Table of Content

Table of content
List of Figure ................................................................................ 2
Abstract ...................................................................................... 24
Introduction ................................................................................ 25
Methodology .............................................................................. 30
Result ......................................................................................... 32
Conclusion ................................................................................. 45
Reference ................................................................................... 47
1
List of Figure
Figure1: Green façade model Figure2: Living wall model
Figure3a: Scenario1 Temperature at Figure3b: Scenario1 Temperature at z=2,
z=2, t=0 t=50
2
Figure3c: Scenario1 Temperature at Figure3d: Scenario1 Temperature at z=2,
z=2, t=75 t=100
Figure4a: Scenario1 Visibility at Figure4b: Scenario1 Visibility at y=2.5,
y=2.5, t=0 t=25
Figure4c: Scenario1 Visibility at Figure4d: Scenario1 Visibility at y=2.5,
y=2.5, t=65 t=100
Figure4e: Scenario1 Visibility at Figure4f: Scenario1 Visibility at x=2.5,
x=2.5, t=0 t=25
3
Figure4g: Scenario1 Visibility at Figure4h: Scenario1 Visibility at x=2.5,
x=2.5, t=65 t=100
Radiative Heat Flux

0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.0
3.4
6.6
10.0
13.3
16.5
19.8
23.1
26.4
29.7
33.0
36.3
39.6
42.9
46.2
49.5
52.8
56.1
59.4
62.7
66.0
69.3
72.6
75.9
79.2
82.5
85.8
89.1
92.4
95.7
99.0
-0.02
Figure5: Scenario1 Radiative heat flux vs time
4
CO concentration
9.00E-07
8.00E-07
7.00E-07
6.00E-07
5.00E-07
4.00E-07
3.00E-07
2.00E-07
1.00E-07
0.00E+00
0.0
3.5
7.1
10.6
14.0
17.5
21.0
24.5
28.0
31.5
35.0
38.5
42.0
45.5
49.0
52.5
56.0
59.5
63.0
66.5
70.0
73.5
77.0
80.5
84.0
87.5
91.0
94.5
98.0
Figure6: Scenario1 CO concentration vs time
intr
z=2, t=0 t=40
z=2, t=60 t=100
5
y=2.5, t=0 t=30
y=2.5, t=60 t=100
x=2.5, t=0 t=30
6
0
1
2
-0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
x=2.5, t=60
0
0.00E+00
1.00E-07
2.00E-07
3.00E-07
4.00E-07
5.00E-07
6.00E-07
3.4471456
0 6.8059028
3.6239223 10.253048
7.2478445 13.645831
10.826699 17.028368
14.421673 20.427605
18.016806 23.806272
21.627921 27.208224
25.228868 30.611891
Figure8g: Scenario2 Visibility at
28.828433 34.003957
32.430318 37.425689
36.0276 40.812172
39.600494 44.227396
7
43.222866 47.603732
46.822431 51.014604
50.415215 54.411139
54.011547 57.807674
57.607878 61.200934
CO concentration
Radiative Heat Flux
61.200934 64.615988
64.818195 68.008574
68.412988 71.408382
72.012467 74.81139
75.616835 78.214397

79.201068
t=100
81.614132
82.808418 85.016039
86.413138 88.412795
90.004162 91.80108
93.607472 95.205434
97.202886 98.60772
Figure8h: Scenario2 Visibility at x=2.5,
z=2, t=0 t=45
z=2, t=80 t=100
y=2.5, t=0 t=53
8
y=2.5, t=70 t=100
x=2.5, t=0 t=53
Figure12g: Scenario3 Visibility at Figure12h: Scenario3 Visibility at x=2.5,
x=2.5, t=70 t=100
9
0.00E+00
2.00E-07
4.00E-07
6.00E-07
8.00E-07
1.00E-06
1.20E-06
1.40E-06
1.60E-06
1.80E-06
0.00E+00
-2.00E-02
2.00E-02
4.00E-02
6.00E-02
8.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.20E-01
0.00E+00 0.00
3.62E+00 3.62
7.25E+00 7.25
1.08E+01 10.82
1.44E+01 14.44
1.80E+01 18.01
2.16E+01 21.62
2.52E+01 25.21
2.88E+01 28.83
3.24E+01 32.41
3.60E+01 36.02
3.96E+01 39.61
10
4.32E+01 43.22
4.68E+01 46.80
5.04E+01 50.42
5.40E+01 54.02
5.76E+01 57.61
CO concentration
Radiative Heat Flux
6.12E+01 61.21
6.48E+01 64.80
6.84E+01 68.40
7.20E+01 72.01
7.56E+01 75.61

7.92E+01 79.21
8.28E+01 82.81
8.64E+01 86.41
9.00E+01 90.01
9.36E+01 93.61
9.72E+01 97.20
z=2, t=0 t=46
z=2, t=55 t=100
Figure16a: Scenario4 Visibility at Figure16b: Scenario4 Visibility at y=2.5
y=2.5 t=0 t=30
Figure16c: Scenario4 Visibility at Figure16d: Scenario4 Visibility at y=2.5
y=2.5 t=40 t=100
11
Figure16e: Scenario4 Visibility at Figure16f: Scenario4 Visibility at x=2.5
x=2.5 t=0 t=30
Figure16g: Scenario4 Visibility at Figure16h: Scenario4 Visibility at x=2.5
x=2.5 t=40 t=100
Radiative Heat Flux

