Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 189–200

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

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

A practical use of CFD for ventilation of underground works

Isidro Diego ⇑, Susana Torno, Javier Toraño, Mario Menéndez, Malcolm Gent
School of Mines of Oviedo, University of Oviedo, Spain

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

Article history: Any underground work of a minimum length has associated a study of a ventilation system. The tradi-
Received 18 March 2009 tional way to calculate these systems requires the calculation of the air losses all over the installation
Received in revised form 1 June 2010 in order to select an adequate group of fans. This paper calculates the losses in 138 situations of circular
Accepted 25 August 2010
tunnels (varying tunnel diameter, air velocity and surface characteristics), by both traditional and CFD
Available online 24 September 2010
(computational fluid dynamics) means. The results of both methods are compared and adequate correla-
tion has been observed, with CFD values constantly a 17% below the values calculated by traditional
Keywords:
means. The paper deals with the main problems commonly encountered in the CFD use, meshing and tur-
Pressure drop
Air losses
bulence, and shows guidance on the practical use of this numerical method. There are also shown the
CFD capabilities of the method in simulation domains including machinery of underground works: road head-
Tunnel ventilation ers, dumpers and excavators.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The creation of underground spaces is a complicated engineer-
ing problem, mainly due to the complex physical phenomena in-
volved in the excavation and support of the underground opening.
But the mere fact of introducing ourselves in an underground
space with a minimum length has always associated the resolution
of two fundamental problems: first the lack of light and second the
limited, in time, fresh air which requires the use of ventilation sys-
tems. The lack of light has been solved since the end of XIX century
through the use of electrical illumination systems. The solution to
the problem of ventilation can be entrusted to Nature, to the air
flows created by the existing air pressure differences among sev-
eral parts of the installation. Gribble (2009) has suggested that
the ancient Egyptians already took advantage of the pressure dif-
ferences created by the temperature change between day and
night in order to ventilate the construction works of their under-
ground tombs and temples.
However, the ventilation of an underground work must be, gen-
erally speaking, forced, both during the construction and during
the use of the installation once finalized. During the construction
there are created ‘‘dead end” volumes, blind spaces where the air
cannot enter in a natural manner, and where the fresh air entrance
must be guaranteed as this is the area where workers and ma-
chines execute the installation. The required air flows are high,
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Oviedo School of Mines, C/Independencia 13,
33004 Oviedo, Spain. Tel.: +34 696155597; fax: +34 985104245.
E-mail address: diegoisidro@uniovi.es (I. Diego).
as not only the breathing needs of the workers must be assured,
but also the contaminants present in the air must be adequately di-
luted below the levels established by the local regulations. Typical
contaminants can be: blast fumes, exhaust gases from motors and
floating dust.
Once the opening is excavated and stabilized, it has to be guar-
anteed that the users of the underground space can pass through it
in a safe manner, which means that a proper renovation of the air
has to be done to maintain air quality levels under the values per-
mitted by the regulations of each country. The air contribution
from the outside has to be calculated in order to guarantee the
fresh air presence in both standard operational circumstances
and exceptional emergencies or accidents. For example, in case of
a road tunnel the required air to dilute vehicles exhaust gases
has to be calculated, as well as the required flows needed in the
event of an accident followed by a fire.
The forced air flow will be created by a fan or group of fans.
Their selection and calculation will be determined by two factors:
the air flow that they must provide and the head losses that they
must overcome. The ‘‘wind” that these machines create will slip
over the walls of the installation generating energy losses so-called
‘‘head losses” or ‘‘aerolic resistance”. The determination of the head
losses has been done in several ways, but always starting from
empirical formulations that relate the geometrical and surface
characteristics of the elements that the air touches.
The underground ventilation studies divide the complex air vol-
umes, composed by multiple galleries or branches, in sections with
the same aerodynamic characteristics, assign each section an air
resistance and solve the obtained circuits through network
methods such as Hardy-Cross. There is specific software as

