DESIGN METHODS IN STAIRWELL PRESSURIZATION

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

* Muenster University of Applied Science, Corrensstrae 25, 48149 Muenster, Germany
E-Mail: m.meinert@fh-muenster.de
** University of Wuppertal, Pauluskirchstrae 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 suspiciousness 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 design 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 temperature 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. Additionally the area of leakages through the building envelope and through the interior walls influences 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 considerable 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 2012
USA

vestibules permitted
>8 stories: multiple injection
requires hBuilding>15m / 3stories

pmin= 12.5 Pa
Fmax,opening= 133N
Opposed airflow dependent
on fire size

MHRRL
Germany

udoor = 0.75-2 m/s

Fmax,opening = 100N

prEN 1210113 draft

hBuilding >22m: pressurized stairwell requ., vestib. equ., pressure

relief in fire floor
Resid. floor door open;
Evac. door in fire & 1st fl. open;
Fire fight. d. in fire & 1st fl. open
Air release paths required,
classification of buildings to
nature and usage, specific description of scenarios
hBuilding >22m supply every 6th
floor

Analysis requ. for hBuilding

>30.5 m with singleinject., for complex systems computer network
model recommended
-

UAE
Fire and Life
Safety Code of
Practice

hBuilding >23m pressurized stairwell required, for >8 stories:

multiple injection requires hBuilding
15m / 3stor., vestibules permitted

TRVBS 112
Austria
DIN EN
12101-6

udoor = 1 m/s (fire floor)

udoor = 1 m/s (fire floor)
udoor = 2 m/s (fire floor)
udoor = 0.75 - 2 m/s
pmin= 10-45-50 +- 10 Pa
Fmax,opening = 100N

udoor = 1 - 2 m/s
pmax = 60 Pa
pmin = 30 Pa
Qmin = 7.500 15.000 mh-1
pmin = 12.5 / 25 Pa
pmax = 60 Pa
Fmax,opening = 133N
udoor = 0.75 - 2 m/s

Analytic. calc. or CFDmod.; zone-knots modeling necess. for build. h >

60 m, E- resist. analogy
-

Electrical resistance analogy

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) according 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 implicated by splitting the conservation of energy into a part for mechanical and one for heat energy [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

2
p1
u1 g h1 p2
u 2 g h2 ploss 1 2
(1)
2
2
velocity
static
pressure P1 pressure P1

gravitational

static
velocity
pressure P1 pressure P1 pressure P2

gravitational
pressure P2

pressure
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 literature [13-15] and are tabularized, printed in curves or can be calculated by equations dependent on velocity or Reynolds number and geometrical parameters of the fitting.
ploss 1 2
ploss 1 2
C K
2
(2)
2
u2
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-Weibach-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=4ab/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 Bernoulli 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 todays 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 perfloor(eq. 5)while [20-23] use the effective area with
Aeff Cd Ao (eq. 6).
ploss 1 2 K SW

ploss 1 2

hhloor ( a b ) 2
Q
3
2 ASW
2

SW , floor 2
Q
2
ASW

ploss 1 2

(3)

(5)

p loss 1 2

2
1
Q
2
Cd2 Ao 2

A
2
ASW eff
A
SW

(4)
2

1 2

A 2 2Q
eff

(6)

Besides the flow rate or the mean velocity related to the stairwell area, the complexity of geometrical 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 specify 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 existence 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 performance 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
4m/s related to a critical velocity of 2m/s through a door (1m x 2m).
Table2Determinationofpressurelosses[16],[17],[18],[23]&[22],[21],[20],[19]
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
max

pr EN 12101 -13

min

Poreh & IMTECH

Trebukov
2012
2000

max

model 1:6

min

closed well hole

no well hole

narrow well hole

wide well hole

max

model

min

realscale
Achakij
1988

low resistance

persons

high resistance

realscale
Tamura
& Shaw
1976

max

no
persons

min

max

min

max

min

pressure loss per floor [pa] 4 m/s lxw=3x5m

model 1:6

model
1:10

Ostertag
2001

Gerhardt
&
Konrath
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 differences occur for an opening that connects two rooms (nodes / pressure zones) to:
C
2
2
p1 2 ploss 1 2 uopening , geometry 2d ,local Qopening
Cd , local uopening
2
Aopening 2

(13)

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
C

d
,
mass
(15)
negligible small. This does not meet the physics in terms of
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 determination of the local or mass discharge coefficient for the flow through doors. Literature values 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 distribution 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 according to Klote [5] the distribution of flow between multiple openings can be calculated similar to the electrical resistance concept (Kirchhoffs 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]

m
LAMINAR

lent flow it is the turbulent flow coefficient

C. Here Klote [5] uses the effective area
concept (table 3).

K p (18)

parallel:

K e K i (19)

series:
1
1
(20)

Ke
Ki

TURBULENT

8. External Pressure Losses

Nevertheless loss coefficients are widely
used in engineering, recent studies [30],[31]
m C p
show that the application of multiple local
resistances in duct design does not meet the
parallel:
series:
real pressure losses. This is because presC