2.50E+00
2.00E+00
1.50E+00
1.00E+00
5.00E-01
0.00E+00
46.22
12.65
16.84
21.02
25.20
29.43
33.62
37.81
42.00
50.42
54.62
58.82
63.01
67.20
71.42
75.61
79.81
84.01
88.22
92.40
96.61
0.00
4.24
8.49
-5.00E-01
12
CO concentration
1.20E-06
1.00E-06
8.00E-07
6.00E-07
4.00E-07
2.00E-07
0.00E+00
10.83
68.41
14.42
18.02
21.63
25.23
28.83
32.43
36.03
39.60
43.22
46.82
50.42
54.01
57.61
61.20
64.82
72.01
75.62
79.20
82.81
86.41
90.00
93.61
97.20
0.00
3.62
7.25
Figure19: Green façade with 2 floor Figure20: living wall with 2 floor
13
z=2, t=0 t=15
Figure21a: Scenario1 Temperature at Figure21d: Scenario1 Temperature at z=2,
z=2, t=75 t=100
Figure22b: Scenario1 Visibility at y=2.5

Figure22a: Scenario1 Visibility at
t=15
y=2.5 t=0
14
Figure22c: Scenario1 Visibility at Figure22d: Scenario1 Visibility at y=2.5
y=2.5 t=45 t=100
Figure22d: Scenario1 Visibility at Figure22e: Scenario1 Visibility at x=2.5
x=2.5 t=0 t=15
Figure22f: Scenario1 Visibility at Figure22g: Scenario1 Visibility at y=2.5
x=2.5 t=45 t=100
15
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.00E-07
4.00E-07
6.00E-07
8.00E-07
1.00E-06
1.20E-06
2.00E-07
4.00E-07
6.00E-07
8.00E-07
1.00E-06
1.20E-06
0.00 0.00
3.63 3.63
7.25 7.25
10.81 10.81
14.41 14.41
18.00 18.00
21.64 21.64
25.22 25.22
28.81 28.81
32.41 32.41
36.00 36.00
39.61 39.61
16
43.21 43.21
46.80 46.80
50.40 50.40
54.01 54.01
57.61 57.61
CO concentration
Radiative Heat Flux
61.21 61.21
64.81 64.81
68.41 68.41
72.00 72.00
75.60 75.60

79.21 79.21
82.81 82.81
86.40 86.40
90.01 90.01
93.60 93.60
97.20 97.20
z=2, t=0 t=0
Figure25c: Scenario2 Temperature at Figure25d: Scenario2 Temperature at z=2

z=2
Figure26a: Scenario2 Visibility

Figure26b: Scenario2 Visibility
Figure26c: Scenario2 Visibility

Figure26d: Scenario2 Visibility
17

Radiative Heat Flux

7.00E-02
6.00E-02
5.00E-02
4.00E-02
3.00E-02
2.00E-02
1.00E-02
0.00E+00
18.01
10.82
14.43
21.64
25.23
28.80
32.41
36.00
39.61
43.23
46.81
50.41
54.02
57.60
61.21
64.81
68.40
72.02
75.61
79.20
82.81
86.41
90.00
93.61
97.21
0.00
3.62
7.25
-1.00E-02
18
CO concentration
0.0000009
0.0000008
0.0000007
0.0000006
0.0000005
0.0000004
0.0000003
0.0000002
0.0000001
0
46.81
10.82
14.43
18.01
21.64
25.23
28.80
32.41
36.00
39.61
43.23
50.41
54.02
57.60
61.21
64.81
68.40
72.02
75.61
79.20
82.81
86.41
90.00
93.61
97.21
0.00
3.62
7.25
Figure30b: Scenario3 Temperature

Figure30a: Scenario3 Temperature
Figure30c: Scenario3 Temperature
Figure30d: Scenario3 Temperature
19

Figure31e: Scenario3 Visibility
Figure31f: Scenario3 Visibility
20
Figure31g: Scenario3 Visibility Figure31h: Scenario3 Visibility
Radiative Heat Flux

1.20E+00
1.00E+00
8.00E-01
6.00E-01
4.00E-01
2.00E-01
0.00E+00
21.63
32.43
10.83
14.42
18.02
25.23
28.83
36.03
39.60
43.22
46.82
50.42
54.01
57.61
61.20
64.82
68.41
72.01
75.62
79.20
82.81
86.41
90.00
93.61
97.20
0.00
3.62
7.25
-2.00E-01
CO concentration
5.00E-07
4.50E-07
4.00E-07
3.50E-07
3.00E-07
2.50E-07
2.00E-07
1.50E-07
1.00E-07
5.00E-08
0.00E+00
14.42
32.43
50.42
10.83
18.02
21.63
25.23
28.83
36.03
39.60
43.22
46.82
54.01
57.61
61.20
64.82
68.41
72.01
75.62
79.20
82.81
86.41
90.00
93.61
97.20
0.00
3.62
7.25
21
Figure34a: Scenario4 Temperature
Figure34b: Scenario4 Temperature
Figure34c: Scenario4 Temperature

Figure34d: Scenario4 Temperature

22
Figure35e: Scenario4 Visibility

Figure35f: Scenario4 Visibility
Figure35g: Scenario4 Visibility

Figure35h: Scenario4 Visibility
23
0.00E+00
1.00E-11
2.00E-11
3.00E-11
4.00E-11
5.00E-11
6.00E-11
7.00E-11
8.00E-11
0.00E+00
-5.00E-03
5.00E-03
1.00E-02
1.50E-02
2.00E-02
2.50E-02
3.00E-02
3.50E-02
4.00E-02
4.50E-02
0.0 0.00E+00
3.6 3.63E+00
7.3 7.25E+00
10.8 1.08E+01
14.4 1.44E+01
18.0 1.80E+01
21.6 2.16E+01
25.2 2.52E+01
28.8 2.88E+01
32.4 3.24E+01
36.0 3.60E+01
39.6 3.96E+01
24
43.2 4.32E+01
46.8 4.68E+01
50.4 5.04E+01
54.0 5.40E+01
57.6 5.76E+01
CO concentration
Radiative Heat Flux
61.2 6.12E+01
64.8 6.48E+01
68.4 6.84E+01
72.0 7.20E+01
75.6 7.56E+01