0886-7798/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2010.08.002
190 I. Diego et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 189–200
Nomenclature
Dp,f frictional air losses (Pa)
f friction factor (dimensionless)
D duct diameter (m)
p air losses (Pa)
per perimeter of duct (m)
Q air flow (m3/s)
Vc critical air velocity (m/s)
a tunnel grade (%)
Ro average air density (1.2 kg/m3)
Kg grade factor
HRR heat release rate (kW)
To temperature of fresh air (K)
r divergence operator
P pressure (Pa)
T temperature (K)
t time (s)
~
u specific heat (kJ/K kg)
E energy (m)
hp losses (m)
VENTSIM; VNET-PC or VENPRI that quickly solve the networks
once the resistance parameters of each branch of the network have
been provided. Good examples of these methods are the works by
Prosser et al. (2002) or Stefopoulos and Damigos (2007). In all cases
each software has a database of air resistances taken from special-
ized bibliography or field measurements.
However, the ventilation study is not more than a fluid mechan-
ics problem, and the current state of the art in this field are the CFD
(computational fluid dynamics) methods, implemented in free and
commercial software. This method allows for the calculation of the
variables that define a fluid movement in three dimensional
spaces, after a laborious work of model creation, discretization
(meshing) and adjustment of the equations used.
The CFD is widely extended and validated at industrial level
whenever fluids are present, with immediate applications in the
calculation of ventilation flows in all kinds of ventilation flows,
as show Santolaria-Morros et al., 2006 or Hargreaves and Lowndes
(2007), with an especial relevance of the multiphase studies in fire
situations, as studies by Galdo Vega et al. (2008) or Yuan and You
(2007).
However, we have not found references of studies relative to
the calculation of air losses in underground works using CFD. But
in case of complex geometries, with multiple obstacles of surface
characteristics difficult to determine, the network software is lim-
ited or has to be conveniently adjusted to work.
This paper will develop a method to calculate air losses in tun-
nels of any geometry through the CFD use, checking the accuracy of
the method through the results of the experimental equations that
are currently used. The success of the comparison proofs the appli-
cability of CFD to calculate flows in this kind of work, and opens
path to the 4D simulation (three spatial dimensions and time) of
the contaminant dispersion, (smoke, dust, gases) in such spaces.
The comparison will be done in multiple circular tunnel sections,
simulating the tunnels done with shields or TBMs (Tunnel boring
machines), in diameter ranges from 5 to 15 m.
The working procedure in this paper will be the following:
– Traditional methods exposition.
– Ventilation requirements: there will be shown the require-
ments usually present in tunneling works.
– CFD fundamentals and particularities of the calculations done.
– Comparison of the CFD results and the traditional methods.
V velocity (m/s)
q air density (kg/m3)
L duct length (m)
k empirical factor (kg/m3)
A cross section of duct (m2)
k coefficient of support system
K 0.606 or 0.61 (as appears in Eq. (5))
H height of tunnel at the fire site (m)
Tf average temperature of fire site gases (K)
g gravity (9.81 m/s2)
Cp specific heat of air (1.1 kJ/K kg)
q density (kg/m3)
U velocity vector (m/s)
l viscosity (Pa s)
r gradient
V velocity (m/s)
Kd conductivity (W K1 m1)
c specific weight (N/m3)
2. Theoretical foundations of the air pressure drop: application
to the ventilation of underground works
To our knowledge, the calculation methods available to esti-
mate an airway resistance in mining applications are three. Firstly,
those arising from the direct application of the Moody’s Diagram
following Fluid Mechanics theories; secondly the application of
the ‘‘k” coefficients coming from the measurements included in
McPherson (2007); and finally the application of the ‘‘lambda”
coefficients obtained from the gained experience in mining and
underground works in Spain. The three methods will be briefly ex-
plained in the following paragraphs.
2.1. Experimental data from the Moody diagram
The first calculation method that can be used is derived from
pure Fluid Mechanics theory, Darcy–Weissbach expression (Potter
and Wiggert, 2002), which gives the air losses expressed in Pascals:
1 f  L  V2  q
Dp;f ¼  ð1Þ
2 D
The friction factor can be obtained from the Moody diagram. As
can be seen in the diagram, the friction factor depends on the Rey-
nolds number and the duct relative roughness (er = e/D), where e is
the duct absolute roughness. The bigger is the Reynolds number,
the less importance has the roughness in the result.
There are several mathematical expressions that fit the Moody
diagram values and avoid the use of the diagram, thus allowing
the automation of the calculation in worksheets or programmable
software. Here, it will be used the Colebrook–White one:
!
1 er 2:51
pffiffiffi ¼ 2 log þ pffiffiffi ð2Þ
f 3:7 Re f
The roughness values to use can be determined by direct mea-
sure of the physical conditions of the duct walls. In case of the
walls of underground works the data are obtained from the related
bibliography, as the ones included by Hacar Rodriguez (2000).
Therefore, considering these roughness values and using them
in Eq. (2) there can be obtained the friction factors, and by intro-
ducing these values in Eq. (1) the air losses can be estimated.
 I. Diego et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 189–200
2.2. Experimental data from McPherson
In a similar way as in the preceding calculation method there is
available, see McPherson book, Eq. (3) that allows the calculation
of the air losses:
k  L  per  Q 2
½Pa
A3
where ‘‘k” can be obtained from empirical data sheets as the ones
reflected in Table 2.
2.3. Experimental data available in Spain
Finally there are available methods obtained from practical and
experimental measurements in Spanish mining see Luque Cabal
(1988), and civil works, see López Jimeno (1996).
The value of the resistance that a duct or gallery opposes to be
crossed by an air flow, RS, expressed in Murgues, can be obtained
from the following expression:
per  L
RS ¼ 15:6  k ½Murgues
A3
The lambda coefficient is usually different in case of the walls,
roof and floor, but in this paper all the values will be considered
equal as the section will be supposed to be perfectly circular and
with the same aerodynamic properties all over the perimeter.
3. Ventilation requirements
In this paper section there will be defined the air flow require-
ments of the different tunnels of which ventilation systems will be
simulated.
Circular sections are selected simulating tunnels excavated by
full section mechanical methods as can be TBMs (Tunnel boring
machines). The tunnel diameter where this technology is used
ranges from 5 to 15 m.
The air flow velocity will be given by the regulations that rule in
the country where the tunnel is developed. In case of the Kingdom
Fig. 1. Critical velocity vs. fire heat release rate and tunnel diameter.
191
of Spain the minimum air velocity is 0.2 m/s and the maximum
velocity is 8 m/s, according to the RGNBSM Spanish standard. We
consider that this range of values could cover the whole range of
air requirements both during the construction phase and opera-
tional phase of the tunnel.
Only during special events, as fires or accidents, these require-
ments could vary. A specially demanding situation is a fire event
ð3Þ
inside the tunnel. This paper is not focused in these events, but
at least a rough study of the range of ventilation requirements will
be done in order to check whether the above referred velocity lev-
els are enough for these emergency situations.
The presence of fire in underground spaces requires strong ven-
tilation flows in order to evacuate the hazard combustion products
from the areas where tunnel users can be present. This can be
achieved using an air flow that guarantees that the smoke will be
swept in the ventilation flow direction, instead diluting all over
the fire surroundings. The air velocity that guarantees the smoke
sweep is defined as the critical velocity. In order to calculate it
there has been used the formulation given in a ventilation study
by Stefopoulos and Damigos (2007), who summarizes methods
from Wu and Bakar (2000) and Li and Chow (2000). The excellent
ð4Þ
experimental setup of Vauquelin (2008) corroborates the referred
formulations. The following Eqs. (5)–(7) allow the calculation of
the critical velocity.
 13
g  H  HRR
Vc ¼ K  Kg  ð5Þ
q  Cp  A  T f
HRR
Tf ¼ þ T0 ð6Þ
q  Cp  A  V c
K g ¼ 1 þ 0:037  a0:8 ð7Þ
The resolution of these equations is not trivial due to their non
linear nature. In order to check multiple configurations of tunnels
there has been programmed an iterative numerical method
through mathematical packages Numpy 1.1.0 and ScyPy 0.6.0
which complement the quasi-unlimited possibilities of the high
192 I. Diego et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 189–200
Fig. 2. Shown in blue, work areas of the air flow expressed over the Moody diagram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Moody_diagram.jpg. Last accessed 14.01.09).
level programming language Python 2.5. The referred software is
completed with module Matplotlib 0.98.1 for bi-dimensional visu-
alization purposes.
Fig. 1 shows the results of multiple calculations varying the heat
release rate and the diameter of a leveled tunnel. According to Lac-
roix (1998), typical heat release rate varies from 4 MW in case of a
burning car, up to 100 MW in case of a tanker fire. Other authors as
Beard (2009) give possible fire events over 200 MW. Results shown
in the figure explain how in the worst case scenario considered in
this study, a 200 MW fire in a tunnel of diameter 15 m, the critical
velocity remains below 4.5 m/s.
The values of all the studied air velocities, the studied range of
tunnel diameters, as well as the different values of wall roughness
which will be detailed in the following sections, can be graphically
expressed using the Moody Diagram. Fig. 2 shows this diagram
with a blue overlay that indicates the range of flow studies that
can be encountered in the ventilation of tunnels.
4. Computational fluid dynamics
The equations that govern the fluid flow are the Navier Stokes,
Eq. (8), which relates the velocity and pressure fields as well as
density; the continuity equation, Eq. (9), that expresses the mass
conservation; and finally the energy equation, Eq. (10), which re-
lates also the temperature fields. These expressions create a system
of differential equations that can only be solved, in the vast major-
ity of cases, by numerical methods. One possible approach is the
so-called CFD method, computational fluid dynamics.
DV  P þ qg þ lr2 V

