International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes, Volume 9, Number 1, p.

7-30, 2007

FURTHER VALIDATION OF FIRE DYNAMICS SIMULATOR USING

SMOKE MANAGEMENT STUDIES

P. Coyle and V. Novozhilov

The Institute for Fire Safety Engineering Research and Technology, Faculty of Engineering
University of Ulster, United Kingdom

(Received 7 July 2006; Accepted 13 December 2006)

ABSTRACT

Further validation of Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) developed by NIST (USA) is performed using four smoke
filling scenarios reported in the literature. Careful comparison is made to experimental data available for those
scenarios.

Performance of the code was found to vary considerably with complexity of scenario (e.g. geometry). While
giving very reasonable results for a number of cases, average deviation from experimental values in smoke-
filling rates and temperature predictions were above limits claimed by developers.

The study emphasizes need for further development and extensive validation of CFD codes used by fire
engineering practitioners.

1. INTRODUCTION The objective of the present study is to validate the

Fire Dynamics Simulator is an increasingly popular
CFD model choice for fire engineers and academia
researchers [e.g. 1,2]. The code has been developed
at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, USA.
FDS code further using a number of well-
documented scenarios for comparison.
Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) Version 4.0.5 [4]
is used for the study.

The underlying motivation for the present study is
assessment of accuracy of currently available
computer models for the purpose of their
integration into Engineering Performance-Based
Fire Codes (EPBFC). The importance of ongoing
validation and standardization work in fire-related
CFD is well recognised [3].
The most interesting property of the FDS code is
that it uses Large Eddy Simulation (LES) approach,
as opposed to many other (primarily commercial)
codes used by fire safety consultants. The latter use
Reynolds-averaged (RANS) governing equations.
Use of LES is still a hot topic in CFD community,
and many important fundamental issues related to
this approach are not completely resolved. As
examples, one could point out to importance of
different filtering procedures, influence of mesh
refinement on solution, etc. Since this innovative
technology is penetrating into practical design, it is
important that practitioners in the area are kept
informed of possible limitations and shortcomings
of the methods. It should be kept in mind that many
of those using modern CFD software may not have
sufficient background in CFD or combustion
fundamentals, therefore they need be warned of
potential misuse of computational tools.
2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section is segmented into four sub-sections,
namely scenarios A, B, C and D, which correspond
respectively to each selected physical experiment
under investigation.
For comparison with the experiments, some
technical features of FDS 4.0.5 should be noted.
The first one refers to smoke layer thickness
calculation in FDS. Relatively simple zone models
compute this quantity directly, along with the
average temperature of the upper and lower layers.
In a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model
like FDS, there are generally no distinct zones, but
rather a continuous profile of temperature.
Nevertheless, the methods can be developed to
estimate layer height and average temperatures
from a continuous vertical profile of temperature.
The method employed by FDS is as follows.
Consider a continuous function T(z) defining
temperature T as a function of height above the
floor z, where z = 0 is the floor and z = H is the
ceiling. Define Tu as the upper layer temperature, Tl
as the lower layer temperature, and zint as the

7
International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes
interface height. Conservation of energy dictates
that
and conservation of mass (assuming an ideal gas)
dictates that
Solving for zint gives:
Letting Tl be the temperature in the lowest grid cell
and using Simpson’s Rule to perform the numerical
integration of I1 and I2, Tu can be defined as the
average upper layer temperature via
Another note is on boundary conditions in FDS,
relevant for the cases considered in the present
paper. These are imposed in the following manner
[4].
By default, a partial-slip condition is employed at
solid walls. This means that the velocity at the wall
is a fraction of its value in the grid cell adjacent to
the wall. This is a very crude analogue of a wall
function, which is required if boundary layer
cannot be resolved. For the present study, the
details of boundary layers are not important, so that
the above solid boundary condition is deemed to be
satisfactory.
Fire with the fixed HRR (Heat Release Rate) is also
treated as a boundary condition, effectively
modelling combustion as injection of pyrolysed
fuel through the solid surface with subsequent
burning according to fast chemistry combustion
model [4].
At external boundaries (vents) a pressure-like
condition is prescribed either for natural ventilation,
or a forced flow extraction [4]. In the latter case,
the volumetric extraction rate is prescribed.
2.1 Scenario A − Smoke Filling in a Room
Environment
In this first scenario the smoke-filling rate was
analysed within a single room environment. In this
8
strategy the smoke layer was just let descend to the
floor without any additional smoke venting means.
This is considered as a starting point for the
investigation, since if the smoke filling rate cannot
be accurately predicted here, then there would be
no justification for analysing more complex
strategies.
Hagglund et al. [5] conducted several experiments
in a room having a floor area of 5.62 m x 5.62 m
with a height of 6.15 m (Fig. 1). The room was
closed except for a 0.25 m high by 0.35 m wide
leakage opening near the floor. The fire source was
placed 0.2 m above the floor and incorporated a
kerosene pan of 0.5 x 0.5 m, with a total steady
state heat release rate of 186 kW. The experimental
boundaries, i.e. the walls, floor and the ceiling of
the experiment were made up of concrete.
Karlsson and Quintiree [6] used this experiment to
validate a simple mathematical expression,
developed by Zukoski and known as the Zukoski
Smoke Filling Model. The results of this model
show an overestimation of the smoke-filling rate.
This was due to the delay time in the experiment
for the HRR to reach steady state, in addition to the
time taken for the plume to reach the ceiling.
Another important factor was the ignorance of heat
losses to the boundaries of the experiment.
FDS should not have these aforementioned
shortcomings as this model tracks flows and heat
losses by conduction, convection, and radiation to
all surrounding boundaries over time.
The input/output parameters for Scenario A are
summarised in Table 1.
Fig. 2 depicts the averaged layer height predicted
by FDS for nine various runs, which were subject
to change in order to highlight sensitive input
parameters. Overall, good agreement was observed
between the FDS V 4.0.5 predictions and the
physical experiment conducted by Hagglund.
It can be seen from Fig. 2 that the smoke took
approximately 4 s to reach the ceiling before
starting its rapid descent. This is demonstrated by
the straight line at 6.15 m height at the top left of
the chart.
For the sensitivity analysis of this scenario, a
smaller HRR of 168 kW was intentionally chosen
during selected runs, primarily to investigate how
sensitive FDS was to this HRR fluctuation.
 International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

CONRETE BOUINDARY WALL

KEROSENE FIRE SOURCE

186 (kW)

2
AREA 31.4 M

INLET VENT

Fig. 1: Plan of experimental set-up for Scenario A

SMOKE FILLING IN ROOM ENVIRONMENT

6.50
6.00
ROOM BOUNDARY
5.50
5.00
GRID
4.50
HEIGHT DEVIATION 16%
4.00
HEIGHT (m)

3.50
3.00
TIME 55s, HEIGHT
2.50
FIRE
FIRE
2.00
1.50 INLET
LAYER HEIGHTDEVIATION
LAYER HEIGHT DEVIATION
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00 150.00 175.00 200.00 225.00 250.00 275.00
TIME (s)

FDS LAYER HEIGHT RUN 1 (200X200X205)(168kW) EXPERIMENT BY HAGGLUND et al. (1985)

FDS LAYER HEIGHT RUN 2 (140X140X140)(168kW) FDS LAYER HEIGHT RUN 4 (140X140X140)(186kW)
FDS LAYER HEIGHT RUN 5 (100X100X100)(168kW) FDS LAYER HEIGHT RUN 6 (100X100X100)(186kW)
FDS RUN 7 LAYER HEIGHT (100X100X100)(186)(Soot Yield 2%) FDS RUN 8 LAYER HEIGHT (50X50X50)(186kW)
FDS RUN 3 (140x140x140) DT 0.005 FDS LAYER HEIGHT RUN 3A (100X100X100)(DT 0.01)

Fig. 2: Smoke layer time history plot. Scenario A

9
 Table 1: Summary of input / output parameters. Scenario A

10
Scenario A Smoke filling in room environment

Input Output

Fire
Grid cell size Fire area HRRPUA Initial Soot yield Smagorinsky Simulation Q* [-] Fire resolve. Converge
Run No. Total cells Fire source output
(XYZ) (mm) (m2) (kW/m2) time step. (%) constant time (s) (0.1<Q*<2.5) (Dx) / (∂x) speed [s-1]
(kW)

Run 1 200x200x200 23520 0.25 168 672 0.128 0.042 0.2 250 0.65 1.45 1.64

Run 2 140x140x140 72000 0.25 168 672 0.09 0.042 0.2 250 0.65 2.04 0.39
International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

Run 3 140X140X140 72000 0.25 186 744 0.005 0.042 0.2 150 0.72 2.18 0.6
Kerosene C_14 H_30,
Run 3A 100x100x100 174960 MW_FUEL=198.0 0.25 186 744 0.01 0.042 0.2 150 0.72 3.05 0.25
NU_O2=21.5
NU_CO2=14.0
Run 4 140x140x140 72000 NU_H2O=15.0 0.25 186 744 0.09 0.042 0.2 250 0.72 2.18 0.39
EPUMO2=12700.
CO_YIELD=0.012
Run 5 100x100x100 174960 SOOT_YIELD=0.042 0.25 168 672 0.064 0.042 0.2 250 0.65 2.85 0.24
SFPE Handbook
Run 6 100x100x100 174960 0.25 186 744 0.064 0.042 0.2 250 0.72 3.05 0.14

Run 7 100x100x100 174960 0.25 186 744 0.064 0.02 0.2 250 0.72 3.05 0.14

Run 8 50x50x50 1458000 0.25 186 744 0.032 0.042 0.2 200 0.72 6.12 0.15
 International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes
For the run (1), i.e. the first simulation of this
scenario, it can be clearly seen that after
approximately eight seconds FDS began to
dramatically over predict the smoke filling rate
within the enclosure. This behaviour was not
expected while applying a lower HRR than that in
the experiment. Twelve seconds later FDS
predicted a layer interface height of 2.75 m, while
the physical experiment gave a height of 4.6 m, a
difference of 1.85 m. Thereafter, the models
smoke filling predictions began to slow down, and
started gradually to move closer to the
experimental result. In the physical experiment this
slowing up of the layer interface was attributed to
the fact that the rate of air entrainment from the
lower layer decreases as the smoke layer descends
towards the floor.
For the run (2), the only change was in the grid cell
size from 0.2 m to 0.14 m. The smoke filling rate
reflected this change remarkably, indicating that
grid size is a sensitive input parameter.
Run (3) was the final simulation (rerun), and will
be discussed later. Run (4) incorporated the correct
HRR of 186 kW and a grid cell size of 0.14 m. This
run gave the same trend as the run (2), but the
filling rate was a little higher initially due to the
higher HRR.
Run (5) reverted back to a HRR of 168 kW, but
decreased the grid cell size further, from 0.14 m to
0.10 m. This was carried out in a bid to improve the
filling rate from the ceiling to a height of 2.5 m.
However, this run gave a closer prediction from the
ceiling to approximately 3.0 m, but resulted in a
larger error thereafter. Run (6) went back to the
correct HRR of 186 kW and applied the same grid
cell size of 0.1 m. The result gave a slight
improvement, but still held an overall height
deviation of 16% from 5.50 m to 2.75 m. Run (7)
confirmed that soot yield did not play any role in
layer height prediction, when it was halved from
4% to 2%. It confirms that FDS uses average
temperatures from a continuous vertical
temperature profile to predict the layer height.
Run (8), incorporated a grid cell size of 0.05 m. It
took a considerable amount of computational time,
approximately 72 hours. It was a disappointing
result, as it goes against the models main
underlining assumption, which is, “the accuracy of
the results is a function of the fidelity of the
numerical solution, which is mainly dependent on
the size of the computational grid”, as stated in the
FDS technical reference guide [4]. This run from
the chart shows greater over predictions in the layer
height from 4.52 m to 2.0 m, compared to all other
runs with the exclusion of the run (1). Thereafter it
begins to follow the trend of the physical
experiment slightly better than the runs (5), (6) and
(7). This run also behaved slightly better than all
other runs in predicting long-term (asymptotic)
behavior of the layer. Other runs tended not to go
below 0.5 m in all simulations.
Run (3) was the penultimate run of scenario A.
This run reverted back to a 0.14 m grid cell size,
similar to run (4) as it showed good promise in
predicting the physical experiment. The time step
was reduced to 0.005 s in this simulation in a bid to
highlight its effect compared to the grid size effect.
The reduced time step of 0.005 produced the trend
similar to the run (4).
The final simulation within this scenario, the run
(3A) simulated a 0.1 m grid cell size and increased
the time step to 0.01 s. It can be seen from the layer
height chart, Fig. 2, that the run (3A) was
comparable to the runs (6) and (7). This indicates
little effect of changing time in this scenario.
In summary, the results demonstrated that the
model does not necessarily give better predictions
with decrease in the grid cell size. This can be seen
upon comparison of the Run (4) (grid cell size of
140 mm) with the runs (6) and (7) (finer grid cell
sizes of 100 mm). The latter two runs do not really
give any better predictions in comparison with the
run (4).
For the majority of the runs, FDS V 4.0.5 has given
smoke filling rate predictions within 20% of the
experimental curve. This is in line with the claim of
its developers.
Temperature comparisons were not attempted in
the scenario A.
2.2 Scenario B − Smoke Filling in a Hanger
Environment
In this scenario the smoke filling rate, the effects of
natural vents and the performance of mechanical
extraction were analysed. Having evidence from
the first scenario that FDS can predict smoke filling
in a single room enclosure quite well, our initial
task in this scenario is to see how well the model
can predict smoke filling when applied to a larger
enclosure. Then FDS is given a task of simulating
natural smoke venting, followed by mechanical
extraction at various volume fluxes [m3s-1] within
the same enclosure.
Yamana and Tanaka [7] performed a series of full-
scale experiments using the BRI fire test facility to
investigate the smoke filling behaviours in large-
scale spaces under various smoke control
conditions. These experiment (Part 2 of the their
study) also served as the validation exercise for the
simple analytical theories that presented in Part 1
[8]. As a result, the predictive capabilities of the
11
International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