79.2 7.92E+01
82.8 8.28E+01
86.4 8.64E+01
90.0 9.00E+01
93.6 9.36E+01
97.2 9.72E+01
Abstract
Vertical Greenery System (VGS) has been widely used on the green building, to
reduce the temperature and improve the air quality. The performance and the efficient
of the VGS has been a topic of interest in the study field. However, the fire risk of the
VGS is much less than the performance of the VGS as a topic. Recently, the Australia
fire hook up the concern of the fire risk of the vegetation. The vegetation could spread
fire effectively, and threaten the surrounding environment, plus, the recent climate
change would also cause more negative effect of the fire. Moisture content has been
proved as a major factor which related to fire risk, moisture content would affect the
fire behavior and the ignition point of the vegetation (Jurdao et al., 2012). For the fire
development, heat release rate is a key factor (Hietaniemi & Mikkola, 2010) to study
the fire risk and the fire behavior, access the heat release rate and the moisture content
is important. By fire dynamics simulator (FDS), the time to reach the tenability limit
and the difference between material and the structure of the building could be shown..
The aim of the research is to find out the fire risk under different VGS and structure,
to show the evacuation time of the simulation.
25
Introduction and Literature review
VGS is basically formed by 2 types of building facade structure, which is green
facade and living wall (Chu, 2014). The green facade would allow the climbing plants
to attach the building façade (Susorova, 2015), however, comparing the living wall
and the green facade, the latter is more complicated, the living wall will combine the
vegetations and the building facade, the base structure of the living wall is formed by
the different layers, likes the support structure, waterproofing, irrigation, and the
vegetations (Papadopoulou, 2013).
Moreover, the green facade and the living wall will use different types of the
vegetations. For green facade, it is mainly using support type plants, and it will further
divided into climbing plants and hanging plants, and these two types of plants are both
using vines. The climbing plants are called vine most the time, when the support is
provided, the climbing plants will become vine, likes the kudzu and Japanese
honeysuckle, but, when the support is not provided, some of the climbing plants
would become low shrubs, likes poison ivy and bittersweet. The hanging plants will
raise the elevated box at certain level to allow the plants droop and cover the facade
(Chu, 2014). For living wall, it is mainly using carrier type plants, and further divided
into substrate-based plants and hydroponic plants. The substrate-based plants are
using rock or sand instead of using soil to cultivate the plants. The hydroponic plants
are only using water to cultivate the plants. The substrate-based plants and the
hydroponic plants are both using groundcovers, grasses, sedges and ferns.
The VGS in Hong Kong is quite common to improve the air quality and reduce the
heat island effect, “An urban heat island occurs when a city experiences much warmer
26
temperatures than nearby rural areas.” (NASA, 2019), which caused by the urban
building material that can absorb more sun heat, and urban city having less plants that
cause less transpiration. “Plants take up water from the ground through their roots.
Then, they store the water in their stems and leaves. The water eventually travels to
small holes on the underside of leaves. There, the liquid water turns into water vapor
and is released into the air. This process is called transpiration.” (NASA, 2019).
Hence, green facade and living wall are both existed in different environments to have
more transpiration and reduce the urban heat island effect, likewise the roof garden of
Li Dak Sum Yip Yio Chin academic building, exterior of railway station.
However, comparing climbing plants, hanging plants, hydroponic plants and
substrate-based plants, climbing plants are the least common than the other types
plants, since the looking of climbing plants having worst looking that the other type
plants. Beside the looking of the plants, the fire risk of the climbing plants is reason
that having least common level. The climbing plants are growing in outdoor, which is
an exposed area that allow people to smoke or even having man-made fire, likewise
the accident happened on 2018, almost interrupt the surrounding object, also, the
accident happened in Miskol, Hungary, the fire spread over the flats, finally causing 3
people dead (HAJPÁ L, 2012), and that would have fire risk that may affect the
structure of the building facade, and cause human life casualties.
Review of Past Fire Cases of external facade
The history of VGS fire cases are only appear on recent decades. VGS was developed
to reduce the external load of the building, reduce the internal temperature and solving
the environment problem. Due to the environment awareness of people, the VGS
27
would be widely used on different variety of buildings. The advantages of the VGS is
that it could absorb the heat energy, having long term usage, and it could have a
embellish effect. The VGS having multiple design for wide variety of building façade
to be suitable for the architectural designs. Hence, the combustible problem of the
VGS would be involved in residences, commercial buildings or offices, and factories.
1. Miskolc, Hungary, 2009
The fire occurred in Miskolc, Hungary, a 6th floor residential kitchen. The fire spread
over 5 floors on the exterior walls and resulting the smoke spread through the stair
shaft and cause 3 fatalities in this case.
2. Dijon, France, 2010
A residential building in Dijon, France had occurred a fire and resulting 7 fatalities
and 11 injuries. The fires started at a garbage container and developed at the building
façade and cause the smoke spread over the building.
3. Berlin, Germany, 2005
The fire started at 2nd floor of the building and cause flashover, resulting the fire
developed and spread to the top of the building and causing 2 fatalities and 3 injuries.
The external façade fire could be serious, although the it was a low frequency and low
probability to happen. The VGS is one of the exterior insulations, it could also happen
serious accident and cause fatalities. Hence, this project would investigate the fire risk
of the VGS by using simulation.
28
Although VGS could be difficultly ignited and having no fire risk when the plants are
keeping green (Knez, 2014), considering human mistakes, likewise having incomplete
irrigation causing the plants dry and create a condition that allow fire spread easily.
Since that VGS could be extremely dangerous when the moisture content of VGS is
under a certain level, the moisture content is one of the major factor in the fire
behavior (Countryman, 1974), hence, keeping the moisture content low, the fire risk
would also low. Moreover, relative flammability of the plant has been defined as 3
types, which is ignitability, combustibility, and sustainability. To show those
ignitability, combustibility and sustainability of the plants, the time to ignition, total
heat release rate and peak heat release rate are required (Weise et al., 2005).
In this study, the plastic and the pine wood will be tested in a scaled model to find out
the fire behavior and the fire risk of those vegetation, aiming to find out a solution that
may solve the fire risk of VGS. The testing way of VGS would be using the CFD to
simulate the fire incident, which using fire dynamics simulator (FDS) to test out the
burning behavior of the plants, the detail would be shown on the methodology.
