obtained. To represent the overall temperature of
the core, steel temperature data was collected from the three
different distances from the opening (each with thermocouples at
three different heights) in experiments and FDS. Arithmetic
averages were calculated from these nine measuring points and
were compared with the core temperatures calculated from the
pre-ashover re model, as illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8 for the insulated and non-insulated enclosure, respectively.
In the insulated case the core temperature estimated by the
new model was generally less than 60 K lower than measured. FDS
gave similar results. The nal temperatures were particularly close
to the experimental values. For the non-insulated case the new
model predicted a core temperature which was generally less than
50 K lower than measured. This difference decreased throughout
the test and in the second half it was less than 20 K. The FDS
predicted temperatures were constantly 3035 K below the

Fig. 6. Heat release rate histories used as inputs to the different models.

Fig. 7. Comparison of the measured and estimated core temperatures in the insulated container.

3.3. Fire temperature comparison

4. Discussion
Comparisons with experiments and FDS simulations showed

Fig. 8. Comparison of the measured and estimated core temperatures in the noninsulated container.

Fig. 9. Fire temperatures estimated by the new pre-ashover re model in comparison with experiments for the insulated and non-insulated cases.

84

F. Evegren, U. Wickstrm / Fire Safety Journal 72 (2015) 7786

Fig. 10. Estimated re temperatures in the insulated container by different models

compared with measurements.

simplicity and speed of computation. Results are obtained within

the second by an Excel application while the alternative of CFD
modeling may require several hours. The readiness is particularly
useful in preliminary evaluations, when evaluating multiple re
scenarios or when performing sensitivity assessments. The model
also opens up for more detailed analyses with use of input distributions to better describe effects of uncertainties in input
parameters on the end result, for example by Monte Carlo
simulations.
Finally it is worth mentioning that the MQH relationship gave
unrealistic results for the problems studied. The expression for the
effective heat transfer coefcient by Peatross and Beyler [4] improved, however, the results for the non-insulated case
considerably.

5. Conclusions and future work

Fig. 11. Estimated re temperatures in the non-insulated container by different

models compared with measurements.

that the new model predicts core and re temperatures well, both
for insulated and non-insulated steel enclosures. The new model
and FDS gave similarly good predictions for the steel core temperature. Both models under predicted these temperatures only
slightly up until the end of the tests. The new model predicted the
re temperature in the insulated case well but over predicted
slightly in the non-insulated case.
When comparing temperatures calculated by the new model
with measurements and FDS predictions, arithmetic average
temperatures were used which is an uncertainty of the
comparison.
The calculations with new model include a number of simplications and assumptions of which the following are deemed the
most signicant:

 A two-zone model was assumed for calculation of mass ow






rates.
As an alternative, mass ow rates were for comparison also
calculated based on the Heskestad re plume ow correlation
[13] and the Johansson and van Hees [14] simplication. A
sensitivity study showed insignicant effects on the results
from using these correlations in the studied cases.
Heat ux to the enclosure boundaries was assumed uniform to
all surrounding surfaces, including the oor. This assumption is
justied by the fact that radiation is the dominant mode of heat
transfer at high temperatures.
The compartment boundary structure was modeled assuming
lumped heat, i.e. the thermal inertia is concentrated to a core
possibly insulated on either side. The heat capacity of the insulation material is neglected and the conductivity of the core
is assumed to be innite.
Effects of the corrugation of panels were disregarded.
Input data for calculations were obtained from measurements
and where relevant with reference to Eurocodes [7,17]. The
only exceptions are the insulation properties which were provided by the manufacturer and the emissivity at the enclosure
opening which was assumed to be 1.
The great strengths of the new pre-ashover re model are its

