International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 67 (2013) 829–835

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

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

A study of bifurcation flow of fire smoke in tunnel with longitudinal

ventilation
Zhong Wei, Lv Jinjin, Li Zhaozhou, Liang Tianshui ⇑
School of Chemical Engineering and Energy, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China

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

Article history: In this paper, numerical simulation was conducted using Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) to study bifur-
Received 12 May 2013 cation flow of smoke in tunnel with longitudinal ventilation. Through analyzing the effect of longitudinal
Received in revised form 17 August 2013 ventilation velocity on smoke flow field, temperature distribution within smoke layer and height of
Accepted 24 August 2013
smoke layer, generation mechanism of smoke bifurcation flow was revealed. Longitudinal ventilation
Available online 20 September 2013
would increase entrainment of smoke with air and dilute the smoke at the center of tunnel ceiling,
and would enhance inertial force of horizontal flow and weaken driving force of reverse flow of ceiling
Keywords:
jet by sidewall. A low temperature region below tunnel ceiling was formed when longitudinal ventilation
Longitudinal ventilation
Tunnel fire
exceeded a critical value. There was little smoke in the low temperature region, so smoke bifurcation flow
Ceiling jet was occurred. The occurrence of the bifurcation flow mainly depends on the horizontal inertial force and
Bifurcation flow the driving force.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Nowadays, traffic tunnel (e.g., subway tunnel, urban under-
ground tunnels and underwater tunnels) has been developing rap-
idly in many cities of the world to alleviate the traffic pressure. Fire
protection and smoke control of tunnel has been attracting a broad
attention as well. The poisonous and high-temperature smoke pro-
duced by a fire will be accumulated in the tunnel and difficult to be
exhausted [1,2]. High-temperature flame would damage tunnel
structure and fire smoke would threat personnel safety in the tun-
nel [3,4]. According to statistics, 85% of deaths in fires were caused
by fire smoke [5]. To exhaust heat and smoke in a fire in time and
protect personnel safety and tunnel structure, effective exhaust
smoke system is very necessary. Common smoke exhaust methods
in tunnel at present include the longitudinal ventilation, horizon-
tally mechanical smoke exhaust, semi-transverse mechanical
smoke exhaust, and natural smoke extraction which use natural
smoke vents or smoking shaft.
In case of fire, fire smoke will radial flow along tunnel ceiling
after it hits the ceiling, and gradually transforms into a one-dimen-
sional (longitudinal) flow by the limitation of side walls of the tun-
nel [6]. In the tunnel with longitudinal ventilation, smoke plume
will tilt to the downstream, and part of upstream smoke is blown
to downstream. With the increase of longitudinal ventilation
velocity, the quantity of the smoke flows to upstream would de-
crease gradually. It is not until the velocity increases to a value that
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 371 67739005 (O), mobile: +86 15639267741.
E-mail address: Liangtsh@zzu.edu.cn (T. Liang).
the forward of smoke back-layering is level with fire source. So the
value of velocity is called critical velocity to control smoke back-
layering [7–9].
A lot of research on critical velocity has been being developed.
Thomas [10,11] first proposed that the flow characteristics of
smoke depended on Froude number which is the ratio of the buoy-
ancy to inertia force. He concluded that there would be no smoke
back-layering when the Froude number is 1, the buoyancy equals
to the flow inertia force. Heselden [12] carried out research on fire
critical velocity in a horizontal tunnel, and the relation between
critical velocity and fire power was suggested. Heselden also
pointed out that the critical velocity was proportional to a third
power of the fire source power. Wu and Bakar [7] used the hydrau-
lic diameter of the tunnel as characteristic dimensions to obtain an
empiric formula for predicting critical velocity, and the results
were validated by experimental data of a full scale test. Hu [13]
established a critical wind velocity prediction model which com-
bined with empirical formula, and he also compared his model
with Wu and Bakar model. Ingason et al. [8,9] studied the critical
velocity and smoke backflow distance with small-scale experi-
ments, and they discussed the relation between the critical velocity
and fire power. Little literature on flow condition of the tunnel fire
smoke under the action of larger longitudinal ventilation velocity
has been reported. However, larger longitudinal ventilation veloc-
ity has a great influence on smoke flow field, temperature distribu-
tion within smoke layer and height of smoke layer, so, it is
necessary to carry out a research on it.
In numerical simulation, Li [14] discovered that when the longi-
tudinal ventilation velocity increased to a certain value bifurcation

