BUILD SIMUL

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-020-0692-4

Study on the optimal operation mode of ventilation system during

metro double-island platform fire

Research Article
Zeng Long1,2, Yuxuan Yang1, Chang Liu1, Maohua Zhong1 ()

1. Institute of Public Safety Research, Department of Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
2. Beijing Key Laboratory of City Integrated Emergency Response Science, Beijing 100084, China

Abstract Keywords
Large metro transfer stations have been widely constructed in China, among which the double-island metro,
station faces the serious fire safety issues owing to its large passenger flow. In this paper, simulation double-island platform,
cases were carried out to investigate the effectiveness of different ventilation modes by jointly fire,
operating tunnel ventilation fan (TVF) and platform screen doors (PSD) under two typical fire ventilation mode,
scenarios in the platform. The numerical model was established by Fire Dynamics Simulator numerical simulation,
software and verified via reduced-scale model experiments. The results indicate that the TVF model experiment

mode of supplying at the end near fire and exhausting at the other end is superior to that of
exhausting at both ends. Besides, activating more PSD and TVF on the both sides of platform will
Article History
Received: 10 March 2020
restrict smoke in one end to the greater extent. During a fire in the middle of the platform, opening
Revised: 09 July 2020
all PSD near tunnel-2 and TVF in tunnel-2 and tunnel-3 is the most appropriate mode. While
Accepted: 16 July 2020
during a fire at the left end of the platform, activating all PSD and TVF on both sides is the optimal
operation mode. The conclusions can provide guidance for smoke control design and on-site
© Tsinghua University Press and
emergency ventilation operation in double-island platform fire.
Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany,
part of Springer Nature 2020

1 Introduction not only suffocates people owing to its poisonous gas

Recently urban rail traffic has been developed in China, and
quantities of metro lines and stations have been constructed
to meet the requirements of passengers, with the quick
increase of the passenger flow volume per day especially in
composition with a high concentration, but also hampers
evacuees from seeking escape routes by reducing visibility
dramatically, consequently seriously threatening pedestrians
life safety.
In order to protect passengers from fire damage,

the metropolis. In 2019, the average daily passenger flow of
15 cities exceeded 1 million, of which the volume was over
10 million in Beijing and Shanghai metro network (China
Urban Rail Transit Association 2020). There may be various
factors that cause fire problems in the subway station, such
as cable fire, baggage fire, intentional arson and so on. The
fire safety is worth paying high attention due to the occurrence
of accidents in King’s Cross Station, Baku Azerbaijan and
Daegu, with the death of 32, 289 and 192, respectively (Roh
et al. 2009; Tsukahara et al. 2011; Gao et al. 2012b). Generally,
most casualties are from hazardous smoke instead of burning
flame in fire accidents. In a relatively restricted space like
an underground subway station, the fire-induced smoke
Indoor/Outdoor Airflow
ventilation system need to be installed to eliminate the
and Air Quality
fire-induced smoke and adjust the ambient temperature.
However, only utilizing the proper ventilation mode can
control smoke effectively. About the tunnel fire ventilation,
Ingason et al. (2015) introduced systematically the typical
ventilation systems, including longitudinal ventilation, single
point extraction and two point extraction. Besides, the critical
velocity and back-layering length were discussed. The results
could provide solid background information for tunnel fire
ventilation research and application. In addition, various
ventilation modes were proposed under metro station
fire scenarios. Cheng et al. (2001) studied the emergency
ventilation pattern in case of fire in underground facilities,

