Influence of Variability of Soot Yield Parameter in Assessing the

Safe Evacuation Conditions in Advanced Modelling Analysis.

Results of Physical and Numerical Modelling Comparison
11th CONFERENCE ON PERFORMANCE-BASED CODES AND FIRE SAFETY DESIGN METHODS,
23-25 MAY, WARSAW, POLAND

Gabriele Vigne
Director JVVA Fire & Risk
University of Jan, Spain

Wojciech Wgrzyski
Building Research Institute (ITB),
Poland

PRESENTATION
Background
Objectives
Previous Analysis
Building Research Institute (ITB) Experiment

Numerical Analysis
Validation & Verification

Conclusions & Future Work

BACKGROUND
In many of todays construction project the Fire Engineering discipline
plays a fundamental role, especially when it comes to performance
based design.
A natural part of the performance based design process nowadays is the
use of advanced modelling.
It is of utter importance to understand the limitations and the influence of
the model parameters on the final results.

OBJECTIVE
This presentation shows the analysis and the results from a research study
with the objective to evaluate the sensitivity of visibility when varying certain
critical parameters that have a direct influence on the same: Ys, Km and C
mass extinction
coefficient (Km)

VISIBILITY

soot yield (Ys)

Visibility factor (C)

WHY?
Visibility is one of the most critical output when conducting an
ASET/RSET analysis

Very often 10m is used to identify for how long tenable conditions are
reached into a certain domain and consequently define the ASET, the
Available Safe Egress Time to evacuate the domain

Visibility
Estimates of visibility through smoke can be made by using the
equation:
S = C/K
C = 8 for a light-emitting sign and C = 3 for a light-reflecting sign and
K is the Light Emission Coefficient:
K = Km YS
km is the mass extinction coefficient and ys the soot yield

Visibility
The light dampening effect through the smoke, as an outcome of absorption,
scattering and other phenomena, follows the law of Lambert-Beer, that can
be written in general form, or related to the local mass density of smoke

= 0

I0 light intensity,
I light intensity after distance l in the smoke,
Km - mass extinction coefficient [m-1]
Ms mass density of smoke

Visibility
C is the visibility factor (C = 8 for a light-emitting sign and C = 3 for a
light-reflecting sign)

Km is the mass extinction coefficient. The default value is 8700 m/kg, a

value suggested for flaming combustion of wood and plastics.
Ys is the soot yield and represents the fraction of fuel mass that is
converted to soot when using a simple chemistry approach.

Previous Analysis
In January 2013 researchers from the University of Jan, The University Comillas
(ICAI) with the collaboration of the Imperial College of London, MAPFRE and the
fire consultancy JVVA Fire and Risk have undertaken several full scale fire tests in
the Fire Atrium test facility in Murcia (Spain).

Statistical analysis to determine the most important input parameters:

Ys: 0.015g/g, 0.120g/g and 0.230 g/g
Km: 7600 m/kg, 8700 m/kg and 9800 m/kg
C: 3 and 8
Analysis shown that soot yield is the most influential parameter provided by the
user of a CFD model

Previous Analysis

Metal Technology Center (CTM) in Murcia

Previous Analysis
The Murcia Fire Atrium is a full-scale facility consisting
of a prismatic structure of 19.5 m x 19.5 m x 17.5 m
and a pyramidal roof raised 2.5 m at the centre.
The walls and roof are made of 6 mm thick steel
sheets whilst the floor is made of concrete.

The atrium is provided with four exhaust fans (with two

velocity, provided by Sodeca) installed on the roof,
each with a nominal flow rate of 9.2m3/s
approximately.
As per make up air, there are eight grilled vents
arranged at the lower parts of the walls.

Previous Analysis

Influence of Soot Yield and Mass Extinction Coefficient on Visibility

Building Research Institute (ITB) Experiment

Based on above findings a new test facility was used, the Building
Research Institute (ITB) in Warsaw, Poland and in collaboration with
Wojciech Wgrzyski, a new set of fire tests were conducted in 2016.
The following materials were chosen for assessment:

methyl alcohol, Ys = 0.001 g/g

propane alcohol, Ys = 0.015 g/g
heptane, Ys = 0.035 g/g
toluene, Ys = 0.178 g/g

Building Research Institute (ITB) Experiment

A test chamber in ITB with
dimensions of 10 x 10m and height of
4m was equipped with mechanical
smoke exhaust system.
The system was scaled in a way, that
a state of equilibrium was achieved in
the room for fires with power ranging
from 130 to 160kW, i.e the same
amount of smoke is exhausted, as
enters the smoke layer, and the
height of layer is stable.