simple theories were proved to be fairly good. In
this section, this standard filling equation,
developed by Yamana and Tanaka, is indicated by
the black doted lines on all layer height charts (Figs.
6-7, 9-10) for comparative purpose.
The experiment facility was the BRI full-scale fire
test laboratory, of the Ministry of Construction,
Japan, which was used for this series of
experiments; a schematic of the facility is given in
Fig. 3. The facility consisted of a large space; floor
area equating to 720 m2, with maximum
dimensions of 30 m by 24 m. The ceiling height
was 26.3 m. The experimental conditions selected
for this study were (1) Natural Filling, (2) Natural
Venting and (3) Mechanical Venting. Table 2
provides some finer details that pertained to each
experiment.

Tree 2 Tree 1

Smoke filling set-up Natural smoke venting set-up Mechanical extraction set-up

Fig. 3: Plan of experimental set-up for Scenario B

12
 International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

Table 2: Experimental conditions for Scenario B

Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical

Test No. Natural
Filling rate extraction 6.0 extraction 4.5 extraction 3.2
venting
Condition m3.s-1 m3.s-1 m3.s-1
Initial temp °C 14.0 18.0 13.0 12.0 13.0
Lower opening
---- Prior to test Prior to test ---- ----
time [s]
Lower opening
---- 3.23 3.23 ---- ----
area [m2]
Upper Opening
---- Prior to test ---- ---- ----
Time [s]
Upper opening
---- 6.46 ---- ---- ----
[m2]
Mechanical
venting
---- ---- Prior to test Prior to test 120
activation time
[s]
Mechanical
exhaust rate ---- ---- 6.0 4.5 3.2
[m3.s-1]

The source of fire and smoke consisted of fifteen
methanol pans 450 mm square, which were put
together to form an almost 1800 mm square fire
source, placed centrally on the floor of the facility.
A smoke candle was incorporated to generate
smoke that would then follow the hot gases being
produced by the fire. The burning of the source
demonstrated an almost constant rate. The heat
release rate was obtained by converting the average
mass-burning rate, and this resulted in a 1300 kW
fire for all experiments.
Two trees equipped with Chromel–Alumel
thermocouples, measured the smoke layer
temperature during each test. One of the trees near
the east wall tree No. 1 had thermocouples placed
with 1 m spacing. The other tree No. 2 positioned
near the west wall had thermocouples spaced 2 m
along its vertical axis, except for proximity of the
ceiling where the spacing was reduced to 1 m.
Additionally photocells were set near the two-
thermocouple trees, which had spacing of 2 m from
the ceiling and 4 m from the floor for the
measurement of optical density. The smoke layer
was also recorded by eye. For observations
purposes a scale was placed on the north boundary
wall to locate the smoke layer interface boundary.
In summary, the smoke layer height was measured
using three sources, namely: (a) temperature profile,
(b) optical smoke density and (c) by eye.
The rate of mechanical smoke extraction was
measured using pitot tubes and anemometers
mounted in the exhaust duct on the 7th floor. The
rate of natural airflow velocities was measured
using a hot wire anemometer.
2.2.1 Natural filling rate
Similar to scenario A, the smoke layer was just let
descend within the experimental hangar enclosure.
This can be seen in Fig. 4 where the smoke layer is
very quick to descend at first, and then it begins to
slow down after approximately 120 s into the
experiment. The measurements recorded by the two
thermocouple trees and by the photometer give
good comparison with each other. Also the
standard filling equation developed by Yamana and
Tanaka has given remarkable results. This standard
filling equation is shown throughout the remaining
scenarios i.e. natural and mechanical, as a guide to
the performance of each strategy. Note that a time
lag of approximately 60 s (Fig. 4) is present in the
experiment, due to the time it took for the hot gas
to rise from the fire source, impinge on the ceiling
and then spread laterally across it.
The run (1) incorporated a grid cell size of 500 mm
in the x, y, z directions. This equated to 144000
cells within the hangar. The initial ambient
temperature was set at 18 °C. The fire source was
mimicked within FDS using a Heat Release Rate
Per Unit Area (HRRPUA) of 401 kWm-2.
Multiplying this (HRRPUA) by the fire area of
3.24 m2 gave a Heat Release Rate (HRR) of 1300
kW.
By comparing the experimental results to the
predictions of FDS, it can be concluded that the
model did not behave as well as in the room
environment. Time and memory constraints
prohibited grid refinement below 300 mm.
The run (1) gave the best result out of the three
simulated runs, although the filling rate was

13
 International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

overpredicted until the time of approximately 150 s
with a maximum error of 30%, then under
predicted the filling rate for the remainder of the
simulation with a error of 50%. The smoke filling
rate demonstrates erratic movement from a height
of 25 m to a height of 22 m. This is due to the
turbulence in the developing shallow smoke layer.
The grid cell size was reduced to 300 mm in the
run (2) (720000 cells overall) with the expectation
of better results from the model. However, while
the initial filling rate improved somewhat, a larger
magnitude of error in the filling rate was evident
towards the remainder of the simulation. This result
was confusing as the CFD numerical model is
generally expected to give better results on finer
grids.
Then the grid cell size of 750 mm (46080 cells) and
an initial time step of 0.5 s were employed in the
run (3). This resulted in an overprediction of the
filling rate.
The overall results on grid size effect on quality of
predictions are summarized in Table 3.
The analysis of temperature predictions was made
for the selected heights of 24 m, 16 m and 8 m.
Generally FDS overpredicted the temperature in all
runs. Typical predictions (run 1) are presented in
Fig. 5. Temperatures at 24 m in run (1) has large
error in the beginning (32% at 100 s), and finish up
by getting smaller (8% at 500 s).

