DESIGN METHODS IN STAIRWELL PRESSURIZATION

Marion Meinert M.Sc.* & Univ.-Prof. em. Dr.-Ing. Wolfram Klingsch **

* Muenster University of Applied Science, Corrensstraße 25, 48149 Muenster, Germany
E-Mail: m.meinert@fh-muenster.de
** University of Wuppertal, Pauluskirchstraße 11, 42285 Wuppertal, Germany
E-Mail: klingsch@uni-wuppertal.de
1. Introduction
Mechanical stair pressurization is a preferred system for staircases in high-rise buildings to
control the smoke movement in case of fire though the survey conducted by Cowlard et al. [1]
implies that pressurization systems fail in 9 out of 10 cases. Lay [2] stated that there is suspi-
ciousness about the functionality among fire professionals.
Requirements published in codes worldwide address the pressure difference to the adjacent
floors or a minimum air inflow velocity into the fire floor by upper and lower bounds.
The factors that influence the performance of the pressurization system in the stairwell are
closely linked to the pressure profile along the flow path caused by the flow through the
stairwell that pushes the smoke into the outside. Flow path resistances along this streamline
and room pressures can be calculated by formulas that are derived from one dimensional fluid
dynamical formulas like Bernoullis principle, the ideal gas law and using electrical resistance
calculations, all of them are extended with empirical correlations. Those are the fundamentals
for multizonal software like CONTAM [3] and state of the art of the performance based de-
sign method of pressurized stairwells. The CFD code Fire Dynamics Simulator (NIST) [4] is used
to highlight the limitations of the existing design methods by multizonal software [3].

2. State of the Art

Identified problems in the operation of stair pressurization are opening forces due to high
pressure difference or entering the stairwell by the stack effect or failing of the evacuation
concept resulting in too many open doors. The most fundamental parameter that is affecting
the first is the estimation of leakage of the walls of the stairwell [2], while the performance of
the pressurization fan depends on the latter and influences the pressure to open the doors.
Worldwide different regulations exist that address those problems with thresholds for door
opening force and required inflow velocity in stairwell door to fire floor as well as the number
of open doors in the stairwell.
Because the design of the peak flow rate of the fans depends on the number of open doors
(according to design scenario) and due to internal pressure losses, there is a height restriction
for single point injections. Those parameters should be tackled in stairwell regulations, table 1
shows that this is not the case for all of the observed codes. Additionally, design methods
which are useful to achieve those requirements are named in some of them, e.g. in pr
EN12101-13 analytical methods are described and the use of network models as well as CFD
models are advised.

3. Physical Principle
The factors that influence the performance of the pressurization system in the stairwell are
closely linked to the pressure profile along the flow path caused by the flow through the
stairwell that pushes the smoke into the outside. Flow path resistances along this streamline
and room pressures can be calculated by formulas that are derived from one dimensional fluid
dynamical formulas like Bernoullis principle, the Hagen-Pouiseulle flow for laminar flow
through cracks, the ideal gas law and using electrical resistance calculations [5], all of them
are extended with empirical correlations. Those are the fundamentals for multizonal software
like CONTAM [3] and state of the art of the performance based design method of pressurized
stairwells.
Flow that is always three-dimensional can be mathematically described with the fundamental
equations of conservation of mass, of momentum (Navier-Stokes Equations) and conservation
of energy. Together with the ideal gas law and simplifications to capture turbulence those are
the foundations for computational fluid dynamics. For the realistic description of flow inside a
building and its influence on the pressurization system it is essential to estimate flow paths
and pressure losses along those flow paths in an accurate manner. Pressure losses affect the
design and operation mode of the pressurization fan and therefore determine the maximum
pressure differential via egress doors in the stairwell as well as the minimum critical velocity
inside into the fire floor.
Considering the building as completely sealed, and heated or cooled, due to the different tem-
perature and accordingly different density a different gradient of the pressure head will be set
up. When there is a connection between an opening in the enclosure at the first floor and at
the top of the building in winter there will be a flow from the first floor through the building
generally through the stairwell out of the top and in summer from the top to the bottom, which
is regulated by the ratio of the opening areas and is well known as the “stack effect”. Addi-
tionally the area of leakages through the building envelope and through the interior walls in-
fluences this effect in combination with different temperatures due to cooling and heating of
the floors and ventilation. According to the ideal gas law, e.g. a temperature rise of 1 K at
STP leads to a pressure difference of 371Pa if it happens infinitely fast. This has no consider-
able effect because the mass loss due to leakage during the heating process will prevent such
an excessive pressure build up. But this stack effect can lead to a negative pressure on the
lower floors of the stairwell and subsequently supports smoke entering the stairwell while
doors to the upper floors could be pressurized and prevent people entering in winter.
The above mentioned climatic phenomenon together with the pressure losses affect design
and operation mode of the pressurization fan and therefore determine the maximum pressure
differential via egress doors in the stairwell.

