CFD Simulation For Fire Emergency-Howrah Station: Reference Number UG1-SYST-310-NME-REP-808 - B

Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No.
– UG1 09/11/2017
Reference number UG1-SYST-310-NME-REP-808_B
CFD SIMULATION FOR FIRE EMERGENCY-HOWRAH STATION

KOLKATA METRO UNDERGROUND PROJECT, CONTRACT NO. – UG1
CFD SIMULATION FOR FIRE EMERGENCY-HOWRAH STATION
IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Client/Project owner Transtonnelstroy – AFCONS Joint Venture
Project Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No. – UG1
Study CFD SIMULATION FOR FIRE EMERGENCY-HOWRAH STATION
Type of document Report
Date 09/11/2017
File name UG1-SYST-320-NME-REP-808_HOW CFD Report F E.docx
Reference number UG1-SYST-310-NME-REP-808_B
Language English
Number of pages 56
APPROVAL
Version Name Position Date Signature Modifications
Harish 18/07/2017
Production Mech. Engineer
Kumar
Sr. Mech. 18/07/2017
A Check Ritesh Singh Rev A
Engineer
Dr. Farhad 18/07/2017
Approved HOD-MEP
Khan
Harish 09/11/2017
Production Mech. Engineer
Kumar
Sr. Mech. 09/11/2017
B Check Ritesh Singh Rev B
Engineer
Dr. Farhad 09/11/2017
Approved HOD-MEP
Khan
SYSTRA MVA Consulting (India) Private Limited

Vatika Mindscapes, Tower-B,12/3, Floor 9th & 10th, Mathura Road, NH-2,
Sector -27/D, Faridabad, Haryana, 121013, India
www.systra.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 BACKGROUND 6
1.2 PURPOSE 6
1.3 SCOPE 6
2. ABBREVIATIONS AND REFERENCES 7

2.1 ABBREVIATIONS 7
2.2 REFERENCES 7
3. STANDARD AND GUIDANCE 8
4. COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS (CFD) MODELLING 9

4.1 GOVERNING EQUATIONS 9
4.2 SOFTWARE DESCRIPTION 10
5. METHODOLOGY 11
5.1 TRAIN CARRIAGE FIRE SCENARIO 11
5.1.1 FIRE SOURCES 11
5.1.2 HEAT RELEASE RATE AND FIRE GROWTH MODELLING 11
5.1.3 VENTILATION STRATEGY 14
5.1.4 SMOKE EXHAUST STRATEGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 14
5.2 PLATFORM BAGGAGE FIRE SCENARIO 16
5.2.1 FIRE SOURCE 16
5.2.2 HEAT RELEASE RATE AND FIRE GROWTH 16
5.2.3 SMOKE EXHAUST STRATEGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 18
5.3 CFD GEOMETRY AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 18
5.4 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 22
5.4.1 TIME OF TENABILITY 22
5.4.1.1 Train Carriage Fire / Platform Baggage Fire 22
5.5 TENABILITY CRITERIA 22
6. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 23

6.1 FIRE SCENARIO 1: TRAIN CARRIAGE FIRE 23
6.2 FIRE SCENARIO 2: CENTRTAL PLATFORM BAGGAGE FIRE 24
6.3 FIRE SCENARIO 3: SIDE PLATFORM BAGGAGE FIRE 24
7. CONCLUSIONS 26
8. APPENDIX A – STILL FIGURES OF CFD SIMULATION RESULTS FOR TRAIN CARRIAGE FIRE
AT HOWRAH STATION 27
Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No. – UG1
CFD SIMULATION FOR FIRE EMERGENCY-HOWRAH STATION UG1-SYST-310-NME-REP-808_B
Report 09/11/2017 Page 3/56
9. APPENDIX B – STILL FIGURES OF CFD SIMULATION RESULTS FOR CENTRAL PLATFORM
BAGGAGE FIRE AT HOWRAH STATION 37
10. APPENDIX C – STILL FIGURES OF CFD SIMULATION RESULTS FOR SIDE PLATFORM
BAGGAGE FIRE AT HOWRAH STATION 47

Report 09/11/2017 Page 4/56
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Train Carriage Fire Location 11
Figure 2: Train Carriage Fire Growth Curve 13
Figure 3- Comparison between Model 1 and Model 2 results – Train Fire Scenario 15
Figure 4: Platform Fire Locations 16
Figure 5: Baggage Fire Growth Curve 17
Figure 6-Isometric view of the CFD model 19
Figure 7-Elevation of the CFD model 19
Figure 8-CFD model-Platform 20
Figure 9-Isometric view of Lower Concourse 21
Figure 10-Top view of Lower Concourse 21
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Heat Release Rate and Fuel Properties 12
Table 2 Timeline used for CFD modelling of Train Carriage fire scenario 13
Table 3 Heat Release Rate and Fuel Properties for baggage fire scenario 16
Table 4 Timeline used for CFD modelling of platform baggage fire scenario 17

Report 09/11/2017 Page 5/56
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The East-West metro system comprises of two sections UG1 and UG2.
The scope of UG1 works includes the bored tunnels between Howrah Maidan Station and Central
Station, and the construction of the underground stations: Howrah Maidan; Howrah; and New
Mahakaran.
The extent of the underground rail tunnel and stations require significant ventilation to control air
temperatures, pressures, velocities and smoke in the event of emergency. The ventilation strategy
mainly comprises of Tunnel Ventilation System (TVS), Track Way Exhaust System (TES) and
Environmental Control System (ECS).
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations can be very useful in assessment of the proposed
smoke management system by modelling the actual geometry of the entire station and studying smoke
movement using a numerical simulation process in which the governing conservation equations of
mass, momentum, energy, combustion and others are used to model the physical processes in a
computational domain. The process involves dividing the fluid region into a large number of smaller
volumes, called cells, and applying the appropriate conservation equations to each one of these cells.
The equations are then simultaneously solved using numerical techniques usually on a cluster of
computers. This allows determination of variables such as velocity, temperature, CO concentration
and visibility that can be used for comparative evaluation.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to justify and validate the requirements for smoke control strategy
and capacity of ventilation fans due to any baggage fire or train carriage fire at Howrah station, it
should be read alongside the following reports for the Kolkata metro underground project-UG1:
• UG1-SYST-300-NME-MAN-502_B “Design Basis Report-ECS & TVS”

• MEP drawings – HOW Station
• UG1-SYST-320-NAA-REP-087-B “Fire and Life Safety Strategy Report – HOW Station”
1.3 Scope
This report describes the methodology, analysis and results obtained from CFD simulation of various
fire scenarios at Howrah station. The following fire scenarios are considered:
• Train carriage fire at station

• Baggage fire at central and side Platform
This report is intended as a documentation to confirm that the design of smoke management system
of Howrah station complies with the requirements of NFPA 130-2007 and to demonstrate that the
system is able to maintain tenable conditions for safe egress of passengers in the event of various fire
scenarios at Howrah Station.

Report 09/11/2017 Page 6/56
2. ABBREVIATIONS AND REFERENCES
2.1 Abbreviations
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
HRR Heat Release Rate
MEP Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
OTE Over-Track Exhaust
PSD Platform Screen Doors
SEF Smoke Exhaust Fans
SES Subway Environmental Simulation
TVF Tunnel Ventilation Fan
TVS Tunnel Ventilation System
HOW Howrah
FDS Fire Dynamics Simulator
NIST National Institute of Standard and Technology
2.2 References
[1] NFPA 130-2007, Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems
[2] NFPA 92B-2009, Standard for Smoke Management System in Malls, Atria and Large Spaces
[3] Fire Dynamics Simulator, User Guide (2015)
[4] Handbook of Smoke Control Engineering, ASHRAE
[5] Hassani, S. K., Shields, T. J., and Silcock, G. W., An Experimental Investigation into the Behaviour of
Glazing in Enclosure Fire, J. Applied Fire Science.
[6] UG1-SYST-320-NAA-REP-087-B, Fire & Life Safety Strategy Report-Howrah Station

Report 09/11/2017 Page 7/56
3. STANDARD AND GUIDANCE
NFPA 130 - Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems [1] is directly referenced
in the project tender documentations in the specific requirements for metro rail systems. NFPA 130,
2007 edition is therefore applicable to Kolkata metro underground project-UG1.
FDS user guide[3] developed by NIST was used as a guidelines for the CFD modelling and set up the
simulation.

Report 09/11/2017 Page 8/56
4. COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS (CFD) MODELLING
CFD is a numerical simulation process in which the governing conservation equations (the Navier-
stokes equations) of mass, momentum, energy and others are used to describe the flow in a
computational domain. The process involves splitting the fluid region into a large number of smaller
volumes, called cells, and applying the appropriate conservation equations to each of these cells. The
equations are then simultaneously solved using numerical techniques.
4.1 Governing equations

• Conservation of mass:
The general conservation of mass equation states that the rate of mass storage within a given control
volume, due to density changes, is balanced by the net rate of inflow of mass by convection. The
equation is written as:
𝜕𝜌
+ ∇. 𝜌𝒖 = 0
𝜕𝑡
The first term describes the density changes with time and the second term defines the mass
convection, where ‘u’ is the vector describing the velocity in the u, v and w directions.
• Conservation of Momentum:
The equation for the conservation of momentum is derived from Newton’s second law of motion,
which states that the rate of change of momentum of a fluid element is equal to the sum of the forces
acting on it. The equation is written as:
𝜕𝜌𝒖
+ ∇. (𝜌𝒖𝒖) = −∇𝑝̃ − ∇𝜏 + (𝜌 − 𝜌0 )𝒈
𝜕𝑡
The left hand side represents the increase in momentum and inertia forces, while the right hand side
comprises forces acting on it. These forces include perturbation pressure p, viscous shear stress
tensor 𝜏 and body forces.
• Conservation of energy:
The equation for conservation of energy is the first law of thermodynamics which states that increase
in energy of the control volume is equal to the heat added minus the work done by expansion. The
conservation of energy is in the form of:
𝜕𝜌ℎ𝑠 𝐷𝑝̅
+ ∇. (𝜌ℎ𝑠 𝒖) = + 𝑞̇ ′′′ − ∇. 𝒒̇ ′′
𝜕𝑡 𝐷𝑡
ℎ𝑠 is sensible enthalpy
𝑝̅ is background pressure
𝑞̇ ′′′ is heat release rate per unit volume
𝒒̇ ′′ is heat flux vector
• Equation of state:
The equation of state is needed to close the above equations. The equation of state is in following
form:
𝑃̅𝑊
̅
𝜌=
𝑅𝑇
̅ is molecular weight of gas mixture
𝑊
Report 09/11/2017 Page 9/56
• Species transport equation:
𝜕𝜌𝑌𝛼
+ ∇. (𝜌𝑌𝛼 𝒖) = ∇. (𝜌𝐷𝛼 ∇𝑌𝛼 ) + 𝑚̇𝛼′′′
𝜕𝑡
𝑌𝛼 is mass fraction of species 𝛼