C
(21)
1
1
i
e
sure loss does not occur within the fitting
2 (22)
2
Ce
Ci
under observation but as well upstream and
downstream. For flow through rooms inAnalytical Approach - Klote [5]
duced by a pressurization system this effect
is reinforced due to more complex flow
parallel:
series:
phenomenon.
1/ 2
Ae Ai (23)

1
Ae 2 (24)
An isothermal FDS simulation was run to
Ai
visualize the influence of the outflow and
inflow conditions on flow path resistance.
Table3electricalresistanceconcept
While the multizonal and analytical approach 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 dynamic 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 (4m/s 2m/s - 1m x 2m) are established by a door positioned a) parallel (direct flow) and b) rectangular 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 xyz=0.05m0.05m0.05m were determined as optimum mesh
size by a sensitivity study.
Figure 1 visualizes the flow pattern through the different inflow conditions by velocity magnitude; red color indicates high velocities of >3m/s while blue indicates 0m/s. It can be observed 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 distributions 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 (simulated 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 m/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 coefficient 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 figure 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 4m/s and to the flow rate of 1m/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)
corridor
direct
flow

b) room crossflow

b) corridor
crossflow

Figure1FlowpatternthroughadoorQ=4m/s,A=2m
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. Additionally 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 reproduced 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

Figure2Flowvisualizationforflowthrough3
rooms

O1

Figure3Massdistributionforflowthrough3
rooms

O1

O2

O2

Figure4Flowvisualizationforflowthrough2 Figure5Flowvisualizationforflowthrough
roomseccentric
2roomscentricwithchangedresistance

Figure6Flowthrough2doorsoverpressure Figure7Flowthrough2doorsunder
pressure

respect to their importance obey the need for further investigation. For this purpose, a simulation 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 regarding 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 considered, one on the top and one on the middle floor with varying position (a-e in Fig. 12, 13).

d c b

IN

Figure10planviewstairwell2
landings

IN

Figure8FDSmodel Figure9FDSmodel
2landingsclosedwell 4landingsclosedrailing
hole

Figure11planviewstairwell4
landings

During the investigation the pressure distributions on the landing are compared. All simulations have a volume flow of 4m/s, which corresponds to a (mean) velocity of 2m/s in a door
of 2m. 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 Porehs 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 m vs. Aloose = 0.02m (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, nevertheless 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.

Figure12Influenceofstairwellgeometryon
pressuredrop

Figure14Influenceofdoorpositiononflow
distributioninsidethestairwell

Figure13Influenceofwallleakagefor
stairwellwith2landingsandclosedwellhole
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
(20C, u = 1m/s) for a uniform distribution, is reduced up to 60 % depending on the door position (a-e according 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 increases to 1.4 m/s. In summery the
internal flow path and internal pressure losses have a great influence on
flow distribution and accordingly the
attained inflow velocity into the fire
floor.

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: Because 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 applicability 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) versus 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, velocities 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 implementation of additional analytical relations for free jets or the coupling of CFD with multizonal models [35]. It is essential that the designer knows about those limitations and is sensitive 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 uncertainties associated to the nature of the fire [1] lead to a highly transient flow behavior that
cannot be represented by steady-state correlations. Prtrel et al. [36] showed that within the
first 5 minutes of the fire in a confined and force ventilated enclosure there was a huge pressure variation measured that was affected by the fire size, the ventilation features and the enclosure 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 included 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 pressure 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 concept. 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 influence 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
Buildings. 2013. pp. 169-181. 9th Asia-Oceania
Symposium on Fire Science and Technology
2. Lay, S. Pressurization systems do not work and present
a risk to life safety. Case Studies in Fire Safety. 2014,
2214-398x.
3. Walton, G.N and Dols, W.S. CONTAM 3.0 User Guide
and Program Documentation. Gaithersburg, MD : NIST,
2013.
4. McGrattan, K., et al. Fire Dynamics Simulator, User's
Guide. NIST, 2013. NIST Special Publication.
5. Klote, John H. Handbook of Smoke Control
Engineering. [Ed] Paul G. Turnbull James A. Milke.
sASHRAE, 2012.
6. Emmerich, S. J. und Persily, A. K. Analysis of U.S.

22. Schalau, S. . Experimentelle Bestimmung von

Druck-verlusten in Sicherheitstreppenrumen unter
Bercksichtigung wesentlicher baulicher Merkmale.
Thesis - Beuth University of Applied Sciences,
Berlin, Germany, 2013.
23. Siemers, Magda-Lena. Experimentelle
Bestimmung von Druckverlusten in
Sicherheitstreppenrumen unter Bercksichtigung
wesentlicher baulicher Merkmale. Thesis Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Germany
2012.
24. Chu, Chia-Ren und Wang, Yu-Wen. The loss
factors of building openings for wind-driven
ventilation. Building and Environment. 45, 2010.
25. Etheridge, D.W. Crack flow equations and scale