0017-9310/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2013.08.084
830 W. Zhong et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 67 (2013) 829–835

flow and a low temperature region would be formed in the middle
of tunnel ceiling, and that there was little smoke in the low tem-
perature region. However, he did not reasonably explain the mech-
anisms of the bifurcation flow. Zhong [15] conducted numerically
research on the effectiveness of natural smoke extraction in tunnel
with longitudinal ventilation in case of fire. His study discovered
that when the longitudinal velocity reached a fixed value, the mass
smoke flow rate of the shaft would dropp suddenly. He concluded
that this phenomenon was related to the low temperature region
in the middle of tunnel ceiling. But the work had not produced
the mechanism of the formation of the low temperature region.
The smoke bifurcation flow and the generation of low temperature
region in the middle of tunnel ceiling have a significant influence
on the effectiveness of tunnel smoke extraction. For transversal,
semi-transverse mechanical smoke extraction and natural smoke
extraction, it is necessary to select an appropriate location of ex-
haust port to avoid the exhaust port in the low temperature region.
In this paper, flow condition of ceiling jet in tunnel with
longitudinal ventilation will be examined through numerical
simulation. Mechanisms of bifurcation flow of the smoke in longi-
tudinally ventilated tunnel fires will be discussed.
2. Numerical modeling
2.1. Fire Dynamics Simulator
2.2. Fire scenario analysis
The simulation region of the tunnel was 200 m long, 10 m wide
and 5 m high. A fire source was located in the center of the tunnel
and 50 m away from the left entrance, as shown in Fig. 1. The heat
release rate was 3000 kW, to represent a typical scenario of car fire.
The inlet velocity boundary condition was set at the left opening of
the tunnel model, while the exit was at the right. In the full scale
experiments of Yan et al. [24], the natural longitudinal velocity
was measured between 0.8 m/s and 1.5 m/s. To investigate the
influence of longitudinal ventilation on smoke exhaust, the longi-
tudinal ventilation velocity was set between 0 m/s and 4 m/s with
the interval of 0.5 m/s in current physical model, that is, the veloc-
ity was 0 m/s, 1 m/s, 1.5 m/s, 2 m/s, 2.5 m/s, 3 m/s, 3.5 m/s and
4 m/s, respectively. In CFD simulation, a model with or without
an exterior environment will generate different simulation results
[25–27], therefore, the ambient temperature was set as 20 °C, and
the simulation time was 100 s in the study.
To compare the smoke temperature of the central and the side
wall of the tunnel under different working condition, two series of
thermocouple were arranged respectively. One at the central of the
tunnel, the other 0.5 m away from the side wall and 0.25 m be-
neath the ceiling. Each series of thermocouple had 19 points, and
the spacing of the first nine measuring points was 2.5 m, while
the 10 points behind was 5 m, as shown in Fig. 2.

2.3. Grid independence

As we know, CFD simulation has now become an important tool
for fire science and engineering. Some CFD solvers have been
Mesh size is one of the key factors which affect numerical
widely used, such as Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) which was
simulation results. To get a grid independence result, grid indepen-
developed by the US National Institute of Standards and Technol-
dence test was conducted as well.
ogy (NIST). In Roh’s study [16], the backflow distance predictions
For FDS, the D⁄/dx criterion has been widely used to evaluate the
produced by FDS was just consistent with the experimental results.
resolution of the grid, where dx is the grid size and D⁄ is the
Wu [17] conducted simulation on flow field of jet fans using FDS.
characteristic length which is calculated by:
The simulation results agree well with experiment carried on by
Mutama et al. [18].The highest temperature under the ceiling of !25
 Q_
tunnel was simulated with FDS by Hu et al. [19], the results were D ¼ pffiffiffi ð2Þ
in good agreement with experimental values. In addition, Sun q1 cp T 1 g
et al. [20] found that the simulation results from FDS agreed well
with the experimental data which was about plume rising study
in the shaft.
These studies have proved that the FDS can effectively simulate 25m 50m
the flue gases and the heat transfer process in a fire, and can be a
inlet
reliable simulation to simulate the natural ventilation conditions thermocouple
0.5m

