This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, June 2012. Copyright 2012 ASHRAE. Posted at www.ashrae.org.

This article may not be copied

and/or distributed electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE. For more information about ASHRAE Journal, visit www.
ashrae.org.

Basics of
Atrium Smoke Control
Design Scenarios

By John H. Klote, Ph.D., P.E., Fellow/Life Member ASHRAE

moke is recognized as the major killer in building fires. Smoke control

in large-volume spaces is based on a long history of experience

and research going back to the 1881 Ring Theater fire in Vienna that
killed 449 people. After that fire, the Austrian Society of Engineers
conducted reduced-scale fire tests that showed how roof vents over
the stage would have protected the audience from smoke. Thirty years
later, such smoke vents worked as intended in the Palace Theater fire
in Edinburgh, Scotland.

In addition to such natural smoke

venting, today there are a number of
design approaches to deal with smoke
in large-volume spaces. A large-volume space is a space that is at least two
stories high such as an atrium, a sports
arena, or an airplane hangar. In this article the term atrium is used in a ge36

ASHRAE Journal

neric sense to mean any large-volume

space.
This article is adapted from part of
Chapter 15 of the new ASHRAE publication, Handbook of Smoke Control Engineering.1 In this article, when a chapter number is mentioned, it is a chapter
in this new handbook.

A design scenario is the outline of

events and conditions that are critical
to determining the outcome of alternate situations or designs. In addition
to the fire location and heat release rate
(HRR), a design scenario may include
many other conditions such as the materials being burned, the weather, the status of the HVAC system, and doors that
are opened and closed. A design analysis should include a number of design
scenarios to provide a level of assurance
that the smoke control system will operate as intended.
Design fires need to be realistically
selected as discussed in Chapter 5. In
general, a design analysis needs to include design fires located in the atrium
and in communicating spaces. A communicating space is one that has an open
About the Author
John H. Klote, Ph.D., P.E., is is an expert in smoke
control technology in Leesburg, Va.

a s h r a e . o r g

June 2012

Smoke Layer

Separated
Space
Plume

Atrium
(Large-Volume Space)

Separated
Space

Smoke Exhaust
Is Not Shown

Communicating
Space
Communicating
Space

Fire in the Atrium

Spaces Related to Atriums

Smoke Layer

Smoke Exhaust
Is Not Shown
Balcony
Spill Plume

Smoke Layer

Window Plume
Smoke Exhaust
Is Not Shown

This Room is Fully Involved in Fire

Fire in a Communicating Space

Fully Developed Fire in a Room Open to the Atrium

Figure 1: Fire locations for atrium smoke control analysis.

pathway to an atrium so that smoke from a fire either in the
atrium or the communicating space can move from one to the
other without restriction. Figure 1A illustrates these spaces.
A separated space is one that is isolated from the atrium by smoke barriers (Figure 1A). For this handbook, a
smoke barrier is a continuous membrane, either vertical
or horizontal, that is designed and constructed to restrict
the movement of smoke in conjunction with a smoke control system. Smoke movement at these smoke barriers can
be controlled by pressurization or by compartmentation
alone.
Figure 1B shows a fire in the atrium with smoke rising
above the fire to form a smoke layer under the ceiling of the
atrium. The most widely used approach to atrium smoke control is smoke exhaust, but other approaches can also be used.
Regardless of the smoke control approach, there is a distance
around the fire where occupants cannot go because of the intensity of the fire. To determine the minimum distance that a
person can be from a fire for a few minutes without unbearable
pain see Chapter 6.
For a scenario with the fire in the atrium, the design fire
does not normally take into account any benefit of sprinklers.
In spaces with high ceilings, the temperature of the smoke
plume can drop so much that sprinklers may not activate or
activation may be so delayed that the spray may evaporate beJune 2012

fore it reaches the fire. Information about the interaction of

sprinklers with the smoke layer is in the Handbook of Smoke
Control Engineering. For information about design fires, see
Chapter 5.
Smoke from a fire in a communicating space can flow
into the atrium and form a balcony spill plume as shown
in Figure 1C. This figure shows smoke blocking of parts
of balconies above the fire. It is beyond the capability of
smoke control technology to prevent such smoke blocking, but the balcony is not blocked away from the balcony
spill plume (Figure 2).The comments earlier regarding the
minimum distance that a person can be from a fire also
apply here. For a scenario with the fire in a communicatSmoke exhaust through a plenum with a suspended
ceiling not recommended. The pressures produced by the
exhaust flow through a plenum with a suspended ceiling
can be high enough to lift ceiling tiles out of their frames.
Such relocation of ceiling tiles could have an
adverse impact on the performance of the
smoke exhaust system. The effort involved
with periodic testing of such a smoke exhaust
system can be significantly increased due to the
need for repair of suspended ceilings after testing.
ASHRAE Journal