SMOKE FILLING RATE IN HANGAR ENVIRONMENT

30

Grid Representation
25

20

1300 (Kw) Methanol

HEIGHT (m)

Fire Source
15

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
TIME (s)
EXP.THERMOCOUPLE EXP.PHOTOMETER EXP.EYE
CALCULATED EQUATION FDS LAYER HEIGHT RUN 1 (500X500X500) FDS LAYER HEIGHT RUN 2 (300x300x300)
FDS LAYER HEIGHT RUN 3 (750X750X750)

Fig. 4: Smoke layer time history plot. Natural filling in a hangar environment. Scenario B

Table 3: Correlation of grid size with the quality of predictions for natural filling rate in a hanger
environment

Grid Cell Size Maximum deviation

Run Total number of cells
(XYZ) (mm) from test results (%)
1 500 x 500 x 500 144000 50
2 300 x 300 x 300 720000 55
3 750 x 750 x 750 46080 62.5

14
 International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

TEMP RUN 1 SMOKE FILLING IN HANGAR ENVIRONMENT

45

40

35

30
TEMP DEG C

25

20

15

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
TIME (s)

TEMP EXP 24 TEMP EXP 16 TEMP EXP 8 FDS TEMP 8 FDS TEMP 16 FDS TEMP 24

Fig. 5: Temperature history plot. Natural filling in a hangar environment. Scenario B

2.2.2 Natural venting

The effect of mechanical extraction is seen in Fig.
For this smoke control strategy, known as gravity
7 as both the experimental Thermocouple and Eye
venting in the UK, FDS gave much improved
curves are slightly lifted off the standard filling
results in layer height predictions compared to
equation line.
those of the natural filling rate scenario. Gravity
venting scenario includes two natural openings
Modeling gave contradictory results. Run (1A)
(windows) at the 7th floor of the facility.
produced rather scattered results at initial stage,
and predicted strong downward propagation of
The effect of the natural vents is quite apparent
smoke contradicting with common sense
(Fig. 6) in that the predicted layer trend lies above
expectations and experimental results. Run (1B)
the standard smoke filling equation. It can be seen
showed better trend, although it overpredicts smoke
that FDS and the photometer readings in the
descend rate initially and slightly underpredicts at
experiment are in a good agreement. The standard
later stages. The over prediction error is
filling equation and the thermocouples had a
approximately (12%) at 50 s. The under prediction
marginal error against FDS of approximately
error is approximately (35%) at 400 s. The
(12%). Runs (3) and (4) performed slightly better
temperature plot (Fig. 8, run (1B)) shows an
than run (1) due to better resolution.
overprediction. The maximum temperature error is
approximately (21%) at 100 s.
The final smoke layer height is predicted correctly
for this scenario, in contrast to Scenario A, where it
Run (2) incorporated a reduced volume flux
was consistently overpredicted.
extraction rate of 4.5 m3s-1. Grid was changed to
500mm cell size in this simulation, as simulation
2.2.3 Mechanical extraction (different
times where in the order of 35 hours. This change
volumetric rates)
served to check how much speed-up can be
The next analysis looks at three different types of achieved, and to what extent the resulting error
mechanical smoke extraction from the hangar would increase. Many designers may be tempted to
facility. In the first run the mechanical extraction do this in a bid to receive results quicker.
rate was documented as 6.0 m3s-1.

15
 International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

NATURAL SMOKE VENTING IN HANGAR ENVIRONMENT

30

Natural vents
25

20
HEIGHT (m)

15

1300 (kW) Fire

Source
Make up vent
10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
TIME (s)
EXP.THERMOCOUPLE EXP.PHOTOMETER STANDARD FILLING EQUATION
Run 1(500x500x500) Run 2(500x500x500)(DT0.05) Run 3(400x400x400)(DT0.1)
Run 4 (300x300x300)

Fig. 6: Smoke layer time history plot. Natural venting in a hangar environment. Scenario B

SMOKE EXTRACTION 6.0m^3/s IN HANGAR ENVIRONMENT

30

25

20
HEIGHT (m)

15

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
TIME (s)
EXP.THERMOCOUPLE EXP. EYE STANDARD FILLING EQUATION
FDS RUN 1A (500X500X500) DT =0.1 FDS RUN 1B (400X400X400) DT =0.1

Fig. 7: Smoke layer time history plot. Smoke extraction of 6.0 m3s-1 in a hangar environment

16
 International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes
TEMP RUN 1B MECH 6.0m^3/s SMOKE EXTRACTION IN HANGAR ENVIRONMENT
40
35
30
25
TEMP DEG C
20
15
10
0
0 100 200 300
TIME (s)
EXP TEMP 24 EXP TEMP 16 EXPT TEMP 8
Fig. 8: Temperature history plot. Smoke extraction of 6.0 m3s-1 in a hangar environment
Peculiar feature of 4.5 m3s-1 scenario (and the next
one with 3.2 m3s-1) was that experiments were run
with closed vent to investigate how well the
mechanical extract system would perform without
replacement air. Mechanical or natural extraction
methods always need replacement air to function.
However for the purposes of this validation study,
we follow the experiment exactly, i.e. the vent was
closed.
It is clear from the layer height chart (Fig. 9) that
closing up of the inlet vent did not effect the smoke
extraction rate, as the experimental results lie
above the standard filling equation. However FDS
did not perform really well, a brief look at the layer
height chart for smoke extraction using a 4.5 m3s-1
volume flux reveals this. FDS over predicted the
filling rate from a height of 26.3 m to a height of 16
m by approximately (8%); thereafter it under
predicted the filling rate by approximately (34%).
400 500 600 700
FDS TEMP 8 FDS TEMP 16 FDS TEMP 24
Temperature predictions for this scenario were
slightly improved, with the maximum error being
(22%) for the 16 m high thermocouple within the
facility. FDS temperature predictions for the other
two heights within the enclosure were below (22%).
The final simulation of this scenario analyses
mechanical smoke extraction with a volume flux of
3.2 m3s-1. This scenario had all the same
characteristics of the previous except for a reduced
volume flux, which was activated 120 s into the
simulation. The filling rate takes a sudden turn at
approximately 130 s (Fig. 10), and was over
predicted from a height of 26.3 m to a height of
12.5 m, the maximum error up to approximately
40% at 68 s. Thereafter the effect of the extraction
was evident, resulting in a final layer height error
of 42% at a time of 400 s. Temperature predictions
at heights 24 m, 16 m and 8 m were also poor. This
error was probably due to the relative coarse grid
applied.
17
 International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