Table 1 International Requirements

Code Scenario Design criteria Design methodology
NFPA 92 - vestibules permitted ∆pmin= 12.5 Pa Analysis requ. for hBuilding
2012 >8 stories: multiple injection Fmax,opening= 133N >30.5 m with single-
USA requires hBuilding>15m / 3stories Opposed airflow dependent inject., for complex sys-
on fire size tems computer network
model recommended
MHRRL hBuilding >22m: pressurized stair- udoor = 0.75-2 m/s -
Germany well requ., vestib. equ., pressure Fmax,opening = 100N
relief in fire floor
TRVBS 112 Resid. floor door open; udoor = 1 m/s (fire floor) -
Austria Evac. door in fire & 1st fl. open; udoor = 1 m/s (fire floor)
Fire fight. d. in fire & 1st fl. open udoor = 2 m/s (fire floor)
DIN EN Air release paths required, udoor = 0.75 - 2 m/s Electrical resistance anal-
12101-6 classification of buildings to ∆pmin= 10-45-50 +- 10 Pa ogy
nature and usage, specific de- Fmax,opening = 100N
scription of scenarios
prEN 12101- hBuilding >22m – supply every 6th udoor = 1 - 2 m/s Analytic. calc. or CFD-
13 draft floor ∆pmax = 60 Pa mod.; zone-knots model-
∆pmin = 30 Pa ing necess. for build. h >
Qmin = 7.500 – 15.000 m³h-1 60 m, E- resist. analogy
UAE hBuilding >23m pressurized stair- ∆pmin = 12.5 / 25 Pa -
Fire and Life well required, for >8 stories: ∆pmax = 60 Pa
Safety Code of multiple injection requires hBuilding Fmax,opening = 133N
Practice 15m / 3stor., vestibules permitted udoor = 0.75 - 2 m/s
4. Pressure induced Flow & Pressure Loss
Airflow is induced by a pressure difference. From duct design the pressure drop or loss of
total head is well known: It is an internal flow loss in useful flow energy (mechanical energy)
that is converted due to internal friction of the air molecules into heat (internal energy) ac-
cording to the first law of thermodynamics (dissipation). Dissipation increases in turbulent
flow where increased internal friction takes place.
In the fundamental conservation equations of fluid dynamics, this dissipation could be impli-
cated by splitting the conservation of energy into a part for mechanical and one for heat ener-
gy [11]. While the conservation equations describe all the flow phenomena at different places
and different times in detail, the well known Bernoulli Equation approximates the flow effects
that take place between rooms of different pressure or while the stairwell is flown through to
some points at one streamline at one specific time. Between two points it is given by
 2 
 u1    g  h1  p2   u 2    g  h2  ploss 1 2
2
p1  (1)
2 2

static velocity gravitational static velocity gravitational pressure

pressure P1 pressure P1 pressure P1 pressure P1 pressure P2 pressure P2 loss

With known conditions at point 1, the pressure loss has an influence on the velocity pressure
and therefore on the mass flow rate at point 2 and has to be considered carefully in design of
the pressurization system because supply fans perform dependent on the summated pressure
losses on the flow path. In contrast, because pressure loss is caused by friction, it is dependent
on the velocity or the Reynolds number. Consequently there is a feedback between supplied
volume flow in the staircase and created pressure loss on the flow path that is governed by
local velocities.
In engineering, different approaches exist to consider the pressure loss, for the wall friction
this is for example illustrated in the Moody chart, local resistances or head loss coefficients
are experimentally determined by the measured ratio of pressure loss between two points to
velocity pressure of a reference point: C [12], K [11]or [13] (eq. 2) The related velocity is
closely linked to the considered flow area and can be determined with mass conservation by
ureference=Q/Areference. For common duct fittings loss coefficients are listed in fundamental liter-
ature [13-15] and are tabularized, printed in curves or can be calculated by equations depend-
ent on velocity or Reynolds number and geometrical parameters of the fitting.
ploss 1 2 ploss 1 2
C   K   2
 2   u2 (2)
u
2