𝐷𝛼 is diffusion coefficient
𝑚̇𝛼′′′ is mass production rate per unit volume of species 𝛼 by chemical reactions
4.2 Software description

FDS v6.3.2 (Fire dynamics simulator) software was used to solve the governing equations of
fluid flow while Pyrosim v2016.1.0412 was used for model preparation.
Pyrosim is a pre-processor for FDS and it provides graphical user interface and helps quickly
create and manage the details of complex fire models.
FDS is a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of fire-driven fluid flow. Smokeview is a
visualization program that is used to display the results of an FDS simulation.
Main features of FDS:

✓ Hydrodynamic model: FDS solves numerically a form of the Navier-Stokes equations
appropriate for low-speed, thermally-driven flow with an emphasis on smoke and heat
transport from fires.
✓ Turbulence model: FDS provides two approaches for turbulence modeling, DNS
(Direct numerical simulation) and LES (Large eddy simulation).
Smagorinsky form of LES has been used for the present study.
✓ Combustion Model: Mixture fraction combustion model was used for the present
study. The mixture fraction is a conserved scalar quantity that is defined as the fraction
of gas at a given point in the flow field that originated as fuel. The model assumes that
combustion is mixing-controlled, and that the reaction of fuel and oxygen is infinitely
fast. The mass fractions of all of the major reactants and products can be derived from
the mixture fraction.
✓ Radiation Transport: Radiative heat transfer is included in the model via the solution
of the radiation transport equation for a non-scattering grey gas. The equation is
solved using a technique similar to finite volume methods for convective transport,
thus the name given to it is the Finite Volume Method.

Report 09/11/2017 Page 10/56
5. METHODOLOGY
5.1 Train Carriage Fire Scenario
5.1.1 Fire Sources
There are two possible train fire sources:
• Case 1: The source under the floor of the train, having started as a result of ignition of a fuel
source in the under-carriage equipment; or
• Case 2: With the source of the fire in the carriage or fire starting from underneath the frame
but breaching the floor.
For Case 1, combustible items underneath vehicles that are adequately spaced will prevent the spread
of fire. However, it might be possible for flames from fires underneath vehicles to extend out to the
sides and ends of the vehicle. The materials of the exterior car body would be ignited and flames can
spread up the height of the vehicle. In this case, the fire has an axisymmetric plume.
For Case 2, fire occurs inside the carriage, large vertical plumes will rise up from the open doors and
broken windows. A large volume of smoke will be produced by entrainment of fresh air into these
plumes. The smoke production rate would be more than that of an axisymmetric plume assumed in
Case 1.
Therefore, for worst case, fires inside carriage will be used to assess the effectiveness of the ventilation
system.
Figure 1 below shows the train carriage fire location considered for the simulation. The fire is located
inside the 2nd carriage, spanning between 1st and 4th door with an area of 15m x 1.5m. The fire
perimeter is 33m. The fire incident carriage location is chosen to be in between the 1st and 2nd staircase.
Thus the smoke produced can quickly spread into the lower concourse area through the concourse
floor cut-out and hence it can compromise the egress path very early.
Fire Location
(Inside Carriage)
Figure 1: Train Carriage Fire Location
5.1.2 Heat Release Rate and Fire Growth Modelling
It is expected that the Kolkata metro trains should be designed to meet the requirements of NFPA 130
such that the materials used in the construction and furnishing of vehicles are not easily ignited and
have low total emission of heat, smoke and toxic fume when exposed to an ignition source and that
fire resisting floor should be provided as fire barriers.