This paper presents a new enclosure re model to estimate

temperatures in pre-ashover res based on thermal physics. It is
applicable to enclosures where the heat capacity is lumped into
the core of the surrounding structure. Comparison with experiments and FDS shows that the pre-ashover re model gives accurate results.
The new model adds to the understanding of the physics in
pre-ashover enclosure res. It is simple and requires very short
computation times. Hence, the model is a powerful tool for sensitivity and uncertainty studies.
Lumped heat capacity was assumed in this paper but the approach may as well be used in combination with other enclosure
boundaries. Particularly, simple temperature expressions can be
derived when boundaries are assumed semi-innite with constant
properties, to be demonstrated in future work. In other cases the
heat transfer may be modeled using general nite element codes
as has been demonstrated for a one-zone model by Wickstrm
and Bystrm [5].
An Excel document with the pre-ashover re model was
made available alongside the electronic version of this paper at the
Elsevier and ScienceDirect websites and may also be obtained
from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to associate professor Johan Anderson
at SP Fire Research for support in FDS simulations. Thanks are also
extended to Anna Back for managing the re tests. The tests were
nanced by the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under Grant agreement no. 233980 and two competence
centers at SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, Novel Designs at Sea: Shipping and Offshore and Zero Emission
Buildings.

Appendix A. Calculation procedure

This appendix describes step by step a calculation procedure of
the above presented model. An Excel application of the model is
available on request from the author.
A.1. Input data and the core equation
Initially two columns are set up with the heat release rate
versus time input data. With this information and temperatures
calculated in the previous time step the core temperature can be

F. Evegren, U. Wickstrm / Fire Safety Journal 72 (2015) 7786

transiently solved according to Eq. (14), here reproduced as Eq.

(A1). Thereafter the re temperature and temperatures throughout the boundary structure may be calculated depending on the
new core temperature. First, however, the mass ow rate must be
estimated.

i+1
i
core
= core

1
t
+
*

R R * ult
cd
Ri + Rc* + i c

R r*

1
1 i

+
core
*
*
R o

R + R r + Rc

R r*Rc*

(A2)

A.3. Calculate the ultimate temperature rise

The ultimate temperature rise is calculated according to Eq.
(A3).

qC
p
mc

(A3)

A.4. Calculate heat resistances

Atot
p
mc

A
1
2
R r = O f (T
+ T2f )(T + Tf )
Atot

1
= s, i (T2f + Ts2, i)(Tf + Ts, i)
R r, i

(A7)

1
1
1
+ Rk, o
+
R o =
R r, o
R c, o

(A8)

1
= s, o (T2f + Ts2, o)(Tf + Ts, o)
R r, o

(A9)

A.5. Determine heat uxes and temperatures

The core temperature as a function of time in Eq. (A1) can now
be solved. Thereby the incorporated heat uxes to and from the
core can also be solved according to Eqs. (A10) and (A11), respectively.

qi =

qo =

1
R R*
Ri + Rc* + i c
R r*

*
ult

= qW
R * + R * core
r
c
Ri +

R r*Rc*

1
1
(Tcore T) =
core
Ro
Ro

(A10)

(A11)

The re temperature and temperatures throughout the

boundary structure are then calculated by the rule of proportionality, as indicated by Fig. 2 and exemplied in Eqs. (A12)
and (A13).

qi =

1
(f core) f = core + Riqi
Ri

(A12)

qi =

1
(core s, o) s, o = core Rk, oqi
Rk, o

(A13)

References

All four heat resistances in Eq. (A1) must be calculated. The

articial convective and radiative heat transfer resistances in the
re enclosure are calculated according to Eqs. (A4) and (A5), respectively.

Rc =

(A6)

(A1)

There are several ways to estimate the mass ow rate. The mass
ow rates in and out through the opening are assumed equal to
the plume ow and may be estimated directly from a re plume
ow correlation. An alternative is to estimate the mass ow rate by
iterating the original equations for the mass ow rates in and out
through the opening [6] and a re plume ow correlation [13]
(possible with information from the previous time step). As a third
alternative a simplied correlation between the mass ow rates
through the opening and the smoke layer height [14] may be used
instead of the original mass ow equations. For example, together
with the Heskestad re plume ow correlation the mass ow can
then be calculated from Eq. (A2).

ult
=

1
1
1
+ Rk, i
+
Ri =
R r, i
R c, i

Similarly, the heat resistance at the outside (unexposed side) of

the core Ro may be calculated by Eq. (A8). If the outside or the core
is not covered, the conductive heat resistance is zero. The radiation
heat transfer resistance at the outside surface is calculated according to Eq. (A9).