5. Pressure Losses in Stairwells

Internal pressure losses that occur during the flow through the stairwell have a great influence
on the design of the pressurization system and are strongly influenced by the geometry.
1976 Shaw and Tamura [16] related the overall pressure to the Darcy-Weißbach-equation for
friction in a rectangular duct where the pressure loss depends on an empirically determined
friction factor K SW (eq. 3), an equivalent hydraulic diameter Dh= 4A/P=4·a·b/2/(a+b) and the
height of the floor. Additionally, an approach was introduced to relate the pressure loss to an
empirically determined equivalent orifice area for the stairwell Ao (eq. 4) based on the Ber-
noulli equation, which represents the flow resistance by an orifice at each floor level. Here the
coefficient Cd for turbulent discharge of an orifice completes the equation. This approach was
also used by Achakij [17] whose experiments were the basis for today’s design methods and
his findings are a part of the contemporary design procedure [5].
Other approaches where introduced by Poreh et al. [18] and [19], who relate their experiments
to the initial loss coefficient  SW , floor per floor (eq. 5) while [20-23] use the effective area with
Aeff  Cd  Ao (eq. 6).
hhloor ( a  b )   2 1  2
ploss 1 2  K SW  Q (3) ploss 1 2  2
Q (4)
2  ASW3
2 Cd2  Ao 2

2
 
 
 SW , floor   2  Q  1  2
ploss 1 2  2
 Q (5) p loss 1 2     A 2 2Q (6)
ASW 2 2 A
 ASW  eff  eff

 ASW 

Besides the flow rate or the mean velocity related to the stairwell area, the complexity of ge-
ometrical dependencies of the pressure loss varies significantly. While the use of the friction
factor K SW requires the input of width, length and height of the stairwell, for the approach
referring to the equivalent orifice area and the flow coefficient  SW , floor it is sufficient to spec-
ify the stairwell area. The empirical coefficients are additionally related to open and closed
treads [17], shape (conventional with 2 landings vs. helical with 4 landings [18] ), the exist-
ence of railing, existence and size of well hole or running length [20-23].
In 2003 Poreh et al.[18] figured out by experimental studies, that the geometry of the stairwell
(conventional vs. helical) has a great influence on the flow resistance.
The fact that persons inside the stairwell have a significant effect on the pressure drop was
observed in 1988 by Achakij [17], though further tests with additional parameters were not
carried out since then. Nevertheless the effect of pressure losses is not considered in perfor-
mance based codes at all.
In table 2 loss coefficients that are determined by different approaches are compared in terms
of the scenario of a stairwell 5m length, 3m width and 3m height with the volume flow of
4m³/s related to a critical velocity of 2m/s through a door (1m x 2m).

Table 2 Determination of pressure losses [16],[17],[18],[23] &[22],[21], [20],[19] 
8
7
pressure loss per floor [pa] 4 m³/s lxw=3x5m

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
min

max

min

max

min

max

high resistance

low resistance

min

max

wide well hole

narrow well hole

no well hole

closed well hole

min

max

min

max

no persons model model 1:6 model 1:6 model

persons 1:10
realscale realscale Poreh & IMTECH pr EN 12101 -13 Ostertag Gerhardt
Tamura Achakij Trebukov 2012 2001 &
& Shaw 1988 2000 Konrath
1976 2001
 
6. Pressure Losses on Flow Path
Pressure drop that occurs on the flow path at the floor from stairwell to the envelope has to be
considered for the pressurization design as well as internal pressure losses inside the stairwell.
In fire safety engineering, pressure loss appears in multizonal software like CONTAM as it
affects the mass flow between two nodes. Options for describing airflow paths include power
law models, orifice models or two-way flow models that address thermal induced flow via an
opening. Each model deals with different empirically determined loss coefficients.
For the orifice model, the Bernoulli equation (1) rearranges for the geometrical opening area
with Qopening  Aopening  uopening for isothermal conditions and the assumption that no height dif-
ferences occur for an opening that connects two rooms (nodes / pressure zones) to:
 2  2
p1 2  ploss 1 2 uopening , geometry   2d ,local   Qopening
C
 Cd , local   uopening (13)
Aopening 2 2