E-mail: mhzhong@tsinghua.edu.cn
2 Long et al. / Building Simulation
and the results showed that the push-pull ventilation system
had better smoke control effect. In Chen et al.’s work (2003),
it was concluded through numerical simulation that stack
effect had a significant influence on smoke control in subway
stations. Rie et al. (2006) compared the effects of three
ventilation modes in case of metro station fire, and obtained
the best smoke restriction strategy. Park et al. (2006)
carried out a numerical prediction to assess the influence of
subway fire, and measured the wind speed at several points
on the platform. They found out that the larger smoke
exhaust capacity would improve the ability to prevent smoke
movement, obtaining the optimal mode of emergency
response. Zhong (2007) conducted numerical simulation to
study smoke extraction strategies in a metro station with
side platform. The results demonstrated that only turning
exhaust mode in smoke-proof zone where the fire source
was located and increasing the volume flux of single vent
could restrict smoke effectively. In Kang’s research (2007),
a smoke visibility prediction model was used to investigate
smoke confinement in an underground station. Wu and You
(2009) proposed a method with using age of air to evaluate
the effectiveness of ventilation measurement, which could
be conducive to obtain reasonable smoke restrict strategies.
Gao et al. (2012a) investigated the hybrid ventilation mode
of controlling smoke in a large transit metro station; by
setting various ventilation modes, it was concluded that
changing the ventilation rate had little effect on the smoke
layer height, but it could significantly control the fire-
induced smoke in the horizontal direction. Subsequently,
Luo et al. (2014a) carried out 1:50 scale model experiments
and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations to
further research the performance of hybrid ventilation under
different fire scenarios. Zhou et al. (2018) comparatively
analyzed three ventilation modes when a fire happened
separately in the lobby, transfer floor and platform of a large
four-line transfer station. Zhang (2014) carried out numerical
simulation to verify the effectiveness of coordinated smoke
extraction mode during fire occurring in a double-island
platform. It was observed that insufficient exhaust volume
in the platform would hinder personnel evacuation. The
hybrid ventilation modes in above research results didn’t
include the tunnel ventilation fan system (TVF) yet, while
other scholars studied the effect of combining ventilation
system in station and tunnel. Zhao et al. (2016) conducted
a study on the optimal TVF operation mode in a T-type
transfer station, and it was revealed that TVF on the left and
right end should be in supply and exhaust mode respectively.
Hu et al. (2014) investigated the optimal cooperative
ventilation mode during a train fire in metro station. It was
suggested that opening the exhaust systems both in the
tunnel and platform could control smoke better. In Meng
et al’s work (2014), when a train with fire stopped beside
the platform, the best ventilation mode was found to activate
the supply system in hall, the exhaust system in platform,
the over track exhaust system (OTE) and TVF system.
For purpose of passengers’ safety and platforms’
comfortable environment, platform screen doors (PSD)
generally are installed in new-built stations. As a result, the
influence of PSD on ventilation effect has been focused
gradually. Roh et al. (2010) investigated the influence of PSD
on smoke spread and available safe egress time (ASET), and
the results showed that pedestrians owned more available
time in the platform with PSD in comparison with the
condition of no PSD installed. Li et al. (2009) revealed that
the smoke control effect of full-sealed PSD was better than
that of half-height PSD based on the temperature and
visibility profiles. Therefore, full-sealed PSD were installed
abroad in the underground station due to these advantages.
In the study of smoke control, there were still several
controversies about whether to open and how to open the
screen doors or end doors on the platform. Ding et al. (2016)
investigated 4 switching modes of end doors, finding that
opening end doors would accelerate the vertical decent of
smoke. Therefore, it was not recommended to open end
doors in case of platform fire. Li et al. (2016) designed
4 kinds of switch modes of PSD and compared the exhaust
effect. It was observed that opening front, middle and rear
PSD on two sides performed best in the developing stage of
fire, and it’s better to open all PSD on one side in the stable
stage. Wang et al. (2018) designed 24 cases of operating PSD,
obtaining the optimum modes of smoke confinement under
three fire source locations. Besides, the results showed that
it was not appropriate to activate the bottom smoke exhaust
system and open the end door when screen door was opened.
In Li and Zhu’s study (2018), opening the PSD on both sides
could enhance the efficiency of smoke elimination during a
fire in the middle of platform.
The above research involved confinement and elimination
of the fire-induced smoke in many scenarios, where the
platform structures were mostly traditional island type
or side type. Additionally, majority of them just studied
separately the effects of different TVF or PSD operations,
and few combined the two systems to investigate the optimal
ventilation mode. When a fire occurred in a double-island
platform, smoke diffusion pattern and joint ventilation system
effect would be different. In this study, numerical simulations
were carried out during a fire occurring in the center or the
left end of platform under various TVF operation modes
and PSD switching modes. After the numerical model was
verified by reduced-scale fire experiments, the optimal smoke
control modes were obtained for different fire scenarios by
comparing temperature and visibility profiles. The work
could technically support the design of fire emergency plan
in an underground subway double-island platform.
Long et al. / Building Simulation
2 Numerical simulation
2.1 Introduction to FDS software
Taking into account the huge risk and high cost, the full-scale
fire experiment is not widely used to study fire safety issues.
On the contrary, numerical simulation is a more flexible
and operable way to set up various fire scenarios and
examine safety parameters with the characteristics of safe
environment and low cost. In this paper, Fire Dynamics
Simulator version 6.3.2 (FDS) was adopted to build up a
double-island station model and analyze the performance
of different ventilation modes. As a kind of computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) tool, the software was developed by
National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST). Through
the verification of previous examples (McGrattan et al. 2016),
the large eddy simulation (LES) model was proven to calculate
well the smoke behaviors. As a result, the method has
been extensively employed in fire research (Roh et al. 2009;
Luo et al. 2014b; Yuan et al. 2015), including our work in
this paper. In the FDS model, the governing equations are
as following:
The continuity equation:
¶ρ
+  ⋅ ρu = 0 (1)
¶t
The momentum equation:
¶u
ρ( + (  ⋅ u )u)+ p = ρg + f + ⋅ τ (2)
¶t
The energy equation:
¶ Dp
( ρh ) +  ⋅ ρhu = -  ⋅ qr +  ⋅ kT + å ⋅ hl ρDl Yl
¶t Dt l
(3)
where ρ designates the air density, t and u are the time and
velocity, respectively. p is the pressure, f is the external force,
and τ stands viscous force. h is the specific enthalpy, qr is
the radiative heat flux, k is the heat conductivity coefficient,
Dl and Yl are the diffusion coefficient and mass fraction of
the element l respectively.
The transient fluid motion can be decomposed into
large-scale motion and sub-scale motion. The large-scale
motion is directly solved, and the sub-scale motion should be
solved by the Smagorinsky sub-grid model (McGrattan et al.
2016). According to the analysis, the viscosity is modeled as:
2 2 1/2
μLES = ρ ( Cs Δ ) (2Sij ⋅ Sij - (  ⋅ u ) )
2
(4)
3
where Cs is the Smagorinsky constant, and Δ is the
characteristic length of a grid cell. The thermal conductivity
and material diffusivity are related to the turbulent viscosity,
3
which can be defined as:
μLESCp
kLES = (5)
Pr
μLES
( ρD )l ,LES = (6)
Sc
The Prandtl number and the Schmidt number are
assumed to be constant. In the FDS model, the values of Cs,
Sc, Pr are acquiescently set to be 0.2, 0.5, 0.5 respectively.
The mixture-fraction combustion model is adopted,
and the mixed fraction is defined as:
sYF - ( Yo - Yo¥ )
Z= (7)
sYFI + Yo¥
vo M o
s= (8)
vF MF
where YF, Yo are the mass fraction of combustion substance
and oxygen, respectively; vF, vo are the reaction coefficient of
combustion substance and oxygen, respectively; and Mo and
MF are the relative molecular mass of oxygen and combustion
substance, respectively. The superscript I represents the mass
fraction at fuel source, and ¥ represents the oxygen mass
fraction in the initial ambient.
The radiation transfer equation of non-scattering grey
gas is solved by the finite volume method.
s ⋅ I λ ( x , s ) = κ ( x , λ )[ I b ( x ) - I λ ( x , s ) ] (9)
where Iλ(x, s) is the radiation intensity at wavelength λ,
κ(x, λ) is the absorption coefficient, and Ib(x) is the source
term of Planck function.
2.2 Physical model
The physical model in the research is an underground
double-island subway station, with a self-symmetric structure
for the whole platform floor. As shown in Figure 1(a), there
is a public station hall on the first floor, with the dimensions
of 120 m (L) × 44 m (W) × 6 m (H), and a double-island
platform on the second floor, each island platform with the
dimensions of 120 m (L) × 14 m (W) × 5 m (H). Two stairs
connecting the platform and hall lie on each island platform,
which are surrounded by ceiling screen with 1.5 m height.
Four tunnels are located on both sides of the two platforms,
each tunnel with the dimensions of 4 m (W) × 5 m (H), and
the middle two tunnels are separated partly by vertical wall.
Two rows of full-sealed platform screen doors (PSD) are
installed on the edge of each platform. Four exits are situated
in the four corners of station hall, each with the dimensions
of 5 m (W) × 6 m (H).
Figure 1(b) gives the top view of the platform and tunnel.
In each platform, two ventilation ducts are arranged
4 Long et al. / Building Simulation