q ¼ r
Dt
Dq   V ¼ 0
þ qr
Dt
~
Du
q ¼ K d r2 T  P r
 V
 ð10Þ
Dt
An important part of the research in the CFD field has been fo-
cused in the different mathematical models used to resolve the
turbulent terms of the equations solving the microscopic scales
of the fluid eddies. A complete numerical solution of the referred
equations, down to the minimum scale of the fluid movements,
is only possible in very limited situations and with the use of enor-
mous amounts of computational efforts (Blazek, 2001), so the fluid
movement is solved through the use of quasi-statistical methods
that estimate the turbulent terms of the equations. There can be
used several models, from the simple ‘‘Zero Equation Models” to
complex methods as LES (Large Eddy Simulation) or DES (Detached
Eddy Simulation). RANS methods (Reynolds Averaged Navier–
Stokes) are a good compromise between calculation effort and
numerical accuracy, being widely used in engineering applications.
The software to use in order to develop these studies will be
Solidworks in case of the three dimensional modeling, ICEM-CFD
in case of domain meshing and Ansys CFX 10.0 as CFD solver and
post-processing tool. There has been decided to use a commercial
tool as it allows the researcher to focus in the ventilation study it-
self, and also because it allows the use of extremely complex
geometries, developed in Solidworks, as will be seen at the end
of this paragraph.
The post-processing is undoubtedly the most visually stunning
part of the elaborated work required to finish a CFD simulation, as
the modern 3D tools allow performing multiple analysis from the
data that the solver module has dumped to the hard disk: isosur-
faces, variable contours over any location or user-created feature,
video creating, flow lines, user-created variables and expressions,
etc. We will focus now in the tools that permit the calculation of
the pressure losses between the beginning and end of the simula-
ð8Þ tion domain.
Air pressure drop is identified with the energy losses of a fluid
passing through a duct, as an effect of the friction of the fluid par-
ð9Þ
ticles against the duct walls.
According to Bernoulli Eq. (11), applying it in a leveled circular
cross section duct, and naming with subscript ‘‘1” the inlet of the
duct and with subscript ‘‘2” the outlet:
 I. Diego et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 189–200
V 21 P1 V 22 P 2
E 1 ¼ E2 þ hp ¼ þ ¼ þ þ hp ! hp ¼ E1  E2
2g c 2g c
Eq. (11) has been programmed in the post-processing software in
order to evaluate the losses calculated by the CFD model. Results
will be validated using the losses calculated by the empirical coef-
ficients of the theoretical methods previously referred.
There are dozens of parameters that have to be defined in order
to perform a CFD simulation. From our experience, two are the
main assumptions to be made that can have a strong influence in
the results: the mesh density and the turbulence model.
The meshing process divides the simulation domain in equally
shaped volumes where the governing equations of the fluid flow
are discretized and solved. Where the pressure or velocity gradi-
ents are expected to be high the mesh has to be fine. And the con-
vergence of the numerical method, this is, the approach of the
numerical solution to the exact solution, is improved when the
Fig. 3. Geometry and meshing of the air surrounding an excavator inside a tunnel (upper and middle figures) and surface shells of a continuous miner and an articulated truck
in a dead end tunnel ventilation system (below).
193
finite volumes which the mesh forms, and whose composing nodes
ð11Þ locations are used to make the discretization, are evenly spaced.
In this research there have been used two types of mesh ele-
ments: tetrahedrons in the center of the tunnel and prisms in the
vicinity of the walls, in order to get mesh resolution in the wall sur-
face normal direction. Starting from a dimensional assumption for
the size of the elements, ICEM-CFD software executes a meshing
procedure trying to follow the user requirements and continuously
changing the element size to avoid abrupt changes in the distance
between nodes.
The tetrahedron quantity must be high enough to allow inde-
pendence of the calculation from their number. Previous studies
from the authors, see Diego et al. (2008), have shown that the opti-
mum figure is 12–14 tetrahedrons located in the tunnel diameter.
As regards the prisms, their quality and location must allow for the
correct calculation of the boundary layer. A direct numerical calcu-
lation will require high quantities of nodes near the walls and a
way to avoid this is to use the so-called ‘wall function methods’.
194 I. Diego et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 189–200
Fig. 4. Meshing details of a circular tunnel.
Assuming that a logarithmic profile reasonably approximates
the velocity distribution near the wall, it provides a means to
numerically compute the fluid shear stress as a function of the
velocity at a given distance from the wall without the need of
extensive meshes. In ANSYS CFX, Scalable Wall Functions are used
for all turbulence models based on the e-equation. But a certain
assumption has to be made in order to put a minimum amount
of calculating nodes in the vicinity of the walls.
Authors as Norton et al. (2007), Versteeg and Malalsekeera
(1995) or Sorensen and Nielsen (2003) show that the k–epsilon
model with y+ values of 500 have sustained a good behavior when
dealing with near-wall simulations. Ansys CFX documentation re-
quests (Ansys CFX-Solver, 2008) that at least 10 nodes have to be
placed inside the boundary layer.
From the determining factors referred to above, a circular tun-
nel is defined in Solidworks and once the geometry has been ex-
ported in STEP-IGES format to the ICEM-CFD package, the mesh
is obtained. In this case the geometry is quite simple (circular sec-
tion) but the method is perfectly applicable to much more complex
geometries, where the powerful tools of geometry cleaning and
mesh modifying can get good use. Fig. 3 shows (upper part) the
3D design and meshing results in case of a Caterpillar 325B L/LN
excavator working in the advance of a tunnel.
In the right upper side of that Fig. 3 there is shown a cross sec-
tion of the mesh colored by the quality of the mesh (Green, good;
Yellow: medium; Red: low1). Quality is defined as the proximity of
the tetrahedral to the perfect tetrahedron, which is the optimal sit-
uation for the location of the nodes. The meshes can be improved
by both automated and manual means. Notice the smaller size of
the tetras in the vicinity of the excavator surfaces and the absence
of prisms in the tunnel walls that are still to be created.
The lower image of Fig. 3 shows the shells (superficial meshing)
of a dead end ventilation simulation where a continuous miner Al-
pine ATM 105-IC and an articulated dumper Volvo A35E are work-
ing. The excavator model is meshed with approximately 200,000
elements, while the miner and dumper are meshed with 750,000
elements. Both numbers will rise in around 250,000 in order to in-
stall the prisms in the walls, but in any case both models will re-
1
For interpretation of color in Figs. 2 and 3, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.
main below 1 million of elements, which will avoid the use of
parallel processing in order to fulfill calculations.
Fig. 4 shows the final mesh to be used, quite simple as com-
pared to the referred above models.
At the left side of the figure there can be seen two cut views of
the meshing: one parallel to the tunnel axis where it can be noticed
the tetras in the diameter of the tunnel and prisms accumulation in
the vicinity of the wall (triangular parallelograms); and a second
one in a cross section of the tunnel. The right side of the figure
shows the node location in a certain cut plane. Notice again the
accumulation of nodes in the walls.
Regarding the turbulence model to be chosen, there are several
references available when dealing with CFD calculations of head
losses. Song and Han (2005) show, in case of air losses in static
mixers, that k–epsilon model is enough to his calculation needs.
However, suggest results independence from the mesh used in
case of enormous mesh densities of 1.6  1010 elements by cubic
meter.
Ballesteros-Tajadura et al. (2006) also used k–epsilon model to
simulate ventilation flows in tunnels of several slopes. Gimbun et
al. (2005) made studies of flows in cyclones with fluids at several
temperatures. Although their recommendation is the use of RSM
models, they also showed enough accuracy in case of k–epsilon
models, around 15–18% in these swirling flows. This kind of flows
could be present in the vicinity of the ventilation stations or fans in
tunnel applications.
Regarding possible Coanda effects, with application to the ven-
tilation extension in the proximity of walls, Tapsoba et al. (2007)
have shown the applicability of k–epsilon models in the simulation
of this phenomenon.
Also Zhang and Chen (2006) obtain valid results with this tur-
bulence model in studies of contaminant dispersion in indoor ven-
tilation, with air flow velocity in range with the ones previously
referred.
There can be observed how the k–epsilon model is widely ex-
tended in these CFD applications, and has the enormous advantage
that is not as high resource consuming as other RANS methods as
SST, which use seven equations to solve the turbulent terms, as an
opposite to the k–epsilon which uses only two. Our goal is to cal-
culate CFD models in wide spaces as road tunnels where hundreds
of thousands of elements, even millions, will be used. To solve
these models with affordable hardware, k–epsilon turbulence
model is the perfect compromise between accuracy and calculation
 I. Diego et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 189–200 195