29
Methodology
A large-scale fire testing would be the only way to investigate about the fire behavior
of the exterior façade. However, the large-scale fire testing is extremely costly and
destructive, due to the requirement of the large-scale fire test, it would be impossible
to obtain a large-scale fire test in real life. Hence, based on the computational fluid
dynamic (CFD) technology, it would be cost effective compare to the large-scale test,
also, due to the system is based on the link of knowledge gap, it would be sensitive to
generate a accurate result. To access the fire risk assessment, a multiple step is
required, firstly to build a fire database, which contain the past fire cause, the result
and any elements which related to the fire of the case. Using the database, reviewing
the past fire case, a typical configuration for the VGS would be constructed to
generate the computational model.
In this study, a fire dynamics simulator (FDS) would be used as a CFD tool to access
the fire risk assessment. FDS is a recognized software which used in vary research
and fire engineering, also, it could simulate all the non-premixed flame, to analysis
the behavior and phenomenon of the fire in any buildings. It is using large-eddy
simulation (LES) to generate and simulate the movement of smoke and the gas
transportation for the low speed flow. The FDS could simulate the virtual fire, then it
could analysis the fire risk of it. For the parameter used in the FDS program, it is
using the data from different researches, which could have an easier way to generate a
fire model.
For the configuration of the model, a scaled model is designed to simplify the model
and aiming to reduce the simulation time. The model is created in a single room,
which has 5m width and 5m length and 5m height, with a 3m width x 2m height door
30
for the ventilation. One of the internal walls would be insulated with the vegetation,
which is living wall model. For the other model, which have one of the external walls
would be insulated with the vegetation, which is the green façade model. Beside the
VGS system different, it would also have a material different in the model, since that
there would be having a fake VGS in some buildings, and it was made by plastic,
which would be having different fire behavior and smoke movement from the
vegetation. The models are aiming to figure out the fire behavior between different
VGS system and different material, and also figure out the evacuation of between the
difference. To generate a suitable and time effective model, according to the
recommended characteristic length scale (D*), it would be 0.959, the total cells
number is 256,000. Although the simulation would not be too accurate, since it is
using the largest mesh size under the recommended characteristic length scale, the
simulation time would be reduced a lot, and having better time effective usage.
Based on the (Santoni et al., 2015), the simulation of the spreading vegetation fire
testing would perform with an average 160kW heat release rate. Due to the pervious
testing, the room would reach the tenability limit under 100s, hence, the simulation
time for each situation would set to 100s. Under the fire condition, the simulation
would test out the time to the tenability limit of the room, which is the radiative heat
flux larger than 2.5kW/m2, CO concentration larger than 1000ppm, hot gas
temperature larger than 60℃, and the visibility of the room is lower than 10m. If one
of the tenability limits is reached, the environment would not be suitable for human to
evacuate.
31
Result
The Figure 1 and 2 have shown the configurations of living wall and green façade,
which both using the same vegetation wood, which is the pine wood, a very common
material. For the other situation, which is using plastic plant as VGS, the
configuration is as same as the normal living wall and green façade, the difference is
only the material changed. The simulation would sperate into 4 scenarios, which is
green façade, living wall, green façade with plastic plant and living wall with plastic
plant.
First scenario
For the first scenario, which is the situation of the green façade. For the temperature
tenability limit is the inhale hot gas temperature should not larger than 60℃, at the
beginning of the simulation, the surrounding temperature of the room is assumed as
25℃, after 60s, the surrounding temperature start to increase, the color of the
temperature is changing from dark blue into light blue, which is increasing from 25℃
to 40℃, after a couple seconds, when t=75s, the color of the temperature show as
green color, which means the surrounding temperature has reach the tenability limit,
which mean that people in the room could not evacuate to outside at this moment,
however, at this time, the room condition is still under a safe level, compare to
evacuation, people should stay at the room, until the fire has been extinguished or
having firefighter to save them.
For another tenability limit, which is the visibility of the room and surround view. At
the beginning of the simulation, the room and the surrounding environment are having
a great visibility, which is 30m visibility. When t=25s, the visibility at the top of the
32
door has started to decrease, but in the moment, the situation would be suitable for
evacuation. At t=65s, the 10m visibility layer has dropped into 2m height, which
means that a normal human would 10m visibility at this time, and people should not
be continued to evacuate, since the surrounding of the room has below the tenability
limit, and not suitable for evacuation. At the end of the simulation, the middle of the
room would still have a 30m visibility, however, the space which close to the walls
would not be having the great visibility level, hence the room would not be save after
a few seconds.
Next tenability limit would be the radiative heat flux should not be exceeded
2.5kW/m2. In this case, the radiative heat flux has not reaching the tenability limit in
all the time, which means that if it only looks at the radiative heat flux data, the
environment would be suitable to evacuate.
For the last tenability limit, which is the CO concentration should not exceed
1000ppm. Since the device is setting at the middle of the room, the smoke would get
inside the room at the end, which means the CO concentration would not exceed the
limit, when the time is over 100s, also, the concentration of the CO is far lower than
the limitation, hence, it would be safe for people to evacuate.
Second scenario
For the second scenario, which is the situation of the living wall. For the first
tenability limit, which is the inhale hot gas temperature should not exceed 60℃. At
the very beginning of the simulation, the surrounding temperature and the room
temperature are set to 25℃. After a few second, at t=40s, the room temperature has
start to change and increase, but the changing ratio of the temperature is in a
33
acceptable range, the inhale hot gas temperature is under 60℃, and it would be safe
for any evacuation movement. A couple seconds later, at t=47s, the temperature has
raised very quickly, almost all the space of the room would be having over 60℃ hot
gas temperature, and it would no longer be safe for any evacuate. At t=60s, the
surrounding environment has started to increase the temperature and at the end of the
simulation, the surrounding environment has fully covered by the over 60℃ hot gas
temperature, which is extremely danger for any action.
Next tenability limit would be having 10m visibility range. At the beginning, the
visibility in room and in surrounding environment would be fine and having 30m