in the tunnel fire. Therefore, the next article will no longer verify
5m

the accuracy of the FDS. FDS (version 5.5.3) was used in the study.
0.083m

1m
The method of large eddy simulation (LES) is adopted in FDS. In fire source
LES, sub-grid turbulence model (sub-grid-model, SGM) has been 50m 20m
widely applied. The turbulent sub-grid model used by FDS is the 200m
modified Smagorinsky model. Similar to most of the existing
sub-grid model, The Smagorinsky model still use the concept of (a) front view
eddy viscosity assumption. The eddy viscosity is obtained by
assuming that the small scales are in equilibrium, by balancing 5m
the energy production and dissipation. The turbulent viscosity de- 0.5m
fined in FDS is [21]:
 1=2 thermocouple
0.5m

1    2
lLES ¼ qðC S DÞ2 ru þ ruT : ru þ ruT  ðr  uÞ2 ð1Þ
2 3
4.5m
5m

0.083m

where, D is (dxdydz)1/3 and Cs is an empirical Smagorinsky constant. fire source 1m

In FDS, the constants, Cs, Pr and Sc, are often set as default values in
FDS as 0.2, 0.2 and 0.5, respectively [22]. Furthermore, many schol- 5m
ars carried out a lot of verification and correction work about the
model. It can be drawn that for a lot of simulating buoyancy-driven 10m
flow, the predicted values from FDS and SGM revision agreed better (b) side view
with the measured value from the original Smagorinsky model and
RANS (Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes) models [23]. Fig. 1. Tunnel model.
 W. Zhong et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 67 (2013) 829–835 831

20m 50m 2

fire source thermocouple

0
Fig. 2. Arrangements of thermocouples. 0 2 4 6 8 10
(a)
where Q_ is heat release rate, q1 is ambient density, cp is specific
heat capacity, T1 is ambient temperature and g is gravitational 4
acceleration constant. It was recommended that the value of D⁄/dx
should be in the range of 4–16 [21]. So the grid size for a 3 MW fire
is 0.09–0.37 m. Besides, as proved by previous study [28], a grid sys-
tem with refined mesh assigned near to the fire source and coarse 2

mesh in the other spaces also will get good results. In this paper,
the vertical temperature distribution in the tunnel was selected to
compare simulation results of six different mesh sizes between 0
0.1 m and 0.4 m, as shown in Fig. 3. From Fig. 3 we can see that grid 0 2 4 6 8 10

independence result was obtained for the region far away from the
(b)
fire source using a mesh size of 0.167 m. It can be seen that the re-
sults of mesh with 0.167 m, 0.125 m and 0.1 m only have slight dif-
4
ference, that is to say, when the mesh size was less than 0.167 m,
there was no significant improvement to the measurement results
but more time consuming. A multi-mesh system with grid size of
0.083 m (in the fire region according to Eq. (2)) and 0.167 m (in 2
the region far away from the fire source) was chose.

3. Results and discussion 0

0 2 4 6 8 10
(c)
3.1. The forming process of smoke layer

Fig. 4 shows the velocity vector of fire cross section in case of 4

longitudinal ventilation. As is known, the forming process of smoke
layer can be divided into four stages in the tunnel without longitu-
dinal ventilation. The first is the stage of plume vertical rising, as
shown in Fig. 4a. Ceiling jet is formed after the smoke plume hit 2

tunnel ceiling, which is called the second stage, as shown in

Fig. 4b. In the second stage, flow pattern is changed from vertical
rising to radial spreading and promote the entrainment of fire 0
plume. The ceiling jet spread radially and hit side walls of the tun- 0 2 4 6 8 10

nel in the third stage (see Fig. 4c). The ceiling jet turns into (d)
Fig. 4. Velocity vector distributions of smoke in the tunnel without longitudinal
90
ventilation.