Here the loss coefficient founds input into the velocity pressure (dynamic pressure) that is
related to the mean velocity of the opening and calculated by mass balance and can be related
to the orifice equation as well as to the mass flow between two nodes of different pressure:
1 2
m  Cd , mass    Aopening  uopening  Aopening    p1 2  (14)
Cd ,local 

Hence it is obvious that according to equation (15) there is a relation between the local loss
coefficient and the mass discharge coefficient which is used to relate the geometrical opening
area to the real flow area due to contraction.
For simplification the velocity inside the rooms is assumed to be 1
negligible small. This does not meet the physics in terms of C d , mass  (15)
Cd ,local
pressurization systems, e.g. the critical velocity of 2 m/s in a door
(1 m x 2 m) corresponds to a velocity of 0.10 m/s in a common
room width of 10 m and a height of 2.2 m.
Because the empirical models are mainly tailored for thermal or wind induced flow and not
for mechanical induced flow in rooms with high mass exchange rates, their applicability for
pressurization systems is not yet validated. One point are missing experiments on the deter-
mination of the local or mass discharge coefficient for the flow through doors. Literature val-
ues state Cd,mass to be typically close to 0.6 for a sharp-edged orifice and slightly higher for
other openings in buildings [3]. Klote [5] suggest for open doors in stairwells Cd,mass = 0.35
though it is recognized that stationary vortices may reduce the flow significantly.
According to recent studies, it is very difficult to determine loss coefficients for external
openings in wind driven ventilation [24].
Additionally Chu et al. [24] pointed out that internal openings have a significant effect on the
ventilation rate as they trim down flow velocity and an internal coefficient of Cd,loca l= 2.58
respectively Cd,mass = 0.62 for wind driven ventilation was derived though their findings are
tied to a fixed flow path.

7. Spatial Resolution: Electrical Resistance Concept

Spatial distribution and local pressure losses due to flow patterns in a room govern the distri-
bution of mass flow via different openings in one room. This has an influence on the real flow
path and is essential to determine pressure loss resistances for the design of the fan, because in
multizonal models the pressure loss depends on the mass flow through an opening. According
to the program documentation of the predecessor to CONTAM, AIRNET [29] as well as ac-
cording to Klote [5] the distribution of flow between multiple openings can be calculated sim-
ilar to the electrical resistance concept (Kirchhoff’s law) of resistance in parallel and series.
While in CONTAM laminar flow is considered with the laminar flow coefficient K, in turbu-
 Multizonal Approach - CONTAM [29]
lent flow it is the turbulent flow coefficient 
m K   p (18)
C. Here Klote [5] uses the effective area 
concept (table 3). parallel: series:

LAMINAR
K e   K i (19) 1 1
8. External Pressure Losses  (20)
Nevertheless loss coefficients are widely Ke Ki
used in engineering, recent studies [30],[31]
show that the application of multiple local m    C  p

TURBULENT
resistances in duct design does not meet the
parallel: series:
real pressure losses. This is because pres-
sure loss does not occur within the fitting C e   iC (21) 1
2
1
  2 (22)
under observation but as well upstream and Ce Ci
downstream. For flow through rooms in-
duced by a pressurization system this effect Analytical Approach - Klote [5]
is reinforced due to more complex flow parallel: series:
phenomenon. Ae   Ai (23)  1 
1/ 2

An isothermal FDS simulation was run to Ae    2  (24)