Report 09/11/2017 Page 11/56
Heat release rate, growth rate and fuel properties of train carriage fire scenario are summarized in
Table 1 below:
Table 1 Heat Release Rate and Fuel Properties
Maximum Heat CO Yield

Fire Scenario Growth Rate Fuel Soot Yield
Release Rate
Train Carriage Medium 0.03

10 MW Polyurethane 0.1 Kg/Kg
Fire growing Kg/Kg
The t-square medium growing fire [2] was used for fire growth. It follows the relationship:
𝑄 = 𝛼𝑡 2 , 𝑄 = ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 (𝑊)
𝛼 = 𝐹𝑖𝑟𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 = 11.7 𝑊⁄ 2 (𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑚 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔)
𝑠
𝑡 = 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑
For modelling purposes, it is assumed that a train fire starts when the train is within the tunnel. It will
take approximately three minutes for the train to reach the next station with the fire already
developed to 0.4MW (t-squared medium growth fire) and the doors are closed. When the train arrives
at the station, the doors open and remain open to allow passengers evacuation. It is assumed that
glass window will break out at 450ºC. This is based on the conclusion in the tests of Hassani, Shields,
and Silcock (1994) that at a room gas temperature of around 450°C the probability is 1/6 for glass to
break out for single-glazed window. [5]
In the FDS simulation set up, temperature monitors were set at the centre of windows and controls
were provided such that whenever temperature reached 4500C, that particular window would be
broken to allow more smoke migration from the interior of the train to platform.
Figure 2 below displays the train carriage fire growth curve while Table 2 shows the time steps of the
emergency scenarios considered for the CFD simulations for train carriage fire scenario. Transient CFD
calculations are carried out covering a total duration of 15 minutes (900 seconds). This results are
presented in Appendix A.

Report 09/11/2017 Page 12/56
Fire growth curve - Train Carriage Fire
12.0
10.0
Heat Release Rate (MW)
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
Time (minutes)
Figure 2: Train Carriage Fire Growth Curve
Table 2 Timeline used for CFD modelling of Train Carriage fire scenario
Time / Seconds (s) Fire Heat Release Description

Rate / (KW)
t = -180 𝑠 0 Start of CFD Simulation. Fire starts in a passenger compartment of

incident car as it leaves the previous station. (Assumption: inter-
station running time)
t<0𝑠 0 MW – 0.4 Detection of fire in carriage / alarm to control centre/ train
M𝑊 continues journey to the next station.
t=0𝑠 0.4 M𝑊 Train arrives at station. Beginning of self-evacuation. Emergency

fans starts (OTE) once train is stopped at the platform.
t = 60 𝑠 0.67 M𝑊 Smoke exhaust fan extracting smoke from the platform starts.
t = 240 𝑠 2.06 M𝑊 End of passenger self-evacuation from platform per NFPA 130
requirements.
t = 360 𝑠 3.4 M𝑊 End of passenger self-evacuation to a Point of Safety(Upper
Concourse in this case) per NFPA 130 requirements.
t = 744 𝑠 10 M𝑊 Maximum HRR of 10 𝑀𝑊 is reached.
t = 900 𝑠 10 M𝑊 End of Simulation.

Report 09/11/2017 Page 13/56
5.1.3 Ventilation Strategy
Howrah station is a combination of Side platform & Island platform configuration and it means that
there will be two separate tracks, one for each train direction at either side of the island platform. It
also means that both side train doors will be opened and passengers will board/alight the train from/to
both platforms (side and central). Therefore, in the event of train fire, smoke will migrate to both
platforms (side and central) which will necessitate to operate smoke exhaust from both platforms.
Two models, that were simulated with different exhaust rate from the platforms are summarized
below:
• Model 1: 10 m3/s smoke exhaust from each platform (side and central)
Results of model 1 was not satisfactory, as egress path/emergency staircases were found to be
untenable as early as 4 minutes.
• Model 2: 20 m3/s smoke exhaust from each platform (side and central)
Figure 3 below shows the comparison between two models in terms of visibility above 2.5m above
platform level at various time steps after fire ignition. It clearly demonstrates that visibility near
emergency staircases are falls below 10m before 240 secs in Model1 whereas in Model 2 emergency
staircases at the central platform can be used for evacuation till 300 secs. Moreover, access to public
staircases are smoke free in model 2 till 360 secs whereas in model 1 dense smoke makes public
staircases inaccessible at 300sec.
Therefore, ventilation strategy proposed in Model 2 will be adopted and detailed simulation results
for Model 1 are presented in Appendix A.
5.1.4 Smoke Exhaust Strategy and assumptions
In the event of train carriage fire scenario at the station, following operation will take place.
1. UPS will be shut down

2. Station air conditioning system will shut down
3. OTE will keep extracting air/smoke from the incident track @ 60m3/s.
4. TVF located at both end of the station will operate to assist in smoke removal.
5. Smoke exhaust system at both platforms (side and central) will be operated if any residual
smoke spills over from the station trackway. Indeed, the simulation results demonstrated that
smoke is spilling towards both platform from trackway through opened doors and broken
windows and hence smoke extract @ 20 m3/s each from the central and side platform was
activated.
6. Make up air will be from station entrances and via tunnel openings.
7. Egress of patrons will be achieved via four protected emergency staircase at both ends of the
side & central platform (i.e. 2 at side platform and 2 at central platform) and four public
staircases/escalators located in the public area of each side & central platform.