80
anti-buoyant jet, and flow reversely to the middle of the tunnel
(see Fig. 4d). The smoke layer is eventually formed. In the forma-
70 0.33 m tion of tunnel smoke layer, the reversed flow formed after ceiling
0.25 m jet hit the side walls plays an important role.
)

60 0.2 m
Temperature (

0.167 m
0.125 m 3.2. Smoke flow in tunnel with longitudinal wind
50
0.1 m

40
3.2.1. Formation of bifurcation flow
Fig. 5 shows smoke propagation in the tunnel with different
longitudinal wind. After smoke plume hit the tunnel ceiling, ceiling
30
jet would be generated in the tunnel with longitudinal ventilation.
The reverse flow of ceiling jets would be formed by the confine-
20
0 1 2 3 4 5 ment of side walls of the tunnel. The reverse ceiling jets would con-
Height (m) verge at centerline of the tunnel ceiling and form an envelope
region (the envelope region is very clear in Fig. 5e and f). From
Fig. 3. Vertical temperature distribution in the tunnel. the bifurcate point to the converge point, the bifurcation flows
832 W. Zhong et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 67 (2013) 829–835

a.1m/s

b.1.5m/s

c.2m/s

d.2.5m/s

e.3m/s

f.4m/s

Fig. 5. Smoke propagation at different longitudinal velocity.

formed a closed path. The region surrounded by the flow path is
defined as envelope region in the paper. With the increase of lon-
gitudinal ventilation velocity, the envelope region would increase
and smoke concentration would decrease in the middle of the
envelope region. When the velocity reached 2.5 m/s, smoke back-
layering was not occurred, as shown in Fig. 5d. In this situation,
bifurcation flow was observed because there was no smoke filling
in the envelope region. With the further increase of the velocity,
the envelope region became larger and the bifurcation flow be-
came clearer, as shown in Fig. 5e and f.
downstream, at the same time, the envelope region of the smoke
flow reversed was constantly away from the fire.
Fig. 7 shows the location of the impact region and the conver-
gence region. It can be seen that two regions overlapped when
the longitudinal velocity was zero; and the distance between the
two region increases with the increase of longitudinal velocity.
The reason was that the longitudinal wind would enhance the mix-
ture of ceiling jet with air, decrease smoke temperature, and pro-
long the time for the reverse flows formed by hitting side wall to
converge in the middle of the tunnel.

3.3. Temperature distribution

3.2.2. Velocity vector beneath ceiling
Fig. 6 shows velocity vectors of horizontal cross-section at
0.167 m below the tunnel ceiling at different longitudinal velocity.
The ceiling jet formed after the smoke plume hit tunnel ceiling
would spread radially when there was no longitudinal wind, and
the smoke flow speed were equal in all directions. The ceiling jet
flow would change from symmetrically to asymmetrically with
the function of longitudinal ventilation. With the increase of longi-
tudinal velocity, upstream speed of the smoke of decreased and
part of the smoke would be blown to downstream. When the lon-
gitudinal ventilation velocity was less than 2.5 m/s, back-layering
flow would occur. The back-layering smoke driven by the longitu-
dinal ventilation would flow downstream and enter the smoke
layer of downstream, as shown in Fig. 6(a–c). Bifurcation flow
was not discovered for this condition. When the velocity reached
2.5 m/s (Fig. 6d), smoke backflow of impact region was not oc-
curred, and the smoke velocity to downstream would increase,
resulting in the region of the ceiling jet impacting side walls moved
3.3.1. Temperature of the middle section of tunnel
Fig. 8 presents temperature distribution in the middle of tunnel
with different longitudinal ventilation velocity. With the increase
of longitudinal velocity, the downstream smoke temperature first
increased and then decreased. This is because when the longitudi-
nal ventilation velocity is small, the smoke which originally flows
to the upstream changes to flow downstream. On the other hand,
the longitudinal wind can enhance the air entrainment of fire
smoke. With the increasing of mixture forced by longitudinal wind,
the temperature of downstream smoke would begin to decrease.
When the velocity reached 2.5 m/s, smoke back-layering did not
appear in the upstream, and obvious bifurcation flow could be ob-
served at downstream of the plume impact region. Therefore there
was no smoke filling in the region between the convergence region
and the plume impact region, which produced smoke layer hollow.
Further increase longitudinal ventilation velocity, the smoke layer
hollow became more obvious, and became tangent to the top of the
 W. Zhong et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 67 (2013) 829–835 833