SMOKE EXTRACTION 4.5m^3/s IN HANGAR ENVIRONMENT

30.00

25.00

20.00
HEIGHT (m)

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00
TIME (s)

FDS RUN 2 (500X500X500)(DT=0.1) EXP THERMOCOUPLE EXPT BY EYE STANDARD FILLING EQUATION

Fig. 9: Smoke layer time history plot. Smoke extraction of 4.5 m3s-1 in a hangar environment

SMOKE EXTRACTION (120s) 3.2m^3/s IN HANGAR ENVIRONMENT

30

25

20
HEIGHT (m)

15

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
TIME (s)

EXP THERMOCOUPLE EXP BY EYE STANDARD FILLING EQUATION FDS RUN 3 (500X500X500) DT 0.5

Fig. 10: Smoke layer time history plot. Smoke extraction (120 s) of 3.2 m3s-1 in a hangar environment

18
 International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes
2.3 Scenario C − Smoke Filling and
Extraction in an Atrium Environment
The next scenario analyses the predictive capability
of FDS V 4.0.5 when applied to an atrium type
enclosure. Atrium buildings are becoming highly
popular in modern built environment. Architects
are required to house many different divisions
within one building for accessibility and
sustainability purposes. In order to supply light and
fresh air throughout such building architects like to
use the atrium effect. The atria may also be
designed for aesthetic reasons. However, smoke
spread in such buildings can pose various threats to
its occupants if not properly addressed. Due to
large voids between the floors smoke can readily
move quickly around the building, effecting areas
quite remote from the fire source. Our main
objective in this scenario is to challenge FDS to
determine the most important physical parameters
in the development of a smoke layer and the filling
process within an atria environment.
The experimental data used in the following study
was published by Chow in 1994 [9]; the
experiments were previously conducted by
Hagglund in 1985 [10]. The present analysis
incorporated experiments from test 1 of Chow’s
paper [9] only.
The enclosure under investigation consisted of two
rooms (Fig. 11). A larger hall (Atrium) with
maximum dimensions of 5.6 m by 5.6 m by 6.1 m
high and a smaller fire room constructed adjacent
to the atrium. The two rooms share a common
doorway with dimensions of 1m wide by 2 m high.
Two fires with different HRR are considered in this
study. For simplicity the investigation is divided up
into series. Series (1) incorporates a fire size of 250
kW, while series (2) has a fire source of 560 kW.
Experimental conditions are summarised in Table 4.
Numerous computational parameters for each
series are reported in [11].
The inlet vent in the lower part of the atrium wall
had dimensions of 0.8 m wide by 0.25 high and
was open to the atmosphere. The walls, floors and
ceilings consisted of concrete. The fire source
comprised of kerosene pan situated centrally in the
fire room floor. In the experiments, temperatures
were measured at heights 200 mm, 700 mm, 1200
mm, 1700 mm, and 2200 mm above the floor in the
fire room. Temperature and smoke layer heights
were also measured in the atrium space. These
were positioned 500 mm, 1500 mm, 2500 mm,
3500 mm, 4500 mm and 5500 mm above the floor.
These values were plotted by Chow [9] and
compared to three zone models. The results of
CFAST Zone Model are kept in the presentation
for comparative reasons.
The free NIST software, DXF2FDS, which helps
with the set-up of complex geometries within FDS,
was employed in this scenario. It must be borne in
mind that the rectilinear approach on which FDS V
4.0.5 was developed is preserved after conversion.
For instance, a curved roof will actually be
modelled as a roof consisting of stair stepped
rectangular obstructions. DXF2FDS creates a
pretty picture for the geometry under investigation,
however this picture is not what is really being
modelled. No matter what a modeller specifies in a
FDS input code, this is rearranged to suit the grid,
which has been specified in that scenario. FDS
users must be careful when determining vent area
etc., because the requested and the actual can be
totally different.
2.3.1 Series 1
As can be seen from the accompanying layer height
chart (Fig. 12), FDS failed to predict accurately the
smoke-filling rate within the atrium environment.
As can be seen from the chart, a number of runs
were carried out in a bid to improve the FDS
predictions.
Looking closely at the experiments trend lines i.e.
the smoke meter and the eye recordings, an
agreement between the two methods in the smoke
decent rate is evident. FDS has to a certain extent
mimicked this trend, although the position of the
smoke interface was over predicted. The runs 2D,
2EA, 2EB, 2F and 2F2 all show the same trend.
The run 2D came closest to the experimental
prediction.
The error associated with the 2D run layer height
during the over prediction phase is approximately
(52%) at 40 s, when compared to the eye trend, but
is greater when related to the smoke meter trend.
Run 2F1 had a Smagorinsky Constant of 0.15, but
shows some numerical error when compared to 2F2.
Run 2G employed finer mesh, taking
approximately 30 hours of computation time. Its
results are quite surprising as being the poorest
simulation whilst incorporating the finest grid. This
goes against the underpinning principle of
Computational Fluid Dynamics. This run also
shows twice the HRR specified in the input file
(250 kW), Fig. 13. All other HRR predictions did
not have this problem.
The CFAST zone model trend line is incorporated
in Fig. 12; it is evident that CFAST and FDS are in
agreement from 30 s to 80 s. Note that CFAST
ignores the momentum equation and assumes
simple two-layer structure.
19
International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

View from the fire room, looking into the atrium View from the atrium looking into the fire room

Atrium

Fire Room

Fig. 11: Plan of experimental set-up for Scenario C

20
 International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

SMOKE FILLING SERIES 1 IN ATRIUM ENVIRONMENT

7.00

ATRIUM
6.00
250 (kW) Fire

5.00

INLET VENT
HEIGHT (m)

4.00

3.00
e
DOOR

2.00

1.00

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
TIME (s)
Expt. By Eye Expt. By Smoke Meter
FDS LAYER HEIGHT 2F (100X100X100)(100X100X100) FDS LAYER HEIGHT 2D (200X200X200)(150X150X150)
FDS LAYER HEIGHT 2EA (100X100X100)(200X200X200) FDS LAYER HEIGHT 2F1(200X200X225)(200X200X200)(0.15)
FDS LAYER HEIGHT 2F2(200X200X180)(155X155X155)(0.15) FDS LAYER HEIGHT 2G (50X50X50)(155X155X155)(SMAG 0.1)
FDS LAYER HEIGHT 2EB (100x100x100)(200x200x200)(S2%) CFAST ZONE MODEL