Report 09/11/2017 Page 14/56
Figure 3- Comparison between Model 1 and Model 2 results – Train Fire Scenario

Report 09/11/2017 Page 15/56
5.2 Platform Baggage Fire Scenario
5.2.1 Fire Source
The expected worst fire location was chosen for the platform baggage fire simulation for each
platform. The fire was located besides of public staircases and escalators at the platform. This is
expected to be worse location as smoke can spread along the public staircases and have the probability
to spill in the stairwell which will help the smoke to migrate at the lower concourse in addition to this
it has the potential to affect most number of egress path at platform.
Figure 3 below display the locations of platform baggage fire location for the both side and central
platforms.
Fire Location Fire Location
(Central Platform) (Side Platform)
Figure 4: Platform Fire Locations
5.2.2 Heat Release Rate and Fire Growth
Heat release rate, growth rate and fuel properties of baggage fire scenario are summarized in Table 3
below:
Table 3 Heat Release Rate and Fuel Properties for baggage fire scenario
Maximum Heat CO Yield

Fire Scenario Growth Rate Fuel Soot Yield
Release Rate
Train Carriage 0.03

1 MW Fast growing Polyurethane 0.1 Kg/Kg
Fire Kg/Kg
The t-square fast growing fire (National Fire Protection Association, 2007) was used for fire growth. It
follows the relationship:
𝑄 = 𝛼𝑡 2 , 𝑄 = ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 (𝑊)
𝛼 = 𝐹𝑖𝑟𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 = 46.7 𝑊⁄ 2 (𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔)
𝑠
𝑡 = 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑
Figure 5 below displays the baggage fire growth curve while Table 4 shows the time steps of the
emergency scenarios considered for the CFD simulations for platform baggage fire scenarios. Transient
CFD calculations are carried out covering a total duration of 10minutes (600 seconds). This results are
presented in Appendix B for central platform fire scenario and Appendix C for side platform fire
scenario.
Report 09/11/2017 Page 16/56
Fire growth curve - Bagage Fire
1.25
1
Heat Release Rate (MW)
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (minutes)
Figure 5: Baggage Fire Growth Curve
Table 4 Timeline used for CFD modelling of platform baggage fire scenario
Time / Seconds (s) Fire Heat Release Description

Rate / (KW)
t=0𝑠 0 Start of CFD Simulation. Fire starts in a baggage, located at the

centre of the platform. Beginning of self-evacuation.
t = 60 𝑠 0.17 M𝑊 Emergency fans starts
t = 90 𝑠 0.4 M𝑊 Emergency fans operate at full capacity.
t = 147 𝑠 1 M𝑊 Maximum HRR of 1 𝑀𝑊 is reached. HRR remains constant

afterwards.
t = 240 𝑠 1 M𝑊 End of passenger self-evacuation from platform per NFPA 130

requirements. Platform and concourse is clear of smoke.
t = 360 𝑠 1 M𝑊 End of passenger self-evacuation to a Point of Safety (Ground) per
NFPA 130 requirements. Concourse is clear of smoke.
t = 600 𝑠 1 M𝑊 End of Simulation.

Report 09/11/2017 Page 17/56
5.2.3 Smoke Exhaust Strategy and assumptions
In the event of platform baggage fire scenario, following strategy is employed:
1. Station air conditioning system will be turned off.

2. Smoke exhaust fan @ 20m3/s will be operated to extract smoke from the platform.
3. The smoke exhaust fan activation time and ramp-up time(time taken by fan to reach its full
capacity) is 1 min and 30 sec, respectively
4. PSDs are assumed to be closed to simulate the worst case scenario.
5. Make-up air shall come via station entrances.
6. Egress of patrons will be achieved via two protected emergency staircase at both ends of the
platform and four public staircases/escalators located in the public area of platform.
5.3 CFD Geometry and Boundary Conditions
The three dimensional model and pertinent boundary conditions showing the fire location, OTE grilles,
smoke exhaust grilles, station entrances, train, smoke barriers etc. is shown in Figure 6 to Figure 10
below.
The main assumptions and design criteria that the simulations are based on are summarized below:
• Ambient air temperature is 35.20C.
• The depth of smoke barriers around the openings (for escalators and stairs) in the platform
roof is 2.5m.
• The total number of mesh elements used are approximately 4 million hexahedral cells with
cell sizes varying from 0.125m to 0.5m. The mesh was refined near the fire, grilles and the gap
between ceiling panels.
• For the case of train carriage fire inside the car, glass windows are assumed to be broken at
4500 C while train doors are assumed to be opened throughout the simulation.
• Interior of the car was modelled as a void with an open gangway.
• Volumetric Flow rate boundary condition were imposed on OTE and Smoke exhaust grilles.
• Pressure boundary condition (OPEN in FDS) was imposed on station entrances and tunnel
interface towards Howrah.
• PSD of the non-incident track was assumed to be closed throughout the simulation.
• In the event of train carriage fire scenario, PSD of the incident track was assumed to be opened
starting from time=0 till end of the simulation.
• In the event of either baggage fire scenarios, PSDs were assumed to be closed throughout the
simulation period.