37

ing space, the growth of the design fire generally stops

upon sprinkler activation.
Figure 1D shows a fully developed fire and smoke forming a window plume. A fully developed fire would not happen
when a sprinkler system is operating properly. Because most
new commercial buildings in the United States are fully sprinklered, design fire scenarios that include a fully developed fire
are uncommon in the United States. In countries where fully
sprinklered buildings are uncommon, design fire scenarios
may include fully developed fires. It is also possible that some
building owners or building managers may want the very high
level of protection associated with a smoke control system
that can handle even a fully developed fire.

Design Approaches
Design approaches that have been used for atrium smoke
control are (1) natural smoke filling, (2) steady mechanical
smoke exhaust, (3) unsteady mechanical smoke exhaust,
(4) steady natural smoke venting, and (5) unsteady natural
smoke venting. These approaches are discussed later. Airflow can also be used to control smoke flow in conjunction
with these approaches, but care must be exercised because
airflow has the potential to provide combustion air to the
fire.
Many design approaches are intended to prevent occupants
from coming into contact with smoke. The idea is to control
smoke so that it descends only to a predetermined height during the operation of the smoke control system. In many locations, there are code requirements for the predetermined
height. This height is often in the range from 6 to 10 ft (1.83 to
3.05 m) above the highest walking surface that forms a portion
of a required egress in the atrium.
Other design approaches are intended to maintain a tenable environment when people come into contact with smoke.
When the products of combustion are sufficiently diluted, the
resulting diluted smoke can be tenable, and tenability analyses
routinely deal with reduced visibility and exposure to toxic
gases, heat and thermal radiation. See Chapter 6 for more information about tenability.
The following discussion of design approaches address
systems that are intended to prevent occupant contact with
smoke, but these systems can be modified to ones that address
tenability.

Natural Smoke Filling

This approach consists of allowing smoke to fill the atrium
without any smoke exhaust or other smoke removal. For some
spaces the smoke filling time with the design fire is more than
sufficient for evacuation. The smoke filling time is the time
from ignition until the smoke descends to the predetermined
height. Applications that are appropriate for natural smoke
filling are not common, because there needs to a very large
space above the highest occupied level of the atrium. Any
of the methods of analysis discussed below can be used for
this system. It is essential that calculations of evacuation time
38

ASHRAE Journal

Smoke Layer

Balcony
Spill Plume

Smoke exhaust
is not shown.
Figure 2: Front view of balcony spill plume.
include the times needed for recognition, validation and premovement as discussed in Chapter 4.

Steady Mechanical Smoke Exhaust

This is the most commonly used approach in North America. This system consists of mechanical smoke exhaust sized
to keep the bottom of the smoke layer at the predetermined
height for the design fire.

Unsteady Mechanical Smoke Exhaust

This approach also uses mechanical smoke exhaust, but the
flow rate of the exhaust is less than steady mechanical exhaust
such that the exhaust only slows the rate of smoke layer descent for a time that allows occupants to safely egress from the
space. This method needs to maintain at least the predetermined
height mentioned previously for the time it takes the occupants
to safely evacuate. The considerations about calculation evacuation time for natural smoke filling systems also apply here.

Steady Natural Venting

As previously mentioned, this kind of venting has a history
going back to the Ring Theater fire of 1881. This approach is
not common in the United States, but it is common in Europe,
Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Rather than exhaust fans,
this approach uses non-powered smoke vents at or near the top
of the atrium. Often this kind of venting is called gravity venting because the smoke is vented due to buoyancy.
The flow rate of the smoke through the vents needs to be such
that the bottom of the smoke layer is kept at the predetermined
height for an indefinite time. The previous comments regarding the predetermined height also apply here. An equation for
the steady mass flow rate through a natural vent is discussed
later. It is recommended that steady natural venting systems be
analyzed with the aid of a computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
model, discussed in Chapter 20.

Unsteady Natural Venting

This approach is like steady natural venting except the
smoke venting rate is such that it only slows the rate of smoke
layer descent for a time that allows occupants to safely egress
from the space. This method needs to maintain at least the
a s h r a e . o r g

June 2012

www.info.hotims.com/41640-69

Ceiling Jet

Exhaust

Uniform Smoke Layer

Transition Zone

Smoke Layer
Interface

Plume

Plume
Smoke Exhaust
Not Shown
Fire

Atrium Fire

Fire

Zone Model Idealization of an Atrium Fire

Figure 3: Sketch of an idealized zone model representation of an atrium fire.

predetermined height mentioned previously for the time it
takes the occupants to safely evacuate. It also is recommended
that unsteady natural venting systems be analyzed with the aid
of a CFD model. The considerations about calculation evacuation time for natural smoke filling systems also apply here.