Fig. 12: Smoke layer time history plot. Smoke filling, Series 1 in atrium environment

HHR 2G SMOKE FILLING IN ATRIUM ENVIRONMENT

650.0

600.0

550.0

500.0

450.0

400.0
HRR (kW)

350.0

300.0

250.0

200.0

150.0

100.0

50.0

0.0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
TIME (s)

HRR (50X50X50)(155X155X155) kW

Fig. 13: HRR plot. HHR for the Run 2G. Smoke filling in atrium environment

21
 International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

Temperature predictions for the run 2D, Fig. 14,
show an over prediction when compared to
measured values. The maximum error associated
with the run 2D at a height of 2500 mm is
approximately 33%. This error goes up to 60% for
the lower readings within the atrium. Temperature
predictions in the runs 2F and 2F2 show the error
similar to the case 2D. The run 2G showed the
highest temperature errors as HRR was over
predicted by FDS for this case.
floor. The overall descent time was also quite well
predicted by CFAST.
Variation in the time step within FDS in run 2 did
not change the result. Maximum layer height errors
when compared to experimental eye recordings
were approximately 57% at 40 s. FDS did not
provide accurate smoke filling predictions within
an atrium environment incorporating a fire of 560
kW.

2.3.2 Series 2 Temperatures in the fire room were over predicted.

The thermocouple at the height 2200 mm had a
For the Series 2 experiment smoke descended to
maximum error of approximately 46%. The lowest
floor at approximately 70 s, compared to 110 s in
thermocouple within the fire room at the height of
series 1. This is a result of the higher HRR in this
200 mm was also over predicted by FDS and had a
scenario. The same trend occurred here as in series
maximum error of approximately 77%.
1, i.e. FDS over predicted the filling rate (Fig. 15).
The FDS smoke filling prediction went only down
Predicted temperatures in the atrium space also
to 1 m above the floor. CFAST and FDS are once
demonstrated over predictions. The maximum error
again showing some agreement with each other
resulted from the thermocouple reading at the
until approximately 60 s. Apparently, the simple
height of 4500 mm (approximately 40% at 70 s).
CFAST model performed much better in this case,
since it was able to predict smoke descent to the

Table 4: Experimental conditions for Scenario C

Test No. 1 Fire size/m2 Fire HRR, kW Lower vertical vent area [m2] Ceiling vent area [m2]

Series 1 0.25 250 0.2 0

Series 2 0.56 560 0.2 0

TEMP RUN 2D SERIES 1 SMOKE FILLING IN ATRIUM ENVIRONMENT

80

70

60

50
TEMP DEG C

40

30

20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
TIME (s)
EXP TEMP 3500 EXP TEMP 2500 EXP TEMP 1500 EXP TEMP 500 FDS TEMP 3500
FDS TEMP 2500 FDS TEMP 1500 FDS TEMP 500

Fig. 14: Temperature history plot. Run 2D, Series 1. Smoke filling in atrium environment

22

SMOKE FILLING SERIES 2 IN ATRIUM ENVIRONMENT
7.00
6.00
560 (kW) Fire
5.00
HEIGHT (m)
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0 20 40 60
CFAST ZONE
EXPT SMOKE METER
FDS RUN 2 (200X200X200)(155X155X155)(0.05)
Fig. 15: Smoke layer time history plot. Smoke filling, Series 2 in atrium environment
2.4 Scenario D − Smoke Movement in a
Corridor Environment
The final scenario in this study deals with smoke
filling and gas temperatures within a corridor
environment. Smoke curtains will be used in this
scenario as means of smoke control. This method
can be classed as compartmentation. Compart-
mentation is probably the oldest and most basic
form of fire protection.
Compartmentation consists of using partitions,
floors, and ceilings of a building to restrict the
smoke spread. In the overall fire safety strategy for
any building, smoke and hot gases are recognised
as the major hazard, and its control must be a
primary concern for not only the client, but also for
the consulting engineer and equally the architect in
charge of the design.
This type of smoke protection may form part of the
fire safety strategy within, for example, a nursing
home. Such premises usually incorporate long
corridors, which link almost every part of the
building. With the incorporation of smoke curtains
at strategic locations, the spread of smoke and
gases can be restricted, giving staff ample time to
evacuate the building.
International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes
ATRIUM
INLET VENT
e
DOOR
80 100 120 140 160 180
TIME (s)
EXPT BY EYE
FDS RUN 1 (200X200X200)(155X155X155)
Traditionally smoke curtains have been used to
contain smoke in the event of fire. The curtain may
be a part of either active (where by it drops to a
specified height on alarm activation) or the passive
fire protection system. In the present study the
curtains will act as passive systems.
Matsuyama and Wakamtsu [12] carried out a recent
study to test room and corridor smoke filling for
use in calibration of zone and field models. Two
scenarios of their study are used to investigate the
accuracy of FDS in predicting smoke movement,
smoke filling and gas temperatures.
The fire source in the experiment was a
polyurethane triangular shaped mattress. The base
width was 600 mm, while the height of the triangle
was 900 mm. Using three load cells, the mass loss
rate was recorded continuously. The HRR was then
calculated by multiplying loss rate by the heat of
combustion. By calculating the area of the triangle,
it was possible to model this experiment within
FDS. The HRR in this experiment is not steady,
therefore the ramp file was set up to reflect the
HRR obtained from the experiment within FDS.
The fire in FDS can be ramped by specifying a
time and a fractional HRR at that specific time.
23
International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes
Thermocouple trees were situated within the
building to measure the smoke layer height and
temperature. The thermocouples used in the
experiment were type K (0.3 mm-diameter).
Fourteen thermocouples were placed on each tree.
Using the N-percent method (N=10%) the smoke
layer height and the average temperatures were
calculated for all the experimental results.
In this scenario the two studies were performed.
The setup can be seen from Fig. 16. In the Study (A)
smoke curtain (B) (color green) was situated at the
west end of the corridor and its role was to prevent
smoke from spilling into the lobby room at the end
of the corridor.
The Study (B) used same conditions as (A), but had
a decreased HRR and utilised an additional smoke
curtain (color green) situated more or less centrally
across the corridor width.
The smoke curtain depths were 700 mm below the
ceiling for each study. The corridor had an inlet
vent situated near the floor on the west wall. Layer
height, smoke movement and gas temperature were
analysed against experimental data, and also
against each other, to show the effects, if any, of
the smoke curtain(s).
Summary of the computational parameters for both
runs is presented in Table 5.
From the layer height charts for the runs A and A1
(Figs. 17 and 18), it is evident that FDS has once
again over predicted the smoke-filling rate within
the fire room. At approximately 60 s the smoke
layer begins to develop in the fire room. According
to experimental data, smoke layer descends at an
almost constant rate.
In contrast, FDS predictions show that the smoke
layer develops approximately 10 to 15 s earlier and
fills the room very quickly down to a height of
1200 mm above the floor (run A). This filling
slows down in the runs A1 and B, due to finer grid.
The results for the run B are presented in Fig. 19.
The error in layer perdition between the experiment
and FDS is approximately 42% at 50 s in the run A.
This error tends to decrease with the incorporation
of the finer grid in the runs A1 and B. After decay
of the fire in the experiment, the smoke layer in the
fire room descends to 200 mm from the floor at
position T0; FDS under predicts this situation by
24
only filling to approximately 600 mm above the
floor, this happened in all the runs A, A1 and B.
The corridor smoke layer in the experiment begins
to develop at position T2 at about 120 s. It can be
seen from the chart that position T5 is delayed by a
time of approximately 30 s, this is due to the length
of the corridor. FDS over predicts smoke
movement within the corridor at a time of 85 s,
making a time discrepancy of 35 s.
The effect of the smoke curtain is observed to delay
the smoke propagation time down the corridor.
This observation is through the comparison
between the experimental chart results for the cases
A and B. In the study A the lobby smoke developed
at approximately 150 s (EXP T6 curve), while in
the study B it developed at 220 s (EXP T6). This
difference is due to introduction of the second
smoke curtain in the middle of the corridor.
FDS simulations (runs A and A1) predict smoke in
the lobby at a time of 150 s, which is correct, but
then grossly over predicts the filling time within
the lobby by about 50 s. In the run B the lobby
smoke developed at approximately 165 s, this is an
over prediction of 55 s.
As a general tendency, the smoke layer descends
right after the fire source has decayed. In the two
experiments, the corridor smoke layer has dropped
to a level lower than 1 m above the floor. This
means that the corridor is unsafe after
approximately 180 s at position T4.
Comparing this to FDS predictions A, A1 and B
demonstrates that even though FDS start off by
over predicting filling rate, its merges with the
experimental data at position T4 in all the runs.
This is a fair prediction by the model from a
designer’s perspective.
In all the above runs, comparing the experimental
temperature to the FDS predicted temperatures it
can be concluded that the temperature near the fire
source are all in good agreement (13% discrepancy)
with the experiment until a maximum temperature
observed in the experiment. After the maximum
point FDS predictions diverge from the
experimental ones (Fig. 20), far field temperatures
tend to be over predicted in all the runs.
 Study A Study B