visualize the influence of the outflow and  Ai 
inflow conditions on flow path resistance. Table 3  electrical resistance concept 
While the multizonal and analytical ap-
proach integrates pressure losses due to dissipation in one loss coefficient, the CFD tool FDS
simulates pressure losses for every point in the flow path by Navier-Stokes equations and dy-
namic Smagorinsky turbulence model in detail. Figure 1 shows the flow through one door
(1m x 2m) between two rooms in a 3m height compartment. The inflow conditions (4m³/s -
2m/s - 1m x 2m) are established by a door positioned a) parallel (direct flow) and b) rectangu-
lar to the door under observation (crossflow). Additionally the inflow and outflow conditions
are varied with room size of 10m in flow direction to 10m width (room) versus 4m width
(corridor). Cell sizes of x·y·z=0.05m·0.05m·0.05m were determined as optimum mesh
size by a sensitivity study.
Figure 1 visualizes the flow pattern through the different inflow conditions by velocity magni-
tude; red color indicates high velocities of >3m/s while blue indicates 0m/s. It can be ob-
served that local velocities are much higher (>3m/s) than calculated mean velocities from
mass balance (2m/s).
Consequently there exist different flow patterns for the scenarios that lead to different distri-
butions of pressure drop. Everywhere in the room, where a current is set up, a pressure drop is
created and intensified in regions with steep velocity gradients. For instance in the scenarios
with rectangular inflow conditions pressure drop is also caused by the flow that occurs within
the room far away from inflow or outflow door. The magnitude of pressure drop via the door
between the rooms / corridors shows a difference of 3.5Pa for the considered scenarios (simu-
lated in the middle of the door on the longitudinal axis of the room in a height of 1m). The
resulting pressure drops of approx. 3Pa and 6.5Pa correspond to a flow coefficient of 0.89
respectively 0.60 according to equation (2) and cover a wide range. For smaller flow rates e.g.
1 m³/s (corresponding to a velocity of 0.5 m/s through a door 1m x 2m) the pressure drop is
about half an order of magnitude and varies between 0.28 and 0.33 Pa. For the determination
of a flow coefficient in the examined scenarios, it should be considered that the flow coeffi-
cient of the jet flow from the inflow door interacts with the flow coefficient of the observed
door between the rooms. Hence smooth inflow conditions via the full room width, not through
a door are additionally visualized for the direct flow scenario (dashed line). According to fig-
ure 1, the inflow condition through a door that causes a highly turbulent flow behavior within
the room can be able to mitigate the pressure loss of a door in comparison to smooth inflow
condition.
Derived flow coefficients are in the range of 1.25-2.71 for Cd, local and 0.89-0.60 for
Cd,mass referring to a flow rate of 4m³/s and to the flow rate of 1m³/s in the range of 1.67-2.2
for Cd, local and 0.77-0.67 for Cd,mas .The latter correspond very well to the loss coefficients
of 0.68-0.73 suggested by Steckler in 1985 for fire induced mass loss coefficients through
windows and doors [32].

OUT OUT

IN

IN
 
a) room direct flow a) b) room crossflow b) corridor
corridor crossflow
direct
flow

Figure 1 Flow pattern through a door Q=4m³/s, A=2m² 

FDS was used to demonstrate the behavior of flow via multiple resistances. As it can be seen
in figure (2) flow does not necessarily distribute equally via 3 resistances of the same size as it
is calculated with CONTAM. Distances and positions between inflow and different outflow
elements have a significant influence on the distribution of mass flow within the 3 rooms,
especially the set-up of a free jet flow determines the mass distribution. Figure 3 illustrates the
flow distribution in terms of fraction mass inflow in room to mass outflow through 3
openings.
Regarding the distribution and distance of inflow and outflow elements, figures (4) and (6)
confirm this behavior. In this simulation an “eccentric set-up” was chosen. However due to
other flow pattern the difference between mass flows via the openings decreases slightly. Ad-
ditionally the influence of different opening sizes (1.5m x 1m vs. 0.3m x 0.5m) that leads to
different flow resistances is investigated (figure 5).
It is figured out that the eccentric inflow conditions in the room and hence the formation of a
free jet have a great influence on the mass distribution via the both openings, this is not repro-
duced with CONTAM modeling. However, the change of resistance due to changed opening
size within the flow path and centric flow distribution lead to the same results (figure 6). On
the other hand for suction out of the room scenario the comparison of FDS and CONTAM
show nearly no differences except in the modeling of the change in opening size (figure 7).
9. Pressure Losses and Flow Paths within a Stairwell
The discrepancies between empirically determined pressure losses inside the stairwell with
 O1 O2 O3

   

Figure 2 Flow visualization for flow through 3  Figure 3 Mass distribution for flow through 3 
rooms  rooms 