visibility. When the fire occurred, at t=30s, the 10m visibility layer has dropped into
half of the room height, although the situation would still be suitable for evacuation,
due to the speed of decreasing visibility, the next second would not be safe anymore,
and people should move as quick as possible. At t=60s, the visibility of the room has
dropped into 0m, and it is not possible for any action, also at this moment, the
surrounding visibility has started to decrease. At the end of the simulation, the room
and the surrounding environment are having a visibility under 10m or even only
having 0m visibility, and this situation is extremely danger to allow people to survive
in this condition.
For another tenability limit, the radiative heat flux should be lower than 2.5kW/m2. In
this case, since the device is installed at the middle of the room, the radiative heat flux
would increse very fast, however, although the radiative heat flux has raised very fast,
at the end of the simulation, the radiative heat flux would not exceed the tenability
limit, which is suitable for evacuation in any time.
34
For the last tenability limit, which is the CO concentration should be lower than the
1000ppm, in this case, the CO concentration would not exceed the limitaion all the
time, and it would be safe for any evacuation movement.
Third scenario
For the third scenario, which is the situation of the green façade with the plastic plant.
The temperature tenability limit should be lower than 60℃, in this case, the beginning
temperature is also set to 25℃, after 45s, at t=45s, the color of the surrounding
environment has started to change, which means that the temperature has started to
rise, the temperature is raised from 25℃ to about 30℃. At t=80s, the room
temperature is also started to rise, and the surrounding environment has not reach the
saturation, the average temperature of the surrounding environment is about 60℃,
which has been raise over the tenability limit, and people should not continue the
evacuation. At the end of the simulation, the surrounding temperature has started to
reach the saturation, and the temperature is in about 120℃, which is unable for human
to survive, for the room condition, the room would have about average 47℃, which
under this condition, people should stay at the room or find another way to leave the
rom.
The next tenability limit of the case would be the visibility, the visibility should lower
than 10m. At the beginning of the simulation, the original visibility of the room and
surrounding environment would be the same, which is the maximum number 30m.
After 53s, the visibility lever of the door has been drop below the 10m tenability limit,
which mean at this time the evacuation way would not be suitable for people to
evacuate. At t=70, the 10m visibility region has further droped inside the room. At the
35
end of the simulation, only the middle of the room would have the environment that
has not reach the tenability limit, people should stay at the room rather than escape for
the evacuate.
For another tenability limit, the radiative heat flux should below 2.5kW/m2. In this
case, since the radiative heat flux measure device has set in the center of the room,
which means that the radiative heat flux in the room would not reach the tenability
limit, and being the safe condition in the room.
For the last tenability limit, which is the CO concentration should not exceed
1000ppm. In this case, the CO concentration would also not exceed the concentration
limit, which only having the maximum number of about 1.6ppm, which is far from the
limitation.
Fourth scenario
For the fourth scenario, which is the situation of the living wall with the plastic plant.
The first tenability limit is the hot gas temperature should be low 60℃. At the
beginning the temperature would also set to 25℃. At t=46s, the hot gas temperature
has started to rise in the room, and the room temperature is about 60℃ and which has
been already reach the tenability limit. When the time comes to 56s, the hot gas has
been breaching out the of the room and the room temperature has keep rising, for the
hot gas temperature at the door would be also about 60℃ and reach the tenability
limit, which means that the room and the door would not be available and suitable for
any evacuate. At the end of the simulation, the room temperature has raised into a
36
high level, which nobody could survive in this environment, the temperature is about
250℃, but the surrounding temperature would still have some space that have not
reach the tenability, however, for the safety problem, it would not be recommended to
stay around the building.
The next tenability limit of the situation would be the visibility limit. At the beginning
of the case, the visibility would be 30m. At t=30s, the smoke has been dropped into
the half of the room, which cause at 3m height, the visibility would be barely having
10m, but for a normal person, this condition would still be safe for the evacuation. At
t=41s, the smoke has started to breach out of the room, and cause the door would only
have the 10m visibility, and this moment, the evacuation would be started to be
dangerous due to the smoke has dropped into a average human height level, and a
normal person would not have a 10m visibility while standing still in the moment. At
the end of the simulation, the smoke has saturated in the room and the surrounding
environment, and people should not continue the evacuation any more.
this case, the radiative heat flux would not exceed the tenability limit, but it maintains
in a high level, and it would affect people physical ability for any evacuation
movement.
The last tenability limit of the case would be the CO concentration should lower than
1000ppm. In this case, the CO concentration would not reach the tenability limit, and
the low-level concentration would barely affect the physical ability and the movement
speed of people.
37
For further investigate the condition of the fire behavior in real life, and a model with
2/F and having 4 windows in 4 directions has made, as shown as the Figure.
First scenario with second floor
For the first scenario, the green façade with second floor. The first tenability limit
would be the hot gas temperature should below 60℃. At the beginning of the
simulation, the temperature would set to 25℃ which is a ambient temperature of room
condition in real life. At t=15s, the hot gas temperature has raised into the second
floor, and cause the window temperature start rising, the temperature is about 40℃.
At t=75s, the temperature of the room has been over 60℃, which exceed the tenability
limit, and it means that at the moment, the second floor would be firstly affect by the
hot gas, and cause the second floor exceed the tenability limit and also affect the
evacuation in second floor. At the end of the simulation, the second floor has fully
cover by the hot gas, the temperature would be about 90℃, and the surrounding
environment of the first floor would also cover by the hot gas temperature of 60℃,
which cause the evacuation of the first floor and the second floor should not be
continued.
For the next tenability limit, the visibility should not be lower than 10m. At the
beginning of the simulation, the visibility would be also 30m, which the smoke has
not affect the visibility yet. At t=14s, the smoke has started to rise into the second
floor, but the visibility would be over the tenability limit, people would still have a
safe condition to maintain the evacuate movement. At t=46s, the second floor would
covered by the smoke, and cause the second floor would exceed the tenability limit,