10 back-layering

100 150 00 75
50 1 50
150
0 25 25
60 80 100 120
a.1m/s 0
50 60 70 80
10 1m/s
100 0 75
10 50
50
25 25
0
60 80 100 120 0
b.1.5m/s 50 60 70 80
1.5m/s
10
100 5
25 7 50
100
25
0 0
60 80 100 120 50 60 70 80
c.2m/s 2m/s hollow

10 25 50 75 50 25
100

0
0 50 60 70 80
60 80 100 120 2.5m/s
d.2.5m/s 25 75 50 25
100
10 150

0
50 60 70 80
0 3m/s
60 80 100 120
25
e.3m/s 75 50 25

0
10
10
0
50 60 70 80
4m/s
0
60 80 100 120
f.4m/s Fig. 8. Temperature distribution of the vertical section in the middle of tunnel.

Fig. 6. Velocity vectors of horizontal cross-section at 0.167 m below the ceiling.

10
90 80 70 60
50
10
0

80 plume impact region 0

convergence region 60 80 100 120
1m/s

10
distance from the source of fire(m)

60 80
90 80 70
60 50
80

0
40 60 80 100 120
1.5m/s
10 65 60
80 55 50 45
20 25 50

70
0
60 80 100 120
0 2m/s
low temperature zone
10 50
65 40
45
0 1 2 3 4 25 35 40
35
50 45
longitudinal ventilation velocity(m/s) 0
60 80 100 120
Fig. 7. The location of the impact region and the convergence region. 2.5m/s
10
60 40 45 40
35
25 25
tunnel at 3 m/s, which indicated there was little smoke in the cen- 60
35
45 40 45
tral of the tunnel. 0
60 80 100 120
3m/s
3.3.2. Temperature distribution beneath ceiling 10 40 35 35
40
Fig. 9 shows temperature distribution of horizontal cross-sec- 30
25
25

tion at 0.167 m below the ceiling. When the longitudinal ventila- 30

40
45 35 35
tion velocity was 1 m/s, the smoke almost develops to a steady 0
60 80 100 120
state at 80 m downstream, while there was no significant differ- 4m/s
ence between the temperature of central tunnel and tunnel side
wall. As the velocity increases to 2 m/s, since the smoke back-lay- Fig. 9. Temperature distribution of horizontal cross-section at 0.167 m below the
ering to upstream of the impact region decreases, the smoke ceiling.
834 W. Zhong et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 67 (2013) 829–835

0
0
5
10 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

(a)1m/s
5

0
0
5
10 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

(b)1.5m/s
5

0
0
5
10 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

(c)2m/s
5

0
0
5
10 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

(d)2.5m/s
5

0
0
5
10 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

(e)3m/s
5

0
0
5
10 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

(f)4m/s
Fig. 10. Smoke layer height along the tunnel.