(a) Schematic diagram of numerical model

(b) Top view of platform and tunnel

(c) Side view of PSD #1 on the platform-A

(d) Side view of PSD #2 on the platform-A

Fig. 1 Different view of the FDS model

longitudinally along the platform. For each tunnel, the over
track exhaust system (OTE) with a series of smoke vents is
located beneath the ceiling, and the tunnel ventilation fan
system (TVF) is situated near the both ends of platform.
Besides, two fire sources are located at the center and the
left end of platform-A. Figures 1 (c) and (d) show the labelled
numbers of PSD in sequence and the Under Platform
Exhaust system (UPE) with a range of ventilation openings
on the platform-A.
2.3 Fires scenario
Since the structure of the two platforms is exactly the same,
one of them can be taken as an example under the condition
of single fire source. The fire in the middle of platform has
a wide range of influence after smoke diffusing over a wide
area. And when a fire happens in the end of platform, the
temperature near fire source will be higher, and the nearby
stair cannot be used as the evacuation paths to station hall.
The two typical fire locations are more harmful and
representative (Yang and Cao 2006).
The platform fire load includes moving load and fixed
load, and the former is mainly the luggage fire. It is generally
recommended to take 2 MW – 2.5 MW (Huang 2016), and
Li (2015) suggested taking 3 MW as the maximum fire
source power of the moving load. As for the fixed load,
Long et al. / Building Simulation 5

Chen and Zhang (2007) carried out the subway commodity
physical fire experiment, and the maximum load obtained
was 2.58 MW. In the study, the maximum heat release rate
(HRR) was taken as 3 MW for the consideration of more
dangerous fire scenario in the double-island platform.
T-square fire is currently widely used to describe the fire
developing process. As shown in Eq. (10), it can be divided
into four types according to the developing rate, including
slow, medium, fast and extremely fast. The platform fire is
generally caused by the ignition of passenger luggage or some
paper products, so it can be considered as a rapid growth
fire, and the value of α is 0.04689 (Li et al. 2012).
Q = αt 2
The fuel used in the FDS model is Polyurethane composed
of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen. The CO Yield
(Yco) and Soot Yield (Ys) are adopted as 0.024 and 0.113
respectively.
2.4 Mesh refinement and boundary conditions
During using LES model for numerical calculations, mesh
distribution in the calculation region is a critical factor for
the accuracy of simulation results. On the one hand, in order
to accurately describe the variation of physical quantities,
the grid size is required to be small enough, because sparse
grid may result in unreasonable calculation results; on the
other hand, it is necessary to take into account computer
resources, and dense grid may bring about a long calculation
time. In the FDS User Guide, the characteristic diameter
D* was expressed as shown in Eq. (11), where the value
of D*/δx was better in the range of 4–16 (McGrattan and
Forney 2008).
Q
D* = ( )2 / 5 (11)
ρ¥CpT¥ g
In the previous research, different grid sizes were used
under different fire HRRs based on the D*/δx criterion. As
shown in Table 1, the grid size near the fire source was
approximately 0.1D*. In current study, the HRR of fire
source was 3MW. According to Eq. (11), the value of D*
was 1.45 m, and the grid size near fire source should be
0.09–0.36 m. As for the mesh size in other region away
from the fire source location, it was suggested to take twice
(10) of the mesh size near fire (Liu et al. 2019). To determine the
most appropriate mesh size, we gradually had encrypted
from the coarse mesh until the calculation results were little
different. The comparison of five kinds of mesh sizes was
shown in Table 2, and their effects on temperature at 1.8 m
height were presented in Figure 2. It could be found that
the temperature decreased with the mesh size refining from
0.5 m to 0.2 m and the CPU time was in acceptance thresholds.
Nevertheless, the noticeable increase in calculation time
did not further lower the prediction value with the mesh
size reducing from 0.2 m to 0.125 m. Accordingly, it was
advisable that the grid size near fire source and in other
places were set as 0.2 m and 0.4 m respectively.
For the material descriptions and parameters setting in
the FDS model, the floor and tunnel surfaces were set as
“CONCRETE”, of which the specific heat and conductivity
were 1.04 kJ/(kg·K) and 1.8 W/(m·K). The vents of platform,
lobby and OTE system were set as “Exhaust”, “Supply” and
“Exhaust” respectively. The exhaust volume of ventilation
fan system was specified as 44 m3/s in each platform and