Commercial Building Envelope Air Leakage Database

to Support Sustainable Building Design. Int. Journal of
Ventilation. Iss.12, 2014, Vol. 4.
7. Shin, Hyun Kook und Jo, Jae Hun. Air Leakage
Characteristics and Leakage Distribution of Dwellings
in High-rise Residential Buildings in Korea. Journal of
Asian Architecture and Building Engineering. 2013,
Vol. 92.
8. Klote, John H. Handbook of Smoke Control
Engineering. [ed.] Paul G. Turnbull James A. Milke. s.l.
: ASHRAE, 2012.
9. Tamura, G. and Shaw, C. Air leakage measurements of
the exterior walls of tall buildings. Springer
Netherlands, 1973. Tech. rep. 10.1007/BF02624778.
10. 18095-1:1988-10, DIN. Tren; Rauchschutztren;
Begriffe und Anforderungen. Berlin, Germany : BeuthVerlag, 1988.
11. Herwig, Heinz. Strmungsmechanik. s.l. : SpringerVerlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2006.
12. ASHRAE, [Ed.]. ASHRAE Handbook-Fundamentals.
2009.
13. Idelchik, I.E. Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance. USA
: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1986.
14. Recknagel, Sprenger und Schramek. Taschenbuch fr
Heizung und Klimatechnik. Mnchen Oldenb.
Industrieverl., Germany, 2007.
15. VDI-Wrmeatlas, 10.Ed. Berlin Heidelberg : SpringerVerlag, Germany 2006.
16. The calculation of air infiltration rates caused by wind
and stack action for tall buildings. Shaw, C.T. und
Tamura, G.T. 1977, ASHRAE TRANSACTIONS, Vol.
83-2.
17. Achakji, Tamura. Pressure drop characteristics of
typical stairshafts in high-rise buildings. ASHRAE.
1988. p. 122.
18. Poreh, M., Trebukov, S. and Gurevitz, T.. Mitigation
of Wind effects on the Performance of Pressurization
Systems in High-Rise Buildings. s.l. : Fire Safety
Science - Proceedings of the 7th International
Symposium, 2003.
19. Pressure differential systems -German point of view to
EN 12101-6 consideration of the influence of aerostatic
pressure differential in high rise buildings. Konrath, B.
Miedrzyzdroje, Poland : s.n., 2007.
20. Ostertag, D. berdruckbelftungsanlagen fr
Sicherheitstreppenrume in Hochhusern, Bd. B in
Entrauchung - Grundlagen. s.l. : Fraunhofer IRB Verlag,
Germany, 2004.
21. CEN/TC191/SC1/WG6/TG1. prEN 12101-13 draft
2013 03 13. s.l. : -draft- not published, 2013.

effect. Building and Environment. 12, 1977.

26. Davidovich, D., et al. Analytical procedures for
estimating airflow rates in ventilated, screened wall
systems (VSWS). Building and Environment. 47,
2012.
27. Baker, P.H., Sharples, S. und Ward, I.C. Air flow
through cracks. Building and Environment. Vol. 1,
1987.
28. Okuyama, H. und Onishi, Y.. Reconsideration of
parameter estimation and reliability evaluation
methods for building airtightness measurement
using fan pressurization. Building and
Environment. 47, 2012, p. 373-384.
29. Walton, George N. AIRNET - A Computer
Program for Building Airflow Network Modeling.
Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards
and Technology, 1989. NISTIR 89-4072.
30. Fiedler, E.. ber die Druckverlustberechnung,
insbesondere aus Simulationsergebnissen.
Bauphysik., Vol. 6. 2009
31. Meinert, M., Hollenbek, P. and Boiting, B..
Druckverluste in Lftungskanlen. HLH Lftung /
Klima, Heizung/ Sanitr, Gebudetechnik,Vol. 5,
2013
32. Steckler, K.D, Baum, H.R. und Quintiere, J.G.
Fire induced flows through room openings-flow
coefficients. Symposium on Combustion. 20, Vol. 1.
1985
33. Yuan, W.X. Shi and J. Ji and J.H. Sun and S.M. Lo
and L.J. Li and X.Y. Influence of staircase
ventilation state on the airflow and heat transfer of
the heated room on the middle floor of high rise
building. Applied Energy, Vol. 119, 2014
34. Vaitkevicius, A., Colella, F. und Carvel, R.,
Rediscovering the Throttling Effect. Anders
Lonnermark und Haukur Ingason. SP Technical
Research Institute of Sweden. [Ed.]. Proceedings
from the Sixth International Symposium on Tunnel
Safety and Security. 2014
35. Wang, Liangzhu. Coupling of Multizone and CFD
Programs for Building Airflow and Contaminant
Transport Simulations. West Lafayette, Indiana,
USA : Dissertation, Purdue University, 2007.
36. Prtrel, H., Le Saux, W. und Audin, L. Pressure
variations induced by a pool fire in a well-confined
and force-ventilated compartment. Fire Safety
Journal. 53, 2012, Bde. p 11-24.
37. Chow, Wan-ki. Air pumping action of a plume in a
room fire. s.l. Building Simulation Vol 6 Iss1, 2013.
pp. 95-102