FIRE SOURCE
FOLLOWS
LOBBY ROOM
t2 GROWTH RATE
Area 10m2 FIRE ROOM

Area 25m2

Smoke curtain B
Active for runs A and B
CORRIDOR Area 28m2
Inlet vent
Smoke curtain A Active for run B only

Fig. 16: Plan of experimental set-up for Scenario D

International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

25
26
Table 5: Summary of input/ output parameters for Scenario D

Scenario D Smoke filling and movement in corridor environment

Input Output

Fire Fire Initial Soot

Grid cell size Total Fire HRRPUA Smagorinsky Simulation Q* [-] Fire resolve. Converge
Run No. area output 2 time yield
(XYZ) (mm) cells source (kW/m ) constant time (s) (0.1<Q*<2.5) (Dx) / (∂x) speed [s-1]
International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

(m2) (kW) step. (%)

Run A 4 x 200x200x200 20618 0.27 Ramped 789 - 0.042 0.2 245 0.75 1.65 -

Polyurethane
Run A1 4 x 100x100x100 155616 0.27 Ramped 789 - 0.042 0.2 245 0.75 1.65 -
Mattress

Run B 4 x 100x100x100 20618 0.27 Ramped 555 - 0.042 0.2 250 0.53 2.60 -
 International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

LAYER HEIGHT RUN A SMOKE MOVEMENT IN CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENT

2.5

2
HEIGHT (m)

1.5

0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
TIME (s)

EXPT1 EXPT2 EXPT3 EXPT4 EXPT5 EXPT6 FDS T0

FDS T1 FDS T2 FDS T3 FDS T4 FDS T5 FDS T6 EXPT0

Fig. 17: Smoke layer time history plot. Run A. Smoke movement in corridor environment

LAYER HEIGHT RUN A1 SMOKE MOVEMENT IN CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENT

2.5

2
HEIGHT (m)

1.5

0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
TIME (s)

EXPT1 EXPT2 EXPT3 EXPT4 EXPT5 EXPT6 EXPT0 FDS TO FDS T1

FDS T2 FDS T3 FDS T4 FDS T5 FDS T6

Fig. 18: Smoke layer time history plot. Run A1. Smoke movement in corridor environment

27
 International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

LAYER HEIGHT RUN B SMOKE MOVEMENT IN CORRIDOR EXPERIMENT

2.5

2
HEIGHT (m)

1.5

0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
TIME (s)
EXPT TO EXPT T1 EXPT T2 EXPT T3 EXPT T4 EXP T5 EXPT T6
FDS T1 FDS T0 FDS T2 FDS T3 FDS T4 FDS T5 FDS T6

Fig. 19: Smoke layer time history plot. Run B. Smoke movement in corridor environment

TEMP RUN A SMOKE MOVEMENT IN CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENT

90

80

70
TEMP DEG. C

60

50

40

30

20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
TIME (s)
EXPT0 EXPT1 EXPT2 EXPT3 EXPT4 EXPT5 FDS T0 FDS T3 FDS T1 FDS T2
FDS T4 FDS T5

Fig. 20: Smoke layer time history plot. Run A. Smoke movement in corridor environment