O1 O2 O1 O2
   

Figure 4 Flow visualization for flow through 2  Figure 5 ‐ Flow visualization for flow through 
rooms ‐ eccentric  2 rooms –centric with changed resistance 

   

Figure 6 Flow through 2 doors ‐ over pressure  Figure 7 Flow through 2 doors ‐ under 
pressure 
respect to their importance obey the need for further investigation. For this purpose, a simula-
tion study with the Fire Dynamics Simulator was carried out. Here, two types of stairwells
where examined: one conventional stairwell with two landings, and one helical stairwell with
four landings as it was suggested by Poreh [18] (figures 8-11). Geometrical variation re-
garding well hole is taken into account. Furthermore a closed railing and a simple handrail are
compared. Different flow paths through a 30 m high stairwell (hfloor = 3.75m) with one door
open on the top floor are examined. Additionally a scenario with two open doors is consid-
ered, one on the top and one on the middle floor with varying position (a-e in Fig. 12, 13).

a  a  
d  c  b  b
Figure 10 plan view stairwell 2 
landings 

IN IN
   

Figure 8 FDS model            Figure 9 FDS model               

2 landings – closed well  4 landings – closed railing   
hole  Figure 11 plan view stairwell 4 
landings 
During the investigation the pressure distributions on the landing are compared. All simula-
tions have a volume flow of 4m³/s, which corresponds to a (mean) velocity of 2m/s in a door
of 2m². Regarding figure 12 it can be observed that there is a great discrepancy between the
pressure losses caused by different geometries. Here the helical stairwell spans the widest
range, confirming Poreh’s observation of the smallest pressure loss for an open well hole.
Both stairwells have the lowest pressure drop when the flow is guided through the well hole
via a closed railing. The influence of leakages was studied likewise. Leakages through tight
and loose walls as well as through gaps of one door were summarized in the gap below a door
with Atigh = 0.003 m² vs. Aloose = 0.02m² (located at position d according to figure 10). Figure
13 shows that the leakage area has a great influence on the pressure relief with height, never-
theless the influence of mass leakage is comparatively small. For tight walls a mass loss of
3% was observed, for loose walls a value of 10% results.
Figure 12 Influence of stairwell geometry on  Figure 13 Influence of wall leakage for 
pressure drop  stairwell with 2 landings and closed well hole 

The influence of door position inside

the stairwell with multiple open doors
has also a great influence. Figure 14
shows that the mass flow rate through
the top door, that should be 2.4 kg/s
(20°C, u = 1m/s) for a uniform distri-
bution, is reduced up to 60 % depend-
ing on the door position (a-e accord-
ing to figures (10-11). Hence also the
mean velocity through the top door
decreases to 0.6 m/s while the mean
velocity through the middle door in-
creases to 1.4 m/s. In summery the
internal flow path and internal pres-
sure losses have a great influence on
flow distribution and accordingly the
Figure 14 Influence of door position on flow  attained inflow velocity into the fire
floor.
distribution inside the stairwell 
10. Current Design Criteria
The design criteria that affect the pressurization systems, the thresholds for door opening
force versus minimum pressure difference to the floors to avoid smoke from floors entering
through leakages of the wall and the critical inflow velocity require further investigation: Be-
cause the stairwell ventilation state has a significant effect on the heat release rate in the floor
(open doors below and above the fire floor) [33], the interaction between fire and flow
through the stairwell should be part of the performance based design. Likewise the applicabil-
ity of the critical ventilation velocity as a principal parameter in tunnel design with a similar
approach to stairwell pressurization was questioned recently by Vaitkevicius et al. [34]. It was
discovered, that local flow phenomena in tunnels also have a significant impact on the spread
of smoke that could not be captured by one critical design value. Hence the pressurization
concept could not be described with a simple balance of smoke flow (low pressure side) ver-
sus critical velocity (high pressure side).
11. Conclusion
For pressurization systems, airflow patterns inside the stairwell as well as across doors control
the quantities of interest: the pressure drop due to dissipation caused by internal friction which
increases with intensity of turbulence. Available coefficients are tied to fixed scenarios and
may be suitable for ventilation purpose but in pressurized case with higher flow rates, veloci-
ties and dissipation effects need to be expanded.
Additionally the electrical resistance analogy concept used for flow distribution does not take
into account the complex geometry of the flow. Especially the formation of free jets in rooms
can lead to strong deviations between model and reality, which does not appear when flow is
caused by suction. For modern open plan scenarios this effect could be captured by the im-
plementation of additional analytical relations for free jets or the coupling of CFD with multi-
zonal models [35]. It is essential that the designer knows about those limitations and is sensi-
tive to the degree of accordance between multizonal modeling and real flow behavior.
The quantification of air leakage paths and leakage areas with common flow coefficients for
realistic calculation of the pressure profile due to stack effect is nearly impossible to meet by
designers: First of all measured and tabularized values have a wide range and engineering
judgement is very difficult for one certain building, secondly building leakage is determined
on the construction side and varies per building in every floor. Only with field measurements
under operating conditions the designer will be able to identify real leakage in detail.
Additionally, pressure fluctuations due to wind effects on the building as well as the uncer-
tainties associated to the nature of the fire [1] lead to a highly transient flow behavior that
cannot be represented by steady-state correlations. Prétrel et al. [36] showed that within the
first 5 minutes of the fire in a confined and force ventilated enclosure there was a huge pres-
sure variation measured that was affected by the fire size, the ventilation features and the en-
closure characteristics like the conductivity possibility of the walls or the air flow resistance
of the ventilation system (flow inversions in the ventilation branches). This can only be in-
cluded by transient CFD calculations depending on fire size.
Furthermore, factors that influence the pressure profile at doors to the fire room are not yet
completely understood e.g. air pumping effect of room fires which is related to the size of the
room openings in relation to the heat released [37].
Hence for the safe design of a pressurization system it is of crucial importance to define pres-
sure drops on the flow path and furthermore ensure that flow paths are build-up and kept in a
fire scenario. This should also be implemented in fire management and the evacuation con-
cept. Human influence in case of unintended closing and opening of doors can significantly
affect the pressurization system and need to be considered in design. Additionally the influ-
ence of human beings in the flow path resulting in greater pressure losses needs to be studied
further.