Methods of Analysis
The methods that can be used for analysis of atrium smoke
control systems are algebraic equations, zone fire modeling,
CFD modeling and scale modeling.

Algebraic Equations
Atrium smoke control makes use of many algebraic equations. Some of these are based on the fundamental principles
of engineering, and others are empirical correlations based on
experimental data. Equations for smoke filling, natural venting and the airflow velocity to prevent smoke backflow are
discussed later in the chapter.
Chapter 16 addresses the algebraic equations for steady mechanical smoke exhaust, and these equations are based on the
zone fire model concepts discussed in the next section. In the
following section on zone fire modeling, the discussion about
smoke exposure in the transition zone also applies to systems
designed with the algebraic equations of Chapter 16.
When another method of analysis is used, algebraic equations
are often used to determine starting points for the analysis.

Zone Fire Modeling

In an atrium fire, smoke flows upward in a plume that entrains air as it rises. When the plume reaches the ceiling, it
turns and becomes a ceiling jet that flows under the ceiling
(Figure 3A). Figure 3B shows an idealized zone model representation of an atrium fire.
Zone fire models are simple models that consider a fire compartment to be divided into two zones: (1) a smoke layer and (2)
a lower layer that is free or nearly free of combustion products.
The smoke layer can change in size based on the mass flowing
40

ASHRAE Journal

into and out of it. In a real fire, the temperature and concentration of contaminants vary throughout the smoke layer with the
highest values tending to be near top of the smoke layer. In real
fires, there is also a gradual transition zone between the smoke
layer and the lower layer as shown in Figure 3A.
In a zone fire model, the smoke layer has a uniform temperature and uniform concentrations. This means that the temperature at any place in the smoke layer is the same as everywhere else in the smoke layer, and the same can be said about
the concentration of each contaminant.
Zone fire models do not simulate the transition zone, but the
bottom of the smoke layer is simulated as a horizontal plane
called the smoke layer interface as shown in Figure 3B. The
zone model considers the air a fraction of an inch (or centimeter) below the smoke layer interface to be as free of smoke as
the rest of the lower layer. Occupants in the lower layer near
the smoke layer interface will actually be in the transition zone
exposed to some smoke. Unfortunately, neither zone fire models nor the algebraic equations of Chapter 16 can be used to
evaluate this smoke exposure. It is believed that in many situations, conditions in the transition zone may be tenable. CFD
modeling can be used to evaluate tenability at this location.
Zone fire models do not simulate the time it takes for the
plume to reach the ceiling, which is small in a normal size
room but larger in an atrium. Empirical equations for this lag
time are discussed later in this Chapter. Zone fire models do
not simulate plume flow, but they use empirical equations to
calculate plume temperature and the mass flow.
Even with the previous limitations, zone fire models have
proven to be very useful tools for many applications, but they
must be used with care. Chapter 18 has more detailed information about zone fire models.

CFD Modeling
CFD consists of dividing a space of interest such as an atrium into a large number of cells, and using a computer program to solve the governing equations for each cell. CFD is
a s h r a e . o r g

June 2012

www.info.hotims.com/41640-70

capable of highly realistic simulations. The plume, ceiling jet,

smoke layer and the transition zone are all simulated by the
CFD model. CFD models are capable of simulating plugholing, and they can simulate any adverse effects of makeup air
velocity on plume formation. Plugholing is discussed later.
CFD modeling requires a level of knowledge and experience beyond that of zone fire modeling, and CFD simulations
typically require hours and sometimes days of computer time.
For more information about this kind of modeling, see Chapter 20.

Ceiling Jet

Plume

Minimum Smoke
Layer Depth is 20% of
Floor-to-Ceiling Height

Flow Under
Ceiling Jet

Scale Modeling
Scale modeling is capable of highly realistic simulations.
This kind of modeling consists of conducting fire tests in a
small model of the atrium or other facility, and converting the
data from those tests to the full scale facility. Scale modeling
is addressed in Chapter 21.