time and hardware requirements. Full data of the standard k–epsi- The simulations have been mainly done in modest hardware,
lon model can be found in Launder and Sharma (1974). Pentium-4 at 2.80 GHz and 1.50 GB of RAM, although equipped
with SCSI hard disks at 15,000 rpm, achieving convergences in
5. Comparison of the air pressure losses calculation 108 min for 60 iterations, running Windows XP 32 bits. In some
of the cases the solver has been run in a workstation equipped with
In the beginning of this paper there have been shown the sev- Intel core 2 Extreme Q6800 at 2.93 GHz, 4 GB of Ram, and SATA
eral available methods to calculate the air losses in underground hard disks, running over Windows XP 64 bits. In this workstation
installations, including tables that reflect the empirical factors used
in each method. Then, the possibilities and practical use of the CFD Table 2
method in underground spaces ventilation calculations were Average values of friction factors (referred to air density of 1.2 kg/m3), taken from
shown. In this paragraph a comparison will be made among the McPherson.
empirical calculation methods and the CFD one. This is, there will Duct type Friction factor, k (kg/
be made a comparison of the numerical method against the exper- m3)
imental results that are obtained through the use of the empirical Rectangular airways
coefficients of the theoretical methods. Smooth concrete lined 0.0040
The CFD software needs a value for the absolute roughness of Shotcrete 0.0055
each surface that confine the simulation domain. There are three Unlined with minor irregularities only 0.0090
Girders on masonry or concrete walls 0.0095
data sets of surface characteristics (Tables 1–3) that have to be
Unlined, typical conditions no major irregularities 0.0120
adequately treated in order to obtain a value of absolute roughness Unlined, irregular sides 0.0140
for each surface characteristic. Unlined, rough or irregular conditions 0.0160
In the first case, see Table 1, the absolute roughness values are Girders on side props 0.0190
directly available, as they are used to obtain through the use of Eq. Drift with rough sides, stepped floor, handrails 0.0400