Table 1 Related study on grid size in metro stations

Grid size (m)
References HRR(MW) D*(m) Near fire source In other places
Zhong et al. (2010) 1.5 1.10 0.1×0.1×0.1 0.2×0.2×0.2
Li (2015) 2 1.26 0.12×0.12×0.1 0.5×0.5×0.3
Zhao et al. (2016) 2 1.26 0.2×0.2×0.2 0.2×0.2×0.2
Wang et al. (2018) 2.5 1.35 0.167×0.167×0.167 0.333×0.333×0.333

Table 2 Results of grid dependence analysis

Grid size (m)
Near fire source In other place Total number of cells CPU time(h)
Test 1 0.5×0.5×0.5 1.0×1.0×1.0 32,900 0.19
Test 2 0.25×0.25×0.25 0.5×0.5×0.5 263,200 3.10
Test 3 0.2×0.2×0.2 0.4×0.4×0.4 598,500 11.30
Test 4 0.15×0.15×0.15 0.3×0.3×0.3 1520,000 30.83
Test 5 0.125×0.125×0.125 0.25×0.25×0.25 2105,600 45.25
6 Long et al. / Building Simulation
Fig. 2 Temperature at 1.8 m height with different mesh sizes
33 m3/s in every OTE system. Besides, the supply volume in
station hall was set as 88 m3/s, and air volume in each TVF
was 60 m3/s. The four exits in the station hall and both ends
of each tunnel were set as “OPEN” boundary. Besides, the
initial ambient temperature and pressure were 293 K and
101 kPa. The simulation time was set as 360 s due to the
evacuation requirement in metro fire accident (NFPA 2014).
2.5 TVF operation mode and simulation cases
In the case of platform fire, it’s better to open exhaust
system in the platform and supply system in the station hall,
meanwhile jointing tunnel ventilation system to control
smoke throughout PSD. It has been reported that UPE could
just slightly effect the process of smoke exhaust (Zhong et
al. 2012), so only the OTE was required to be opened. For
the platform-A fire, the tunnel structures at both sides are
asymmetric, hence presenting a different airflow distribution.
When opening the PSD near tunnel-1, TVF1 and TVF2
need to be operated. In addition, the TVF in tunnel-2 and
tunnel-3 need co-work during opening the PSD near tunnel-2.
As shown in Table 3, there were 9 operation modes for the
TVF to restrict fire-induced smoke. Moreover, the number
Table 3 Operation modes of TVF
No. Modes TVF1
1 Exhaust
2 Exhaust at both ends — —
3 Exhaust
4 Exhaust
Exhaust at the left end;
5 —
Supply at the right end
6 Exhaust
7 Supply
Supply at the left end;
8 —
Exhaust at the right end
9 Supply
and position of opening PSD had an influence on the control
effect. Above all, 18 simulation cases were carried out and
presented in Table 4, where exhaust system in the platform,
supply system in the lobby and OTE system were activated
by default.
2.6 Validation of FDS model
Several reduced-scale model experiments were conducted
to verify the effectiveness and feasibility of the PDS model
built up before. The reduced-scale model kept 1:10 ratio
relative to the actual station, whose structure was similar to
that of the numerical model displayed in Figure 1. According
to the Froude similarity criterion (Shi et al. 2009) shown in
Table 5, parameters in the reduced-scale model experiments
could be converted into those in the full-scale fire scenarios.
The model included a public station hall with the dimensions
of 12 m (L) × 4.4 m (W) × 0.6 m (H), two island platforms
and four tunnels. Each platform was 12 m long, 1.4 m wide
and 0.5 m high, and each tunnel was 12 m long, 0.4 m wide
and 0.5 m high. The floors of the 1:10 scale model were
made of steel with 2 mm thickness, and the PSD and one
end wall were made of tempered glass for convenience to
observe. Under the condition of natural ventilation and
closing all PSD, a 10 cm × 10 cm methanol pool fire was set
in the center and the left end of platform separately, which
was shown in Table 6. The fire scenario in the 1:10 scale
model was displayed in Figure 3. During the experiment,
mass loss rate of methanol was measured by electronic
balance. And then the heat release rate per second could
be calculated by Eq. (12), which would be imported to the
PDS model.
Q =  ´ m ´ ΔH (12)
where Q is the heat release rate of fire source, m is the mass
loss rate (g/s), H is the heat of combustion and adopted
as 22.7 kJ/g (Lide 2001).  is the combustion efficiency,
and its value can be taken as 1 owing to methanol burning
completely.
TVF2 TVF3&TVF5 TVF4&TVF6
Exhaust — —
Exhaust Exhaust
Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust
Supply — —
— Exhaust Supply
Supply Exhaust Supply
Exhaust — —
— Supply Exhaust
Exhaust Supply Exhaust
Long et al. / Building Simulation 7

Table 4 FDS simulation cases

Cases Fire source TVF Modes PSD #1 PSD #2 End doors
1 1 1 Open 1–24 — —
2 1 1 Open 10–15 — —
3 1 2 — Open 34–39 —
4 1 3 Open 10–15 Open 34–39 —
5 1 3 — — Open 1–4
6 1 4 Open 10–15 — —
7 1 4 Open 1–24 — —
8 1 5 — Open 25–48 —
9 1 6 Open 1–24 Open 25–48 —
10 1 6 — — Open 1–4
11 2 1 Open 1–6 — —
12 2 1 Open 1–3,20–22 — —
13 2 2 — — Open 1,3
14 2 3 — — Open 1–4
15 2 4 Open 1–24 — —
16 2 7 Open 1–24 — —
17 2 8 — Open 25–48 —
18 2 9 Open 1–24 Open 25–48 —

Table 5 Froude similarity criterion (Shi et al. 2009)

Geometry Temperature Time Fire power Velocity Flow

xm = 10xf Tm = Tf t m = 10t f Qm = 10 Qf5/2

Vm = 10Vf qm = 105/2qf
Note: x, T, t, Q, V, q are the geometry, temperature, time, fire power, velocity, flow, respectively. The subscripts m and f represent the parameters of the full-scale station and reduced-scale
model, respectively.