which the visibility of the second floor would lower than the 10m visibility, and it
38
would not be recommended to access the evacuate action. At the end of the
simulation, the smoke has started to reach the first floor, and the surrounding
environment would fully covered by the smoke, and the visibility of it would exceed
the tenability limit, and the surrounding environment would no longer suitable for
people to evacuate and survive.
For another tenability limit, which is the radiative heat flux should lower than
2.5kW/m2. In this case, the radiative heat flux of the second floor would not exceed
the tenability limit, but it would keep in a high level of radiative heat flux, and it
would cause human physical ability decrease and affect the action of evacuate.
The last tenability limit would be the CO concentration should not over 1000ppm,
which is 0.001mol/mol. In this case, the CO concentration would not exceed the
tenability limit, the low concentration of CO would also not affecting people to have
any action of evacuate.
Second scenario with second floor
For the second scenario, which is the living wall with the second floor. For the first
tenability limit, which is the inhale hot gas temperature should not exceed 60℃. At
the very beginning, the ambient temperature has set to 25℃ to maintain a normal
condition for a room. At t=40s, the temperature of hot gas in the first floor has started
to increase, but the condition would be under the tenability limit and it have not
affected the evacuate yet. At t=54s, the hot gas has started to breach out the first floor
and in the moment, the first floor has fully covered by the 60℃, which not suitable for
39
the evacuation, however, for the second floor, although the hot gas has raised into
second floor, the temperature of the hot gas in second floor would be under the
tenability limit, the second floor could be continued to maintain the evacuate action.
At the end of the simulation, the fist floor has covered by the highest temperature of
hot gas, and it would be unable for human to survive, and for the second floor, the 60
℃ hot gas temperature has been breach into the second floor, but the condition could
be still conduct evacuate action in second floor.
The next tenability limit of the case would be the visibility should be over 10m. At the
beginning of the simulation, the original visibility would be 30m visibility, due to the
smoke has not affect the visibility yet. At t=40s, the smoke has started to breach out
the first floor , and the visibility at the top of room would have lower than 10m or
even having 0m, however, for a normal human height, which still have over 10m
visibility, and the evacuate of the first floor could be still conducted. At t=54s, the
smoke has reached the second floor, but the moment the second floor would still have
many space that over 30m visibility, for the first floor, it has been fully covered by the
smoke, and it would be impossible for any evacuate action in the first floor. At the
end of the simulation, the second floor would fully cover by the smoke, although it
has not saturated yet, most of the space in second floor would have lower than 10m
visibility, and it would barely chance to continue the evacuation, in this situation, the
condition would be dangerous to have the evacuate, due to the second floor would be
covered the saturated smoke on few seconds later, and there would exceed the
tenability limit, and cause the condition could not conduct evacuation any more.
For another tenability limit, which is the radiative heat flux should lower than
2.5kW/m2. In this case, the radiative heat flux would not exceed the tenability limit,
40
due to the heat energy would mostly focus on the first floor, and it causes the second
floor would not have absorb enough heat to reach the radiative heat flux limit, it
would be a good sign that people could conduct the evacuate in the simulation time.
For the last tenability limit, the CO concentration should not exceed 1000ppm or
0.001mol/mol. In this case, the CO concentration would not exceed the tenability limit
in the simulation time, it has to take a long time to reach the tenability limit, and the
time would much larger than the ASET and it would not affect the evacuation.
Third scenario with second floor
For the third scenario, which is the green façade using plastic plant with second floor.
The first tenability limit is the hot gas temperature should not exceed 60℃. At the
beginning of the simulation, the ambient temperature is 25℃ to consist a normal
condition for a room. At t=25s, the hot gas temperature of the window would rise into
to the second floor, and the temperature of it is about 50℃ and it has not reach the
tenability limit yet, which people could still conduct the evacuate in the moment. At
t=78s, the temperature of hot gas in the second floor would be over 60℃, which
exceed the tenability limit of the hot gas temperature, and under this condition, the
evacuate action would not be available any more. At the end of the simulation, the hot
gas temperature of the second floor has been saturated, which reach about 90℃, and
for the first floor condition, the room temperature has been increasing and reach 40℃
in the moment, and the surrounding environment would have about 50℃ hot gas
41
temperature covered, and it would be recommended to conduct the evacuate action in
the first floor.
The next tenability limit would be the visibility should not below 10m. At the
beginning of the simulation, the whole area would have 30m visibility. At t=12s, the
smoke has started to breach into the second floor, in the moment, the window of the
second floor would allow the smoke to inside the second floor room, the visibility in
the window is about 10m visibility, which means that the evacuation should not
conduct in the left window of the second floor. At t=48s, the second floor would be
covered by the smoke, and cause the visibility of the room in second floor would be
lower than 10m, which mean the moment, the second floor should not be continued
the evacuation any more, due to the condition has already reach the tenability limit,
and in the moment, the second floor should be finished the evacuation, otherwise it
would cause the fatalities. At the end of the simulation, the second floor would cover
by the smoke with 0m visibility, and for the first floor, the smoke has started to get
inside the room, but the surrounding environment of the first floor would be covered
by the smoke with 10m visibility in 2m height, which mean there could still continue
the evacuate action.
For another tenability limit, it would be the radiative heat flux should lower than
2.5kW/m2. In this case, the radiative heat flux of the second floor room would not
exceed the tenability limit, and it would have 1kW/m2 maximum radiative heat flux,
under this condition, people could conduct the evacuate action under the simulation
time limit.
42
For the last tenability limit, the CO concentration should not over 1000ppm or
0.001mol/mol. In this case the CO concentration would also no exceed the tenability
limit, which the CO concentration maintain in a low level and would not affect the
people to conduct any evacuation action.
Fourth scenario with second floor
For the fourth scenario, which is the living wall using plastic plant with second floor.
For the first tenability limit, the hot gas temperature should not over 60℃, otherwise
it would be unavailable for the evacuation. At the beginning of the simulation, the
ambient temperature has set into 25℃, which used to maintain the room is under the
ambient environment. At t=40s, the temperature of the room in first floor has started