(2) the friction factor that will be used in Eq. (1) to get the air losses Steel arched airways
values. Smooth concrete all round 0.0040
Bricked between arches all round 0.0060
In the second case, data from Table 2, the ‘‘k” factors of each sur- Concrete slabs or timber lagging between flanges all 0.0075
face condition must be related to a roughness value, identifying the round
circular tunnel to a circular ventilation shaft. Following McPherson Slabs or timber lagging between flanges to spring 0.0090
(2007), that factor can be related to a friction factor that, once mul- Lagged behind arches 0.0120
Arches poorly aligned, rough conditions 0.0160
tiplied by four and introduced in Eq. (2), allows obtaining the abso-
lute roughness value according to each Reynolds number value and Metal mines
Arch-shaped level drifts, rock bolts and mesh 0.0100
tunnel diameter. Table 4 shows such calculations in case of a circu-
Arch-shaped ramps, rock bolts and mesh 0.0140
lar tunnel of 10 m of diameter and an air velocity of 0.2 m/s. Rectangular raise, untimbered, rock bolts and mesh 0.0130
In the third case, by the comparison of the results of Eqs. (4) and Bored raise 0.0050
(1), there can be inferred that the lambda factor is the same value Beltway 0.0140
as the friction factor, and using the Colebrook–White equation TBM drift 0.0045

there can be obtained the absolute roughness values, for each dif- Coal mines: rectangular entries, roof-bolted
ferent Reynolds number. The calculations in case of a 10 m diame- Intakes, clean conditions 0.0090
Returns, some irregularities/sloughing 0.0100
ter tunnel with a 0.2 m/s air flow appear in Table 5.
A lump sum of 138 calculation cases appear by combining the Shafts
Smooth lined, unobstructed 0.0030
velocities of 0.2 and 8 m/s, circular section of 5, 10 and 15 m of Brick lined, unobstructed 0.0040
diameter, and the different considered roughness (properly ad- Concrete lined, rope guides, pipe fittings 0.0065
justed as per the Reynolds number). Brick lined, rope guides, pipe fittings 0.0075
All the simulations have been done, according to the consider- Unlined, well trimmed surface 0.0100
Unlined, major irregularities removed 0.0120
ations about meshing already done, in meshes with 14 tetrahe-
Unlined, mesh bolted 0.0140
drons in the diameter and 10 prisms in the boundary layer, Tubbing lined, no fittings 0.007–0.014
which means, in case of tunnel of 10 m of diameter and 500 m Brick lined, two sides buntons 0.0180
length, simulation domains of 600,000 elements, of which Two side buntons, each with a tie girder 0.0220
170,000 are tetrahedrons. In case of models of 5 and 15 m of diam-
eter the mesh density is similar.
Table 3
Table 6 shows a summary of the calculations corresponding to a Lambda coefficients in underground works.
10 m diameter tunnel, 8 m/s of air velocity and roughness of Table
4. The values of energy E1 and E2 have been calculated according Support Lambda

to Eq. (11) and from the CFD post-processing data. Unlined rock Wall well finished 0.058
Wall, major irregularities 0.084
Table 1 removed
Usual roughness values in tunnel works. Irregular wall 0.108
Rock with Wall well finished 0.058
Underground support Roughness (mm)
bolts
Smooth concrete all around Wall, major irregularities 0.084
Smooth surface 0.3 removed
Medium conditions 2.5 Irregular wall 0.108
Rough surface 9 Wall with wire mesh 0.13
Steel reinforced concrete all around 2.5
Lined rock Smooth concrete 0.022
Tunnel excavated in rock with no support Brick lined Good condition 0.025
Rough rock surface 100 Medium 0.03
Very rough rock surface 200 condition
Irregular rock surface 300 Irregular 0.04
196 I. Diego et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 189–200

Table 4
Calculation of the absolute roughness from the data of Table 2 (10 m diameter tunnel and velocity of 0.2 m/s).