Report 09/11/2017 Page 18/56
Entrances
(Pressure Boundaries)
Tunnel Section
Smoke Barriers
Stair Cases
Platform Screen Doors
Figure 6-Isometric view of the CFD model
Entrance level
Upper Concourse
Mechanical Level
Lower Concourse
Platform Level
Figure 7-Elevation of the CFD model

Report 18/07/2017 Page 19/56
(a) Isometric View of Platform Level. (b) Zoomed View
(c) Top View of Platform Level
Figure 8-CFD model-Platform

Report 18/07/2017 Page 20/56
Figure 9-Isometric view of Lower Concourse
Figure 10-Top view of Lower Concourse

Report 18/07/2017 Page 21/56
5.4 Assessment Criteria
5.4.1 Time of Tenability
5.4.1.1 Train Carriage Fire / Platform Baggage Fire
NFPA 130-2007 states that the platform should be evacuated in less than 4 minutes and the
station should be evacuated to a point of safety (Upper concourse level in this case) in less
than 6 minutes. [1]
As per (UG1-SYST-320-NAA-REP-087-B, Fire & Life Safety Strategy Report-Howrah Station,

2017) the egress time required to clear the platform is 3.99 minute while the egress time
required to evacuate from most remote point on the platform to point of safety i.e. upper
concourse level is 5.61 minute.
5.5 Tenability Criteria

Since the CFD analysis was done to gauge the effectiveness of the proposed smoke
management system, a key parameter studied was the visibility at both platform and
concourse, particularly at occupied levels and along the escape routes.
Specifically, to maintain tenable conditions for safe evacuation of the facility, the smoke
concentration at a specified height should not cause visibility to fall below 10 meter.
It should be noted that a tenable environment does not mean a “smoke free” environment.
Indeed, it is not always practical to keep all smoke above the space occupied by passengers. It
is thus agreed that the smoke layer interface for this analysis be defined as the 10m visibility
contour and it should be maintained at the criterion height of 2.5m (2m occupied level + 25%
error margin) above floor level in occupied space. [3]
NFPA states various factors to define tenable environments. It includes exposure to radiant
heat (maximum limit is 2.5 kW/m2), Fractional Effective Dose (FED) limits, Smoke Obscuration
Levels (Visibility) and Temperatures.
In most applications, visibility dominates the other exposure such that systems that meet
visibility criteria will often not have problems with the other exposures criteria. This is because
the products of combustion need to be diluted to considerable extent so that people can see
through them. [4]
Thus, the effectiveness of proposed smoke management system will be assessed against
criteria listed in Table 5 below.
Table 5 Tenability criteria for fire scenarios

Time of Tenability
Tenability Parameters Criteria Train Carriage/Platform Baggage Fire
Visibility @ 2.5m AFFL > 10m

4 minutes at platform & 6 minutes at concourse
Temperature @ 2.5m AFFL < 600C
(NFPA 130-2007)
CO Concentration @ 2.5m AFFL < 450 PPM

Report 18/07/2017 Page 22/56
6. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The results of the simulations for the proposed smoke management system configuration for various
fire scenarios at HOW station are presented as a set of still figures in the appendices. To simplify
reading the results, figures are numbered according to the fire scenarios they refer to. Table 6 explains
the figure number methodology.
Table 6 Description of Fire Scenarios
FIRE SCENARIOS NAMING CONVENTION
Train Carriage Fire S1
Central Platform Baggage Fire S2
Side Platform Baggage Fire S3
For example, the figures for Train Carriage Fire are numbered as Figure S1-1, S1-2, etc. while the
figures for Central Platform baggage fire are numbered as Figure S2-1, S2-2 etc.
What follows below is a discussion of the pertinent observations made from the simulations.
6.1 Fire Scenario 1: Train Carriage Fire
• Figure S1-1 in Appendix A shows the smoke visibility contours at 2.5m above platform
level at various time intervals. Despite the substantial release of smoke, the egress
routes (stairs and escalators) are clear of dense smoke and visibility levels are above
10m at 2.5m above the platform till 4 minutes except at some localized spots near the
fire location. Even after 10 minutes of fire ignition, half of the platforms are still
tenable. However, the average available safe egress time (ASET) is more than 460
seconds. Thus, the capacities of OTEs and SEF are sufficient to cope with the smoke
release and platform can be evacuated safely within 4 minutes of fire ignition.
• Figure S1-5 shows the smoke visibility contours at 2.5m above lower concourse,
mechanical and upper concourse level at various time intervals. These figure clearly
show that visibility doesn’t fall below 10m throughout the simulation period. This
clearly demonstrate that upper concourse can be used a point of safety.
Hence, the proposed smoke management system is capable to prevent the smoke
spread into concourse through escalators/stairs opening and station can be evacuated
safely within recommended 6 minutes.
• Figure S1-2 and S1-6 depict the temperature contours at 2.5m above platform and
concourse levels, respectively at various time intervals. Clearly, the maximum
temperature doesn’t exceed 600C limit and that thermal conditions for safe egress are
established.
• Figure S1-3 and S1-7 display the contours of CO concentration at 2.5m above platform
and concourse levels, respectively at various time intervals. It demonstrates that CO

Report 18/07/2017 Page 23/56
level doesn’t exceed the required threshold of 450 ppm during the simulation period
and safe egress conditions are established.
• Figure S1-4 shows the velocity contours at 2.5m above platform level at various time
intervals. It clearly demonstrate that average velocity at platform and concourse is
below 2m/s during the simulation.
6.2 Fire Scenario 2: Centrtal Platform Baggage Fire