to increase, from 25℃ increase to 45℃, but still the environment condition would be
available for the evacuation. At t=65s, the hot gas temperature has started to reach the
second floor, but the temperature has not reach the tenability limit, for the first floor,
the room has fully covered by the hot gas, which the room temperature maintain in
about 150℃, and it should not be continued the evacuate action. At the end of the
simulation, the second floor would have the 60℃ hot gas temperature inside the room,
however, most of the space in second floor room would be still under the tenability
limit and which the evacuation could be still conducted.
The next tenability limit would be the visibility should larger than 10m. At the
beginning of the simulation, the whole area would have 30m visibility which due to
the fire have not occurred and the ambient condition. At t=36s, the smoke would
cover top space of the room of first floor and cause the door of the room has reach the
43
tenability limit, and it would have danger to conduct the evacuate in the first floor. At
t=52s, the smoke would trend to breach in the second floor room, and the window of
the second floor would be having lower than 10m visibility, but the other space would
still have much time for the evacuate, due to the space has not covered by the smoke
yet. At the end of the simulation, the first floor, would fully covered by the smoke,
and having lower than 10m visibility at most of the region in first floor, and the most
of the surrounding area of the first floor would also covered by the smoke and cause
the visibility would be decreased into lower than 10m visibility or even have 0m
visibility, for the second floor, the room would also covered by the smoke, and most
of the space would not have the 10m visibility, which means the condition would not
be suitable for any evacuate action, due to condition has reached the tenability limit.
this case, the radiative heat flux would not exceed the tenability limit, which the
situation of the room should be able for people to conduct the evacuate, also the
radiative heat flux is low, it would not affect the human activity and the movement of
people.
For the last tenability limit, which is the CO concentration should lower than
1000ppm and 0.001mol/mol. In this case, the CO concentration would not reach the
tenability limit all the time, which means that people could conduct the evacuation in
any time of the simulation, plus, the low level of CO concentration would not affect
the people activity and movement speed. It would be suitable for any evacuation.
44
Conclusion
In this study the result shows that the different VGS and materials would have
different fire risk.
For the green façade, after the fire occurred, it would first affect the second floor, and
cause the second floor would exceed the tenability limit and reduce the evacuation
time for the second floor, however, for the first floor, it would be affected when the
space has been covered by the smoke, in the simulation, the first floor would be the
latest place to be covered by the smoke. Hence, it would be recommended to leave the
room and get into lower floor as fast as possible, because of the fire would affect the
higher floor first.
For the living wall, the fire would be occurred inside the room, and the room would
be affected by the fire first, and cause the room to exceed the tenability limit and
affect the evacuation, for the second floor, the room would be affected after the smoke
and gas breach out the first floor room, and the time would be fast. When living wall
has occurred a fire, people should escape the room as fast as possible, due to the
smoke and hot gas would cover the surrounding area of the first floor, unlike the
green façade, it would first cover the first floor surrounding area, then breach in the
second floor, after the smoke breach in the second floor, people would be difficult to
escape to first floor, if people in second floor could not escape before the smoke and
hot gas breach into second floor, people should find another exit or go to the refuge
floor until the fire has been extinguish.
Besides that, the burning material would have slightly difference, but overall, the
material would not affect much including temperature, visibility, radiative heat flux
45
and CO concentration, however, considering in real life the material different could be
huge difference, due to the simulation would only shows the CO concentration, in real
life, plastic would produce some toxic gas and affecting people for the evacuation.
Overall, the simulation could only show a part of the situation in real life and it has
limitation. The FDS could not use all the plants as fuel, which cause the simulation
would not be accurate, however, the wildland fire dynamics simulator (WFDS) which
is an extension of the FDS, contain plenty data of the plants, which could be more
accurate in the simulation, due to the nearest version of the WFDS could not be
downloaded from the internet, the WFDS could not obtain in this study. To generate a
better and accurate result a large-scale firing model are would be a better way to
investigate the fire risk.
46
Reference
1. Jurdao, S., Chuvieco, E. & Arevalillo, J.M. (2012), “Modelling Fire Ignition
Probability from Satellite Estimates of Live Fuel Moisture Content”, fire ecol 8,
77–97.
2. Hietaniemi, J. & Mikkola, E. (2010), “Design Fires for Fire Safety Engineering”,
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
3. Chu L.M. (2014), “Vertical Greening Opportunities and Challenges”, School of
Life Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
4. Susorova I. (2015), “Green facades and living walls: vertical vegetation as a
construction material to reduce building cooling loads”, Design, Properties and
Applications, Pages 127-153
5. Papadopoulou G.I. (2013), “Green Walls as element of bioclimatic design in
Mediterranean Urban Buildings”,School of Science & Technology, International
Hellenic University
6. NASA (2019), “What is an urban heat island?”,
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/heat-islands/, Accessed 15 October 2019
7. HAJPÁL M. (2012), “Analysis of a tragic fire case in panel building of
Miskolc”, Fire Protection Division, Non-profit Ltd. for Quality Control and
Innovation in Building
8. Knez N. (2014), “Reaction to fire of Green Facades and Roofs”, Slovenian
National Building and Civil Engineering Insitute
9. Countryman C.M. (1974), “Moisture in Living Fuels Affects Fire Behavior”,
Fire management, Spring 1974
10. Weise D.R., White R.H., Beall F.C. and Etlinger M. (2005), “Use of the cone
calorimeter to detect seasonal differences in selected combustion characteristics
of ornamental vegetation”, International Journal of Wildland Fire 14(3): 321–
338.
11. Chakrabarty A., Mannan S. and Cagin T. (2016), “Finite Element Analysis in
Process Safety Applications”, Multiscale Modeling for Process Safety
Applications 2016, Pages 275-288
12. Drainage Services Department (2019), “Study of Vertical Greening
Application”, https://www.dsd.gov.hk/EN/HTML/427.html, Accessed 20
Sebtember 2019
13. Dahanayake K.C. and Chow C.L, (2018), “Moisture Content, Ignitability, and
Fire Risk of Vegetation in Vertical Greenery Systems”, Fire Ecology volume 14,
pages125–142
14. Abera T.A., Heiskanen J., Pellikka P. and Maeda E.E. (2018), “Rainfall–
vegetation interaction regulates temperature anomalies during extreme dry events
in the Horn of Africa”, Global and Planetary Change Volume 167, Pages 35-45
47
15. Viegas D.X., Viegas T.P. and Ferreira A.D. (1992), “Moisture Content of Fine
Forest Fuels and Fire Occurrence in Central Portugal”,International Journal of
Wildland Fire 2(2) 69 - 86
48