supplemented to the downstream would decrease gradually, con-
sequently, the difference between the temperature of central tun-
nel and tunnel side wall increased to about 10 °C. After the velocity
reached 2.5 m/s, no backflow appeared and smoke bifurcation flow
occurred, and the temperature of central tunnel was 15–20 °C low-
er than the side wall of tunnel, thus forming a low temperature re-
gion in central obviously. Further increase of the longitudinal
ventilation velocity, the range of the low temperature region in
central tunnel would be further expanded. In the case of the veloc-
ity was 4 m/s, the low temperature region length already exceeded
30 m, and its temperature was approximately 15 °C lower than the
side wall smoke.
3.4. The smoke layer height
Smoke layer height along the tunnel with longitudinal ventila-
tion was shown in Fig. 10. When the velocity was relatively small
(1 m/s and 1.5 m/s), the smoke layer develops stability and strati-
fication of smoke layer was discovered. From Fig. 10a and b, it can
be seen that the smoke layer height in the tunnel almost unchang-
ing in transverse direction. When the longitudinal ventilation
velocity is 2 m/s (Fig. 10c), the distribution of smoke layer height
in cross-section located at 60 m (10 m downstream the fire source)
obviously became convex, which because the anti-buoyancy wall
jet was formed after the ceiling jet impact side walls. The jet flow
resulted in the smoke layer height at tunnel side walls decreased,
while smoke layer height remained about 2 m at the central tun-
nel. In the cross-sectional located at 75 m (25 m downstream the
fire source), where the reverse flow converges in the middle of
the tunnel, the smoke layer height decreases to approximately
1.5 m at the central. The smoke layer at 85 m (35 m downstream
the fire source) developed to a fully steady stage. When the longi-
tudinal ventilation velocity reached 2.5 m/s (Fig. 10d), the convex
is discovered apparently from 65 m to 70 m (15–20 m downstream
the fire source). The height of smoke layer at 65 m (15 m down-
stream the fire source) is 4 m. With the convergence of reverse
smoke flows, the smoke layer height of cross-sections from 80 m
to 90 m (30–40 m downstream the fire source) was reduced to
1m, entering a fully developed stage. If the longitudinal ventilation
velocity was larger, the bifurcation flow of smoke was more obvi-
ous. For the velocity of 4 m/s, the length of low temperature region
in the middle of the tunnel was more than 30 m.
4. Conclusion
Fire Smoke flow in tunnel at different longitudinal ventilation
velocity is discussed in the paper. Through analyzing the smoke
flow structure, the temperature and height of smoke layer under
different longitudinal ventilation velocity, the generation mecha-
nism of fire smoke bifurcation flow is revealed.
 W. Zhong et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 67 (2013) 829–835
The first key factor is the reverse smoke flows which were
formed by the impact of the ceiling jet with sidewalls. The reverse
smoke flows would be brought to downstream by the longitudinal
ventilation, which resulted in the reduction of smoke volume in
the middle of the tunnel. When the longitudinal ventilation veloc-
ity is small, smoke backflows can enter the smoke layer down-
stream. When the smoke backflow disappeared completely, most
of energy and smoke was driven to flow to sides, bifurcation flow
was generated, and a low temperature region was formed. So we
can conclude that no backflow are the precondition for the occur-
rence of bifurcation flow; and infer that the critical velocity (min-
imum value) for producing bifurcation flow should be greater than
the critical velocity for preventing smoke back-layering.
The smoke bifurcation flow would influence the effectiveness of
tunnel smoke extraction. For the smoke control design of tunnels,
the formation of the low temperature region should be avoided, or
the smoke vent should not be located in the low temperature
region.
The critical condition for generating the bifurcation flow, may
relate to longitudinal ventilation velocity, heat release rate and
the feature size and aspect ratio of tunnel, which depends on the
ratio of horizontal inertial force of the longitudinal ventilation to
the thermal buoyancy of plume impact area. Further research will
be focused on the quantitative model of the critical condition.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (NSFC) under Grant No. 51104132, the key technolo-
gies research and development program of Henan province under
Grant No. 102102210379, and the Opening Fund of State Key Lab-
oratory of Fire Science of University of Science and Technology of