Tunnel support k f 4  f = f Moody e/D Colebrook e (mm)

Smooth lined, unobstructed 0.003 0.005 0.02 0.0009 8.9
Brick lined, unobstructed 0.004 0.0067 0.0268 0.0030 29.6
Concrete lined, rope guides, pipe fittings 0.0065 0.0108 0.0432 0.0137 136.9
Brick lined, rope guides, pipe fittings 0.0075 0.0125 0.05 0.0203 203.4
Unlined, well trimmed surface 0.01 0.0167 0.0668 0.0411 410.9
Unlined, major irregularities removed 0.012 0.02 0.08 0.0606 605.9
Unlined, mesh bolted 0.014 0.023 0.092 0.0800 799.9
Tubbing lined, no fittings, MAX 0.014 0.023 0.092 0.0800 799.9
Tubbing lined, no fittings, MIN 0.007 0.012 0.048 0.0183 182.7
Brick lined, two sides buntons 0.018 0.03 0.12 0.1289 1289.1
Two side buntons, each with a tie girder 0.022 0.037 0.148 0.1801 1800.7

Table 5
Calculation of the absolute roughness from the data of Table 4.

Tunnel support Lambda f e/D e (mm)

Unlined rock Wall well finished 0.058 0.058 0.029543 295.4
Wall, major irregularities removed 0.084 0.084 0.066909 669.1
Irregular wall 0.108 0.108 0.107493 1074.9
Rock with bolts Wall well finished 0.058 0.058 0.029543 295.4
Wall, major irregularities removed 0.084 0.084 0.066909 669.1
Irregular wall 0.108 0.108 0.107493 1074.9
Wall with wire mesh 0.13 0.13 0.147056 1470.6
Lined rock Smooth concrete 0.022 0.022 0.001360 13.6
Brick lined Good condition 0.025 0.025 0.002277 22.8
Medium condition 0.03 0.03 0.004411 44.1
Irregular 0.04 0.04 0.010975 109.7

Table 6
Calculation results in case of Table 4 data (10 m of diameter and 8 m/s of velocity).

Case Roughness (mm) Friction factor Theoretical losses (m) DH (Pa) E1 (m) E2 (m) CFD losses (m) DH CFD (Pa)
1 8.92 0.0192 3.13 36.40 6.50 4.16 2.34 27.23
2 29.56 0.0261 4.25 49.48 7.67 4.35 3.31 38.56
3 136.88 0.0423 6.89 80.20 10.05 4.65 5.39 62.76
4 182.67 0.05 7.66 89.11 10.70 4.71 5.99 69.69
5 203.43 0.049 7.99 92.90 10.97 4.73 6.24 72.56
6 410.90 0.0655 10.68 124.18 12.80 4.78 8.01 93.14
7 605.92 0.0784 12.78 148.64 13.37 4.70 8.67 100.85
8 799.89 0.0902 14.71 171.02 13.39 4.57 8.82 102.54
UQR 1074.92 0.106 17.28 200.97 13.22 4.42 8.79 102.23
9 1289.05 0.118 19.24 223.73 13.11 4.34 8.77 101.96

running times are as low as 26 min. As this workstation is not the
cutting-edge in the current hardware evolution, and as the running
times are very low, there can be inferred that there is still a lot of
room for much more complex models, as the ones shown in Fig. 3.
The maximum values of the residuals, which show the possible
error in the simulation, are in all cases below 105 values, which is
the convergence criteria applied to this study. Fig. 5 shows an im-
age of the CFX-solver where it can be seen how all the residuals are
below that value after iteration 62.
The residual that spent more time in achieving that value is the
momentum component in the adventional direction, correspond-
ing to the line named ‘‘MAX W-Mom” in Fig. 5. As can be seen
the RMS value of the residuals all over the domain is constantly
one order of magnitude below the maximum values.
From now on a comparison of both calculation methods will be
done with the objective of verifying the applicability of the CFD
method. Fig. 6 shows a dispersion graphic of theoretical values
against the CFD calculated ones in case of a circular tunnel of
10 m of diameter and at air velocity of 8 m/s. It can be observed
how in case of losses values over 11 m, corresponding to high
roughness simulations, the results tend to move away from the
optimum y = x. Our understanding is that, in case of very high
roughness values, the mathematical method used to approximate
the velocity profile near the wall does not behaviors well, probably
as the height of wall irregularities interfere directly in the tetrahe-
drons volume, leaving behind the prisms.
In order to check this supposition, it can be analyzed the CFD
losses versus roughness. Fig. 7 shows this comparison, appearing
two alignments of points, the upper one corresponding to a veloc-
ity of 8 m/s, the maximum of this study, and the lower one corre-
sponding to velocity of 0.2 m/s. As the losses of the 0.2 m/s curves
are much lower than the 8 m/s ones, losses vary with the square of
the velocity, a logarithmic scale is applied in the vertical axis. In
both point series it can be observed an increase in losses with
the roughness increase, up to a level between 400 and 600 mm;
after these values the losses do not vary although roughness in-
crease. This result is incongruous and must be rejected.
Hence, eliminating the results whose roughness are over
500 mm, it is obtained Fig. 8. Results are much better than the ones
of Fig. 6, with a perfect alignment of points that can be fitted with a
 I. Diego et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 189–200 197

Fig. 5. Calculation residuals in case ‘‘CircularD5-1”. Maximum values (left) and RMS values (right).