Atrium Temperature
For systems that rely on mechanical smoke exhaust, the
temperature of the air below the smoke layer quickly approaches the outdoor temperature. This is because of the very
large amounts of makeup air that enter the atrium. For design
analysis of systems using mechanical smoke exhaust, the outside design temperature should be used for the ambient temperature of the atrium.
As the gas temperatures increase, the density of the gas
decreases, and the volumetric flow rate needed to maintain
a constant mass flow increases. Atrium exhaust fans need to
be sized for the maximum volumetric flow needed to control
smoke for the design conditions. This maximum volumetric
flow will happen when the summer outside design temperature is used for the ambient temperature of the atrium. For this
reason, smoke exhaust fans need to be sized with an ambient
temperature of the atrium equal to the summer outside design
temperature.

Minimum Smoke Layer Depth

The minimum smoke layer depth needs to be 20% of the
floor-to-ceiling height except when an engineering analysis using full scale data, scale modeling, or CFD modeling indicates
otherwise. The formation of the minimum smoke layer depth
is shown in Figure 4. When a smoke plume reaches the ceiling, the smoke flows away from the point of impact in a radial
direction forming a ceiling jet. When the ceiling jet reaches a
wall the smoke flow turns down and flows back under the ceiling jet. The ceiling jet has a depth of about 10% of the floor-toceiling height, and the smoke flow under the ceiling jet is also
about 10% of the floor-to-ceiling height. This means that the
smoke layer depth is about 20% of the floor-to-ceiling height.

Makeup Air
Makeup air is outdoor air either supplied by openings to
the outside or by mechanical fans. For systems that have fan
powered smoke exhaust, makeup air needs to be provided by
42

ASHRAE Journal

Figure 4: Minimum smoke layer depth.

mechanical fans or by openings to the outside. Makeup air
has to be provided so that the exhaust fans can remove the
design quantities of smoke and that the door opening force
requirements are not exceeded. Makeup air must be supplied
far enough below the smoke layer interface so that it does not
disrupt the smoke layer.
When providing makeup air through openings to the outside, some air also flows by way of leakage paths. The large
openings (such as vents, doors and windows) need to open
automatically on system activation. The leakage paths consist of construction cracks, gaps around closed doors, gaps
around closed windows, and other similar small paths. The
large openings should be sized to provide about 85% to 95%
of the makeup air with the rest coming through the leakage
paths.
When makeup air is provided by mechanical fans, the
makeup air should be less than the mass flow rate of the mechanical smoke exhaust. It is recommended that makeup air
for fan powered smoke exhaust systems be designed at 85% to
95% of the exhaust. The idea is that the remaining air (5% to
15%) will enter the large-volume space through leakage paths
preventing positive pressurization of the atrium.
The makeup air must not exceed 200 fpm (1.02 m/s) where
the makeup air could come into contact with the plume unless
a higher makeup air velocity is supported by an engineering
analysis. The primary reason for this 200 fpm (1.02 m/s) limit
is to prevent significant deflection of the plume and disruption of the smoke layer.2 Deflection of the plume results in
increased air entrainment that can cause smoke control system failure. A secondary reason for this velocity restriction is
that it reduces the potential for fire growth and spread due to
airflow.
The 200 fpm (1.02 m/s) limitation is not relevant in communicating spaces one story high that are sprinklered. At these
locations, successfully sprinklered fires do not form plumes
as they would in the atrium, and successfully sprinklered fires
limit fire growth. However, air introduced in a communicata s h r a e . o r g

June 2012

www.info.hotims.com/41640-60

Exhaust Fan

Exhaust Fan

Plugholing of Air Into

Smoke Exhaust

It Cannot Be Seen, But

The Fan is Still Pulling Air
Into the Smoke Exhaust

Smoke Layer Height Falling Due to Plugholing

Smoke Below the Intended Height Due to Plugholing

Figure 5: Plugholing causing the smoke layer to fall below the intended height.
ing space needs to slow down to meet the 200 fpm (1.02 m/s)
limitation when it reaches the atrium. For example, consider makeup air supplied to the communicating space on the
ground floor of Figure 1A. The makeup air enters the communicating space at a velocity above the limitation. A jet of supply air forms as it would from an HVAC diffuser. The velocity
of this jet needs to drop to 200 fpm (1.02 m/s) or less when
it reaches the atrium space. The design calculations need to
include velocity calculations of this makeup air jet at the point
where it reaches the atrium.
When makeup air is provided by openings to the outside, the
design analysis of the system needs to address wind effects as
discussed below.