• Figure S2-1 shows the smoke visibility contours at 2.5m above central platform level
at various time intervals. Clearly, the egress routes are clear of dense smoke and
visibility levels are above 10m at 2.5m above the platform till 4 minutes except at some
localized spots near the fire location. Even after 10 minutes of fire ignition, half of the
platforms are still tenable.
Thus, the capacity of SEF is sufficient to cope with the smoke release and platform can
be evacuated safely within 4 minutes of fire ignition.
show that visibility doesn’t fall below 10m till 10 minutes throughout the simulation
period. Hence, the proposed smoke management system is capable to prevent the
smoke spread into concourse through escalators/stairs opening and station can be
evacuated safely within recommended 6 minutes.
• Figure S2-2 and S2-6 depict the temperature contours at 2.5m above platform and
established.
6.3 Fire Scenario 3: Side Platform Baggage Fire
• Figure S3-1 shows the visibility contours at 2.5m above side platform level at various
time intervals. The picture shows that side platform is clear of dense smoke and
visibility level is more than 10m at most of the platform area. Therefore, tenability
conditions are achieved at side platform throughout the simulation period.
show that visibility doesn’t fall below 10m till 10 minutes throughout the simulation
period. Hence, the proposed smoke management system is capable to prevent the
smoke spread into concourse through escalators/stairs opening and station can be
evacuated safely within recommended 6 minutes.

Report 18/07/2017 Page 24/56
• Figure S3-2 and S3-6 depict the temperature contours at 2.5m above side platform and
established.

Report 18/07/2017 Page 25/56
7. CONCLUSIONS
This report presents the methodology, analysis and the results of the CFD study that was conducted
for the assessment of the proposed smoke management system at Howrah station of Kolkata Metro
Underground Project-UG1 . Three fire scenarios such as Train fire, central platform baggage fire, side
platform baggage fire at critical locations were chosen for the analysis.
The CFD simulation results demonstrate that the proposed smoke management system is able to
maintain tenable conditions for safe egress of passengers as defined by NFPA 130-2007 and provided
exhaust capacity is able to cope up with the smoke release in all the fire scenarios.
Table 7 below shows that the compliance in the form of maintaining tenability conditions at platform
as mentioned in section 5.5 above has been achieved for all the three fire scenarios.
Table 7 Compliance Table

Time of Tenability
Tenability Parameters Criteria
Train Carriage/Platform Baggage Fire
Visibility @ 2.5m AFFL > 10m

More than 4 minutes at platform & more than 6
Temperature @ 2.5m AFFL < 600C
minutes at concourse (NFPA 130-2007)
CO Concentration @ 2.5m AFFL < 450 PPM
Is the Design Complied ✓

Report 18/07/2017 Page 26/56
8. APPENDIX A – STILL FIGURES OF CFD SIMULATION RESULTS FOR
TRAIN CARRIAGE FIRE AT HOWRAH STATION
Figure S1-1: Visibility contours at 2.5m above platform level

Figure S1-2: Temperature contours at 2.5m above platform level
Figure S1-3: Contours of CO concentration at 2.5m above platform level
Figure S1-4: Velocity contours at 2.5m above platform level
Figure S1-5: Visibility contours at 2.5m above Lower concourse, mechanical level and
upper concourse
Figure S1-6: Temperature contours at 2.5m above Lower concourse, mechanical level and
upper concourse
Figure S1-7: CO contours concentration at 2.5m above Lower concourse, mechanical level
and upper concourse
Figure S1-8: Visibility contours at central longitudinal section passing through train
Figure S1-9: Temperature contours central longitudinal section passing through train

Report 18/07/2017 Page 27/56

Report 18/07/2017 Page 28/56

Report 18/07/2017 Page 29/56

Report 18/07/2017 Page 30/56
Time = 0 min
Time = 2 min
Time = 4 min
Time = 6 min
Time = 8 min
Time = 10 min
Figure S1-4: Contours of Velocity at 2.5m above platform level

Report 18/07/2017 Page 31/56
Figure S1-5: Visibility contours at 2.5m above Lower concourse, mechanical level and upper
concourse

Report 18/07/2017 Page 32/56
Figure S1-6: Temperature contours at 2.5m above Lower concourse, mechanical level and upper
concourse

Report 18/07/2017 Page 33/56
Figure S1-7: CO contours at 2.5m above Lower concourse, mechanical level and upper concourse

Report 18/07/2017 Page 34/56
Figure S1-8: Visibility contours at central longitudinal section passing through train

Report 18/07/2017 Page 35/56
Figure S1-9: Temperature contours at central longitudinal section passing through train

Report 18/07/2017 Page 36/56
9. APPENDIX B – STILL FIGURES OF CFD SIMULATION RESULTS FOR
CENTRAL PLATFORM BAGGAGE FIRE AT HOWRAH STATION

upper concourse
upper concourse
Figure S2-7: Contours of CO concentration at 2.5m Lower concourse, mechanical level and
upper concourse
Figure S2-8: Visibility contours at central longitudinal section
Figure S2-9: Temperature contours central longitudinal section