A.2. Estimate the mass ow rate

1
L
1

+
m =
AO HO
0.0056cqC HO

85

(A4)

(A5)

The heat resistance at the inside (re exposed side) of the core
Ri depends on convection and radiation heat transfer resistances at
the surface and on conductive heat resistance of potential covering
material, as shown in Eq. (A6). The latter is zero if the inside of the
core is not covered. The radiation heat transfer resistance at the
inside surface may be calculated in a separate column according to
Eq. (A7), where the re and inside surface temperatures are taken
from the previous time step.

[1] W.D. Walton, P.H. Thomas, Estimating temperatures in compartment res, in:
P.J. DiNenno (Ed.), The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, third ed.,
NFPA, Quincy, MA, USA, 2002, pp. 3-1713-188.
[2] B. McCaffrey, J. Quintiere, M. Harkleroad, Estimating room temperatures and
the likelihood of ashover using re test data correlations, Fire Technol. 17 (2)
(1981) 98119.
[3] B. Karlsson, J.G. Quintiere, Enclosure Fire Dynamics, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
2000.
[4] M.J. Peatross, C.L. Beyler, Thermal environmental prediction in steel-bounded
preashover compartment res, in: Proceedings of the Fourth International
Symposium on Fire Safety Science. International Association for Fire Safety
Science, Boston, 1994, pp. 205216.
[5] U. Wickstrm, A. Bystrm, Compartment re temperature a new simple
calculation method, in: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium
on Paper Presented at the Fire Safety Science. Christchurch, New Zeeland,
2014.
[6] S.E. Magnusson, S. Thelandersson, Temperature-time curves of complete
process of re development: theoretical study of wood fuel res in enclosed
spaces, Civ. Eng. Build. Constr. Ser. 65 (1970), pp. 181.
[7] CEN, EN 1991-1-2, Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures Part 12: General
Actions Actions on Structures Exposed to Fire. European Committee for
Standardisation, 2002.
[8] A. Back, Fire Development in Insulated Compartments: Effects from Improved
Thermal Insulation, Department of Fire Safety Engineering and Systems Safety,

86

F. Evegren, U. Wickstrm / Fire Safety Journal 72 (2015) 7786

Lund, 2000.
[9] K. McGrattan, B. Klein, S. Hostikka, J. Floyd, Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version
5) User Guide, National Institute of Standards and Technology, USA, 2008.
[10] O. Pettersson, K. deen, Brandteknisk Dimensionering: Principer, Underlag,
Exempel. 1978.
[11] V. Babrauskas, Heat release rates, in: P.J. DiNenno, D. Drysdale, C.L. Beyler,
et al., (Eds.), The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, fourth ed.,
National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, USA, 2008, pp. 3-13-59.
[12] S. Welch, A. Jowsey, S. Deeny, R. Morgan, J.L. Torero, BRE large compartment
re tests-characterising post-ashover res for model validation, Fire Saf. J. 42
(8) (2007) 548567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resaf.2007.04.002.
[13] G. Heskestad, Fire plumes, ame height, and air entrainment, in: P.J. DiNenno,
D. Drysdale, C.L. Beyler, et al., (Eds.), The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection
Engineering, fourth ed.,National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, USA,
2008, pp. 2-12-20.

[14] J. Johansson, P. Van Hees, A simplied relation between hot layer height and
opening mass ow, in: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium
on Paper Presented at the Fire Safety Science. Christchurch, New Zeeland,
2014.
[15] A. Tewarson, Generation of heat and chemical compounds in res, in: P.
J. DiNenno, D. Drysdale, C.L. Beyler, et al., (Eds.), The SFPE Handbook of Fire
Protection Engineering, third ed.,National Fire Protection Association, Quincy,
MA, USA, 2002, pp. 3-8283-161.
[16] S. Weaver, A Comparison of Data Reduction Techniques for Zone Model Validation. Fire Engineering Research Report, University of Canterbury, Canterbury, 2000.
[17] CEN, EN 1993-1-2, Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures General Rules
Structural Fire Design. European Committee for Standardisation, 2005.