Wind
Atrium smoke control systems need to be designed to minimize the potential for wind to result in: (1) velocities greater
than 200 fpm (1.02 m/s) where the makeup air could come
into contact with the plume, and (2) smoke feedback from the
smoke exhaust (or smoke vents) into the makeup air.
When makeup air openings face in different directions,
wind forces can result in velocities exceeding 200 fpm (1.02
m/s) inside the atrium. The wind can blow into openings
facing one direction and out the other openings. A simple
approach for minimizing wind effects inside an atrium is to
have all the makeup air openings face in the same direction.
Another simple approach is using mechanical fans for both
smoke exhaust and makeup air such that the impact of the
wind is minimized. When such simple approaches are not feasible, a detailed analysis is needed that takes into account the
prevailing wind directions. Such an analysis can be done with
a network model or a CFD model.
Smoke can be carried by the wind from the smoke exhaust or from smoke vents to makeup air openings or inlets.
The simple approach to minimize the potential for this is to
locate the smoke exhaust (or vents) and makeup air open44

ASHRAE Journal

ings (or inlets): (1) far away from each other, and (2) such
that the prevailing wind directions carry the smoke away
from makeup air openings (or inlets). When this simple approach is not feasible, CFD analysis or wind tunnel analysis
is needed to evaluate the potential for smoke feedback into
the atrium.

Plugholing
Plugholing is a phenomenon where air from below the
smoke layer is pulled through the smoke layer into the smoke
exhaust. Plugholing can cause system failure, but it can be
easily prevented. Plugholing reduces the exhaust from the
smoke layer, which tends to lower the smoke layer and expose
occupants to smoke.
The following discussion of plugholing applies to steady
mechanical smoke exhaust systems. Figure 5A shows a smoke
layer that is at the intended design height, but the layer is still
descending due to plugholing. As the smoke layer depth increases, the buoyancy forces of the smoke layer increase, and
the amount of plugholing decreases. Eventually, the smoke
layer becomes deep enough that a state of equilibrium is
achieved with a constant smoke layer height as shown in Figure 5B. Plugholing has resulted in a smoke layer below what
was intended.
The important forces for plugholing are the kinetic forces
of the smoke exhaust and the buoyancy forces of the smoke
layer. When kinetic forces dominate, there will be plugholing. When the buoyancy forces dominate, there will be no
plugholing. The kinetic forces depend on the flow rate of the
smoke exhaust, and the buoyancy forces depend on the temperature and depth of the smoke layer. When these forces
are balanced at an exhaust inlet, the flow at that inlet is the
maximum that can be achieved without plugholing. Plugholing can be prevented by using a number of smoke exhaust
inlets such that the flow rate at each inlet is at or below this
maximum value.
a s h r a e . o r g

June 2012

www.info.hotims.com/41640-32

There is an empirical equation in Chapter 16 for the maximum volumetric flow rate that can happen at an exhaust inlet
without plugholing. This equation and the earlier discussion
also apply to systems that use natural venting.
Scale modeling and CFD modeling can simulate plugholing without the use for the empirical maximum flow rate
equation of Chapter 16. This empirical equation can be
conservative, and it is possible that an analysis using scale

modeling or CFD modeling would result in a lower number of exhaust inlets than an analysis using the empirical
equation.

Stratification
A hot layer of air can form under the ceiling of an atrium
due to solar radiation on the atrium roof. The temperature of
such a layer can be 120F (50C) or more. When the average temperature of the plume is less
than that of the hot air layer, a stratified
smoke layer can form under the hot air
layer preventing smoke from reaching
ceiling-mounted smoke detectors. If
smoke stratification can occur, projected
beam smoke detectors should be used,
and three arrangements of these detectors are discussed in the handbook.

Control and Operation

Atrium smoke control systems must
be activated automatically to quickly
provide smoke protection for the occupants. For atria where smoke stratification can happen, projected beam smoke
detectors should be used as mentioned
previously. Some other methods of
system activation are ceiling mounted
smoke detectors, heat detectors and
sprinkler water flow. The smoke control
system needs to reach full operation before conditions in the atrium reach the
design conditions. Determination of the
time for the system to become operational needs to take into account (1) the
time for detection of the fire and (2) the
HVAC system activation time including
shut-down and start-up of air-handling
equipment, opening and closing dampers, and opening and closing natural
ventilation devices.
A means of manually starting and
stopping the smoke control system
needs to be provided at a location acceptable to the fire department. These
manual controls need to be able to override the automatic controls. For general
information about controls of smoke
control systems see Chapter 8.

References
1. Klote, J.H. 2012. Handbook of Smoke
Control Engineering. Atlanta: ASHRAE.
2. Hadjisophocleous, G., J. Zhou. 2008.
Evaluation of atrium smoke exhaust make-up
air velocity. ASHRAE Transactions, Part 1.
www.info.hotims.com/41640-22

46

A S H R A E J o u r n a l

June 2012

www.info.hotims.com/41640-10