28
 International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes
3. CONCLUSIONS
Significant, although limited due to a shortage of
experimental data number of CFD simulations have
been undertaken within this study in an attempt to
evaluate smoke control strategies using the FDS V
4.0.5 computational fluid dynamics model.
The study investigated the capability of FDS V
4.0.5 to accurately predict smoke control strategies
within a variety of selected enclosures.
Computational results were compared to full-scale
physical experiments involving Natural Smoke
Filling, Natural Smoke Venting, Mechanical
Smoke Extraction and Smoke Movement.
These obviously do not cover all the situations a
fire safety engineer may encounter, however, they
are all representative of real full-scale fire
behaviour. Additionally, to the authors current
knowledge, none of the experimental data used in
the present paper have been employed earlier in
FDS evaluation studies.
From the first case of the present study, Scenario A
‘Smoke Filling in a Room Environment’, it can be
concluded that FDS V 4.0.5 is capable of
predicting the smoke filling rate within the limits
specified by the models developers. An important
discovery in this scenario was that, the
specification of finer grids does not always reap
better results. This is evident from the layer height
chart representing the room scenario. The chart
shows an over prediction of 16% in layer height
during initial smoke filling, followed by an under
prediction of 20% in the latter part of the
simulation. In summary the results are satisfactory
for the smoke-filling rate in a room environment.
In the second case, Scenario B ‘Smoke Filling and
Extraction in a Hangar Environment’ Natural
Filling, Natural Venting and Mechanical Extraction
strategies were investigated. For this scenario the
area of the hangar was 24 m x 30 m with an overall
ceiling height greater than 26 m. The initial over
prediction for the smoke-filling rate increased to
30%, and the later filling rate had an under
prediction error of approximately 50%. This results
are beyond the limits highlighted by the models
developers, and therefore FDS did not predict
accurately the smoke filling rate within the hangar.
FDS performed very well to predict Natural
Venting scenario and predicted values were well
below the error limit of 20%. Mechanical
Extraction scenario was considered for three
different extraction rates. For the volume extraction
rate of 6.0 m3s-1 the layer height predictions
performed reasonably well, with an over prediction
of 12% and a under prediction of 35%. In the next
case (4.5 m3s-1 extraction rate) the inlet vent was
closed and the result showed initially an over
prediction of 8%, and an under prediction of 34%
thereafter. Finally, a case was run with 3.2 m3s-1
extraction rate, initiated at 120 s and also with no
inlet vent. This had an initial over prediction filling
rate of 40%, which then ended up under predicting
by 42%.
The third test, Scenario C ‘Smoke Filling in an
Atrium Environment’, was divided into two series.
Series 2, which incorporated a larger fire source,
did not give satisfactorily results; five runs did
have the same trends over predicting the entire atria
smoke filling process by 52%. CFAST zone model
performed better than FDS in this case, predicting
smoke descent down to the floor. This run also
highlighted that the finer grid resulted in the
poorest performance. HRR did not stay stable in
the run 2G, diverging from its prescribed value.
Maximum over prediction in the Series 2 was 57%.
The final case of this study, Scenario D
investigated ‘Smoke Filling and Movement in a
Corridor Environment’. FDS over predicts smoke
filling by 42%. FDS also over predicted smoke
movement in the corridor by approximately 58%.
However, the predictions converge back to
experimental data by the time when untenable
conditions are achieved in the corridor.
The principal conclusions of the study are as
follows:
• Performance of FDS varies significantly
depending on particular smoke movement
scenario. Performance seems to deteriorate
with increase in geometrical complexity of
simulated compartment/building.
• FDS gave an overall average error of 32% in
the smoke-filling rate.
• Temperature predictions for FDS throughout
the study were over predicted on average by
35%.
• The above figures suggest that the claim [4]
that FDS can predict temperatures within 5 to
20% of the actual value is incorrect. Identical
claim with respect to flow velocities was not
investigated in the present study. However, it
would be important to verify that claim as well.
• Effects of grid are very important to solution.
The specification of finer grids does not
always lead to better results. It has been
experienced in the present study that the
solution does not always stabilise, as the grid
is refined. Moverover, the specification of
29
International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes

finer grids in some cases may significantly
worsen predictions.
This effect (observed also by other
investigators) requires careful investigation as
it contradicts (at least, at first glance) with
general philosophy behind CFD, and LES in
particular.
• HRR is not necessarily maintained in
computations, in contrast to what is claimed.
An example of this was observed in the run 2G,
Scenario C were the predicted HRR was twice
as high as it should be.
• In some cases (such as smoke filling in the
atrium) simple zone model can give better
prediction than FDS.
control problems”, Fire Science and Technology,
Vol. 5, No. 1 (1985).
9. W.K. Chow, “A short note on the simulation of the
atrium smoke filling process using fire zone
models”, Department of Building Services
Engineering, Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hong Kong (1994).
10. B. Hagglund, Comparing fire models with
experimental data, FOA Report C20864-24,
National Defense Research Establishment,
Sundbyberg, Sweden (1985).
11. P. Coyle, An evaluation of smoke control strategies
using Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), MSc Thesis,
University of Ulster, UK (2005).
12. K. Matsuyama and T. Wakamtsu, Department of
Architecture, Faculty of Science and Technology,
Science University of Tokyo, NISTIR 6588 (2000).

• Time step is an important parameter in FDS, as

in any CFD code. Unfortunately, FDS does not
allow users to vary this parameter. The authors
believe that this flexibility is essential for any
credible CFD code, and should be provided by
developers.

• Smagorinsky constant did not have significant

effect in the problems considered in the
present study.

REFERENCES

1. G.W. Zou and W.K. Chow, “Numerical studies on

fire environment by a field model”, International
Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire
Codes, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 18-34 (2005).
2. C.W. Lautenberger, J.L. de Ris, N.A. Dembsey,
J.R. Barnett and H.R. Baum, “A simplified model
for soot formation and oxidation in CFD
simulation of non-premixed hydrocarbon flames”,
Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 141-176 (2005).
3. W.K. Mok and W.K. Chow, “Verification and
validation in modeling fire by computational fluid
dynamics”, International Journal on Architectural
Science, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 58-67 (2004).
4. K. McGrattan and G. Forney, Fire Dynamics
Simulator (Version 4) user’s guide, NIST Special
Publication 1019 (2005).
5. B. Hagglund, R. Jansson and K. Nireus, Smoke
filling experiments in 6 x 6 x 6 meter enclosure,
FOA Report C 20585-D6, National Defence
Research Establishment, Sweden (1985).
6. B. Karlsson and J.G. Quintiere, Enclosure fire
dynamics, CRC Press, Boca Raton (2000).
7. T. Yamana and T. Tanaka, Smoke control in large
scale spaces, Part 2, Building Research Institute,
Ministry of Construction, Japan (1985).
8. T. Tanaka and T. Yamana, “Smoke control in large
spaces, Part 1: Analytic theories for simple smoke

30