Report 18/07/2017 Page 37/56

Report 18/07/2017 Page 38/56

Report 18/07/2017 Page 39/56

Report 18/07/2017 Page 40/56
Time = 0 min
Time = 2 min
Time = 4 min
Time = 6 min
Time = 8 min
Time = 10 min

Report 18/07/2017 Page 41/56
Figure S2-5: Visibility contours at 2.5m above Lower concourse, mechanical level and upper concourse

Report 18/07/2017 Page 42/56
concourse

Report 18/07/2017 Page 43/56
Figure S2-7: Contours of CO concentration at 2.5m above concourse level

Report 18/07/2017 Page 44/56

Report 18/07/2017 Page 45/56
Figure S2-9: Temperature contours at central longitudinal section

Report 18/07/2017 Page 46/56
10. APPENDIX C – STILL FIGURES OF CFD SIMULATION RESULTS
FOR SIDE PLATFORM BAGGAGE FIRE AT HOWRAH STATION

upper concourse
upper concourse
Figure S3-7: Contours of CO concentration at 2.5m Lower concourse, mechanical level and
upper concourse
Figure S3-9: Temperature contours central longitudinal section

Report 18/07/2017 Page 47/56

Report 18/07/2017 Page 48/56

Report 18/07/2017 Page 49/56

Report 18/07/2017 Page 50/56
Time = 0 min
Time = 2 min
Time = 4 min
Time = 6 min
Time = 8 min
Time = 10 min

Report 18/07/2017 Page 51/56
Figure S3-5: Visibility contours at 2.5m above Lower concourse, mechanical level and upper concourse

Report 18/07/2017 Page 52/56
concourse

Report 18/07/2017 Page 53/56
Figure S3-7: Contours of CO concentration at 2.5m above concourse level

Report 18/07/2017 Page 54/56

Report 18/07/2017 Page 55/56
Figure S3-9: Temperature contours at central longitudinal section

Report 18/07/2017 Page 56/56

CFD Simulation For Fire Emergency-Howrah Station: Reference Number UG1-SYST-310-NME-REP-808 - B

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

CFD Simulation For Fire Emergency-Howrah Station: Reference Number UG1-SYST-310-NME-REP-808 - B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No.

Reference number UG1-SYST-310-NME-REP-808_B

CFD SIMULATION FOR FIRE EMERGENCY-HOWRAH STATION

Project Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No. – UG1

Study CFD SIMULATION FOR FIRE EMERGENCY-HOWRAH STATION

Type of document Report

File name UG1-SYST-320-NME-REP-808_HOW CFD Report F E.docx

Reference number UG1-SYST-310-NME-REP-808_B

SYSTRA MVA Consulting (India) Private Limited

2. ABBREVIATIONS AND REFERENCES 7

3. STANDARD AND GUIDANCE 8

4. COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS (CFD) MODELLING 9

6. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 23

Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No. – UG1

Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No. – UG1

• UG1-SYST-300-NME-MAN-502_B “Design Basis Report-ECS & TVS”

• Train carriage fire at station

Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No. – UG1

HRR Heat Release Rate

MEP Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

OTE Over-Track Exhaust

PSD Platform Screen Doors

SEF Smoke Exhaust Fans

SES Subway Environmental Simulation

TVF Tunnel Ventilation Fan

TVS Tunnel Ventilation System

FDS Fire Dynamics Simulator

NIST National Institute of Standard and Technology

[3] Fire Dynamics Simulator, User Guide (2015)

[4] Handbook of Smoke Control Engineering, ASHRAE

Glazing in Enclosure Fire, J. Applied Fire Science.

[6] UG1-SYST-320-NAA-REP-087-B, Fire & Life Safety Strategy Report-Howrah Station

Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No. – UG1

Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No. – UG1

4.1 Governing equations

𝑌𝛼 is mass fraction of species 𝛼

4.2 Software description

Main features of FDS:

Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No. – UG1

There are two possible train fire sources:

Figure 1: Train Carriage Fire Location

5.1.2 Heat Release Rate and Fire Growth Modelling

Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No. – UG1

Table 1 Heat Release Rate and Fuel Properties

Maximum Heat CO Yield

Train Carriage Medium 0.03

Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No. – UG1

Figure 2: Train Carriage Fire Growth Curve

Time / Seconds (s) Fire Heat Release Description

t = -180 𝑠 0 Start of CFD Simulation. Fire starts in a passenger compartment of

t=0𝑠 0.4 M𝑊 Train arrives at station. Beginning of self-evacuation. Emergency

t = 900 𝑠 10 M𝑊 End of Simulation.

Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No. – UG1

5.1.4 Smoke Exhaust Strategy and assumptions

1. UPS will be shut down

Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No. – UG1

Kolkata Metro Underground Project, Contract No. – UG1

Figure 4: Platform Fire Locations

5.2.2 Heat Release Rate and Fire Growth

Maximum Heat CO Yield

Train Carriage 0.03

Figure 5: Baggage Fire Growth Curve