20

15
CFD losses (m)

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Theoretical losses (m)

Fig. 6. Comparison of the 10 m diameter model at velocity of 8 m/s.

line with a regression factor almost the unity, value over 0.99, but
with a slope that deviates from the optimum a 23%. The results are
similar for all diameters, roughness and air velocities.
If all the calculations are grouped together in the same analysis,
there can be obtained Fig. 9. The graphic shows all the results of
the simulations done in circular sections with diameters 5, 10
and 15 m, length of tunnel 500 m, air velocities of 0.2 and 8 m/s
and all the roughness included in Tables 1, 4 and 5, adequately fil-
tered below 500 mm level.
Fig. 9 shows how the lineal correlation is almost perfect (regres-
sion factor almost 1) but again with regression line slope moved
away from the optimum unity, a 17% below that value. This is,
198 I. Diego et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 189–200

10

CFD losses (m) 1

0.1

0.01

0.001
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Roughness (mm)

Fig. 7. Air losses vs. roughness in case of a 10 m diameter tunnel.

10

8
CFD losses (m)

4 y = 0.7661x + 0.0472
2
R = 0.9979

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Theoretical losses (m)

Fig. 8. Results comparison, D = 10 m, V = 8 m/s, once roughness over 500 mm are filtered.

the losses that are obtained when calculating an installation with
the CFD method will get losses values slightly lower than if the cal-
culation is done by any of the theoretical methods.
To finish the paper we would like to point out that during the
research several tests were done with partial symmetrical meshes.
This is, instead considering the full circular section, the calculations
were done in a 90° sector, assuming that the pressure and velocity
fields will be distributed in a symmetrical manner both in the ver-
tical and horizontal alignments. This approach guides to a great
saving in meshing elements and therefore in calculation times.
Nevertheless this procedure will be applicable only in very limited
situations as in the vast majority of the cases the simulation do-
mains will not be symmetrical.
Fig. 10 shows, left image, the mesh obtained. The number of tet-
rahedrons in the radius of the sector will be 7 or 8, obviously the
half value of the used in the complete circular section.
 I. Diego et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 189–200 199

Velocity = 8 m/s Velocity = 0.2 m/s

30 0.018
y = 0.8335x - 0.0237
0.016
2
R = 0.9928 y = 0.8335x - 0.0237
25 R2 = 0.9928
0.014

CFD losses (m)

CFD losses (m)

20 0.012

0.01
15
0.008
10 0.006

0.004
5
0.002
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
Theoretical losses (m) Theoretical losses (m)

Fig. 9. Final results.

2.5

2
y = 0.8335x - 0.0237
CFD losses (m)

R2 = 0.9928
1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Theoretical losses (m)

Fig. 10. Symmetrical simulation domain and results comparison.