12. References
1. Cowlard, Adam, et al. Fire Safety Design for Tall 22. Schalau, S. . Experimentelle Bestimmung von
Buildings. 2013. pp. 169-181. 9th Asia-Oceania Druck-verlusten in Sicherheitstreppenräumen unter
Symposium on Fire Science and Technology Berücksichtigung wesentlicher baulicher Merkmale.
2. Lay, S. Pressurization systems do not work and present Thesis - Beuth University of Applied Sciences,
a risk to life safety. Case Studies in Fire Safety. 2014, Berlin, Germany, 2013.
2214-398x. 23. Siemers, Magda-Lena. Experimentelle
3. Walton, G.N and Dols, W.S. CONTAM 3.0 User Guide Bestimmung von Druckverlusten in
and Program Documentation. Gaithersburg, MD : NIST, Sicherheitstreppenräumen unter Berücksichtigung
2013. wesentlicher baulicher Merkmale. Thesis -
4. McGrattan, K., et al. Fire Dynamics Simulator, User's Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Germany
Guide. NIST, 2013. NIST Special Publication. 2012.
5. Klote, John H. Handbook of Smoke Control 24. Chu, Chia-Ren und Wang, Yu-Wen. The loss
Engineering. [Ed] Paul G. Turnbull James A. Milke. factors of building openings for wind-driven
sASHRAE, 2012. ventilation. Building and Environment. 45, 2010.
6. Emmerich, S. J. und Persily, A. K. Analysis of U.S. 25. Etheridge, D.W. Crack flow equations and scale
 Commercial Building Envelope Air Leakage Database effect. Building and Environment. 12, 1977.
to Support Sustainable Building Design. Int. Journal of 26. Davidovich, D., et al. Analytical procedures for
Ventilation. Iss.12, 2014, Vol. 4. estimating airflow rates in ventilated, screened wall
7. Shin, Hyun Kook und Jo, Jae Hun. Air Leakage systems (VSWS). Building and Environment. 47,
Characteristics and Leakage Distribution of Dwellings 2012.
in High-rise Residential Buildings in Korea. Journal of 27. Baker, P.H., Sharples, S. und Ward, I.C. Air flow
Asian Architecture and Building Engineering. 2013, through cracks. Building and Environment. Vol. 1,
Vol. 92. 1987.
8. Klote, John H. Handbook of Smoke Control 28. Okuyama, H. und Onishi, Y.. Reconsideration of
Engineering. [ed.] Paul G. Turnbull James A. Milke. s.l. parameter estimation and reliability evaluation
: ASHRAE, 2012. methods for building airtightness measurement
9. Tamura, G. and Shaw, C. Air leakage measurements of using fan pressurization. Building and
the exterior walls of tall buildings. Springer Environment. 47, 2012, p. 373-384.
Netherlands, 1973. Tech. rep. 10.1007/BF02624778. 29. Walton, George N. AIRNET - A Computer
10. 18095-1:1988-10, DIN. Türen; Rauchschutztüren; Program for Building Airflow Network Modeling.
Begriffe und Anforderungen. Berlin, Germany : Beuth- Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards
Verlag, 1988. and Technology, 1989. NISTIR 89-4072.
11. Herwig, Heinz. Strömungsmechanik. s.l. : Springer- 30. Fiedler, E.. Über die Druckverlustberechnung,