Table of Content

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

Table of Content

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of content

List of Figure ................................................................................ 2

Figure1: Green façade model Figure2: Living wall model

Figure3a: Scenario1 Temperature at Figure3b: Scenario1 Temperature at z=2,

z=2, t=0 t=50

z=2, t=75 t=100

Figure4a: Scenario1 Visibility at Figure4b: Scenario1 Visibility at y=2.5,

y=2.5, t=0 t=25

Figure4c: Scenario1 Visibility at Figure4d: Scenario1 Visibility at y=2.5,

y=2.5, t=65 t=100

Figure4e: Scenario1 Visibility at Figure4f: Scenario1 Visibility at x=2.5,

x=2.5, t=0 t=25

x=2.5, t=65 t=100

Radiative Heat Flux

Figure5: Scenario1 Radiative heat flux vs time

Figure7a: Scenario2 Temperature at Figure7b: Scenario2 Temperature at z=2,

z=2, t=0 t=40

Figure7c: Scenario2 Temperature at Figure7d: Scenario2 Temperature at z=2,

z=2, t=60 t=100

y=2.5, t=0 t=30

Figure8c: Scenario2 Visibility at Figure8d: Scenario2 Visibility at y=2.5,

y=2.5, t=60 t=100

Figure8e: Scenario2 Visibility at Figure8f: Scenario2 Visibility at x=2.5,

x=2.5, t=0 t=30

Figure9: Scenario1 Radiative heat flux vs time

Figure11a: Scenario3 Temperature at Figure11b: Scenario3 Temperature at z=2,

z=2, t=0 t=45

Figure11c: Scenario3 Temperature at Figure11d: Scenario3 Temperature at z=2,

z=2, t=80 t=100

Figure12a: Scenario3 Visibility at Figure12b: Scenario3 Visibility at y=2.5,

y=2.5, t=0 t=53

y=2.5, t=70 t=100

Figure12e: Scenario3 Visibility at Figure12f: Scenario3 Visibility at x=2.5,

x=2.5, t=0 t=53

Figure12g: Scenario3 Visibility at Figure12h: Scenario3 Visibility at x=2.5,

x=2.5, t=70 t=100

Figure14: Scenario3 CO concentration vs time

z=2, t=0 t=46

Figure15c: Scenario4 Temperature at Figure15d: Scenario4 Temperature at z=2,

z=2, t=55 t=100

Figure16a: Scenario4 Visibility at Figure16b: Scenario4 Visibility at y=2.5

y=2.5 t=0 t=30

Figure16c: Scenario4 Visibility at Figure16d: Scenario4 Visibility at y=2.5

y=2.5 t=40 t=100

x=2.5 t=0 t=30

Figure16g: Scenario4 Visibility at Figure16h: Scenario4 Visibility at x=2.5

x=2.5 t=40 t=100

Radiative Heat Flux

Figure17: Scenario4 Radiative heat flux vs time

Figure18: Scenario4 CO concentration vs time

z=2, t=0 t=15

Figure21a: Scenario1 Temperature at Figure21d: Scenario1 Temperature at z=2,

z=2, t=75 t=100

Figure22b: Scenario1 Visibility at y=2.5

y=2.5 t=45 t=100

Figure22d: Scenario1 Visibility at Figure22e: Scenario1 Visibility at x=2.5

x=2.5 t=0 t=15

Figure22f: Scenario1 Visibility at Figure22g: Scenario1 Visibility at y=2.5

x=2.5 t=45 t=100

Figure24: Scenario1 CO concentration vs time

z=2, t=0 t=0

Figure25c: Scenario2 Temperature at Figure25d: Scenario2 Temperature at z=2

Figure26a: Scenario2 Visibility