Table 6 Experiments tests in the 1:10 scale model

Test Fire source Pool size Heat release rate Equivalent full-scale heat Ambient
number location (cm×cm) (kW) release rate (MW) temperature (°C)
1 Fire in the left end 22
10×10 4.54 1.44
2 Fire in the center 23

The average heat release rate was estimated and comparison between the experimental and numerical results
transformed as 1.44 MW, and the mesh size in simulation was illustrated in Figure 4, where the time was the converted
was set as 0.2 m near the fire source location. When a
fire occurred in the center or the left end of platform, a

Fig. 4 Comparison of ceiling temperature under different fire

Fig. 3 Fire scenario in the 1:10 scale model scenarios
8 Long et al. / Building Simulation
value in the full-scale scenario. Even though the temperature
above fire fluctuated greatly in numerical simulation, the
difference was little in ceiling temperature variation between
the experiment and simulation under two fire scenarios.
Therefore, it’s reasonable to employ the current FDS model
and investigate the optimal ventilation modes during fires
in the double-island platform.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Fire in the center of the platform
In case of a fire occurring in the center of platform, the
fire-induced smoke will spread to both ends simultaneously
under symmetrical constructions and stable ventilation
conditions. Passengers need to be away from the fire and
escape through the stair#1 and stair#2 on the both ends, and
the evacuation process is required to be completed within
6 minutes according the Code for Design of Metro (GB
50157-2013 2013). Therefore, it’s crucial to pay attention to
the fire safety parameters at simulation time of 360 s on
the both ends of the platform. Visibility and temperature
profiles could reflect fire risk and assess evacuation conditions,
which were employed widely to analyze ventilation effect
(Domingo et al. 2011; Liang et al. 2017). During a fire in the
platform-A, since the PSD in the platform-B keep closed,
there will be free of smoke in the platform-B. Accordingly,
Fig. 5 Visibility and temperature contours at 1.8 m height at 360 s (cases 1–5)
it is reasonable to only consider visibility and temperature
distributions on the platform-A.
Under the condition of TVF at both ends in exhaust
mode for cases 1–5, Figure 5 gives the contours of visibility
and temperature at 1.8 m height above platform floor at
the time of 360 s. From the results of case 1 and case 2, the
former brings about the higher visibility in the middle of
platform but the lower visibility and higher temperature on
the both ends, and the latter is the opposite. So it’s better to
open 6 screen doors near the fire source (labelled as PSD
10–15), which can be attributed to the larger suction force
concentrating on the fewer PSD in comparison with opening
PSD1–24. To further research the influences of TVF mode
2 and mode 3, it can be seen that the results of cases 2–4 are
basically the same while only opening PSD near the fire
source location, which shows that it’s not necessary to open
PSD next to tunnel-2 during TVF at both ends in exhaust
mode. This is because the flow field inside the platform
hasn’t been changed after increasing exhaust volume in
tunnels. To be specific, it is obvious from Table 7 that the
total flow volume throughout PSD is essentially the same,
and excess flow has been distributed into the OTE system
and open boundary on both ends of tunnels. In case 5,
opening four end doors promotes the longitudinal spread
of smoke to both ends but cannot discharge smoke effectively,
leading to smoke accumulation and subsidence in the
middle of platform. In summary of cases 1–5, the visibility
Long et al. / Building Simulation 9

Table 7 Volume flow of PSD in cases 2–4 height for cases 6–10. It can be obtained from case 7 that
Exhaust volume flow in the stable stage (m3/s) the fire-induced smoke is prevented from spreading to the
Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 left end while opening PSD1–24. This is because in the
PSD10 0.35 0.16 initial stage of the fire, the pressure in the left end of the
PSD11 1.18 1.03
platform is constantly reduced due to the exhaust fan nearby.
PSD12 0.76 0.46
Subsequently, the airflow from the right supply fan can
easily enter the platform once reaching PSD on the left,
PSD13 1.36 0.90
resisting smoke spreading towards the left end. That can be
PSD14 0.90 0.60
illustrated in Figure 7(a), where PSD1–6 keep exhausting
PSD15 1.11 0.72
owing to the left fan at the very start and turn to supply
PSD34 0.36 0.19
afterwards. Furthermore, exhaust and supply volume of PSD1
PSD35 1.20 0.44
are the largest and the smallest respectively among PSD1–6,
PSD36 0.64 0.08 and those of PSD6 are just the opposite. From the Figure 7(b),
PSD37 1.30 0.45 supply vents are converted into exhaust vents for PSD10,
PSD38 1.09 0.28 12, 16 in the middle of platform, and the smoke emission
PSD39 1.12 0.38 in PSD12 near the fire source is relatively small. It could be
Sum total 5.66 5.71 5.69 observed in Figure 7(c) that airflows fluctuate greatly near
PSD20, 22, 24 on the right end of platform, which are mainly
in the both terminal areas is below 10 m, obstructing the in the discharging state resulting from the accumulation of
safe evacuation of personnel (Hao 2012). Hence, it is not smoke. Due to the small amount of exhaust volume in the
recommended to operate TVF exhaust mode at both ends middle, only opening PSD10–15 will nearly lose the supply
for controlling the fire-induced smoke. vents and fail to control smoke by comparing case 6 with
During investigating the effect of TVF in the mode of case 7, which indicates that it ought to open PSD1–24
exhausting on one end and supplying on the other end, under TVF mode 4. For case 8 and case 9, the conditions
owing to fire in the center and the symmetrical structure of of visibility and temperature in the left area perform better,
platform, it’s reasonable to take the mode of exhausting at owing to their greater airflow resistance than case 7, which
the left end and supplying at the right for example. Figure 6 can be reflected in Table 8. Since the air intake plays a
presents the visibility and temperature contours at 1.8 m crucial role in controlling smoke spread, the 12 PSD on the

Fig. 6 Visibility and temperature contours at 1.8 m height at 360 s (cases 6–10)
10 Long et al. / Building Simulation

Fig. 7 Volume flow of PSD in case 7

Table 8 Volume flow of PSD in cases 7–9

Volume flow in the stable stage (m3/s) Volume flow in the stable stage (m3/s)
Case 7 Case 9 Case 8 Case 9
PSD1 +1.55 +1.08 PSD25 +2.25 +0.96
PSD2 +2.31 +0.89 PSD26 +1.85 +0.53
PSD3 +2.42 F PSD27 +1.54 +0.65
PSD4 +3.22 F PSD28 +1.97 F
PSD5 +3.51 +2.00 PSD29 +3.71 F
PSD6 +5.20 +3.93 PSD30 +4.86 +4.24
PSD7 +4.94 +3.47 PSD31 +4.85 +4.73
PSD8 +0.21 F PSD32 +2.18 +2.09
PSD9 +0.94 +1.84 PSD33 +3.88 +3.82
PSD10 −0.54 F PSD34 +1.25 +1.01
PSD11 F +1.67 PSD35 +1.82 +1.88
PSD12 −0.57 F PSD36 F +0.59
Note: positive: supply; negative: exhaust; F: fluctuating constantly during 360 s

left half of platform can be used as analysis objects. It is
evident that the supply volume flow increases successively
from case 7 to case 9 despite of air fluctuations near some
PSD in case 9. Nevertheless for TVF mode 6 in case 9,
excessive resistance in the left leads to serious accumulation
of smoke in the right end area, resulting in worse evacuation
conditions on the stair #2. For more accurate comparison
of cases 7–9, Figure 8 gives the temperature and visibility
curves at 1.8 m height at the entrance of stair #1 and stair
#2 on the both ends during 360 s. Visibility in case 9 maintains
a high level at the left stair #1, but reduces firstly at the
right stair #2. And the temperature in case 9 is higher than
that in case 8 at the entrance of stairs on the both ends,
moreover three tunnel traffic operations will be affected in
case 9. In other words, case 8 is superior to the other two.
From the result of case 10, it’s better not to open end doors
during TVF in the mode of exhausting on one end and
supplying on the other end.
Based on the above analyses in the case of a fire at the
center of platform, when the PSD are properly switched,
the mode of exhausting on one end and supplying on the
other end is superior to exhausting on both ends for TVF.
Long et al. / Building Simulation
Fig. 8 Visibility and temperature at 1.8 m height at the stairs on the both ends during 360 s
Especially for the double-island platform with full-sealed
PSD, the optimal operation mode of TVF is exhausting on
one end and supply on the other end of tunnel-2 and tunnel-3,
meanwhile coordinating with opening all full-sealed PSD
next to the tunnel-2. The mode could enhance the capacity
for preventing extensive smoke movement and provide the
safe environment conditions for passengers evacuation.
3.2 Fire in the left end of the platform
Fire source locations have an influence on the optimal
ventilation mode. Restricted by the end wall (Ji et al. 2011),
fire occurring in the left area gives rise to higher smoke
temperature than fire in the center. It’s necessary to further
research the operation mode of TVF and full-sealed PSD
during a fire happening in the left end. In this scenario, the
stair #2 on the right end becomes the main evacuation
route, so it is highlighted that safety parameters at the right
region need to be focused on.
Figure 9 presents the visibility and temperature contours
at 1.8 m height at 360s for cases 11–14 during TVF at both
ends exhausting. Obviously, the temperatures on the right
region in different scenarios are pretty much the same.
However, temperature and visibility might be inconsistent
as safety state index under fire conditions (Zhu et al. 2016).
The results of case 11 demonstrate that opening PSD1–6
near fire could provide relatively safe condition in the right
end. The comparison of case 11 and case 12 indicates that it
should not open PSD20–22 near the stair #2 on the right.
11
This is because the stair #2 supplies air from hall to platform
during fire, and two streams of air interact after opening
the three PSD nearby, leading to smoke chaos and visibility
reduction. When only opening two end doors on the left in
case 13, the right area owns better visibility in comparison
with opening four end doors in case 14.
Figure 10 shows the visibility and temperature contours
at 1.8 m height at 360s for cases 15–18 under TVF in the
mode of exhausting on one end and supplying on the other
end. Since fire source is located at the left end of platform,
we couldn’t arbitrarily specify TVF on one end as exhaust
mode like fire in the center. The exhaust or supply mode
of TVF on the right end has a great influence on smoke
confinement. In the case of left fan exhausting and right
fan supplying, it can be concluded from case 15 that the
fire-induced smoke cannot be restricted effectively due to
air inlets on the left region of platform. By comparing case
15 and case 16, it’s better to operate left TVF in supply mode
and right TVF in exhaust mode during a fire happening on
the left end. This can be explained by the fact that when
one end of platform gets close to the exhaust TVF, there will
be air inlets and hinder smoke spreading to this end during
the fire stable stage, which is consistent with the results in
Section 3.1. For cases 16–18, the visibility and temperature
profiles demonstrate that case 18 can achieve better smoke
control effect. Additionally, Figure 11 gives the comparison
of the above 8 ventilation modes, and it can be found that
the visibility at the stair #2 always stays unchanged during
360 s in case 18. The observation is similarly attributed to
12 Long et al. / Building Simulation

Fig. 9 Visibility and temperature contours at 1.8 m height at 360 s (cases 11–14)

Fig. 10 Visibility and temperature contours at 1.8 m height at 360 s (cases 15–18)

Fig. 11 Visibility at 1.8 m height at the stair #2 during 360 s

Long et al. / Building Simulation
the larger supply volume like fire source located in the center.
However, the difference between the two fire scenarios is that
the safety of both stair #1 and stair #2 need be considered in
case of fire in the center, and the stair #2 on the right should
be a key focus in case of fire in the left end. Accordingly,
activating all PSD and TVF on the both sides will be the
optimal choice when a fire happens in the left end of the
platform.
4 Conclusions
Numerical simulations about fire safety were carried out in
a double-island platform, and the fire source was set in the
center and the left end respectively. Under the condition of
activating the exhaust system in the platform, the supply
system in the lobby and the OTE system, the optimal
ventilation modes during the two fire scenarios were
researched by coordinating the TVF system and PSD system.
The numerical model was constructed in FDS software,
whose mesh size and boundary conditions were validated
after comparing the smoke temperature beneath the ceiling
between simulation and reduced-scale model experiment.
Main conclusions of the study are as follows.
(1) When a fire happens in the center, opening the PSD or
end doors cannot well guarantee the safe evacuation
environment near stairs entrance during TVF in the
mode of exhaust on both ends. It’s better to operate
TVF on one end exhausting and the other end supplying.
Under the circumstance, there are air inlets on one end
near the exhaust fan in the stable stage, causing resistance
to the smoke flow and pushing smoke towards the other
end. After the analysis of volume flow through PSD, with
the increase in the number of TVF and PSD opened, the
greater the smoke resistance effect. However, excessive
resistance will lead to an unsafe evacuation environment
near the other end. Since the stair#1 and stair#2 on
both ends should be used as escape routes, the optimal
operation mode is to open all the PSD near tunnel-2
and activate TVF in the tunnel-2 and tunnel-3.
(2) When a fire occurs in the left end, activating PSD near
the fire source and TVF exhaust at both ends can provide
relatively safe condition for stair#2 on the right end.
While the mode of the left TVF exhausting and the
right supplying is even inferior to the condition of TVF
exhausting at both ends, because air inlets cannot
be formed on the right end to hinder smoke flow. In
comparison with the former two modes, operating TVF
supply on the left end and exhaust on the right exhibits
better performance. Furthermore, the optimal operation
mode is to open all PSD and TVF on the both sides of
the platform on account of confining smoke in the left
end and ensuring the safety of the right end.
13
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (51674152, 71790613, 51906123), the
National Outstanding Youth Science Foundation (51425404).
References
Chen F, Chien SW, Jang HM, Chang WJ (2003). Stack effects on smoke
propagation in subway stations. Continuum Mechanics and
Thermodynamics, 15: 425–440.
Chen P, Zhang Z (2007). Experimental study on fire in shops in subway
stations. Journal of Xihua University (Natural Science Edition),
2007(4): 9–10. (in Chinese)
Cheng L, Ueng T, Liu C (2001). Simulation of ventilation and fire in
the underground facilities. Fire Safety Journal, 36: 597–619.
China Urban Rail Transit Association (2020). Annual statistics and
analysis report on urban rail traffic in 2019. (in Chinese)
Ding W, Shi CL, Zhong M, Hou Z, Zhang L (2016). Platform screen
doors (PSD) model and its implied relation to the subway station
fire. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2016(3): 75–79. (in
Chinese)
Domingo J, Barbero R, Iranzo A, Cuadra D, Servert J, et al. (2011).
Analysis and optimization of ventilation systems for an
underground transport interchange building under regular
and emergency scenarios. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 26: 179–188.
Gao R, Li A, Hao X, Lei W, Deng B (2012a). Prediction of the spread
of smoke in a huge transit terminal subway station under six
different fire scenarios. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 31: 128–138.
Gao R, Li A, Hao X, Lei W, Zhao Y, et al. (2012b). Fire-induced
smoke control via hybrid ventilation in a huge transit terminal
subway station. Energy and Buildings, 45: 280–289.
GB 50157-2013 (2013). Code for Design of Metro. Ministry of
Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China. (in Chinese)
Hao XP (2012). Fire smoke flow and mechanical smoke exhaust mode
in subway station. Master Thesis, Xi’an University of Architecture
and Technology, China. (in Chinese)
Hu L, Wu L, Lu K, Zhang X, Liu S, et al. (2014). Optimization of
emergency ventilation mode for a train on fire stopping beside
platform of a metro station. Building Simulation, 7: 137–146.
Huang RW (2016). Application of air curtain to prevent smoke in
subway station. Master Thesis, Chongqing University, China. (in
Chinese)
Ingason H, Li YZ, Lönnermark A (2015). Tunnel Fire Dynamics. New
York: Springer.
Ji J, Zhong W, Li KY, Shen XB, Zhang Y, et al. (2011). A simplified
calculation method on maximum smoke temperature under the
ceiling in subway station fires. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 26: 490–496.
Kang K (2007). A smoke model and its application for smoke
management in an underground mass transit station. Fire Safety
Journal, 42: 218–231.
14
Li YF, Shi BW, Li JM, Fan HM, Du XL (2009). Analysis of the
influence of safety gates on station smoke exhaust. In: Proceedings
of China Urban Underground Space Development Summit Forum.
(in Chinese)
Li Y, Lin X, Feng X, Wang C, Li J (2012). Life safety evacuation for
cross interchange subway station fire. Procedia Engineering, 45:
741–747.
Li YF (2015). Fire Safety Technology of Large Metro Transfer Station.
Beijing: Science Press. (in Chinese)
Li J, Shi CL, Chen CK, Xu X (2016). Study on switch modes of fully
enclosed platform screen doors during fire in underground railway
island-type platform. Journal of Safety Science and Technology,
2016(11): 114–119. (in Chinese)
Li D, Zhu G (2018). Effect of platform screen doors on mechanical
smoke exhaust in subway station fire. Procedia Engineering, 211:
343–352.
Liang Q, Li Y, Li J, Xu H, Li K (2017). Numerical studies on the
smoke control by water mist screens with transverse ventilation
in tunnel fires. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
64: 177–183.
Lide DR (2001). Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Boca Raton, FL,
USA: CRC Press.
Liu C, Zhong M, Tian X, Zhang P, Li S (2019). Study on emergency
ventilation for train fire environment in metro interchange tunnel.
Building and Environment, 147: 267–283.
Luo N, Li A, Gao R, Tian Z, Hu Z (2014a). Smoke confinement utilizing
the USME ventilation mode for subway station fire. Safety Science,
70: 202–210.
Luo N, Li A, Gao R, Song T, Zhang W, Hu Z (2014b). Performance
of smoke elimination and confinement with modified hybrid
ventilation for subway station. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 43: 140–147.
McGrattan K, Forney GP (2008). Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version
5), User’s Guide. NIST Special Publication 1019.
McGrattan K, Hostikka S, McDermott R, et al. (2016). Fire Dynamics
Simulator Technical Reference Guide, Volume 3: Validation.
NIST Special Publication 1019, Sixth Edition.
Meng N, Hu L, Wu L, Yang L, Zhu S, Chen L, Tang W (2014).
Numerical study on the optimization of smoke ventilation mode
at the conjunction area between tunnel track and platform in
emergency of a train fire at subway station. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 40: 151–159.
NFPA (2014). Standard for Fixed Guide Way Transit and Passenger
Rail Systems. Quincy, MA, USA: National Fire Protection
Association.
Park WH, Kim DH, Chang HC (2006). Numerical predictions of
smoke movement in a subway station under ventilation. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology, 21: 304.
Rie DH, Hwang MW, Kim SJ, Yoon SW, Ko JW, et al. (2006). A study
of optimal vent mode for the smoke control of subway station fire.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 21: 300–301.
Long et al. / Building Simulation
Roh JS, Ryou HS, Park WH, Jang YJ (2009). CFD simulation and
assessment of life safety in a subway train fire. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 24: 447–453.
Roh JS, Ryou HS, Yoon SW (2010). The effect of PSD on life safety in
subway station fire. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology,
24: 937–942.
Shi CL, Zhong MH, Tu XW, et al. (2009). Fire Experiment and
Numerical Analysis of Deep Underground Metro Station. Beijing:
Science Press. (in Chinese)
Tsukahara M, Koshiba Y, Ohtani H (2011). Effectiveness of downward
evacuation in a large-scale subway fire using Fire Dynamics
Simulator. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 26:
573–581.
Wang W, He T, Huang W, Shen R, Wang Q (2018). Optimization
of switch modes of fully enclosed platform screen doors during
emergency platform fires in underground metro station. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology, 81: 277–288.
Wu W, You S (2009). Analysis to ventilation effectiveness in subway
fire environment. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE Conference on
Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA) Xi’an, China.
Yang Y, Cao LY (2006). Discussion on subway fire scenario design.
Journal of Natural Disasters, 4: 125–129. (in Chinese)
Yuan JP, Liao YJ, Zhou SD, Tang Z, Fang Z (2015). Smoke extraction
model of station hall fire in large subway transfer station.
Engineering Journal of Wuhan University, 2015(6): 805–808. (in
Chinese)
Zhang Y (2014). Numerical analysis of smoke exhaust system design
of metro double-island station. Fire Technology & Products
Information, 2014(4): 15–19. (in Chinese)
Zhao D, Jiang J, Zhou R, Tong Y, Wu F, Shi L (2016). Numerical study
on the optimisation of smoke ventilation mode for interchange
subway station fire. International Journal of Ventilation, 15: 79–93.
Zhong W (2007). Study on smoke flow characteristics and control
methods in subway station fire. PhD Thesis, University of Science
and Technology of China, China. (in Chinese)
Zhong W, Ji J, Yang JP, Huo R, Wang H (2010). Experimental and
simulation study on the influence of smoke vent arrangement on
smoke control effect in subway station. Engineering Mechanics,
27(3): 163–168. (in Chinese)
Zhong MH, Shi CL, Luo YP, et al. (2012). Progress in research on
complex subway fire smoke control technology. In: Proceedings
of the 20th Cross-Strait and Hong Kong and Macao Occupational
Safety and Health Symposium and China Occupational Safety
and Health Association 2012 Academic Annual meeting.
Zhou Y, Bu R, Xu Z, Chen H, Gong J (2018). Numerical simulation of
smoke control effectiveness with different exhaust modes in a
large subway station. Procedia Engineering, 211: 1065–1074.
Zhu H, Shen Y, Yan Z, Guo Q, Guo Q (2016). A numerical study on
the feasibility and efficiency of point smoke extraction strategies
in large cross-section shield tunnel fires using CFD modeling.
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 44: 158–170.