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2006. insbesondere aus Simulationsergebnissen.
12. ASHRAE, [Ed.]. ASHRAE Handbook-Fundamentals. Bauphysik., Vol. 6. 2009
2009. 31. Meinert, M., Hollenbek, P. and Boiting, B..
13. Idelchik, I.E. Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance. USA Druckverluste in Lüftungskanälen. HLH Lüftung /
: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1986. Klima, Heizung/ Sanitär, Gebäudetechnik,Vol. 5,
14. Recknagel, Sprenger und Schramek. Taschenbuch für 2013
Heizung und Klimatechnik. München Oldenb. 32. Steckler, K.D, Baum, H.R. und Quintiere, J.G.
Industrieverl., Germany, 2007. Fire induced flows through room openings-flow
15. VDI-Wärmeatlas, 10.Ed. Berlin Heidelberg : Springer- coefficients. Symposium on Combustion. 20, Vol. 1.
Verlag, Germany 2006. 1985
16. The calculation of air infiltration rates caused by wind 33. Yuan, W.X. Shi and J. Ji and J.H. Sun and S.M. Lo
and stack action for tall buildings. Shaw, C.T. und and L.J. Li and X.Y. Influence of staircase
Tamura, G.T. 1977, ASHRAE TRANSACTIONS, Vol. ventilation state on the airflow and heat transfer of
83-2. the heated room on the middle floor of high rise
17. Achakji, Tamura. Pressure drop characteristics of building. Applied Energy, Vol. 119, 2014
typical stairshafts in high-rise buildings. ASHRAE. 34. Vaitkevicius, A., Colella, F. und Carvel, R.,
1988. p. 122. Rediscovering the Throttling Effect. Anders
18. Poreh, M., Trebukov, S. and Gurevitz, T.. Mitigation Lonnermark und Haukur Ingason. SP Technical
of Wind effects on the Performance of Pressurization Research Institute of Sweden. [Ed.]. Proceedings
Systems in High-Rise Buildings. s.l. : Fire Safety from the Sixth International Symposium on Tunnel
Science - Proceedings of the 7th International Safety and Security. 2014
Symposium, 2003. 35. Wang, Liangzhu. Coupling of Multizone and CFD
19. Pressure differential systems -German point of view to Programs for Building Airflow and Contaminant
EN 12101-6 consideration of the influence of aerostatic Transport Simulations. West Lafayette, Indiana,
pressure differential in high rise buildings. Konrath, B. USA : Dissertation, Purdue University, 2007.
Miedrzyzdroje, Poland : s.n., 2007. 36. Prétrel, H., Le Saux, W. und Audin, L. Pressure
20. Ostertag, D. Überdruckbelüftungsanlagen für variations induced by a pool fire in a well-confined
Sicherheitstreppenräume in Hochhäusern, Bd. B in and force-ventilated compartment. Fire Safety
Entrauchung - Grundlagen. s.l. : Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Journal. 53, 2012, Bde. p 11-24.
Germany, 2004. 37. Chow, Wan-ki. Air pumping action of a plume in a
21. CEN/TC191/SC1/WG6/TG1. prEN 12101-13 draft room fire. s.l. Building Simulation Vol 6 Iss1, 2013.
2013 03 13. s.l. : -draft- not published, 2013. pp. 95-102