China under Grant No. HZ2011-KF07
References
[1] M.K. Camby, W.M. Eric, C.K. Alvin, Impact of location of jet fan on airflow
structure in tunnel fire, Tunnelling Underground Space Technol. 27 (2012) 30–
40.
[2] L.H. Hu, R. Huo, H.B. Wang, R.X. Yang, Experimental and numerical studies on
longitudinal smoke temperature distribution upstream and downstream from
the fire in a road tunnel, J. Fire Sci. 25 (2007) 23–43.
[3] W. Yao, J. Zhang, A. Nadjai, T. Beji, M. Delichatsios, Development and validation
of a global soot model in turbulent jet flames, Combust. Sci. Technol. 184
(2012) 717–733.
[4] W. Yao, J. Zhang, A. Nadjai, T. Beji, M.A. Delichatsios, A global soot model
developed for fires: validation in laminar flames and application in turbulent
pool fires, Fire Safety J. 46 (2011) 371–387.
[5] J. Hietaniemi, R. Kallonen, E. Mikkola, Burning characteristics of selected
substances: production of heat smoke and chemical species, Fire Mater. 23
(1999) 171–185.
835
[6] K.C. Tsai, H.H. Chen, S.K. Lee, Critical ventilation velocity for multi-source
tunnel fires, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 98 (2010) 650–660.
[7] Y. Wu, M.Z.A. Bakar, Control of smoke flow in tunnel fires using longitudinal
ventilation systems, Fire Safety J. 35 (2000) 363–390.
[8] H. Ingason, Z.L. Ying, Model scale tunnel fire tests with longitudinal ventilation,
Fire Safety J. 45 (2010) 371–384.
[9] Z.L. Ying, L. Bo, H. Ingason, Study of critical velocity and back-layering length in
longitudinally ventilated tunnel fires, Fire Safety J. 45 (2010) 361–370.
[10] P.H. Thomas, The movement of buoyant fluid against a stream and venting of
underground fires, Fire Research Note, 351, Fire Research Station, Watford, UK,
1958.
[11] P.H. Thomas, The movement of smoke in horizontal passages against an air
flow, Fire Research Note, 723, Fire Research Station, Watford, UK, 1968.
[12] A. J. M. Heselden, Studies of fire and smoke behavior relevant to tunnels, in:
Proceedings of the Second International Symposium of Aerodynamics and
Ventilation of Vehicle Tunnels, UK, 1976.
[13] L.H. Hu, W. Peng, R. Huo, Critical wind velocity for arresting upwind gas and
smoke dispersion induced by near-wall fire in a road tunnel, J. Hazard. Mater.
150 (2008) 68–75.
[14] K.Y. Li, H. Ran, L. Yang, On temperature change of tunnel top plume in a
longitudinal ventilation, J. Safety Environ. 6 (2006) 38–41.
[15] W. Zhong, C.G. Fan, J. Ji, J.P. Yang, Influence of longitudinal wind on natural
ventilation with vertical shaft in a road tunnel fire, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 57
(2013) 671–678.
[16] J.S. Roh, H.S. Ryou, D.H. Kim, W.S. Jang, Critical velocity and burning rate in
pool fire during longitudinal ventilation, Tunnelling Underground Space
Technol. 22 (2007) 262–271.
[17] W. Jing, Checking of simulation method in the field of jet fan, Fire Tech. Prod.
Inf. 8 (2012) 61–63.
[18] K.R. Mutama, A.E Hall, The experimental investigation of jet fan aerodynamics
using wind tunnel modeling, Trans. ASME (1996) 322–328.
[19] L.H. Hu, R. Huo, W. Peng, W.K. Chow, R.X. Yang, On the maximum smoke
temperature under the ceiling in tunnel fires, Tunnelling Underground Space
Technol. 21 (2006) 650–655.
[20] X.Q. Sun, Studies on Smoke Movement and Control in Shafts and Stairwell in
High-rise Buildings, PhD Thesis, University of Science and Technology of China,
Hefei, Anhui, China, 2009.
[21] K.B. McGrattan, R. McDermott, S. Hostikka, J.E. Floyd, Fire Dynamics Simulator
(Version5) User’s Guide, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, Maryland, 2010.
[22] K.B. MeGrattan, G.P. Forney, Fire Dynamics Simulator (version 4.06)-User’s
Guide, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD,
2005.
[23] J. Yi, Q.Y. Chen, Buoyancy-driven single-sided natural ventilation in building
with large openings, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 46 (2003) 973–988.
[24] T. Yan, S.M. Heng, G.Y. Feng, H.J. Peng, Full-scale experimental study on smoke
flow in natural ventilation road tunnel fires with shafts, Tunnelling
Underground Space Technol. 24 (2009) 627–633.
[25] S. Zhu, R. Huo, L.H. Hu, D. Yang, Influence of mesh grid and computational
domain on FDS simulation, J. Safety Environ. 8 (2008) 131–135.
[26] X. Zhang, M. Yang, J. Wang, Y. He, Effects of computational domain on
numerical simulation of building fires, J. Fire Prot. Eng. 20 (2010) 225–251.
[27] Z.K. Wu, M.J. Yang, J. Wang, Y.P. He, Selection of computational domain in
numerical simulation of building fires, Fire Safety Sci. 15 (2006) 232–239.
[28] K.B. McGrattan, A. Hamins, Numerical Simulation of the Howard Street Tunnel
Fire, Baltimore, Maryland, July 2001, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
2003.