Methanol, Ys = 0.001 g/g

Propanol, Ys = 0.015 g/g

Heptane, Ys = 0.035 g/g

Toluene, Ys = 0.178 g/g

Numerical Analysis
In order to analyze a wider range of soot yields, a numerical analysis has
been performed.
Two software have been selected as ones of the most used and validated
in the Fire Engineering Community, ANSYS Fluent (v.17) and Fire
Dynamics Simulator (v.6.4.0).
Twenty (20) models have been processed both in Fluent and FDS with a
soot yield range between 0.01 g/g and 0.2 g/g using the Heptane reaction
as a base.

Numerical Analysis

Numerical model used ANSYS Fluent

Numerical model used

Fire Dynamics Simulator

VALIDATION & VERIFICATION

A preliminary validation has been performed in order to check the
performance of the numerical models used.
The results show a relative good agreement to the experimental temperature
data for Heptane and Propanol with a maximum discrepancy of about 20%.
High discrepancy has been found for Methanol and Toluene will be further
assessed by new experiments to be conducted in summer 2016.
Heptane showed to be the most stable fuel when it comes to visibility and it
was then used as a base for a wider range of numerical models.

VALIDATION & VERIFICATION

VALIDATION & VERIFICATION

VISIBILITY VS. SOOT YIELD

Visibility range vs. Soot Yield (Ansys Fluent)

Visibility range vs. Soot Yield (Fire Dynamics Simulator)

VISIBILITY VS. SOOT YIELD

Soot Yield (g/g)
Visibility (m) FDS*
Visibility (m) Fluent*
Soot Yield (g/g)
Visibility (m) FDS*
Visibility (m) Fluent*

0.01
0.02
14.87 10.90
15.15
7.64
0.11
1.85
1.34

0.12
1.71
1.30

0.03
7.34
4.91

0.04
5.39
4.04

0.05
4.29
2.96

0.06
3.55
2.44

0.07
2.98
2.12

0.08
2.60
1.90

0.09
2.31
1.62

0.10
2.06
1.48

0.13
1.56
1.23

0.14
1.43
1.09

0.15
1.31
1.02

0.16
1.21
N/A

0.17
1.14
0.91

0.18
1.07
0.85

0.19
1.00
0.82

0.20
0.94
0.74

Summing Up
Four (4) Experimental tests have been performed in 2016 in the ITB Research
Centre of Warsaw, Poland, using for different fuels with a wide range of soot yield
(from 0.001 g/g for Methanol to 0.178 g/g for Toluene)
The results have been compared to four (4) numerical models processed with both
Ansys Fluent and Fire Dynamics Simulator
Good agreement has been found for Heptane and thus this fuel was used as a base
for a numerical study looking at 20 different cases, each one with a soot yield
difference of 0.01 g/g (from 0.01 g/g to 0.20 g/g)

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS

The numerical analysis, both for Ansys Fluent and FDS, show an hyperbolic trend
of the Visibility when increasing the soot yield with a cut-off point around 0.12 g/g
where a variation of the soot yield can produce a relevant (below 0.12 g/g) or a
negligible (above 0.12 g/g) change in the Visibility.

The implications of choosing for the same fire scenario a reaction instead of
another can lead to a huge over prediction of the Visibility and therefore a huge
under estimation of the Fire Safety.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS

Unless the materials (and thus the chemical reactions) in the building to
be assessed by a Fire Engineering analysis are well known, value of
soot yield below about 0.10 g/g should be used with extremely caution
when performing an ASET/RSET exercise.
Although the overall conclusions still be valid, more accurate
experiments will be performed in order to better understand the
deviation from the numerical results.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

11th CONFERENCE ON PERFORMANCE-BASED CODES AND FIRE SAFETY DESIGN METHODS,
23-25 MAY, WARSAW, POLAND

Gabriele Vigne

Wojciech Wgrzyski

Director JVVA Fire & Risk

Building Research Institute (ITB),

Poland

University of Jan, Spain