The results of the comparisons among traditional calculations The CFD method can be also easily applied as a time dependent
and the CFD ones are similar as the obtained in case of the com- procedure, a 4D calculation method. This feature opens path for fu-
plete section, as can be seen in the right side of Fig. 10. ture research where complicated geometries of underground
works or time events, as contaminant releases, can be simulated
6. Conclusions and calculated.
The limitations of the method come with the need to define a
The CFD is an acceptable method to calculate air losses of the high resolution mesh in the vicinity of the walls in order to ade-
ventilation systems of underground works. This paper has shown quately simulate the high velocity gradients present there. This pa-
that similar results are obtained when using the traditional formu- per has shown how there is no need to include in the 3D design
lations or the computational fluid mechanics method, but with the surface details below 500 mm; it will be enough to define a repre-
invaluable advantage that the CFD is a three dimensions method. sentative superficial absolute roughness. Bigger obstacles to the air
This is, the calculations can be made in the three dimensions of flow will need a 3D design and associated meshing.
the space. It must be noticed that this 500 mm limitation covers the big-
CFD is the perfect companion for the traditional methods when gest part of situations that can be encountered in the state of the
complex situations appear. Simple geometries can be calculated in walls of underground works, except certain situations where there
a traditional manner, whereas complex details as turbulent reverse is no support used in tunnel advances using non adequately sized
flows or complex geometries not covered in the tables of friction blasts, which guides to enormous rock irregularities in the walls.
factors can be checked with CFD. In order to create an adequate mesh of the simulation domain,
Some of these complex geometries, which guide to complex there will be needed to create 10 prismatic elements in the bound-
meshing strategies, have been also developed and are shown. The ary layer of each wall, and between 12 and 14 tetrahedral elements
computing power needed to develop the geometries, the meshing in the diameter of the tunnel.
and the CFD calculations is not high. Typical desk top computers as The results of the CFD method compare correctly to the results
the ones detailed in the paper can deal with simulations involving of the traditional calculation methods with an error of 17%. The
detailed models including the machinery moving in the under- turbulence model chosen is k–epsilon, which allows the use of
ground works. standard work stations.
200 I. Diego et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 189–200
Acknowledgements
We want to acknowledge the public funds that granted these
studies, as these they have been done in the framework of the Re-
search Project CTM2005-00187/TECNO, ‘‘Prediction models and
prevention systems in the particle atmospheric contamination in
an industrial environment” of the Spanish National R+D Plan of
the Ministry of Education and Science, 2004–2007 period.
We also want to thank the work of the reviewers that have
checked the paper prior to its publication.
References
Ansys CFX-Solver, 2008. Release 10.0. Modelling, p. 129.
Ballesteros-Tajadura, R., Santolaria-Moros, C., Blanco-Marigorta, E., 2006. Influence
of the slope in the ventilation semi-transversal system of an urban tunnel.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 21, 21–28.
Beard, A.N., 2009. HGV fires in tunnels: fire size and spread. In: Proceedings of the
2nd International Tunnel Safety Forum for Road and Rail, Lyon.
Blazek, J., 2001. Computational Fluid Dynamics: Principles and applications.
Elsevier Science Ltd., United Kingdom. p. 225.
Diego, I., Torno, S., Toraño, J., 2008. CFD simulation of aerodynamic resistance in
underground spaces ventilation. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment
102, 12–23.
Yuan, Feng-Dong, You, Shi-Jun, 2007. CFD simulation and optimization of the
ventilation for subway side-platform. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 22, 474–482.
Hacar Rodríguez, Fernando, 2000. La rugosidad en túneles sin revestimiento en
relación con la ventilación. Ingeotúneles Tomo 3, Madrid, p. 463.
Galdo Vega, Mónica, Argüelles Díaz, Katia María, Fernández Oro, Jesús Manuel,
Ballesteros Tajadura, Rafael, Santolaria Morros, Carlos, 2008. Numerical 3D
simulation of a longitudinal ventilation system: memorial tunnel case.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23, 539–551.
Gimbun, Jolius., Chuah, T.G., Fakhru’l-Razi, A., Thomas, S.Y., Choong, 2005. The
influence of temperature and inlet velocity on cyclone pressure drop: a CFD
study. Chemical Engineering and Processing 44, 7–12.
Gribble, Don., 2009. Natural ventilation, harnessed by New Kingdom Egyptian tomb
builders, may explain the changed floor levels in the Valley of the Kings tomb
KV5. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24, 62–65.
Hargreaves, D.M., Lowndes, I.S., 2007. The computational modeling of the
ventilation flows within a rapid development drivage. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 22, 150–160.
Lacroix, D., 1998. The new PIARC report on fire and smoke control in road tunnels.
In: Third International Conference on Safety in Road and Rail Tunnels. ITC, Nice,
pp. 205–209.
Launder, B.E., Sharma, B.I., 1974. Application of the energy dissipation model of
turbulence to the calculation of flow near a spinning disc. Letters in Heat and
Mass Transfer 1 (2), 131–138.
Li, J.S.M., Chow, W.K., 2000. Illegal carriage of dangerous goods and their effects on
tunnel safety. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 15 (2), 167–173.
López Jimeno, Carlos, 1996. Manual de túneles. Madrid, p. 738.
Luque Cabal, Vicente, 1988. Manual de ventilación de minas. PEDECA Madrid.
McPherson, M.J., 2007. Subsurface Ventilation and Environmental Engineering.
Springer.
Norton, Tomas., Sun, Da.-Wen., Grant, Jim., Richard, Fallon., Vincent, Dodd., 2007.
Applications of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in the modelling and
design of ventilation systems in the agricultural industry: a review. Bioresource
Technology 98, 2386–2414.
Numpy 1.1.0. <http://www.scipy.org/Download> (accessed 14.07.08).
Potter, Merle C., Wiggert, David C., 2002. Mecánica de fluidos. Thomson, México, p.
277.
Prosser, B.S., Stinnette, J.D., Paredes, J., 2002. Ventilation optimization at the La
Camorra mine. In: Proceedings of 9th US Mine Ventilation Symposium, Queens
University, Kingston, Ontario, pp. 150–154.
RGNBSM: Spanish standard. Reglamento General Normas Básicas de Seguridad
Minera, ITC 04.7.1, apartados 1 y 3.
Santolaria-Morros, Carlos., Ballesteros-Tajadura, Rafael., Blanco, Eduardo., 2006.
Influence of the slope in the ventilation semi-transversal system of an urban
tunnel. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 21, 21–28.
ScyPy 0.6.0. <http://www.scipy.org/Download> (accessed 14.07.08).
Song, Hyun-Seob, Han, Sang Phil, 2005. A general correlation for pressure drop in a
Kenics static mixer. Chemical Engineering Science 60, 5696–5704.
Sorensen, D.N., Nielsen, P.V., 2003. Quality control of computational fluid dynamics
in indoor environments. Indoor Air 13, 2–17.
Stefopoulos, E.K., Damigos, D.G., 2007. Design of emergency ventilation system for
an underground storage facility EK. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 22, 293–302.
Tapsoba, Mitoubkieta, Jean, Moureh, Denis, Flick, 2007. Airflow patterns inside
slotted obstacles in a ventilated enclosure. Computers and Fluids 36, 935–948.
Vauquelin, Olivier, 2008. Experimental simulations of fire-induced smoke control in
tunnels using an ‘air–helium reduced scale model: Principle, limitations, results
and future. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23, 171–178.
Versteeg, H.K., Malalsekeera, W., 1995. An Introduction to Computational Fluid
Dynamics. Longman Group Ltd., Harlow, UK.
VENTSIM <http://www.ventsim.com/about.html> (accessed 14.07.08).
VENPRI. <http://www.aitemin.es/productos/venpri.html> (accessed 14.07.08).
VNET-PC. <http://www.mvsengineering.com/index.php?cPath=9#1vs> (accessed
14.07.08).
Wu, Y., Bakar, M.Z.A., 2000. Control of smoke flow in tunnel fires using longitudinal
ventilation systems - a study of the critical velocity. Fire Safety Journal 35, 363–
390.
Zhang, Z., Chen, Q., 2006. Experimental measurements and numerical simulations of
particle transport and distribution in ventilated rooms. Atmospheric
Environment 40, 3396–3408.