Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

Non-physical smoke layering in a large multi-compartment simulation #2271

Unanswered
clarahickel-eng asked this question in Q&A
Discussion options

Hi everyone,

I am currently simulating a fire in a large industrial-style building on a single floor measuring 39 meters long, 30 meters deep, and 2.7 meters high. To account for smoke propagation time and oxygen distribution, I have divided the main area into six compartments connected by large vertical wall vents (designed to simulate an open space).

Technical details of my setup :

  • Fire : 3MW (t-squared growth) located in comp 1
  • Internal Vents : 14.8m wide, 2.5m high, with 0.1m offset from the floor
  • External Openings : 5 windows (1m*1m) at a height of 1.5m and one door at floor level in comp 6
  • Leakage : Wall Leak Area Ratio = 1.7E-04 and Floor öeak Area Ratio = 5.2E-05 m2/m2
  • Software : CFAST version 7.7.5.

The issue :
The behavior of the smoke layer appears unrealistic: the smoke layer in the fire compartment (comp 1) remains very thin (almost nonexistent, while the farthest compartment (comp 6) fills up much faster and shows a significantly lower smoke layer interface (see attached image).

Zebrabox-Etage2_compartimentév2

My questions :

  • How can the smoke "bypass" the fire compartment and preferentially accumulate at the far end of the floor ?
  • Does the 10cm soffit between compartments provide insufficient flow resistance to allow for a stable upper layer to form in the room of origin ?
  • Are there any known limitations or specific settings for &VENT parameters when trying to model a large open floor as multiple zones ?

Best regards

You must be logged in to vote

Replies: 1 comment 2 replies

Comment options

CFAST is not a computational fluid dynamics model. Dividing up a large room like this is not in line with the fundamental assumptions of a zone model.

You must be logged in to vote
2 replies
Comment options

Following your previous advice, I understand the limitations of zone modeling for large open spaces.
However, I now need to model a physical mezzanine for another project. Since this creates a real structural separation, what is the best practice in CFAST?
Should I model the area under the mezzanine as a separate compartment connected via a Horizontal Vent (HVENT) to the main hall, or is there a better way to capture the plume entrainment as it spills from under the mezzanine?
Would this 9-compartment model be feasible ?
Restaurant-mezzanine

Comment options

The reason why FDS (Fire Dynamics Simulator) was developed was because some fire scenarios do not fit neatly into the zone model assumptions.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Category
Q&A
Labels
None yet

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /