Verification and Validation - NRC: Home PageVerification & Validation of Selected Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications Volume 5: Consolidated Fire Growth and Smoke Transport

NUREG-1824 EPRI 1011999Final Report

Verification and Validationof Selected F;ire _Models forNuclear Power PlantApplications

Volume 5:Consolidated Fire Growth and SmokeTransport Model (CFAST)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchWashington, DC 20555-0001

~U.SANRC

Electric Power Research Institute3420 Hillview AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94303

RESAELECTRIC POWERCO~rai IRESEARCH INSTITUTE

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALSIN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically accessNUREG-series publications and other NRC records atNRC's Public Electronic Reading Room athttp://www. nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.Publicly released records include, to name a few,NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;applicant, licensee, and vendor documents andcorrespondence; NRC correspondence and internalmemoranda; bulletins and information notices;inspection and investigative reports; licensee eventreports; and Commission papers and their attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRCregulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code ofFederal Regulations may also be purchased from oneof these two sources.1. The Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing OfficeMail Stop SSOPWashington, DC 20402-0001Internet: bookstore.gpo.govTelephone: 202-512-1800Fax: 202-512-2250 -

2. The National Technical Information ServiceSpringfield, VA 22161-0002www.ntis.gov1-800-553-6847 or, locally, 703-605-6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment isavailable free, to the extent of supply, upon writtenrequest as follows:Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of AdministrationMail, Distribution and Messenger TeamWashington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTIONc(,nrc.govFacsimile: 301-415-2289

Some publications in the NUREG series that areposted at NRC's Web site addresshttp://www. nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregsare updated periodically and may differ from the lastprinted version. Although references to material foundon a Web site bear the date the material was accessed,the material available on the date cited maysubsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technicallibraries includeall open literature items, such asbooks, journal articles, and transactions, FederalRegister notices, Federal and State legislation, andcongressional reports. Such documents as theses,dissertations, foreign reports and translations, andnon-NRC conference proceedings may be purchasedfrom their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in asubstantive manner in the NRC regulatory process aremaintained at-

The NRC Technical LibraryTwo White Flint North11545 Rockville PikeRockville, MD 20852-2738

These standards are available in the library forreference use by the public. Codes and standards areusually copyrighted and may be purchased from theoriginating organization or, if they are AmericanNational Standards, from-

American National Standards Institute11 West 4 2nd StreetNew York, NY 10036-8002www.ansi.org212-642-4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are statedonly in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, includingtechnical specifications; or orders, not inNUREG-series publications. The views expressedin contractor-prepared publications in this series arenot necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical andadministrative reports and books prepared by thestaff (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors(NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2) proceedings ofconferences (NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reportsresulting from international agreements(NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4) brochures(NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations of legaldecisions and orders of the Commission and Atomicand Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors'decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations(NUREG-0750).

'1

Verification & Validation of SelectedFire Models for Nuclear Power PlantApplicationsVolume 5: Consolidated Fire Growth and SmokeTransport Model (CFAST)

NUREG-1824 EPRI 1011999

Final Report

May 2007

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOffice of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES)Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville PikeRockville, MD 20852-2738

U.S. NRC-RES Project ManagerM. H. Salley

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)3420 Hillview AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94303

EPRI Project ManagerR.P. Kassawara

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIESTHIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS ANACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED; BY THE ELECTRIC POWERRESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI NOR ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANYCOSPONSOR, THE ORGANI4TION(S) BELOW, OR ANY,;PE•SON ACTING ON BEHALFOF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS ORIMPLIED, (I)WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS,METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDINGMERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (11) THAT SUCHUSE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS,INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (111) THAT THIS DOCUMENTIS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITYWHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANYEPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCHDAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT ORANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSEDIN THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Science Applications International Corporation

National Institute of Standards and Technology

NOTEFor further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at800.313.3774 ore-mail [email protected].

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER.. SHAPING THE FUTURE OFELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

CITATIONS

This report was prepared by

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) 3420 Hillview AvenueTwo White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike Palo Alto, CA 94303Rockville, MD 20852-273 8 Science Applications International Corp (SAIC)

Principal Investigators: 4920 El Camino RealK. Hill Los Altos, CA 94022J. Dreisbach Principal Investigators:

F. JoglarB. Najafi

National Institute of Standards and TechnologyBuilding Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL)100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8600Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600

Principal Investigators:K McGrattanR. PeacockA. HaminsVolume 1, Main Report: B. Najafi, F. Joglar, J. DreisbachVolume 2, Experimental Uncertainty: A. Hamins, K. McGrattanVolume 3, FDTS: J. Dreisbach, K. HillVolume 4, FIVE-Revl: F. JoglarVolume 5, CFAST: R. Peacock, P. Reneke (NIST)Volume 6, MAGIC: F. Joglar, B. Guatier (EdF), L. Gay (EdF), J. Texeraud (EdF)Volume 7, FDS: K. McGrattan

This report describes research sponsored jointly by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Officeof Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:

Verification and Validation of Selected Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications,Volume 5: Consolidated Fire and Smoke Transport Model (CFAST), U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), Rockville, MD, 2007, and ElectricPower Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA, NUREG-1824 and EPRI 1011999.

iii

ABSTRACT

There is a movement to introduce risk-informed and performance-based analyses into fire protectionengineering practice, both domestically and worldwide. This movement exists in the generalfire protection community, as well as the nuclear power plant (NPP) fire protection community.The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has used risk-informed insights as part of itsregulatory decision making since the 1990's.

In 2002, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) developed NFPA 805, Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light-Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants,2001 Edition. In July 2004, the NRC amended its fire protection requirements in Title 10,Section 50.48, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.48) to permit existing reactorlicensees to voluntarily adopt fire protection requirements contained in NFPA 805 as an alternativeto the existing deterministic fire protection requirements. In addition, the NPP fire protectioncommunity has been using risk-informed, performance-based (RI/PB) approaches and insights tosupport fire protection decision-making in general.

One key tool needed to further the use of RI/PB fire protection is the availability of verified andvalidated fire models that can reliably predict the consequences of fires. Section 2.4.1.2 ofNFPA 805 requires that only fire models acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ)shall be used in fire modeling calculations. Furthermore, Sections 2.4.1.2.2 and 2.4.1.2.3 ofNFPA 805 state that fire models shall only be applied within the limitations of the given model,and shall be verified and validated.

This report is the first effort to document the verification and validation (V&V) of five fire modelsthat are commonly used in NPP applications. The project was performed in accordance with theguidelines that the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) set forth in ASTM E 1355,Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models.The results of this V&V are reported in the form of ranges of accuracies for the fire modelpredictions.

v

FOREWORD

Fire modeling and fire dynamics calculations are used in a number of fire hazards analysis (FHA) studies anddocuments, including fire risk analysis (FRA) calculations; compliance with and exemptions to the regulatoryrequirements for fire protection in 10 CFR Part 50; the Significance Determination Process (SDP) used in theinspection program conducted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); and, most recently, therisk-informed performance-based (RI/PB) voluntary fire protection licensing basis established under10 CFR 50.48(c). The RI/PB method is based on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)Standard 805, Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light- Water Reactor Generating Plants.

The seven volumes of this NUREG-series report provide technical documentation concerning the predictivecapabilities of a specific set of fire dynamics calculation tools and fire models for the analysis of fire hazards inpostulated nuclear power plant (NPP) scenarios. Under a joint memorandum of understanding (MOU), the NRCOffice of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) agreed to developthis technical document for NPP application of these fire modeling tools. The objectives of this agreementinclude creating a library of typical NPP fire scenarios and providing information on the ability of specific fire modelsto predict the consequences of those typical NPP fire scenarios. To meet these objectives, RES and EPRI initiatedthis collaborative project to provide an evaluation, in the form of verification and validation (V&V), for a set of fivecommonly available fire modeling tools.

The road map for this project was derived from NFPA 805 and the American Society for Testing and Materials(ASTM) Standard E 1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic FireModels. These industry standards form the methodology and process used to perform this study. Technicalreview of fire models is also necessary to ensure that those using the models can accurately assess the adequacy ofthe scientific and technical bases for the models, select models that are appropriate for a desired use, and understandthe levels of confidence that can be attributed to the results predicted by the models. This work was performedusing state-of-the-art fire dynamics calculation methods/models and the most applicable fire test data. Futureimprovements in the fire dynamics calculation methods/models and additional fire test data may impact the resultspresented in the seven volumes of this report.

This document does not constitute regulatory requirements, and NRC participation in this study neitherconstitutes nor implies regulatory approval of applications based on the analysis contained in this text.The analyses documented in this report represent the combined efforts of individuals from RES and EPRI.Both organizations provided specialists in the use of fire models and other FHA tools to support this work.The results from this combined effort do not constitute either a regulatory position or regulatory guidance.Rather, these results are intended to provide technical analysis of the predictive capabilities of five firedynamic calculation tools, and they may also help, to identify areas where further research and analysis are needed.

Brian W. Sheron, DirectorOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

vii

CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1

2 MODEL DEFINITION .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Name and Version of the Model ...................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Type of Model .................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.3 Model Developers .......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.4 Relevant Publications ...................................................................................................... 2-1

2.5 Governing Equations and Assumptions .......................................................................... 2-2

2.6 Input Data Required to Run the Model ............................................................................ 2-2

2.7 Property Data .................................................................................................................. 2-3

2.8 Model Results .................................................................................................................. 2-3

2.9 Uses and Limitations of the Model .................................................................................. 2-3

3 THEORETICAL BASIS FOR CFAST ..................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 The Two-Layer Model ..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Zone Model Assumptions ................................................................................................ 3-3

3.3 Description of Sub-Models and Correlations................................................................... 3-4

3.3.1 The Fire .................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.2 Plumes ..................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.3 Ceiling Jet ................................................................................................................ 3-5

3.3.4 Vent Flow ................................................................................................................. 3-5

3.3.5 Heat Transfer ........................................................................................................... 3-5

3.3.6 Targets ................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3.7 Heat Detectors ......................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3.8 Fire Suppression via Sprinklers ............................................................................... 3-7

3.3.9 Species Concentration and Deposition ................................................................... 3-7

3.4 Review of the Theoretical Development of the Model ..................................................... 3-7

3.4.1 Assessment of the Completeness of Documentation .............................................. 3-8

ix

3.4.2 Assessment of Justification of Approaches and Assumptions ................................ 3-8

3.4.3 Assessm ent of Constants and Default Values ........................................................ 3-8

4 MATHEMATICAL AND NUMERICAL ROBUSTNESS ......................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Com parison with Analytic Solutions ............................................................................ 4-1

4.3 Code Checking ................................................................................................................. 4-2

4.4 Num erical Tests .............................................................................................................. 4-2

5 M O DEL SENSITIVITY .......................................................... e ................................................. 5-1

5.1 Previous Sensitivity Studies ............................................................................................ 5-1

5.2 Sensitivity to Heat Release Rate ..................................................................................... 5-3

6 M O DEL VA LIDATIO N ....................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Hot Gas Layer (HG L) Tem perature and Height ............................................................ 6-4

6.2 Ceiling Jet Tem perature ................................................................................................... 6-6

6.3 Plum e Tem perature ......................................................................................................... 6-8

6.4 Flam e Height ................................................................................................................... 6-9

6.5 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration .................................................................... 6-9

6.6 Sm oke Concentration .................................................................................................... 6-11

6.7 Com partm ent Pressure ................................................................................................. 6-13

6.8 Radiation and Total Heat Flux to Targets and Target Temperature .............................. 6-14

6.9 Surface Heat Flux and Tem perature ............................................................................. 6-17

6.10 Sum m ary ..................................................................................................................... 6-19

7 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 7-1

A TECHNICAL DETAILS OF CFAST VALIDATION STUDY .............................................. A-1

A.1 Hot Gas Layer Tem perature and Height ........................................................................ A-2

ICFM P BE #2 ................................................................................................................... A-3

ICFM P BE #3 ................................................................................................................... A-5

ICFM P BE #4 ................................................................................................................. A-10

ICFM P BE #5 ...................................................... ............................................ .... A-12

FM/SNL Test Series ...................................................................................................... A-14

NBS M ulti-Room Test Series ......................................................................................... A-16

A.2 Ceiling Jet Tem perature ............................................................................................... A-21

X.

ICFMP BE #3 Test Series ............................................................................................. A-21

FM / SNL Test Series .................................................................................................... A-24

A.3 Plume Tem perature ..................................................................................................... A-25

A.4 Flame Height ............................................................................................................... A-26

ICFM P BE #2 ................................................................................................................. A-26

ICFMP BE #3 ................................................................................................................. A-28

A.5 Oxygen Concentration ................................................................................................. A-29

A.6 Smoke Concentration .................................................................................................. A-32

A.7 Compartm ent Pressure ................................................................................................ A-35

A.8 Target Tem perature and Heat Flux .............................................................................. A-39

ICFMP BE #3 ................................................................................................................. A-39

ICFMP BE #4 ................................................................................................................. A-68

ICFMP BE #5 ................................................................................................................. A-70

A.9 Heat Flux and Surface Temperature of Com partment W alls ....................................... A-74

ICFMP BE #3 ....... I ........................................................................... .... A-74

ICFMP BE #4 ................................................................................................................. A-91

ICFMP BE #5 ................................................................................................................. A-92

B CFAST INPUT FILES ........................................................................................................... B-1

B.1 ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #2 .................................................................................... B-2

B.2 ICFMP Benchm ark Exercise #3 ................................................................................ B-5

B.3 ICFMP Benchm ark Exercise #4 ................................................................................... B-35

B.4 ICFMP Benchm ark Exercise #5 ................................................................................... B-37

B.5 FM / SNL Test Series ................................ .................................. B-39

B.6 NBS Test Series ......................................................................................................... B-42

xi

FIGURES

Figure 5-1. Sensitivity of Various Output Quantities to Changes in HRR ................................. 5-4

Figure 6-1. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Hot Gas Layer (HGL)Tem perature and H eight .................................................................................................... 6-5

Figure 6-2. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Ceiling Jet Temperature ...................... 6-8

Figure 6-3. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Oxygen Concentration andCarbon Dioxide Concentration ........................................................................................ 6-10

Figure 6-4. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration ........................ 6-12

Figure 6-5. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Compartment Pressure ..................... 6-14

Figure 6-6. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Heat Flux to Targets and TargetT em perature ..................................................................................................................... 6-15

Figure 6-7. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Surface Heat Flux andT e m perature ..................................................................................................................... 6-18

Figure A-I. Cut-Away View of the Simulation of ICFMP BE #2, Case 2 ................. c. A-3

Figure A-2. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #2 ............................ A-4

Figure A-3. Snapshot of Simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3 ............................................. A-5

Figure A-4. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-DoorT e sts . ................................................................................................................................ A -6

Figure A-5. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-DoorTests......................................................... A-7

Figure A-6. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, Open-DoorT ests ................................................................................................................................. A -8

Figure A-7. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, Open-DoorTests.......... ............................................... A-9

Figure A-8. Snapshot of the Simulation of ICFMP BE #4, Test 1 ..................................... A-1 0Figure A-9. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #4, Test 1 ....... A-i 1Figure A-10. Snapshot of the Simulation of ICFMP BE #5, Test 4 ........................................ A-12

Figure A-11. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4 ...... A-1 3

Figure A-12. Snapshot from Simulation of FM/SNL Test 5 .................... ..... ........................... A-14

Figure A-13. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, FM/SNL Series .................. A-15

Figure A-14. Snapshot from Simulation of NBS Multi-Room Test 100Z ................................ A-16

Figure A-15. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test1 A0 A ................................................................................................................................ A -17

Figure A-16. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test10 0 0 . .............................................................................................................................. A -1 8

xiii

Figure A-17. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test 1OOZ.... A-19

Figure A-1 8. Ceiling Jet Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ........................... A-21

Figure A-1 9. Ceiling Jet Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ............................ A-22

Figure A-20. Ceiling Jet Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests .............................. A-23Figure A-21. Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL tests ............................................................ A-24

Figure A-22. Photographs of Heptane Pan Fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2 ............................. A-27

Figure A-23. Photograph from Simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3, as seen through the2 m x 2 m doorw ay .......................................................................................................... A -28

Figure A-24. 02 and CO 2 Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ........................ A-30

Figure A-25. 02 and C0 2 Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests ........................... A-31Figure A-26. Smoke Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ................................ A-33

Figure A-27. Smoke Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests .................................. A-34

Figure A-28. Compartment Pressure, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests ............................. A-36

Figure A-29. Compartment Pressure, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests ................................ A-37Figure A-30. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7 .................. A-40

Figure A-31. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8 .................. A-41

Figure A-32. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10 ................ A-42

Figure A-33. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16 .............. A-43

Figure A-34. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9 .................. A-44

Figure A-35. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14 ................ A-45

Figure A-36. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18 .............. A-46

Figure A-37. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7 .......... A-47

Figure A-38. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8 .......... A-48

Figure A-39. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10 ........ A-49

Figure A-40. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and 16 ...... A-50Figure A-41. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9 .......... A-51Figure A-42. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14 ........ A-52

Figure A-43. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and 18 ...... A-53Figure A-44. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7 ....... A-54

Figure A-45. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8 ....... A-55Figure A-46. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10..... A-56

Figure A-47. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 13 and1 6 . ................................................................................................................................... A -5 7

Figure A-48. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3 and 9 ....... A-58

Figure A-49. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 5 and 14..... A-59

Figure A-50. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 15 and1 8 .................................................................................................................................... A -6 0

Figure A-51. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1a n d 7 ................................................................................................................................ A -6 1

xiv

Figure A-52. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2a n d 8 ............................................................................................................................... A -6 2

Figure A-53. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4a n d 10 ............................................................................................................................. A -6 3


Figure A-55. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 3a n d 9 ............................................................................................................................... A -6 5



Figure A-58. Location of Three Slab Targets in ICFMP BE #4 .............................................. A-68Figure A-59. Heat Flux and Surface Temperatures of Target Slabs, ICFMP BE #4,

T e st 1 ............................................................................................................................... A -6 9Figure A-60. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4 ............ A-71

Figure A-61. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-D oor T ests ....................................................................................................................... A -7 5

Figure A-62. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-D oo r T ests ....................................................................................................................... A -76

Figure A-63. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-D oor T ests ....................................................................................................................... A -77

Figure A-64. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-DoorT e sts ............................................................................................................................... A -7 8

Figure A-65. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-D oor T ests ....................................................................................................................... A -79

Figure A-66. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-D oor T ests ...................................................................................................... I ................ A -80

Figure A-67. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-DoorT e sts . .............................................................................................................................. A -8 1

Figure A-68. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-DoorT e sts ............................................................................................................................... A -8 2

Figure A-69. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-DoorT e sts ............................................................................................................................... A -8 3

Figure A-70. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-DoorT e sts ............................................................................................................................... A -8 4

Figure A-71. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-DoorT e sts . .............................................................................................................................. A -8 5

Figure A-72. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-DoorT e sts . .............................................................................................................................. A -8 6

Figure A-73. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-DoorT e sts . . ............................................................................................................................ A -8 7

Figure A-74. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-DoorT e sts . .............................................................................................................................. A -8 8

XV

Figure A-75. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-DoorT e sts . .............................................................................................................................. A -8 9

Figure A-76. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-DoorT e sts . ...... ....................................................................................................................... A -9 0

Figure A-77. Back Wall Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #4, Test 1 ................................... A-91

Figure A-78. Back and Side Wall Surface Temperatures, ICFMP BE #5, Test 1 .................. A-92

xvi

TABLES

Table 3-1. CFAST Capabilities Included in the V&V Study ...................................................... 3-2

Table A-1. Relative Differences for Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height ............. A-20

Table A-2. Relative Differences for Ceiling Jet Temperature ................................................ A-25Table A-3. Relative Differences for Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration .................. A-32

Table A-4. Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration .................................................... A-35Table A-5. Relative Differences for Compartment Pressure ................................................ A-38

Table A-6. Relative Differences for Radiation and Total Heat Flux to Targets and TargetT em perature .................................................................................................................. A -72

Table A-7. Relative Differences for Surface Heat Flux and Temperature ............................. A-93

xvii

I

REPORT SUMMARY

This report documents the verification and validation (V&V) of five selected fire modelscommonly used in support of risk-informed and performance-based (RI/PB) fire protectionat nuclear power plants (NPPs).

BackgroundSince the 1990s, when it became the policy of the NRC to use risk-informed methods to makeregulatory decisions where possible, the nuclear power industry has been moving from prescriptiverules and practices toward the use of risk information to supplement decision-making. Severalinitiatives have furthered this transition in the area of fire protection. In 2001, the National FireProtection Association (NFPA) completed the development of NFPA Standard 805,Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light- Water Reactor Electric GeneratingPlants, 2001 Edition. Effective July 16, 2004, the NRC amended its fire protection requirementsin Title 10, Section 50.48(c), of the Code of Federal Regulations [ 10 CFR 50.48(c)] to permitexisting reactor licensees to voluntarily adopt fire protection requirements contained in NFPA805 as an alternative to the existing deterministic fire protection requirements. RI/PB fireprotection often relies on fire modeling for determining the consequence of fires. NFPA 805requires that the "fire models shall be verified and validated," and "only fire models that areacceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) shall be used in fire modelingcalculations."

Objectives" To perform V&V studies of selected fire models using a consistent methodology (ASTM I

1335)

" To investigate the specific fire modeling issue of interest to NPP fire protection applications

" To quantify fire model predictive capabilities to the extent that can be supported bycomparison with selected and available experimental data.

ApproachThis project team performed V&V studies on five selected models: (1) NRC's NUREG-1805Fire Dynamics Tools (FDTS), (2) EPRI's Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation Revision I(FIVE-Revl), (3) National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Consolidated Modelof Fire Growth and Smoke Transport (CFAST), (4) Electricit6 de France's (EdF) MAGIC, and(5) NIST's Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). The team based these studies on the guidelines ofthe ASTM E 1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of DeterministicFire Models. The scope of these V&V studies was limited to the capabilities of the selected fire

xix

models and did not cover certain potential fire scenarios that fall outside the capabilities of thesefire models.

Results

The results of this study are presented in the form of relative differences between fire modelpredictions and experimental data for fire modeling attributes such as plume temperature that areimportant to NPP fire modeling applications. While the relative differences sometimes showagreement, they also show both under-prediction and over-prediction in some circumstances.These relative differences are affected by the capabilities of the models, the availability ofaccurate applicable experimental data, and the experimental uncertainty of these data. Theproject team used the relative differences, in combination with some engineering judgment as tothe appropriateness of the model and the agreement between model and experiment, to produce agraded characterization of each fire model's capability to predict attributes important to NPP firemodeling applications.

This report does not provide relative differences for all known fire scenarios in NPP applications.This incompleteness is attributable to a combination of model capability and lack of relevantexperimental data. The first problem can be addressed by improving the fire models, while thesecond problem calls for more applicable fire experiments.

EPRI PerspectiveThe use of fire models to support fire protection decision-making requires a good understandingof their limitations and predictive capabilities. While this report makes considerable progresstoward this goal, it also points to ranges of accuracies in the predictive capability of these firemodels that could limit their use in fire modeling applications. Use of these fire models presentschallenges that should be addressed if the fire protection community is to realize the full benefitof fire modeling and performance-based fire protection. Persisting problems require both short-term and long-term solutions. In the short-term, users need to be educated on how the results ofthis work may affect known applications of fire modeling, perhaps through pilot application ofthe findings of this report and documentation of the resulting lessons learned. In the long-term,additional work on improving the models and performing additional experiments should beconsidered.

Keywords

Fire Fire ModelingVerification and Validation (V&V) Performance-BasedRisk-Informed Regulation Fire Hazard Analysis (FHA)Fire Safety Fire ProtectionNuclear Power Plant Fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)Fire Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA)

xx

PREFACE

This report is presented in seven volumes. Volume 1, the Main Report, provides generalbackground information, programmatic and technical overviews, and project insights andconclusions. Volume 2 quantifies the uncertainty of the experiments used in the V&V study ofthese five fire models. Volumes 3 through 6 provide detailed discussions of the verification andvalidation (V&V) of the following five fire models:

Volume 3 Fire Dynamics Tools (FDTS)

Volume 4 Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation, Revision 1 (FIVE-Revl)

Volume 5 Consolidated Model of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport (CFAST)

Volume 6 MAGIC

Volume 7 Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS)

xxi

'N

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work documented in this report benefited from contributions and considerable technicalsupport from several organizations.

The verification and validation (V&V) studies for FDTS (Volume 3), CFAST (Volume 5), andFDS (Volume 7) were conducted in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Commerce,National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Building and Fire Research Laboratory(BFRL). Since the inception of this project in 1999, the NRC has collaborated with NISTthrough an interagency memorandum of understanding (MOU) and conducted research to providethe necessary technical data and tools to support the use of fire models in nuclear power plantfire hazard analysis (FHA).

We appreciate the efforts of Doug Carpenter and Rob Schmidt of Combustion ScienceEngineers, Inc. for their comments and contributions to Volume 3.

In addition, we acknowledge and appreciate the extensive contributions of Electricit6 de France(EdF) in preparing Volume 6 for MAGIC.

We thank Drs. Charles Hagwood and Matthew Bundy of NIST for the many helpful discussionsregarding Volume 2.

We also appreciate the efforts of organizations participating in the International CollaborativeFire Model Project (ICFMP) to Evaluate Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications,which provided experimental data, problem specifications, and insights and peer comment forthe international fire model benchmarking and validation exercises, and jointly prepared thepanel reports used and referred to in this study. We specifically appreciate the efforts of theBuilding Research Establishment (BRE) and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in the UnitedKingdom, which provided leadership for ICFMP Benchmark Exercise (BE) #2, as well asGesellschaft ftir Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) and Institut ftir Baustoffe, Massivbau undBrandschutz (iBMB) in Germany, which provided leadership and valuable experimental data forICFMP BE #4 and BE #5. In particular, ICFMP BE #2 was led by Stewart Miles at BRE; ICFMPBE #4 was led by Walter Klein-Hessling and Marina Rowekamp at GRS, and R. Dobbernack and OlafRiese at iBMB; and ICFMP BE #5 was led by Olaf Riese and D. Hosser at iBMB, and MarinaRowekamp at GRS. Simo Hostikka of VTT, Finland also assisted with ICFMP BE#2 byproviding pictures, tests reports, and answered various technical questions of those experiments.We acknowledge and sincerely appreciate all of their efforts.

xxiii

We greatly appreciate Paula Garrity, Technical Editor for the Office of Nuclear RegulatoryResearch, and Linda Stevenson, agency Publications Specialist, for providing editorial andpublishing support for this report. Lionel Watkins and Felix Gonzalez developed the graphicsfor Volume 1. We also greatly appreciate Dariusz Szwarc and Alan Kouchinsky for theirassistance finalizing this report.

We wish to acknowledge the team of peer reviewers who reviewed the initial draft of this reportand provided valuable comments. The peer reviewers were Dr. Craig Beyler and Mr. PhilDiNenno of Hughes Associates, Inc., and Dr. James Quintiere of the University of Maryland.

Finally, we would like to thank the internal and external stakeholders who took the time toprovide comments and suggestions on the initial draft of this report when it was published in theFederal Register (71 FR 5088) on January 31, 2006. Those stakeholders who commented arelisted and acknowledged below.

Janice Bardi, ASTM International

Moonhak Jee, Korea Electric Power Research Institute

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Fire ProtectionBranch

J. Greg Sanchez, New York City Transit

David Showalter, Fluent, Inc.

Douglas Carpenter, Combustion Science & Engineering, Inc.

Nathan Siu, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Clarence Worrell, Pacific Gas & Electric

xxiv

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AGA

AHJ

ASME

ASTM

BE

BFRL

BRE

BWR

CDF

CFAST

CFD

CFR

CSR

EdF

EPRI

FDS

FDTS

FHA

FIVE-RevI

American Gas Association

Authority Having Jurisdiction

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

American Society for Testing and Materials

Benchmark Exercise

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

Building Research Establishment

Boiling-Water Reactor

Core Damage Frequency

Consolidated Fire Growth and Smoke Transport Model

Computational Fluid Dynamics

Code of Federal Regulations

Cable Spreading Room

Electricit6 de France

Electric Power Research Institute

Fire Dynamics Simulator

Fire Dynamics Tools (NUREG- 1805)

Fire Hazard Analysis

Fire-Induced Vulnerability Evaluation, Revision 1

xxv

FM/SNL Factory Mutual & Sandia National Laboratories

FPA Foote, Pagni, and Alvares

FRA Fire Risk Analysis

GRS Gesellschaft fir Anlagen-und Reaktorsicherheit (Germany)

HGL Hot Gas Layer

HRR Heat Release Rate

IAFSS International Association of Fire Safety Science

iBMB Institut fir Baustoffe, Massivbau und Brandschutz

ICFMP International Collaborative Fire Model Project

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IPEEE Individual Plant Examination of External Events

MCC Motor Control Center

MCR Main Control Room

MQH McCaffrey, Quintiere, and Harkleroad

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NBS National Bureau of Standards (now NIST)

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NPP Nuclear Power Plant

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRC)

PMMA Polymethyl-methacrylate

PWR Pressurized Water Reactor

xxvi

RCP Reactor Coolant Pump

RES Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (NRC)

RI/PB Risk-Informed, Performance-Based

SBDG Stand-By Diesel Generator

SDP Significance Determination Process

SFPE Society of Fire Protection Engineers

SWGR Switchgear Room

V&V Verification & Validation

xxvii

1INTRODUCTION

As the use of fire modeling tools increases in support of day-to-day nuclear power plant (NPP)applications including fire risk studies, the importance of verification and validation (V&V)studies for these tools also increases. V&V studies provide the fire modeling analysts increasedconfidence in applying analytical tools by quantifying and discussing the performance of thegiven model in predicting the fire conditions measured in a particular experiment. The underlyingassumptions, capabilities, and limitations of the model are discussed and evaluated as part ofthe V&V study.

The main objective of this volume is to document a V&V study for the Consolidated Fire Growthand Smoke Transport (CFAST) zone model. As such, this report describes the equations thatconstitute the model, the physical bases for those equations, and an evaluation of the sensitivityand predictive capability of the model.

CFAST is a two-zone fire model capable of predicting the fire-induced environmental conditionsas a function of time for single- or multi-compartment scenarios. Toward that end, the CFASTsoftware calculates the temperature and evolving distribution of smoke and fire gases throughouta building during a user-prescribed fire. The model was developed, and is maintained, by theFire Research Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), whichofficially released the latest version of the CFAST model in 2004.

CFAST is a zone model, in that it subdivides each compartment into two zones, or control volumes,in order to numerically solve differential equations, and the two volumes are assumed to behomogeneous within each zone. This two-zone approach has evolved from observations oflayering in actual fires and real-scale fire experiments. The approximate solution of the massand energy balances of each zone, together with the ideal gas law and the equation of heatconduction into the walls, attempts to simulate the environmental conditions generated by a fire.

To accompany the model and simplify its use, NIST has developed a Technical Reference Guide[Ref. 1] that provides a detailed description of the models and numerical solutions in CFAST. Thatguide also documents a V&V study for the broad applications of CFAST (without specific reference toNPPs). That study was conducted at the request of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC), in accordance with ASTM E 1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the PredictiveCapability of Deterministic Fire Models [Ref. 2], issued by the American Society for Testing andMaterials (ASTM). As such, this report extensively references both the CFAST TechnicalReference Guide and ASTM E 1355.

1-1

Introduction

Consistent with the CFAST Technical Reference Guide and ASTM E 1355, this report isstructured as follows:

* Chapter 2 provides qualitative background information about CFAST and the V&V process.

* Chapter 3 presents a brief technical description of CFAST, including a review of theunderlying physics and chemistry.

* Chapter 4 documents the mathematical and numerical robustness of CFAST, which involvesverifying that the implementation of the model matches the stated documentation.

* Chapter 5 presents a sensitivity analysis, for which the researchers defined a base case scenarioand varied selected input parameters in order to explore CFAST capabilities for modelingtypical characteristics of NPP fire scenarios.

Chapter 6 presents the results of the validation study in the form of percent differencesbetween CFAST simulations and experimental data for relevant attributes of enclosure firesin NPPs.

Appendix A presents the technical details supporting the calculated accuracies discussedin Chapter 6.

Appendix B presents all of the CFAST input files for the simulations in this V&V study.

1-2

2MODEL DEFINITION

This chapter provides qualitative background information about CFAST and the V&V process,as outlined by ASTM E 1355 [Ref. 2]. The definitive description of the CFAST model,including its developers, equations, assumptions, inputs, and outputs can be found in the CFASTTechnical Reference Guide [Ref. 1], which also follows the guidelines for ASTM E 1355.

2.1 Name and Version of the Model

This V&V study focused on Version 6.0.10 of the Consolidated Fire Growth and Smoke Transport(CFAST) Model. Most of the code is written in FORTRAN 90. Chapter 2 of the CFASTTechnical Reference Guide [Ref. 1] provides a more detailed description of the evolutionof the model.

2.2 Type of Model

CFAST is a two-zone fire model that predicts the fire-induced environment as a function of timefor single- or multi-compartment scenarios. CFAST subdivides each compartment into two zones(or volumes) in order to numerically solve differential equations, and the two volumes are assumedto be uniform in temperature and species concentration. The approximate solution of theconservation equations for each zone, together with the ideal gas law and the equation of heatconduction into the walls, attempts to simulate the environmental conditions generated by a fire.

2.3 Model Developers

The CFAST model was developed, and is maintained, by the Fire Research Division of NIST.The developers include Walter Jones, Richard Peacock, Glenn Forney, Rebecca Portier,Paul Reneke, John Hoover, and John Klote.

2.4 Relevant Publications

Relevant publications concerning CFAST include the CFAST Technical Reference Guide[Ref. 1] and User's Guide [Ref. 3]. The Technical Reference Guide describes the underlyingphysical principles, provides a comparison with experimental data, and describes the limitationsof the model. The User's Guide describes how to use the model. In addition, numerous relateddocuments available at http://cfast.nist.gov provide a wealth of information concerningVersions 2, 3, 4 and 5 of both the model and its user interface.

2-1

Model Definition

2.5 Governing Equations and Assumptions

Section 2.1.5 and Chapter 3 of the CFAST Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1] fully describethe equations and assumptions associated with the CFAST model. The general equations solvedby the CFAST model include conservation of mass and energy. The model does not explicitly solvethe momentum equation, except for use of the Bernoulli equation for the flow velocity at vents.These equations are solved as ordinary differential equations.

The CFAST model is implemented based on two general assumptions: (1) two zones percompartment provide a reasonable approximation of the scenario being evaluated, and(2) the complete momentum equation is not needed to solve the set of equations associated withthe model. Consequently, the two zones have uniform properties. That is, the temperatureand gas concentrations are assumed to be constant throughout the zone; the propertiesonly change as a function of time.

2.6 Input Data Required to Run the Model

All of the data required to run the CFAST model reside in a primary data file, which the user creates.Some instances may require databases of information on objects, thermophysical propertiesof boundaries, and sample prescribed fire descriptions. In general, the data files containthe following information:

* compartment dimensions (height, width, length)

* construction materials of the compartment (e.g., concrete, gypsum)

" material properties (e.g., thermal conductivity, specific heat, density, thickness, heat of combustion)

* dimensions and positions of horizontal and vertical flow openings such as doors, windows,and vents

" mechanical ventilation specifications

* fire properties (e.g., heat release rate, lower oxygen limit, and species production rates as afunction of time)

* sprinkler and detector specifications

* positions, sizes, and characteristics of targets

The CFAST User's Guide [Ref. 3] provides a complete description of the required inputparameters. Some of these parameters have default values included in the model, which areintended to be representative for a range of fire scenarios. Unless explicitly noted, default valueswere used for parameters not specifically included in this validation study.

2-2

Model Definition

2.7 Property Data

Required inputs for CFAST include a number of material properties related to compartmentbounding surfaces, objects (called targets) placed in compartments for calculation of objectsurface temperature and heat flux to the objects, or fire sources. For compartment surfacesand targets, CFAST needs the density, thermal conductivity, specific heat, and emissivity.

For fire sources, CFAST needs to know the pyrolysis rate of fuel, the heat of combustion,stochiometric fuel-oxygen ratio, yields of important combustion products in a simplifiedcombustion reaction (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, soot, and others), and the fractionof energy released in the form of thermal radiation.

These properties are commonly available in fire protection engineering and materials handbooks.Experimentally determined property data may also be available for certain scenarios. However,depending on the application, properties for specific materials may not be readily available. A smallfile distributed with the CFAST software contains a database with thermal properties of commonmaterials. These data are given as examples, and users should verify the accuracy andappropriateness of the data.

2.8 Model Results

Once the simulation is complete, CFAST produces an output file containing all of the solutionvariables. Typical outputs include (but are not limited to) the following:

" environmental conditions in the room (such as hot gas layer temperature; oxygen and smokeconcentration; and ceiling, wall, and floor temperatures)

" heat transfer-related outputs to walls and targets (such as incident convective, radiated, andtotal heat fluxes)

* fire intensity and flame height

* flow velocities through vents and openings

" sprinkler activation time

2.9 Uses and Limitations of the Model

CFAST has been developed for use in solving practical fire problems in fire protection engineering,while also providing a tool to study fundamental fire dynamics and smoke spread. It is intendedfor use in system modeling of building and building components. It is not intended for detailedstudy of flow within a compartment, such as is needed for smoke detector siting. It includes theactivation of sprinklers and fire suppression by water droplets.

2-3

Model Definition

The most extensive use of the model is in fire and smoke spread in complex buildings. Theefficiency and computational speed are inherent in the few computation cells needed for a zonemodel implementation. The use is for design and reconstruction of time-lines for fire and smokespread in residential, commercial, and industrial fire applications. Some applications of themodel have been for design of smoke control systems.

Compartments: CFAST is generally limited to situations where the compartment volumesare strongly stratified. However, in order to facilitate the use of the model for preliminaryestimates when a more sophisticated calculation is ultimately needed, there are algorithmsfor corridor flow, smoke detector activation, and detailed heat conduction through solidboundaries. This model does provide for non-rectangular compartments, although theapplication is intended to be limited to relatively simple spaces. There is no intent to includecomplex geometries where a complex flow field is a driving force. For these applications,computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models are appropriate.

Gas Layers: There are also limitations inherent in the assumption of stratification of the gaslayers. The zone model concept, by definition, implies a sharp boundary between the upperand lower layers, whereas in reality, the transition is typically over about 10% of the heightof the compartment and can be larger in weakly stratified flow. For example, a burningcigarette in a normal room is not within the purview of a zone model. While it is possibleto make predictions within 5% of the actual temperatures of the gas layers, this is not theoptimum use of the model. It is more properly used to make estimates of fire spread(not flame spread), smoke detection and contamination, and life safety calculations.

Heat Release Rate: There are limitations inherent in the assumptions used in applicationof the empirical models. As a general guideline, the heat release should not exceed about1 MW/mi. This is a limitation on the numerical routines attributable to the coupling betweengas flow and heat transfer through boundaries (conduction, convection, and radiation).The inherent two-layer assumption is likely to break down well before this limit is reached.

* Radiation: Because the model includes a sophisticated radiation model and ventilationalgorithms, it has further use for studying building contamination through the ventilationsystem, as well as the stack effect and the effect of wind on air circulation in buildings.

* Ventilation and Leakage: In a single compartment, the ratio of the area of vents connectingone compartment to another to the volume of the compartment should not exceed roughly2 in-'. This is a limitation on the plug flow assumption for vents. An important limitationarises from the uncertainty in the scenario specification. For example, leakage in buildingsis significant, and this affects flow calculations especially when wind is present and for tallbuildings. These effects can overwhelm limitations on accuracy of the implementationof the model. The overall accuracy of the model is closely tied to the specificity, care,and completeness with which the data are provided.

2-4

Model Definition

Thermal Properties: The accuracy of the model predictions is limited by how well the usercan specify the thermophysical properties. For example, the fraction of fuel which ends upas soot has an important effect on the radiation absorption of the gas layer and, therefore, therelative convective versus radiative heating of the layers and walls, which in turn affects thebuoyancy and flow. There is a higher level of uncertainty of the predictions if the propertiesof real materials and real fuels are unknown or difficult to obtain, or the physical processesof combustion, radiation, and heat transfer are more complicated than their mathematicalrepresentations in CFAST.

In addition, there are specific limitations and assumptions made in the development of thealgorithms. These are detailed in the discussion of each of these sub-models in the NISTTechnical Reference Guide [Ref. 11.

2-5

3THEORETICAL BASIS FOR CFAST

This chapter presents a technical description of the CFAST model, including its theoreticalbackground and the underlying physics and chemistry inherent in the model. The descriptionincludes assumptions and approximations, an assessment of whether the open literature providessufficient scientific evidence to justify the approaches and assumptions used, and an assessmentof empirical or reference data used for constant or default values in the context of the model.In so doing, this chapter addresses the ASTM E 1355 guidance to "verify the appropriatenessof the theoretical basis and assumptions used in the model."

Chapter 3 of the CFAST Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1 ] presents a comprehensivediscussion concerning the theoretical basis for CFAST, including the theory underlyingthe implementation of the model. In so doing, it enables the user to assess the appropriatenessof the model for specific problems. In addition, Chapter 3 of Reference 1 derives the predictiveequations for zone fire models and presents a detailed explanation of those used in CFAST[Refs. 4 and 5].

3.1 The Two-Layer Model

CFAST is a classic two-zone fire model. For a given fire scenario, the model subdivides a compartmentinto two control volumes, which include a relatively hot upper layer and a relatively cool lower layer.In addition, mass and energy are transported between the layers via the fire plume. The lower layer isprimarily fresh air. By contrast, the hot upper layer (which is also known as the hot gas layer) iswhere combustion products accumulate via the plume. Each layer has its own energy and massbalances.

The most important assumption for the model is that each zone has uniform properties. That is,the temperature and gas concentrations are assumed to be constant throughout the zone; theproperties only change as a function of time. The CFAST model describes the conditions in eachzone by solving equations for conservation of mass, species, and energy, along with the ideal gaslaw. The Technical Reference Guide for CFAST [Ref. 1] provides a detailed discussionconcerning the specific derivation of these conservation laws.

For some applications, including long hallways or tall shafts, the two-zone assumption may notbe appropriate. CFAST includes empirical algorithms to simulate smoke flow and filling in longcorridors and for a single well-mixed volume in tall shafts.

3-1

Theoretical Basis for CFAST

CFAST also includes the following correlations (as sub-models), based on experimental data thatare used to calculate various physical processes during a fire scenario:* smoke production" fire plume" heat transfer by radiation, convection, and conduction" natural flows through openings (vertical and horizontal)* forced or natural ventilation* thermal behavior of targets* heat detectors* water spray from sprinklers

Table 3-1. CFAST Capabilities Included in the V&V Study.

Fire Phenomena Algorithm/Methodology V&V

Predicting Hot Gas Layer Temperature Two-zone control volume modeland Smoke Layer Height in a Room Fire with uniform conditions in a YesWith Natural Ventilation Compartment zone

Predicting Hot Gas Layer Temperature in a Two-zone control volume modelRoom Fire With Forced Ventilation with uniform conditions in a YesCompartment zone

rTemperature in a Two-zone control volume modelPredicting Hot Gas Layer Teprtr na with uniform conditions in a Yes

Fire Room With Door Closedzone

Estimating Burning Characteristics of a Fire, User-specified HRR and species.Heat Release Rate, Burning Duration and Model limits burning byHlamea Rel t, available oxygen. Hesketstad YesFlame Height flame height correlation

Estimating Gas Concentrations Resulting User-specified time varying

from a Fire species yield from fire; global Yesconservation of massUser-specified time varying

Estimating Visibility Through Smoke smoke yield from fire; global Yesconservation of mass

Estimating Flow Through Horizontal or Empirical correlation; ; globalVertical Natural Flow Vents conservation of mass No

Estimating Flow Through Horizontal or global conservation of massVertical Forced Flow Vents No

Point Source Radiation fromEstimating Radiant Heat Flux From Fire to a fire; four-surface radiation fromTarget compartment surfaces; gray gas Yes

absorption by gas layers

(

I

I

3-2


Fire Phenomena Algorithm/Methodology V&V

One dimensional heatEstimating the Ignition Time of a Target Fuel Ondionsinsl No

conduction in solid No

Estimating Sprinkler Activation RTI Algorithm No

Suppression by Water Spray Empirical correlation No

Estimating Smoke and Heat Alarm Response One dimensional heatTime conduction in solid No

Estimating Pressure Rise Attributable to a Global conservation of mass andFire in a Closed Compartment energy Yes

Estimating flow in a corridor Empirical algorithm based onFDS simulations No

3.2 Zone Model Assumptions

The basic assumption of all zone fire models is that each compartment can be divided into asmall number of control volumes, each of which is uniform in temperature and composition.In CFAST, all compartments have two zones, with an exception for well-mixed compartments(such as elevator shafts) that can be modeled as a single control volume. Since a real-worldupper/lower interface is not as sharply defined as the one modeled by CFAST, the model hasa spatial uncertainty of about 10% in determining the height of the hot gas layer. Uncertaintyin layer temperature and position is discussed in detail in Volume 2.

The zone model concept best applies for an enclosure (compartment) in which the horizontal dimensions(width and length) are similar. If the horizontal dimensions of the compartment differ too much(i.e., the compartment looks like a corridor), the flow pattern in the room may becomeasymmetrical. If the enclosure is too shallow, the temperature may have significant radial differences.In addition, at some height, the width of the plume may become equal to the width of the room,and the model assumptions may fail in a tall and narrow enclosure.

Users should recognize approximate limits on the ratio of the length (L), width (W), and height(H) of the compartment as follows. If the aspect ratio (the maximum of length/width orwidth/length) is greater than about 5, the corridor flow algorithm should be used to provide theappropriate filling time. By contrast, a single zone approximation is more appropriate for tall shafts(elevators and stairways). In addition, the researchers experimentally determined that the mixingbetween a plume and lower layer (as a result of the interaction with the walls of the shaft) caused

3-3


complete mixing. This is the inverse of the corridor problem, and occurs at an aspect ratio(the maximum of height/width or height/length) of about 5. A recommended rule is as follows.If the width-to-length aspect ratio (the maximum of length/width or width/length) is greater than 5,use of the corridor flow algorithm is appropriate. If the width-to-length aspect ratio is greaterthan 3 but less than 5, the corridor flow algorithm may or may not be appropriate; consider theresults from a simulation with and without the algorithm to assess its appropriateness. If theroom is not a corridor and the height aspect ratio (the maximum height/width or height/length)is greater than 5, the single zone approximation is appropriate.

3.3 Description of Sub-Models and Correlations

This section discusses each of the sub-models incorporated in CFAST. In general, Sections 3.3.1through 3.3.11 are organized in a manner similar to the structure of the model itself.

3.3.1 The Fire

CFAST simulates a fire as a mass of fuel that bums at a prescribed "pyrolysis" rate and releasesboth energy and combustion products. The model also has the capability to simulate bothunconstrained and constrained fires. For an unconstrained fire, CFAST simulates a fire thatsimply releases mass and energy at the pyrolysis rate prescribed by the user; the model neithercalculates nor tracks the products of combustion. By contrast, for a constrained fire, CFASTcalculates species production based on user-defined production yields, and both the pyrolysis rateand the resulting energy and species generation may be limited by the oxygen available for combustion.When sufficient oxygen is available for combustion, the heat release rate (HRR) for aconstrained fire is the same as for an unconstrained fire. Fire height is also calculated by themodel based on an available experimental correlation [Ref. 6].

CFAST also has the capability to simulate multiple fires in multiple compartments. In such instances,CFAST treats each individual fire as an entirely separate entity, with no interaction with other fireplumes.

The user must define fire growth because CFAST does not include a model to predict fire growth.While this approach does not directly account for increased pyrolysis attributable to radiativefeedback from the flame or compartment, the user could prescribe such effects though multiplesimulations.

3.3.2 Plumes

CFAST models the flame and plume regions around a fuel source using McCaffrey's correlation,which divides the flame/plume into three regions [Ref. 7]. McCaffrey estimated temperature,velocity, and the mass entrained by the fire/plume from the lower layer into the upper layer.McCaffrey's correlation is an extension of the common point source plume model, with adifferent set of coefficients for each region. These coefficients are experimental correlations.However, the model does not output plume temperatures. For a detailed description of

3-4


constraints CFAST puts on air entrained into the plume, please refer to the CFAST TechnicalReference Guide [Ref. 1].

3.3.3 Ceiling Jet

CFAST uses Cooper's correlation [Ref. 8] to simulate the ceiling jet flows and convective heattransfer from fire plume gases to the overhead ceiling surface in the room of fire origin. In sodoing, the model accounts for the effect on heat transfer as a result of the fire's location withinthe room. Complete details are available in Reference 8.

3.3.4 Vent Flow

CFAST models both horizontal flow through vertical vents (doors, windows, wall vents, etc.) andvertical flow through horizontal vents (ceiling holes, hatches, roof vents, etc.). Horizontal flowis normally thought of when discussing fires.

Horizontal vent flow through vertical vents is determined using the pressure difference across a vent.Flow at a given elevation may be computed using Bernoulli's law by computing the pressuredifference at that elevation and then the pressure on each side of the vent. This solution isaugmented for restricted openings by using flow coefficients from Quintiere et al. [Ref. 9]to allow for constriction from finite door sizes. The flow (or orifice) coefficient is an empirical term,which addresses the problem of constriction of velocity streamlines at an orifice.

Cooper's algorithm [Ref. 10] is used for computing vertical mass flow through horizontal vents.The algorithm is based on correlations to model the two components of the flow, including a net flowdictated by a pressure difference, and the exchange flow based on the relative densities of the gases.

There is a special case of horizontal flow in long corridors. Specifically, CFAST incorporatesa corridor flow algorithm to calculate the ceiling jet temperature and depth as a function of timeuntil it reaches the end of the corridor. A computational fluid dynamics model was used to developthe correlations that CFAST uses to compute flows between corridors and compartments. A moredetailed description of this work is found in the CFAST Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1].

The model for mechanical ventilation used in CFAST is based on the model developed by Klote[Ref. 11]. Flow in ductwork is calculated with a mass and energy balance based on an analogyto electrical current flow in series and parallel based on Kirchoff s law. The CFAST TechnicalReference Guide [Ref. 1] describes the modeling of ducts and fans in CFAST.

3.3.5 Heat Transfer

This section discusses radiation, convection, and conduction - the three mechanisms by whichheat is transferred between the gas layers and objects and enclosing compartment walls.The CFAST Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1] provides a more complete descriptionof the algorithms used in CFAST.

3-5


3.3.5.1 Radiation

Radiative transfer occurs among the fire(s), gas layers, and compartment surfaces (ceiling, walls,and floor). This transfer is a function of the temperature differences and emissivity of the gas layers,as well as the compartment surfaces. The radiation model in CFAST assumes that (1) all zonesand surfaces radiate and absorb like a gray body, (2) the fires radiate as point sources, and(3) the plume above the fire does not radiate at all. Radiative heat transfer is approximated usinga limited number of radiating wall surfaces (four in the fire room and two everywhere else).The use of these and other approximations allows CFAST to perform the radiation computationin a reasonably efficient manner [Ref. 12].

3.3.5.2 Convection

The typical correlations that CFAST uses for convective heat transfer are available in the literature.Specifically, Atreya summarizes convective heat flux calculation methods in the SFPE handbook[Ref. 13].

3.3.5.3 Conduction

CFAST uses a finite difference scheme from Moss and Forney [Ref. 14], which utilizes a non-uniformspatial mesh to advance the wall temperature solution. The heat equation is discretized usinga second-order central difference for the spatial derivative and a backward difference for the timederivative. This process is repeated until the heat flux striking the wall (calculated from the convectionand radiation algorithms) is consistent with the flux conducted into the wall (calculated usingFourier's law). Heat transfer between compartments can be modeled by merging the connectedsurfaces for the ceiling and floor compartments or for the connected horizontal compartments.

3.3.6 Targets

The calculation of the radiative heat flux to a target is similar to the radiative heat transfer calculationdiscussed in Section 3.3.5.1. The main difference is that CFAST does not compute feedbackfrom the target to the wall surfaces or gas layers. The target is simply a probe or sensor that does notinteract with the modeled environment. The net flux striking a target can be used as a boundarycondition in order to compute the temperature of the target. The four sources of heat flux to a targetare fire radiation, radiation from walls (including the ceiling and floor), gas layer radiation,and gas layer convection.

3.3.7 Heat Detectors

CFAST models heat detector (including sprinkler head) activation using Heskestad's method[Ref. 15] with temperatures obtained from the ceiling jet calculation [Ref. 8]. Rooms without firesdo not have ceiling jets; therefore, detectors in such rooms use gas layer temperatures instead ofceiling jet temperatures.

3-6


3.3.8 Fire Suppression via Sprinklers

For sprinkler suppression, CFAST uses the simple model by Madrzykowski and Vettori [Ref 16],which is generalized for varying sprinkler spray densities according to Evans [Ref. 17].The suppression correlation was developed by modifying the heat release rate of a fire.The CFAST Technical Reference Manual [Ref. 1] outlines the assumptions and limitationsof this approach.

3.3.9 Species Concentration and Deposition

The combustion chemistry scheme used in CFAST is documented in the CFAST TechnicalReference Guide [Ref. 1]. The scheme is based on a carbon-hydrogen-oxygen balance appliedin three locations. The first is in the fire and plume in the lower layer of the compartment,the second is in the upper layer, and the third is in the vent flow between adjacent compartments.This scheme basically solves the conservation equations for each species independently.

CFAST tracks the masses of an individual species as they are generated, transported, or mixed.As fuel is combusted, the user-prescribed species yield defines the mass of the species to be tracked.Each unit mass of a species produced is carried in the flow to the various rooms and accumulatesin the layers. The model keeps track of the mass of each species in each layer, and records the volumeof each layer as a function of time. The mass divided by the volume is the mass concentration,which along with the molecular weight provides the concentration in volume percent or parts permillion (ppm) as appropriate. For hydrogen chloride, CFAST includes an empirical correlationthat allows for deposition on and absorption by material surfaces.

3.4 Review of the Theoretical Development of the Model

The current version of ASTM E 1355 includes provisions to guide assessment of the model'stheoretical basis. Those provisions include a review of the model "by one or more recognized expertsfully conversant with the chemistry and physics of fire phenomenon, but not involved withthe production of the model. Publication of the theoretical basis of the model in a peer-reviewedjournal article may be sufficient to fulfill this review" [Ref. 2]. NIST's Technical Reference Guidefor CFAST [Ref. 1] addresses the necessary elements of a review of the model's technical bases.

CFAST has been subjected to independent review both internally (at NIST) and externally.NIST documents and products receive extensive reviews by NIST experts not associated withdevelopment. The same reviews have been conducted on all previous versions of the modeland Technical Reference Guide over the last decade. Externally, the model's theoretical basishas been published in peer reviewed journals [Refs. 18, 19, and 20], and conference proceedings[Ref. 21 ]. In addition, CFAST is used worldwide by fire protection engineering firms that reviewthe technical details of the model related to their particular application. Some of these firmsalso publish (in the open literature) reports documenting internal efforts to validate the modelfor a particular use. Finally, CFAST has been reviewed and included in industry-standard handbookssuch as the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) Handbook [Ref. 22], and referenced inspecific standards including NFPA 805 [Ref. 23] and NFPA 551 [Ref. 24].

3-7


3.4.1 Assessment of the Completeness of Documentation

The two primary documents on CFAST are the Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1] and ModelUser's Guide [Ref. 3]. The Technical Reference Guide documents the governing equations,assumptions, and approximations of the various sub models, and it includes a summary descriptionof the model structure and numerics. In addition, the Technical Reference Guide documentsa V&V study for the broad applications of CFAST (without specific reference to NPPs). That study wasconducted at the request of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in accordance withASTM E 1355 [Ref. 2]. The model User's Guide includes a description of the model input datarequirements and model results.

3.4.2 Assessment of Justification of Approaches and Assumptions

The technical approach and assumptions associated with the CFAST model have been presentedin peer-reviewed scientific literature and at technical conferences. Also, all documents releasedby NIST are required to undergo an internal editorial review and approval process. In addition toformal internal and peer review, CFAST is subjected to ongoing scrutiny because it is availableto the general public and is used internationally by those involved in technical areas such as firesafety design and post-fire reconstruction. The source code for CFAST is also released publicly,and has been used at various universities worldwide, both in the classroom (as a teaching tool)and for research. As a result, flaws in the model's theoretical development and the computerprogram itself have been identified and rectified. The user base continues to serve as a means toevaluate the model, and this is as important to development of CFAST as formal internal andexternal peer review processes.

3.4.3 Assessment of Constants and Default Values

No single document provides a comprehensive assessment of the numerical parameters (such asdefault time step or solution convergence criteria) and physical parameters (such as empirical constantsfor convective heat transfer or plume entrainment) used in CFAST. Instead, specific parametershave been tested in various V&V studies performed at NIST and elsewhere. Numerical parametersare extracted from the literature and do not undergo a formal review. Model users are expectedto assess the appropriateness of default values provided by CFAST and make changes to thosevalues if needed.

3-8

4MATHEMATICAL AND NUMERICAL ROBUSTNESS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter documents the mathematical and numerical robustness of CFAST, which involvesverifying that the implementation of the model matches the stated documentation. Specifically,ASTM E 1355 suggests the following analyses to address the mathematical and numericalrobustness of models:

* Analytical tests involve testing the correct functioning of the model. In other words, these testsuse the code to solve a problem with a known mathematical solution. However, there arerelatively few situations for which analytical solutions are known.

* Code checking refers to verifying the computer code on a structural basis. This verificationcan be achieved manually or by using a code-checking program to detect irregularitiesand inconsistencies within the computer code.

* Numerical tests investigate the magnitude of the residuals from the solution of a numericallysolved system of equations (as an indicator of numerical accuracy) and the reduction in residuals(as an indicator of numerical convergence).

4.2 Comparison with Analytic Solutions

Certain CFAST sub-models address phenomena that have analytical solutions, for example,one-dimensional heat conduction through a solid or pressure increase in a sealed or slightly leakycompartment as a result of a fire or fan. The developers of CFAST routinely use analyticalsolutions to test sub-models to verify the correctness of the coding of the model as part of thedevelopment. Such routine verification efforts are relatively simple and the results may notalways be published or included in the documentation. Two additional types of verification arepossible. The first type, discussed in Section 3, "Theoretical Basis," involves validatingindividual algorithms against experimental work. The second involves simple experiments,especially for conduction and radiation, for which the results are asymptotic (e.g., for a simplesingle-compartment test case with no fire, all temperatures should equilibrate asymptoticallyto a single value). Such comparisons are common and not usually published.

4-1

Mathematical and Numerical Robustness

4.3 Code Checking

Two standard programs have been used to check the CFAST model structure and language.Specifically, FLINT and LINT have been applied to the entire model to verify the correctnessof the interface, undefined or incorrectly defined (or used) variables and constants,and completeness of loops and threads.

The CFAST code has also been checked by compiling and running the model on a varietyof computer platforms. Because FORTRAN and C are implemented differently for various computers,this represents both a numerical check as well as a syntactic check. CFAST has been compiledfor Sun (Solaris), SGI (Irix), Microsoft® Windows®-based PCs (Lahey, Digital, and Intel FORTRAN),and Concurrent computer platforms. Within the precision afforded by the various hardwareimplementations, the answers are identical.1

The CFAST Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1] contains a detailed description of the CFASTsubroutine structure and interactions between the subroutines. A complete physical descriptionof the code can be found in Reference 25.

This V&V project began using version 6.0.3 of CFAST. As part of the V&V process, severalminor bugs have been corrected in this version. These include fixes to the graphical userinterface to improve object plotting, the target flux calculation, burning outside the room of fireorigin, and error checking for elements located outside a compartment. The updated version ofCFAST used in this study (6.0.10) included these fixes.

4.4 Numerical Tests

Two components of the numerical solutions of CFAST must be verified. The first is the DAE solver(called DASSL), which has been tested for a variety of differential equations and is widely usedand accepted [Ref. 26]. The radiation and conduction routines have also been tested againstknown solutions for asymptotic results.

The second component is the coupling between algorithms and the general solver. The structureof CFAST provides close coupling that avoids most errors. The error attributable to numericalsolution is far less than that associated with the model assumptions. Also, CFAST is designedto use 64-bit precision for real number calculations to minimize the effects of numerical error.

1 Typically, an error limit of one part in 106.

4-2

5MODEL SENSITIVITY

This chapter discusses the CFAST sensitivity analysis, which ASTM E 1355 defines as a studyof how changes in model parameters affect the results. In other words, sensitivity refers tothe rate of change of the model output with respect to input variations. The standard also indicatesthat model predictions may be sensitive to (1) uncertainties in input data, (2) the level of rigoremployed in modeling the relevant physics and chemistry, and (3) the accuracy of numericaltreatments. Thus, the purpose of a sensitivity analysis is to assess the extent to which uncertaintyin the model inputs is manifested as uncertainty in the model results of interest.

Conducting a sensitivity analysis of a complex model is not a simple task. A sensitivity analysisinvolves defining a base case scenario, and varying selected input parameters. The resultant variationsin the model output are then measured with respect to the base case scenario, in order to considerthe extent to which uncertainty in model inputs influences model output. Therefore, a sensitivityanalysis of CFAST should account for variations in the extensive number of input parametersthat describe the building geometry, compartment connections, construction materials,and description of one or more fires.

ASTM E 1355 [Ref. 2] provides overall guidance on typical areas of evaluation of the sensitivityof deterministic fire models. Chapter 5 of the CFAST Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1]provides a review of the sensitivity analyses that have been conducted using CFAST, withan emphasis on uncertainty in the input. Other sensitivity investigations of CFAST are alsoavailable in References 27, 28, and 29.

5.1 Previous Sensitivity Studies

Khoudja studied the sensitivity of an early version of the FAST model [Ref. 30] (predecessor toCFAST) with a fractional factorial design involving 2 levels of 16 different input parameters.The choice of values for each input parameter represented a range for each parameter.The analysis of the FAST model showed sensitivity to heat loss to the compartment wallsand to the number of compartments in the simulation. Without the inclusion of surfacethermophysical properties, this model treats surfaces as adiabatic for conductive heat transfer.Thus, consistent sensitivity should be expected. Sensitivity to changes in thermal propertiesof the surfaces was not explored.

5-1

Model Sensitivity

Walker [Ref. 31 ] discussed the uncertainties in components of zone models and showed howuncertainty within user-supplied data affects the results of calculations using CFAST as anexample. The study systematically varied inputs related to the fire (heat release rate, heat ofcombustion, mass loss rate, radiative fraction, and species yields) and compartment geometry(vent size and ceiling height) ranging from ±1% to ±20% of base values for a one-compartmentscenario. Heat release rate and ceiling height are seen to be the dominant input variables in thesimulations. Upper-layer temperature changed ±-10% for a ± 10% change in heat release rate.Typical variation of ±10 seconds in time to untenable conditions for a 20% variation was notedin the inputs for the scenarios studied.

In addition, the CFAST Technical Reference Guide demonstrates a partial sensitivity analysisfor a few CFAST input parameters. For somewhat complex fire scenarios involving fourinterconnected rooms, the analysis found that upper-layer temperature and pressure areinsensitive to small (10%) variations in fire room volume, while the upper-layer volumeis neutrally sensitive. NIST's analysis also varied heat release rates to determine sensitivityto large changes in inputs. In so doing, the analysis determined that the upper-layer temperatureis equally sensitive to heat release rate as to compartment volume. A second-level analysisindicated a strong functional upper-layer temperature dependence on heat release rate,but the sensitivity is less than 1 K/kW in the example case for HRRs greater than 100 kW.The third-level analysis indicated that HRRs have more of an effect on upper-layer temperaturesthan do vent areas.

Notarianni [Ref. 29] developed an iterative methodology for the treatment of uncertainty in fire-safety engineering calculations to identify important model parameters for detailed study ofuncertainty. She defined a nine-step process to identify crucial model inputs and parameters,select sampling methods appropriate for the important parameters, and evaluate the sensitivityof the model to chosen outcomes. Both factorial designs and Latin hypercube samplingare included in a case study involving the CFAST model. In a performance-based designof a 16-story residential structure, the impact of model uncertainty on a chosen design andinclusion of residential sprinklers in the design would effect the resulting safety of the design.For a seven-compartment scenario representing one living unit in the structure, distributionsof input variables based on Latin hypercube sampling of selected ranges of the inputs weredeveloped and used as input for a series of 500 CFAST simulations for the scenario. The resultsof the calculations are presented in a series of cumulative distribution functions, which show theprobability that a chosen criterion of the design is exceeded within a given time. Depending onthe evaluation criterion chosen, times to unacceptable designs varied by as little as 10 secondsto as much as 470 seconds. To determine important input variables, Notarianni useda multivariate correlation of the input and output variables to determine statistical significanceat a 95% confidence level. Input variables deemed important in the analysis included fire-relatedinputs (growth rate, heat of combustion, position of the base of the fire, and generation ratesof products of combustion) and door opening sizes. Other inputs were determined to be lessimportant.

5-2

Technical Details of CFAST Validation Study

Many of the outputs of the CFAST model are quite insensitive to uncertainty in the inputparameters for a broad range of scenarios. Not surprisingly, heat release rate was consistentlyseen as the most important variable in a range of simulations. Heat release rate and relatedvariables such as heat of combustion or generation rates of products of combustion providethe driving force for fire-driven flows. For CFAST, all of these are user inputs. Thus, carefulselection of these fire-related variables are necessary for accurate predictions. Other variablesrelated to compartment geometry such as compartment height or vent sizes, while deemedimportant for the model outputs, are typically more easily defined for specific design scenariosthan fire related inputs. For some scenarios, such as typical building performance design,these vents may need to include the effects of leakage to ensure accurate predictions. For otherscenarios, such as shipboard use or nuclear power facilities, leakage (or lack thereof) may bemore easily defined and may not be an issue in the calculations.

5.2 Sensitivity to Heat Release Rate

Of all the physical input parameters, the simulation results are most sensitive to the heat releaserate. In this section, one of the validation experiments (ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #3, Test 3)is used to demonstrate the result of increasing and decreasing the heat release rate by 15%.Figure 5-1 shows plots of various output quantities demonstrating their sensitivity to the changein heat release rate. Gas and surfaces temperatures, oxygen concentration, and compartmentpressure show roughly 10% diversions from baseline, whereas the heat fluxes show roughly 20%diversions. The height of the hot gas layer is relatively insensitive to changes in the heat releaserate. These results are expected and consistent with the analysis described in Volume 2 to assessthe sensitivity of the quantities of interest to the uncertainty in the measured heat release rate.

5-3

Model Sensitivity

1500

1000

E

500

0

Heat Release RateICFMP BE #3, Test 3

................... - ......... 15 %

.15%

300

2 200

E0

Hot Gas Layer TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 3

....... ...

... .. ... ....

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

Ceiling Jet TemperatureiCFMP BE #3, Test 3

0r 2

1-

04-0

0.22

0.20

. 0.18

E

0.16

0.140

a

EF-

5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

02 ConcentrationICFMP BE #3, Test 3

ann

200

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Compartment PressureICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0

-1........

-2 . ...... ."

-2

-30 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400Control Cable B Surface TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 3

300

200

100-0O . .... .. " . .

5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a47ED

Total and Radiative Heat Flux to Control Cable BICFMP BE #3, Test 3

6

4

2

ID

ID

8IDI-

00 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)Time (min)

Figure 5-1. Sensitivity of Various Output Quantities to Changes in HRR

5-4

6MODEL VALIDATION

CFAST has been subjected to extensive validation studies by NIST and others. Although somedifferences between the model and the experiments were evident in these studies, they aretypically explained by limitations of the model and uncertainty of the experiments. Mostprominent in the studies reviewed was the over-prediction of gas temperature often attributed touncertainty in soot production and radiative fraction. Still, studies typically show predictionsaccurate within 10% to 25% of measurements for a range of scenarios. Like all predictivemodels, the best predictions come with a clear understanding of the limitations of the modeland the inputs provided to the calculations. The CFAST Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1]includes a detailed discussion of these previous validation efforts.

This chapter summarizes the results of the current validation study conducted for the CFASTmodel. This study focused on the predicted results of the CFAST fire model and did not includean assessment of the user interface for the model. However, all input files used for thesimulations were prepared using the GUI and reviewed for correctness prior to the simulations.Six experimental test series have been used in the present model evaluation. A brief descriptionof each is given here. Further details can be found in Volume 2 and in the individual test reports.

ICFMP BE #2: Benchmark Exercise #2 consists of eight experiments, representing three sets ofconditions, to study the movement of smoke in a large hall with a sloped ceiling. The results ofthe experiments were contributed to the International Collaborative Fire Model Project (ICFMP)for use in evaluating model predictions of fires in larger volumes representative of turbine hallsin NPPs. The tests were conducted inside the VTT Fire Test Hall, which has dimensions of 19 mhigh x 27 m long x 14 m wide (62 ft x 88.5 ft x 46 ft). Each case involved a single heptane poolfire, ranging from 2 MW to 4 MW. All three cases, representing averaged results from the eighttests, have been used in the current V&V effort.

ICFMP BE #3: Benchmark Exercise #3, conducted as part of the ICFMP and sponsored by theNRC, consists of 15 large-scale tests performed at NIST in June 2003. The fire sizes range from350 kW to 2.2 MW in a compartment with dimensions 21.7 m high x 7.1 m long x 3.8 m wide,designed to represent a variety of spaces in a NPP containing power and control cables. Thewalls and ceiling were covered with two layers of marinate boards, each layer 0.0125 m (0.5 in)thick. The floor was covered with one layer of 0.0125-m (0.5-in) thick gypsum board on top of a0.0183-m (23/32-in) layer of plywood. The room has one door with dimensions of 2 mx 2 m (6.6 ftx 6.6 ft), and a mechanical air injection and extraction system. Ventilation conditions and firesize and location are varied, and the numerous experimental measurements include gas andsurface temperatures, heat fluxes, and gas velocities.

6-1

Model Validation

ICFMP BE #4: Benchmark Exercise #4 consists of kerosene pool fire experiments conducted atthe Institut fir Baustoffe, Massivbau und Brandschutz (iBMB) of the Braunschweig Universityof Technology in Germany. The results of two experiments were contributed to the ICFMP.These fire experiments involve relatively large fires in a relatively small [3.6 m x 3.6 m x 5.7 m(12 ft x 12 ft x 19 ft)] concrete enclosure. Only one of the two experiments was selected for thepresent V&V study (Test 1).

ICFMP BE #5: Benchmark Exercise #5 consists of fire experiments conducted with realisticallyrouted cable trays in the same test compartment as BE #4. The compartment was configuredslightly differently, and the height was 5.6 m (18.4 ft) in BE #5. Only Test 4 was selected for thepresent evaluation, and only the first 20 minutes, during which an ethanol pool fire pre-heatedthe compartment.

FM/SNL Series: The Factory Mutual & Sandia National Laboratories (FM/SNL) Test Series is aseries of 25 fire tests conducted for the NRC by Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FMRC),under the direction of Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). The primary purpose of these testswas to provide data with which to validate computer models for various types of NPP compartments.The experiments were conducted in an enclosure measuring 18 m long x 12 m wide x 6 m high(60 ft x 40 ft x 20 ft), constructed at the FMRC fire test facility in Rhode Island. All of the testsinvolved forced ventilation to simulate typical NPP installation practices. The fires consist of asimple gas burner, a heptane pool, a methanol pool, or a polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) solidfire. Four of these tests were conducted with a full-scale control room mockup in place.Parameters varied during testing were fire intensity, enclosure ventilation rate, and fire location.Only Tests 4, 5 and 21 were used in the present evaluation. Test 21 involved the full-scalemockup. All were gas burner fires.

NBS Multi-Room Series: The National Bureau of Standards (NBS, now the National Institute ofStandards and Technology, NIST) Multi-Compartment Test Series consists of 45 fire testsrepresenting 9 different sets of conditions, with multiple replicates of each set, which wereconducted in a three-room suite. The suite consists of two relatively small rooms, connected via arelatively long corridor. The fire source, a gas burner, is located against the rear wall of one of thesmall compartments. Fire tests of 100, 300, and 500 kW were conducted, but only three 100-kWfire experiments (Test 1OA, 1000, and IOOZ) were used for the current V&V study.

CFAST simulated all of the chosen experiments. Technical details of the calculations, includingoutput of the model and comparison with experimental data, are provided in Appendix A.The results are organized by quantity as follows:

* hot gas layer (HGL) temperature and height* ceiling jet temperature* plume temperature* flame height* oxygen and carbon dioxide concentration* smoke concentration" compartment pressure* radiation heat flux, total heat flux, and target temperature

6-2

Model Validation

* wall heat flux and surface temperature

Comparisons of the model predictions with experimental measurements are presented as relativedifferences. The relative differences are calculated as follows:

AM-AE _ (M, - Mo)-(E, -Eo)

AE (EP-ET.

where AM is the difference between the peak value (Mp) of the evaluated parameter and itsoriginal value (Mo), and AE is the difference between the experimental observation (Ep) and itsoriginal value (Eo). Appendix A lists the calculated relative differences for all the fire modelingparameters listed above.

The measure of model "accuracy" used throughout this study is related to experimentaluncertainty. Volume 2 discusses this issue in detail. In brief, the accuracy of a measurement(e.g., the gas temperature) is related to the measurement device (e.g., a thermocouple).In addition, the accuracy of the model prediction of the gas temperature is related tothe simplified physical description of the fire and to the accuracy of the input parameters(e.g., the specified heat release rate), which in turn are based on experimental measurements.Ideally, the purpose of a validation study is to determine the accuracy of the model in the absenceof any errors related to the measurement of both its inputs and outputs. Because it is impossibleto eliminate experimental uncertainty, at the very least, a combination of the uncertainty in themeasurement of model inputs and output can be used as a yardstick. If the numerical predictionfalls within the range of uncertainty attributable to both the measurement of the input parametersand the output quantities, it is not possible to quantify its accuracy further. At this stage, it is saidthat the prediction is within experimental uncertainty.

Each section in this chapter contains a scatter plot that summarizes the relative difference resultsfor all of the predictions and measurements of the quantity under consideration. Details of thecalculations, the input assumptions, and the time histories of the predicted and measured outputare included in Appendix A. Only a brief discussion of the results is included in this chapter.Included in the scatter plots are an estimate of the combined uncertainty for the experimentalmeasurements and uncertainty in the model inputs. It is important to understand that these aresimply estimates of random uncertainty and do not include systematic uncertainty in eitherthe experimental measurements or model predictions. Thus, these uncertainty bounds are onlyguidelines to judge the predictive capability of the model along with expert engineeringjudgment of the project team.

At the end of each section, a color rating is assigned to each of the output categories, indicating,in a very broad sense, how well the model treats that particular quantity. A detailed discussionof this rating system is included in Volume 1. For CFAST, only the Green and Yellow ratingshave been assigned to 11 of the 13 quantities of interest because these quantities fall within thecapability of the CFAST model. The color Green indicates that the research team concluded thephysics of the model accurately represent the experimental conditions, and the calculated relativedifferences comparing the model and the experimental are consistent with the combinedexperimental and input uncertainty. The color Yellow suggests that one exercise caution when

6-3

Model Validation

using the model to evaluate this quantity - consider carefully the assumptions made by themodel, how the model has been applied, and the accuracy of its results. There is specificdiscussion of model limitations for the quantities assigned a Yellow rating. Two of thequantities, plume temperature and ceiling jet temperature, are used internally by the model for itscalculations, but are not reported as output. These were not assigned a color rating. Parametersthat are not given a color rating indicate that the model does not include output to be able toevaluate that parameter in its as-tested version.

6.1 Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height

The single most important prediction a fire model can make is the temperature of the hot gaslayer (HGL). The impact of the fire is not so much a function of the heat release rate, but ratherthe temperature of the compartment. A good prediction of the HGL height is largely aconsequence of a good prediction of its temperature because smoke and heat are largelytransported together and most numerical models describe the transport of both with the sametype of algorithm. Typically, CFAST slightly over-predicts the HGL temperature, most oftenwithin experimental uncertainty. Hot gas layer height is typically within experimentaluncertainty for well-ventilated tests and near floor level for under-ventilated tests wherecompartments are closed to the outside. Figure 6-1 shows a comparison of predicted andmeasured values for HGL temperature and depth along with a summary of the relative differencefor all of the test series. For HGL height, only values from open-door tests are included inFigure 6-1 and Appendix A. For closed-door tests, visual observations typically show that theHGL fills the entire compartment volume from floor to ceiling, inconsistent with the calculatedresults for the experimental data. Thus, the calculated experimental values of HGL height forclosed-door tests are not seen as appropriate for comparison to model results.

Following is a summary of the accuracy assessment for the HGL predictions of the six testseries:

ICFMP BE #2: CFAST predicts the HGL temperature and height near experimental uncertaintyfor all three tests.

ICFMP BE #3: CFAST predicts the HGL temperature to within experimental uncertainty for allof the closed-door tests except Test 17. Test 17 was a rapidly growing toluene pool fire, whichwas stopped for safety reasons after 273 seconds. CFAST predicts an initial temperature risestarting somewhat earlier and peaking somewhat higher than the experimental values, but curveshapes match in all tests. Relative difference for the open-door tests is somewhat higher, rangingfrom 13 % for Test 5 to 26 % for Test 18 (Figure 6-1 and Table A-l). CFAST predicts HGLheight to within experimental uncertainty for'the open-door tests. For the closed-door tests,calculated CFAST values arie consistent with visual observations of smoke filling in thecompartment.

ICFMP BE #4: CFAST predicts the HGL temperature and height to within experimentaluncertainty for the single test (Test 1), but there is some discrepancy in the shapes of the curves.It is not clear whether this is related to the measurement or the model.

6-4

Model Validation

ICFMP BE #5: CFAST predicts the HGL temperature to within experimental uncertainty for thesingle test (Test 4), although again there is a noticeable difference in the overall shape of thetemperature curves. HGL height is under-predicted by 20 % (Figure 6-1 and Table A-i). This islikely because of the complicated geometry within the compartment that includes a partial heightwall that affects both plume entrainment and radiative heat transfer from the fire to surroundings.

800 , 16

CFAST Hot Gas Layer 6/ CFAST Hot Gas Layer Depth /Temperature Rise/ 14 //

7"// ,,.' / /

600 er 12

2 / ,7 ///40 /° .// ,

D / /2400 /8

2' R ICFP BE 01 (Opera Door Tests) a ICFMVP BE #2<iiý• • CFMP BE #4 ICFMP BE #4

•/'dllFMISNL ICFMP'/ BE0

•NBIS MuLO-Rooe • uliRcr

0 0a " , , " NSMuU/~

S200 400 600 800 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Measured Temperature Rise ('C) Measured Depth (m)

100-CFAST Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Depth

0 CFMP 6 0 0 0CMPE#

50

Points other than circlesMeasurd Temperature Rdenote locations remote from0 HGLTempathe fire room in the NBS Multi,-100 D Room sodas

Figure 6-1 ComparisosTadRltv ifrne o Hot Gas Layer(GL TemperatureanDet03I C 03 W - .- W .to to14

a MO0o003 gnW

and Height

FM/SNL: CFAST predicts the HGL temperature to within experimental uncertainty for Tests 4and 5. For Test 2 1, there is a 3 3% over-prediction (Figure 6-1 and Table A-l1). This is likelybecause of the configuration of the fire in the test, with the fire inside a cabinet in the fire

6-5

Model Validation

compartment. This complex geometry leads to an interaction between the fire and the confiningcabinet that a zone model cannot simulate.

NBS Multi-Room: CFAST predicts the HGL temperature and height to within experimentaluncertainty for many of the measurement locations in the three tests considered. Thediscrepancies in various locations appear to be attributable to experimental, rather than model,error. In particular, the calculation of HGL temperature and height are quite sensitive to themeasured temperature profile, which in these tests was determined with bare-bead thermocouplesthat are subject to quite high uncertainties. Wide spacing of the thermocouples also leads tohigher uncertainty in HGL height.

Calculations of HGL temperature and height in the room remote from the fire have higherrelative differences than those closer to the fire. This is likely a combination of the simplifiedsingle representative layer temperature inherent in zone models (temperature in the long corridorof this test series varied from one end of the compartment to the other) and the calculation offlow though doorways based on a correlation based on the pressure difference between theconnected compartments.

Summary: HGL Temperature and Height ( for fire compartment and Yellow forcompartments remote from the fire)

Based on the model physics and comparisons of model predictions with experimentalmeasurements, CFAST calculations of HGL temperature and height are characterized in theGreen category within the fire compartment and Yellow in compartments remote from the firefor the following reasons:

* The two-zone assumption inherent in CFAST, modeled as a series of ordinary differentialequations that describe mass and energy conservation of flows in a multiple-compartmentstructure are appropriate for the applications studied.

* The CFAST predictions of the HGL temperature and height are, with a few exceptions,within or close to experimental uncertainty. The CFAST predictions are typical of thosefound in other studies where the HGL temperature is typically somewhat over-predicted andHGL height somewhat lower (HGL depth somewhat thicker) than experimentalmeasurements. These differences are likely attributable to simplifications in the modeldealing with mixing between the layers, entrainment in the fire plume, and flow throughvents. Still, predictions are mostly within 10% to 20% of experimental measurements.

" Calculation of HGL temperature and height has higher uncertainty in rooms remote from thefire compared to those in the fire compartment. Howe ,er, this is based on the results of asingle test series.

6.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature

CFAST includes an algorithm to account for the presence of the higher gas temperatures nearthe ceiling surfaces in compartments involved in a fire. In the model, this increased temperature

6-6

Model Validation

has the effect of increasing the convective heat transfer to ceiling surfaces. The temperature andvelocity of the ceiling jet are available from the model by placing a heat detector at the specifiedlocation. The ceiling jet algorithm is based on the model by Cooper [Ref. 8], with detailsdescribed in the CFAST Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1 ]. The algorithm predicts gastemperature and velocity under a flat, unconstrained ceiling above a fire source. Only twoof the six test series (ICFMP BE #3 and FM/SNL) involved relatively large flat ceilings. Figure6-2 shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for ceiling jet temperature along witha summary of the relative difference for the tests.

ICFMP BE #3: CFAST predicts ceiling jet temperature well within experimental uncertaintyfor all of the tests in the series, with an average relative difference of 5%. For these tests, the firesource was sufficiently large (relative to the compartment size) such that a well-defined ceilingjet was evident in temperature measurements near ceiling level.

FM/SNL: With fire sizes comparable to the smaller fire sizes used in the tests in ICFMP BE #3and compartment volumes significantly larger, measured temperature rise near the ceilingin the FM/SNL tests was below 100 'C (212 'F) in all three tests. Hot gas layer temperatures forthese tests were below 70 'C (158 'F). CFAST consistently predicts higher ceiling jettemperatures in the FM/SNL tests compared to experimental measurements. With a largercompartment relative to the fire size, the ceiling jet for the FM/SNL tests is not nearly as well-developed as those in the ICFMP BE #3. The difference between the experimental ceiling jettemperature and HGL temperature for the FM/SNL tests is less than half that observed in theICFMP BE #3 tests. While the over-prediction of ceiling jet temperature could be consideredconservative for some applications, for scenarios involving sprinkler or heat detector activation,the increased temperature in the ceiling jet would lead to shorter estimates of activation times forthe simulated sprinkler or heat detector.

Summary: Ceiling Jet Temperature (YellOw+)

Based on the model physics and comparisons of model predictions with experimentalmeasurements, CFAST calculations of ceiling jet temperature are characterized in the Yellow+category for the following reasons:

* For tests with a well-defined ceiling jet layer, CFAST predicts ceiling jet temperatures well-within experimental uncertainty.

* For tests with a less well-defined ceiling jet layer, CFAST over-predicts the ceiling jettemperature. For the tests studies, over-predictions were noted when the HGL temperaturewas below 70 'C (158 'F).

6-7

Model Validation

400 eCFAST Ceiling Jet Temperature Rise

//,

/= ///

2300 7

-_ / -

/20 / 7/z 7

1200/E.-/ /

a /.

0 ICFMP BE #1 {Cosed D.o Te.U)

0 ICFMP BE #3 (Opera Door Teots)

* FMISNL

0-0 100 200 300 400

Measured Temperature Rise (C)

.. CQFA;SIQei!ing Jet Temperature ..................

0 050

5- - -- - -- - - ------ 1%

.50-

-100-C? ? ? , ,C ,• '" -T 00 N

~u uZZzJ0

*

Figure 6-2. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Ceiling Jet Temperature

6.3 Plume Temperature

,CFAST includes a plume entrainment algorithm based on the work of McCaffrey that modelsthe transport of combustion products released by the fire with air in the fire compartmentand movements of these gases into the upper layer in the compartment. Plume temperatureis not directly calculated nor reported from this algorithm. For this reason, comparisonsof experimentally measured plume temperatures with CFAST calculations are not appropriateand will not be included in this report.

6-8

Model Validation

6.4 Flame Height

Flame height is recorded by visual observations, photographs, or video footage. Videos fromthe ICFMP BE #3 test series and photographs from BE #2 are available. It is difficultto precisely measure the flame height, but the photos and videos allow one to make estimatesaccurate to within a pan diameter.

ICFMP BE #2: The height of the visible flame in the photographs has been estimated to bebetween 2.4 and 3 pan diameters [3.8 m to 4.8 m (12.5 ft to 15.7 ft)]. From the CFASTcalculations, the estimated flame height is 4.3 m (14.1 ft).

ICFMP BE #3: CFAST estimates the peak flame height to be 2.8 m (9.2 ft), roughly consistentwith the view through the doorway during the test. The test series was not designed to recordaccurate measurements of flame height.

Summary: Flame Height

Based on the model physics and comparisons of model predictions with experimentalmeasurements, CFAST calculations of flame height are characterized in the Green categorybecause the model predicts the flame height consistent with visual observations of flame heightfor the experiments. This is not surprising, given that CFAST simply uses a well-characterizedexperimental correlation to calculate flame height.

6.5 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration

CFAST simulates a fire as a mass of fuel that burns at a prescribed pyrolysis rate and releasesboth energy and combustion products. CFAST calculates species production based on user-defined production yields, and both the pyrolysis rate and the resulting energy and speciesgeneration may be limited by the oxygen available for combustion. When sufficient oxygenis available for combustion, the heat release rate for a constrained fire is the same as for anunconstrained fire. Mass and species concentrations are tracked by the model as gases flowthrough openings in a structure to other compartments in the. structure or to the outdoors.

Gas sampling data are available from ICFMP BE #3 and BE #5 (one test only). Figure 6-3shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for oxygen and carbon dioxideconcentrations, along with a summary of the relative difference for the tests.

6-9

*_ Model Validation

0.12

0

a.

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

CFAST Gas Species Concentrations /

/ / // "/

S / // /

4d/

u ICFMP BE #3 Upper Layer C02

e ICFMP BE #3 Upper Layer 0,

ICFMP BE #5 Upper layer C02ICFMP BE #5 Upper Layer 02

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0

Measured Change in Volume Fraction

.12

100

50 4

C00

00

CFAST Gas Concentrations

-..' ..% -, ....... ... ............ ........... ... .... ............... . ........ .........- -me --

* Upper Oxygen8 Upper Carbon Dioxide

0

-50

+9%

-9%

-ý I? ( Pr - 9 1 (N VU !gr( c? ~ 0 12 ~ ;W .z 0

Figure 6-3. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Oxygen Concentrationand Carbon Dioxide Concentration

ICFMP BE #3: CFAST predicts the upper-layer concentrations of oxygen and carbon dioxideclose to experimental uncertainty. For closed-door Tests 4 and 10 and open-door Tests 9 and 14,the magnitude of relative difference is higher, under-predicting by 22% to 25% (Figure 6-3 andTable A-2). Tests 4, 10, and 16 were closed-door tests with the mechanical ventilation system on.The higher relative differences for these tests are likely because of a non-uniform gas layerin the experiments with higher oxygen concentration near the mechanical ventilation inlet andlower concentrations remote from the inlet. In CFAST, the flow from the mechanical ventilationsystem is assumed to completely mix with the gases in the appropriate gas layer of a compartment.CFAST consistently under-predicts the drop in oxygen concentration, with Tests 9 and 14

I

6-10

Model Validation

showing a higher relative uncertainty than other closed-door tests. The cause of a higher-than-average difference is not clear.

ICFMP BE #5: CFAST predicts the upper-layer oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrationin Test 4 of this test series close to experimental uncertainty.

Summary: Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration

Based on the model physics and comparisons of model predictions with experimentalmeasurements, CFAST calculations of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrationare characterized in the Green category for the following reasons:

" CFAST uses a simple user-specified combustion chemistry scheme based on a prescribedpyrolysis rate and species yields that is appropriate for the applications studied.

* CFAST predicts the major gas species close to experimental uncertainty.

6.6 Smoke Concentration

CFAST treats smoke like all other combustion products, with an overall mass balance dependenton interrelated user-specified species yields for major combustion species. To model smokemovement, the user prescribes the smoke yield relative to the yield of carbon monoxide.A simple combustion chemistry scheme in the model then determines the smoke particulateconcentration in the form of an optical density. Figure 6-4 shows a comparison of predictedand measured values for smoke concentration along with a summary of the relative differencefor the tests.

Only ICFMP BE #3 has been used to assess predictions of smoke concentration. For these tests,the smoke yield was specified as one of the test parameters. There are two obvious trendsin the results. First, the predicted concentrations are within or near experimental uncertaintiesin the open-door tests. Second, the predicted concentrations are roughly three to five timesthe measured concentrations in the closed-door tests. The experimental uncertainty for thesemeasurements has been estimated to be 33% (see Volume 2). The closed-door tests cannot beexplained from the experimental uncertainty.

The difference between model and experiment is far more pronounced in the closed-door tests.Given that the oxygen and carbon dioxide predictions are no worse (and indeed even better)in the closed-door tests, there is reason to believe either that the smoke is not transported withthe other exhaust gases or the specified smoke yield, developed from free-burning experiments,is not appropriate for the closed-door tests. These qualitative differences between the open-and closed-door tests are consistent with the FDS predictions (see Volume 7).

6-11

Model Validation

400

•-- 300

a,

.0

E

D 200

100

0

0 100 200 300 400

Measured Density (mg/m3)

600

400

C

a>0,

CFAST Smoke Concentration

. . . ...... ... .. .--..-. . . .... . ... . .. ............ .. ... .... . ... ... . . . . ..0. . ! . .... . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .200 .

0-+33 %-33 %

-200-

-400-

-600

0 00T00rC 1 T 'Rý 0 0 0 W 0 I V < 0 0

wwwwww wý"MIwoo wooww z ý,

Figure 6-4. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration

Summary: Smoke Concentration (Yellow)

Based on the model physics and comparisons of model predictions with experimentalmeasurements, CFAST calculations of smoke concentration are characterized in the Yellowcategory for the following reasons:

a CFAST is capable of transporting smoke throughout a compartment, assuming thatthe production rate is known and its transport properties are comparable to gaseousexhaust products.

4

4

6-12

Model Validation

CFAST typically over-predicts the smoke concentration in all of the BE #3 tests, with theexception of Test 17. Predicted concentrations for open-door tests are within experimentaluncertainties, but those for closed-door tests are far higher. No firm conclusions can bedrawn from this single data set. The measurements in the closed-door experimentsare inconsistent with basic conservation of mass arguments, or there is a fundamental changein the combustion process as the fire becomes oxygen-starved.

6.7 Compartment Pressure

Comparisons between measurement and prediction of compartment pressure for BE #3are shown in Section A.7 of Appendix A to this volume. Figure 6-5 shows a comparisonof predicted and measured values for compartment pressure, along with a summaryof the relative difference for the tests.

For those tests in which the door to the compartment is open, the over-pressures are only a fewPascals; however, when the door is closed, the over-pressures are several hundred Pascals.For both the open- and closed-door tests, CFAST predicts the pressure to within experimentaluncertainty. The one notable exception is Test 16 (Figure 6-4 and Table A-3), which involveda large (2.3 MW) fire with the door closed and the ventilation on. By contrast, Test 10 involveda 1.2 MW fire with comparable geometry and ventilation. There is considerable uncertaintyin the magnitude of both the supply and return mass flow rates for Test 16. Compared to Test 16,Test 10 involves a greater measured supply velocity and a lesser measured exhaust velocity.This is probably the result of the higher pressure caused by the larger fire in Test 16. CFASTdoes not adjust the ventilation rate based on the compartment pressure until a specified cutoffpressure is reached. This is also the most likely explanation for the over-predictionof compartment pressure in Test 16.

In general, prediction of pressure in CFAST in closed compartments is critically dependenton correct specification of the leakage from the compartment. Compartments are rarely entirelysealed, and small changes in the leakage area can produce significant changes in the predictedover-pressure.

Summary: Compartment Pressure (6D

Based on the model physics and comparisons of model predictions with experimentalmeasurements, CFAST calculations of pressure are characterized in the Green categoryfor the following reasons:

" With one exception, CFAST predicts compartment pressures within experimentaluncertainty.

* Prediction of compartment pressure for closed-door tests is critically dependenton correct specification of the leakage from the compartment.

6-13

Model Validation

200

ca0. 150

co 1000

a- 50

" 0

(.

-4 -2 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Measured Pressure (Pa)

300

C00

00

0

100

50

4,• * CFAST Compartment Pressure4

0-0

0-0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . ..- -0 I I

+80 %

-50

-80 %

-IUU -

CNNN M M .... ('CC)C O i, ý- (ý

LLL~z

Figure 6-5. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Compartment Pressure

6.8 Radiation and Total Heat Flux to Targets and Target Temperature

Target temperature and heat flux data are available from ICFMP BE #3, #4, and #5. In BE #3,the targets are various types of cables in various configurations - horizontal, vertical, in trays,or free-hanging. In BE #4, the targets are three rectangular slabs of different materialsinstrumented with heat flux gauges and thermocouples. In BE #5, the targets are again cables,in this case, bundled power and control cables in a vertical ladder. Figure 6-6 showsa comparison of predicted and measured values for radiation, total heat flux, and targettemperature, along with a summary of the relative difference for the tests.

6-14

Model Validation

20

'E15

X,.

g 10

5

OL

CFAST Radiative Flux to Targets

// /

/•J~./- +."• CMPBE#3Cale8 ! ICFMP BE #3 Cable G

8

050

0

10o0-

CFAST Radiation Heat Flux to Targets

A

~~~~~... ...... .. ..... ... ... ... ...... .• • ,,Cable D

a I Cable F

a I * Cabl G

0

50

0 5 10 15 2

Measured Heat Flux (kW/m2)

z -a Z0

50

40

x30

-o 20a

10

0

/ /CFAST Total Heat Flux to Targets /

/

/ // /+ 7

G

/G

//

//

:CFMP BE #3 cable B• CFM BE #3 Cable D

lCFMP BE #3 Cable Fl CFMP BE '. Cable G

0 0 CFMP BE #4E] CFMP BE #

is7

>2

50-

1010 1* Casle a CFAST Total Heat Flux to Targets* Cable 0

Cable F* Cable G 0o M isce[laneo uas . ........ -...... • .... .. .... ........ . .. ..+

. G

= •-•-- - - .m U ,m ?

+20%

-20%

+20%

-20%

-14%

-14 %

-50-

A A A 6 6 A 5ýz UzUmama amaZ0 10 20 30 40 50


500

400

300-E

200

a.100 -

CFAST Target Temperature Rise /

//// /

/ // 7/ / 7

/ / /

• / /

7/

]• " • CFMP BE #3 CableD

• 1•• ;ICFMP BE #3 Ca bie F#• ICFMP BE #3 Cable G

ICFMP BE #4 Sla1bsa• ICFMP BE #5 Cable•

504

8

00-

-50-

CFAST Target Surface Temperature

0

* Cablei

* Cabl:eI.• Cable F

Cable GOmtseallneolas

0 .

ZL S. Z Z0 100 200 300 400 500 600


Figure 6-6. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Heat Flux to Targetsand Target Temperature

6-15

Model Validation

ICFMP BE #3: Appendix A provides nearly 200 comparisons of heat flux and surfacetemperature on four different cables. It is difficult to make sweeping generalizations aboutthe accuracy of CFAST. At best, one can scan the figures and associated tables to get a senseof the overall performance, which includes the following notable trends:

" The difference between predicted and measured cable surface temperatures is often withinexperimental uncertainty, with exceptions most often in the values for Cable G. Accurateprediction of the surface temperature of the cable should indicate that the flux to the target(a combination of radiation from the fire, surrounding surfaces, and the gas layers, along withconvection from the surrounding gas) should be correspondingly accurate. For ICFMP BE #3,the cable surface predictions show lower relative difference overall compared to the totalheat flux and (particularly) the radiative heat flux.

" Total heat flux to targets is typically predicted to within an average difference of 28%and often under-predicted. Predictions for Cables D and G are notable exceptions,with higher uncertainties.

" Radiative heat flux to targets is typically over-predicted compared to experimentalmeasurements, with higher values for closed-door tests. For the closed-door tests, this maybe a function of the over-prediction of the smoke concentration, which leads to the radiationcontribution from the hot gas layer being a larger fraction of the total heat flux compared tothe experimental values.

* For many of the experiments, the convective heat flux component, taken to be the differencebetween the total heat flux and the radiative heat flux is seen to be higher than the valuestypically measured in fire experiments.

ICFMP BE #4: CFAST over-predicts both the heat flux and surface temperature of three "slab"targets located about 1 m (3.3 ft) from the fire. The trend is consistent, but it cannot be explainedsolely in terms of experimental uncertainty. Again, the differences for surface temperatureare smaller than those for total heat flux.

ICFMP BE #5: Predictions and measurements of gas temperature, total heat flux, and cablesurface temperature are available at four vertical locations along a cable tray. CFAST under-predicts heat flux by about 50%, and under-predicts the cable surface temperature by about 20%.Although the surface temperature predictions are within experimental uncertainty, the heat fluxpredictions are not. Only one test from this series has been used in the evaluation; thus, it isdifficult to draw any firm conclusions.

Summary: Radiation and Total Heat Flux to Targets and Target Temperature (Yellow)

Based on the model physics and comparisons of model predictions with experimentalmeasurements, CFAST calculations of target heat flux and temperature are characterizedin the Yellow category for the following reasons:

6-16

Model Validation

Prediction of heat flux to targets and target surface temperature is largely dependent on localconditions surrounding the target. Like any two-zone model, CFAST predicts an averagerepresentative value of gas temperature in the upper and lower regions of a compartment.In addition, CFAST does not directly predict plume temperature or its effects on targetsthat may be within a fire plume. Thus, CFAST can be expected to under-predict valuesnear a fire source, and over-predict values for targets remote from a fire.

* Cable target surface temperature predictions are often within experimental uncertainty,with exceptions, particularly for Cables F and G.

* Total heat flux to targets is typically predicted to within about 30%, and often under-predicted.

* Radiative heat flux to targets is typically over-predicted compared to experimentalmeasurements, with higher relative difference values for closed-door tests.

6.9 Surface Heat Flux and Temperature

Heat flux and wall surface temperature measurements are available from ICFMP BE #3,and additional wall surface temperature measurements are available from BE #4 and BE #5.As with target heat flux and surface temperature (discussed above), there are numerouscomparisons. Figure 6-7 shows a comparison of predicted and measured values for surfaceheat flux and temperature, along with a summary of the relative difference for the tests.

ICFMP BE #3: CFAST generally predicts the heat flux and surface temperature of thecompartment walls to within 10% to 30%. Typically, CFAST over-predicts the far-field fluxesand temperatures and under-predicts the near-field measurements. This is understandable,given that any two-zone model predicts an average representative value of gas temperaturein the upper and lower regions of a compartment. Thus, the values predicted by CFASTshould be an average of values near the fire and those farther away.

However, differences for the ceiling and (particularly) floor fluxes and temperatures are higher,with a more pronounced difference between the near-field and far-field comparisons. In additionto the limitations of the two-zone assumption, calculations of the flux to ceiling and floor surfacesare further confounded by the simple point-source calculation of radiation exchange in CFASTfor the fire source. In CFAST, the fire is assumed to be a point source of energy located at the baseof the fire rather than a three-dimensional flame surface radiating to surroundings. With the firetypically at the floor surface, this makes the calculation of flux to the floor surface inherently lessaccurate than for other surfaces.

ICFMP BE #4: CFAST predicts one of the wall surface temperatures to within 8% of themeasured values, while the other is under-predicted by nearly 70% (Figure 6-7 and Table A-6).The two points are presumably very close to the fire because the temperatures are 600 to 700 'C(1100 to 1300 'F) above ambient. For points very close to the fire, a significant under-predictioncan be expected. The reason for the difference in the predictions is not clear.

6-17

Model Validation

ICFMP BE #5: CFAST typically under-predicts wall temperatures at two locations in thecompartment by more than 50% (Figure 6-7 and Table A-6). The more complicated geometryinside the compartment, with a partial height wall inside the compartment is a particularchallenge for the model. For example, the lowest thermocouple measurement location, TW 2-1is hidden behind the cable tray and below the level of the partial height wall. Experimentally,this shielded the thermocouple from nearby hot surfaces and the fire resulting in only a 4 'C(7 'F) temperature rise. With the simple geometry modeling by CFAST, a much higher riseis understandable. Only one test from this series has been used in the evaluation; thus, it isdifficult to draw any firm conclusions.

6 CFAST Total Heat Flux to Walls /14 / LongWaU, Far-qesi14 FM BE 3 O- T Short Wag, L-

• • •• •, Floor. Far-FieddICFMP BE#/

O Long Wai Far-FiNd a -FieLong Walt, Near-Fied / - Long Wt, Near-Ficidhort WSel sHigh,

Fle, short Pl_.H7gh w7 Flor Naa-Fs10 F ..,WF"-0r.F / 7-- -- - -•0

F loor. N -Fild /Na-FaN/F = IL a, - - - - -20%8 - .. ... ...... o _ _ ;• -o

Z0 0 0

0 0 0 07 .: CFAST Wall Heat Flux

W II0 to to t

0 u ' Z

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16


CFAST Wall Surface Temperature Rise / Long Wal, F-Rdd

0 BE #3 Long Wag. Far-FodI V ShorWa, L-o BE #3 Long Wail., Near-Foeld /o-For.F Alo BE 0#3 Sht W as, L- FAST Wall Temperature 0 * Fallo, Far-Fieldv BE #3 Short Wall, HighLA

6 0 0 BE #3 Foor Fa-Fold / 0 , L S .on t W l, Hi

BE :3 Ile NFarorl 7erFl: BE #3 ° ,r'N ea i / o .7 "5 0 CRog, Near-Field

B BE(c3 Caig.•N/er-Fed • 0 Ca .NF

0 ICFMP BE #4 - /V V 0 Mi ..7an-0IFMPBE#5 / 7a

-O 400 / ' r -"../ X / - .--------------- - -... 14%

0 /04000 .. 0 0

70 0 0

o0 o

= ----- 4 •'% T --- :--... ..... r"'

tli.o t o o C u .-

0 200 400 600 800


Figure 6-7. Comparisons and Relative Differences for Surface Heat Flux and Temperature

6-18

Model Validation

Summary: Surface Heat Flux and Temperature (Yellow)

Based on the model physics and comparisons of model predictions with experimentalmeasurements, CFAST calculations of flame height are characterized in the Yellow categoryfor the following reasons:

* CFAST is capable of predicting the surface temperature of a wall, assuming that itscomposition is fairly uniform and its thermal properties are well-characterized. Predictionsare typically within 10% to 30%. Generally, CFAST over-predicts the far-field fluxesand temperatures, and under-predicts the near-field measurements. This is consistent withthe single representative layer temperature assumed by zone fire models.

" CFAST predictions of floor heat flux and temperature are particularly problematic becauseof the simple point-source calculation of radiative exchange between the fireand compartment surfaces.

6.10 Summary

This chapter presents a summary of numerous comparisons of the CFAST model with a rangeof experimental results conducted as part of this V&V effort. Thirteen quantities were selectedfor comparison and a color rating assigned to each of the output categories, indicating, in a verybroad sense, how well the model treats that particular quantity:

" Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height:

* Ceiling Jet Temperature: YellowU+

* Plume Temperature: No color assigned

* Flame Height:

* Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration: |

* Smoke Concentration: Yellow

" Compartment Pressure:

* Radiation Heat Flux, Total Heat Flux, and Target Temperature: yellow

* Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature: Yellow

Four of the quantities were assigned a Green rating, indicating that the research team concludedthat the physics of the model accurately represent the experimental conditions, and the calculatedrelative differences comparing the model and the experimental values are consistent with thecombined experimental and input uncertainty. A few notes on the comparisons are appropriate:

The CFAST predictions of the HGL temperature and height are, with a few exceptions,within or close to experimental uncertainty. The CFAST predictions are typical of thosefound in other studies where the HGL temperature is typically somewhat over-predictedand HGL height somewhat lower (HGL depth somewhat thicker) than experimental

6-19

Model Validation

measurements. Still, predictions are mostly within 10% to 20% of experimental measurements.Calculation of HGL temperature and height has higher uncertainty in rooms remote fromthe fire (compared to those in the fire compartment).

" For most of the comparisons, CFAST predicts ceiling jet temperature well withinexperimental uncertainty. For cases where the HGL temperature is below 70 'C (160 'F),significant and consistent over-prediction was observed.

* CFAST predicts the flame height consistent with visual observations of flame height forthe experiments. This is not surprising, given that CFAST simply uses a well-characterizedexperimental correlation to calculate flame height.

* Gas concentrations and compartment pressure predicted by CFAST are within or close toexperimental uncertainty.

Three of the quantities were assigned a Yellow rating, indicating that users should take cautionwhen using the model to evaluate the given quantity. This typically indicates limitations inthe use of the model. A few notes on the comparisons are appropriate:

" CFAST typically over-predicts smoke concentration. Predicted concentrations for open-doortests are within experimental uncertainties, but those for closed-door tests are far higher.

* With exceptions, CFAST predicts cable surface temperatures within experimental uncertainties.Total heat flux to targets is typically predicted to within about 30%, and often under-predicted.Radiative heat flux to targets is typically over-predicted compared to experimentalmeasurements, with higher relative difference values for closed-door tests. Care should betaken in predicting localized conditions (such as target temperature and heat flux) because ofinherent limitations in all zone fire models.

" Predictions of compartment surface temperature and heat flux are typically within 10% to 30%.Generally, CFAST over-predicts the far-field fluxes and temperatures and under-predictsthe near-field measurements. This is consistent with the single representative layertemperature assumed by zone fire models.

Plume temperature is not directly calculated nor reported in a CFAST calculation. This was notassigned a color rating. Parameters that are not given a color rating indicate that the modeldoes not include output to permit evaluation of the given parameter in its as-tested version.

CFAST predictions in this validation study were consistent with numerous earlier studies, whichshow that the use of the model is appropriate in a wide range of fire scenarios. The CFAST modelhas been subjected to extensive evaluation studies by NIST and others. Although differencesbetween the model and the experiments were evident in these studies, most differences can beexplained by limitations of the model as well as of the experiments. Like all predictive models,the best predictions come with a clear understanding of the limitations of the model and the inputsprovided to perform the calculations.

6-20

7REFERENCES

1. Jones, W.W., R.D. Peacock, G.P. Forney, and P.A. Reneke, "Consolidated Model of Fire Growthand Smoke Transport (Version 6): Technical Reference Guide," NIST SP 1026, NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2005.

2. Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive Capability of Deterministic Fire Models, ASTME1355-05a, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005.

3. Peacock, R.D., W.W. Jones, P.A. Reneke, and G.P. Forney, "Consolidated Model of FireGrowth and Smoke Transport (Version 6), User's Guide," SP 1041, National Institute ofStandards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2005.

4. Incorpera, F.P., and D.P. DeWitt, Fundamentals of Heat Transfer, John Wiley & Sons,New York, NY, 1981.

5. Rehm, R., and G. Forney, "A Note on the Pressure Equations Used in Zone Fire Modeling,"NISTIR 4906, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1992.

6. Heskestad, G., "Fire Plumes, Flame Height, and Air Entrainment" in The SFPE Handbook ofFire Protection Engineering, 3rd Ed., National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA,2002.

7. McCaffrey, B.J., "Momentum Implications for Buoyant Diffusion Flames," Combustion andFlame,52:149, Oxford, UK, 1983.

8. Cooper, L.Y., "Fire-Plume-Generated Ceiling Jet Characteristics and Convective Heat Transferto Ceiling and Wall Surfaces in a Two-Layer Zone-Type Fire Environment," NISTIR 4705,National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1991.

9. Quintiere, J.G., K. Steckler, and D. Corley, "An Assessment of Fire-Induced Flowsin Compartments," Fire Science and Technology, 4:1, Tokyo, Japan, 1984.

10. Cooper, L.Y., "Calculation of the Flow Through a Horizontal Ceiling/Floor Vent,"NISTIR 89-4052, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1989.

11. Klote, J.H., "A Computer Model of Smoke Movement by Air Conditioning Systems,"NBS IR 87-3657, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, 1987.

12. Forney, G.P., "Computing Radiative Heat Transfer Occurring in a Zone Fire Model,"NISTIR 4709, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1991.

13. Atreya, A., "Convection Heat Transfer," SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering,3 Edition, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2002.

14. Moss, W.F., and G.P. Forney, "Implicitly Coupling Heat Conduction Into a Zone Fire Model,"NISTIR 4886, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1992.

7-1

References

15. Heskestad, G., and H.F. Smith, "Investigation of a New Sprinkler Sensitivity Approval Test:The Plunge Test," Technical Report Serial No. 22485 2937, RC 76-T-50, Factory MutualResearch Corporation, Norwood, MA, 1976.

16. Madrzykowski, D., and R.L. Vettori, "A Sprinkler Fire Suppression Algorithm for the GSAEngineering Fire Assessment System," Technical Report 4833, National Institute ofStandards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1992.

17. Evans, D.D., "Sprinkler Fire Suppression for Hazard," Technical Report 5254, National Instituteof Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1993.

18. Jones, W.W., "Modeling Smoke Movement through Compartmented Structures," Journal ofFire Sciences, 11(2):172, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1993.

19. Jones, W.W., "Multicompartment Model for the Spread of Fire, Smoke, and Toxic Gases,"Fire Safety Journal, 9(1):55, Okford, UK, 1985.

20. Jones, W.W., and J.G. Quintiere, "Prediction of Corridor Smoke Filling by Zone Models,"Combustion Science and Technology, 35:239, Oxfordshire, UK, 1984.

21. Jones, W.W., and G.P. Forney, "Modeling Smoke Movement through CompartmentedStructures," Proceedings of the Fall Technical Meeting of Combustion Institute/EasternStates Section, Ithaca, NY, 1991.

22. Walton, W.D., "Zone Fire Models for Enclosures," SFPE Handbook of Fire ProtectionEngineering, 3rd Edition (P.J. DiNenno, C.L. Beyler, R.L.P. Custer, W.D. Walton, andJ.M. Watts, Editors), National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2002.

23. NFPA 805, Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light-Water ReactorElectric Generating Plants, 2001 Edition, 2004/2005 National Fire Codes, National FireProtection Association, Quincy, MA, 2004.

24. NFPA 551, Guide for the Evaluation of Fire Risk Assessment, 2004 Edition, 2004/2005National Fire Code, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2004.

25. Peacock, R.D., G.P. Fomey, and P.A. Reneke, R.M. Portier, and W.W. Jones, "ConsolidatedModel of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport" NIST TN 1299, National Institute of Standards andTechnology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1993.

26. Barnett, J.R., and C.L. Beyler, "Development of an Instructional Program for PracticingEngineers HAZARD I Users," GCR 90-580, National Institute of Standards and Technology,Gaithersburg, MD, 1990.

27. Peacock, R.D., P.A. Reneke, C.L. Forney, and M.M. Kostreva, "Issues in Evaluation ofComplex Fire Models," Fire Safety Journal, 30:103-136, Okford, UK, 1998.

28. Beard, A., "Evaluation of Fire Models: Part I - Introduction," Fire Safety Journal, 19:295-306,Oxford, UK, 1992.

29. Notarianni, K.A., "The Role of Uncertainty in Improving Fire Protection Regulation,"PhD Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 2000.

30. Khoudja, N., "Procedures for Quantitative Sensitivity and Performance Validation of aDeterministic Fire Safety Model," Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, GCR-88-544,National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, 1988.

7-2

References

31. Walker, A.M., "Uncertainty Analysis of Zone Fire Models," Fire Engineering ResearchReport 97/8, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, 1997.

32. Peacock, R.D., S. Davis, and B.T. Lee, Experimental Data Set for the Accuracy Assessmentof Room Fire Model, Report NBSIR 88-3752, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg,MD, April 1988.

7-3

ATECHNICAL DETAILS OF CFAST VALIDATION STUDY

This appendix provides comparisons of CFAST predictions and experimental measurementsfor the six series of fire experiments under consideration. Each section to follow containsan assessment of the model predictions for the following quantities:

A. 1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height

A.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature

A.3 Plume Temperature

A.4 Flame Height

A.5 Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration

A.6 Smoke Concentration

A.7 Compartment Pressure

A.8 Target Heat Flux and Surface Temperature

A.9 Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature

Volume 2 includes a detailed discussion of the uncertainties associated with boththe experimental data and model predictions presented in this appendix.

A-1


A.1 Hot Gas Layer Temperature and Height

CFAST is a classic two-zone fire model. For a given fire scenario, the model subdividesa compartment into two control volumes, which include a relatively hot upper layer anda relatively cool lower layer. In addition, CFAST adds a zone for the fire plume. The lowerlayer is primarily fresh air. By contrast, the hot upper layer (which is also known as the hot gaslayer) is where combustion products accumulate via the plume. Each layer has its own energyand mass balances.

Within a compartment, each zone has homogeneous properties. That is, the temperature and gasconcentrations are assumed to be constant throughout the zone; the properties only changeas a function of time. The CFAST model describes the conditions in each zone by solvingequations for conservation of mass, species, and energy, along with the ideal gas law.

A-2


ICFMP BE #2

The HGL temperature and depth were calculated from the averaged gas temperatures from threevertical thermocouple arrays using the standard reduction method. There were 10 thermocouplesin each vertical array, spaced 2 m (6.6 ft) apart in the lower two-thirds of the hall, and 1 m (3.3 ft)apart near the ceiling. Figure A-I presents a snapshot from one of the simulations.

A"k..w46 Bh ii7Z

|TJ

I

T•I .-

Figure A-1. Cut-Away View of the Simulation of ICFMP BE #2, Case 2

A-3


140

120

9100

280

& 60E

I 40

20

atI

Hot Gas Layer HeightICFMP BE #2, Case 1

15

10 Etp Time vs Height

- CFAST Tmn•- HGL M.Qht 1

5 . .

00 2 4 6

TimA (minl8 10 .0 2 4 6 a 10

TimA IminI

5' 100

80

a 60E- 40

20

0

140

120

5'100so80

F- 60

I- 40

aI

4 6Time (rain)

10

Hot Gas Layer HeightICFMP BE #2, Case 2

15

0 I- CFAST in, te HN Heett I

00 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)

Hot Gas Layer Height

15ICFMP BE #2, Case 3

10

5

* Exp Time vs Height-CFAST MT[%e MeIGt. HI~gtt I]

0 4

:)

1

Hot Gas Layer TemperatureICFMP BE #2. Case 3

'9

i "20 *Exp TImne "s T~pper

- CFAST Th,., IIGt TvmI

ui0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (min)0 2 4 6 a 10

Time (min)

Figure A-2. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #2

A-4


ICFMP BE #3

BE #3 consists of 15 liquid spray fire tests with different heat release rate, pan locations, andventilation conditions. The basic geometry and numerical grid are shown in Figure A-3.Gas temperatures were measured using seven floor-to-ceiling thermocouple arrays (or "trees")distributed throughout the compartment. The average HGL temperature and height werecalculated using thermocouple Trees 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Tree 4 was not used because one of itsthermocouples (4-9) malfunctioned during most of the experiments.

t4

P

Uquid spray fire

Figure A-3. Snapshot of Simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

A few observations about the simulations:

* In the closed-door tests, the HGL layer descended all the way to the floor. However,the reduction method, used on the measured temperatures, does not account for the formationof a single layer and, therefore, does not indicate that the layer dropped all the way tothe floor. This is not a flaw in the measurements, but rather in the data reduction method.

* The HGL reduction method produces spurious results in the first few minutes of each testbecause no clear layer has yet formed.

A-5


a

E=a-

400Hot Gas Layer TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 1

300

200

100 *o ...... •

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


300

200

100

U...CAST Timeo " HGL Tethp I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

aCM

4Hot Gas Layer Height

" ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

3... CFAST Time HGL HeightI

2

".. ~...... .......

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

4Hot Gas Layer HeightICFMP BE #3, Test 7

3

-- Exp Time vs Lye Height~vT~.ý L bor Hgh ý -m)

2

.......• ........... .. .... ""

a

a0.Ea

I-

0,

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


0a

EI-

200

100 . .......................

E- T. . p a

0 5 10 15 20 25 3C

Time (rmin)


300

100

CFA.T :TimevHGL ýTerr=

M7:


33 l•'•.• 1 -- E= Tim e - Laye Hetgehtabove nmr (m)

2 I• i ..... CFAT Time n HGL Height I

.... .............................. .

0-0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


3 !-- ~Exp T~e vs Late, Height abom, ff•(m

, "',..............

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a

a0.Ea

I,-

a,a=

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-4. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-6



300

2._

4

3

.2a•..I

Hot Gas Layer Height

.-.

EiT Time .. ighlE p T k•m, Hii. Lyw M ghl aho .. floor (m)

0.E

W

I-

EI--

100

C)i0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


300

200

inn

A

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


E

v

,,3

- FS E~Tim.e . HLW HeightI~Ibefe~

/I =.=........=

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0* ..... ---- 10 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


3

2IA

400,

3001

2.


ET(D0.EIa

200 ...""'....... ........

10 0 .. .

- Exp Time s Tel. pper .Y.. (C)

.........................CIAST Thý we lIGI Temp I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


300

200 Y "

100 .A ...- I

1-

0

4

3

. 2

01

.A :, -ý ............................ ....... .............

Lol,,i,

Hwaht

ilbioi`ii

floor

=T "TTI - I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

CL

EQ

I.-

Hot Gas Layer HeightICFMP BE #3, Test 16

.CFAST Ti l. e ighl 1

10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (min)

Figure A-5. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-7


40

30

20

10

0


0

10

.- n Ti ý Te,,a uW L (C)

0 o 'z ......... .................................. .

4-

3-

E3Z


....................................................................

Eý Tý. . W -ot ý fýCFAST Tý ý HOL Hot I

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rein)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

Open-Door Tests to Follow

400 •Ann 4

E=I-


300

........... "............

200

100

CFSTrone onHGTerp. -. Ta9P - C

.03-r


3,

2

3.. .. .......

K.......

F.xp Time vs Laye Height oefoo()CFAST T-m . HGL NI.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)Time (min)

5,

2Ba0.Ea


300... ................... .

200

100

E.,o TO. Taog ,ppo Inyol MC

4-

3

z=2

-r


.......................... .... .................................

- Eop T~men HLyr 10,igh I~o op(1

.. . ... L .1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) Time (rain)

Figure A-6. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-8


400

300

o.200kEi - - -

01.ttI

'4Hot Gas Layer HeightICFMP BE #3, Test 5

3 .

2.

00 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)Time Imin)

40

30

2 200.Ea

0- 4Hot Gas Layer TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0

Z0 . " ............".

3

I•


3.

. ....................................................... .

1 -- EgTk n'.sLy Hglaoa lo m

.....VCFAT T: HGL Temp 10 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


300

200 ....

100

-- Exp T.Tap"y(C0...CATTne•HLTm

U

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

EI-

4

3

-E 2,.2-


...................................................

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

2.9.

E,a)

4UUHot Gas Layer TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 18

300

........ ....... -..................2 0 ...-.................

'..

200

100

/....o.AT ". GL T=7L

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)


3

.m

I

- E p Tn. .. ..... ... . ... ........... .......... .........

.CFý.ST Tin, o. .G4. =...hI

Ii L J0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-7. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-9


ICFMP BE #4

ICFMP BE #4 consisted of two experiments, of which one (Test 1) was chosen for validation.Compared to the other experiments, this fire was relatively large in a relatively smallcompartment. Thus, its HGL temperature was considerably higher than the other fire tests understudy. As shown in Figure A-8, the compartment geometry is fairly simple, with a single largevent from the compartment.

Figure A-8. Snapshot of the Simulation of ICFMP BE #4, Test I

The HGL temperature prediction, while matching the experiment in maximum value, has anoticeably different shape than the measured profile, both in the first 5 minutes and followingextinction. The HGL height prediction is distinctly different in the first 10 minutes and differsby about 40% after that time. There appears to be an error in the reduction of the experimentaldata.

A-10


800

600

400

E9 200

6Hot Gas Layef+ieightICFMP BE!#4, Test 1

E

3 CFAST1-GiJH0,l1

2

• !

00 5 10 15 20 10 15 20 25


Figure A-9. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #4, Test I

30

A-1l


ICFMP BE #5

BE #5 was performed in the same fire test facility as BE #4. Figure A-10 displays the overallgeometry of the compartment, as idealized by FDS. Only one of the experiments from this testseries was used in the evaluation, Test 4, and only the first 20 minutes of the test, during the"pre-heating" stage when only the ethanol pool fire was active. The burner was lit after thatpoint, and the cables began to bum.

Figure A-10. Snapshot of the Simulation of ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

A-12


300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Hot Gas Layer (HGL) TemperatureICFMP BE #5, Test 4

5

4,

•3

.0:=02

Hot Gas Layer (HGL) HeightICFMP BE #5, Test 4

I T

4- Jý---Eýp TWh. T-U. .CFASTTh,.vHGLT.,p E. T. - g

5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20


Figure A-11. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

A-13


FM/SNL Test Series

Tests 4, 5, and 21 from the FM/SNL test series were selected for comparison. The HGL temperatureand height were calculated using the standard method. The thermocouple arrays that are referredto as Sectors 1, 2, and 3 were averaged (with an equal weighting for each) for Tests 4 and 5.For Test 21, only Sectors 1 and 3 were used, as Sector 2 fell within the smoke plume.

S

Figure A-12. Snapshot from Simulation of FMISNL Test 5

Note the following:

" The experimental HGL heights are somewhat noisy because of the effect of ventilation ductsin the upper layer. The corresponding predicted HGL heights are consistently lower thanexperimental measurements, typically approaching floor level by the end of the test. This islikely a combination of the calculation technique for the experimental measurements andrules for flow from mechanical vents in the CFAST model.

" The ventilation was turned off after 9 minutes in Test 5, the effect of which was a slightincrease in the measured HGL temperature.

A-14


C.E

1001HGL TemperatureFM/SNL, Test 4 5

HGL Height"ij FM/SNL, Test 4

Cu* -. %

60 "

40 -

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (mint

100 HGL TemperatureFM/SNL, Test 5

80

9,,

E3

2

1

0

....CFAST T.-~ HGI. SH02

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

E,

12

6

5-

4

C3

2

IUv~HGL Height

¶FM/SNL, Test 5

20

0 5 10 15 20 25 300 0

...........

0 5 10 15 20 25 30


120

100

HGL TemperatureFMISNL, Test 21

a

C.EI-

BU •' • %"

OUAfl -Z

6

5

4

2

0

HGL HeightFM/SNL, Test 21it I

CIAST Til, 11GL ".OM IEý Tk*79) BURN RATEý80)

F-- .- Ti- - .- T-T.mWO) ý. UM T-ý---20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30


Figure A-13. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, FMISNL Series

A-15


NBS Multi-Room Test Series

This series of experiments consisted of two relatively small rooms connected by a long corridor.The fire was located in one of the rooms. Eight vertical arrays of thermocouples were positionedthroughout the test space (one in the burn room, one near the door of the bum room, three in thecorridor, one in the exit to the outside at the far end of the corridor, one near the door of the otheror "target" room, and one inside the target room). Four of the eight arrays were selected forcomparison with model prediction (the array in the bum room, the array in the middle of thecorridor, the array at the far end of the corridor, and the array in the target room). In Tests IOOAand 1000, the target room was closed, in which case, the array in the exit doorway was used.

The standard reduction method was not used to compute the experimental HGL temperature orheight for this test series. Rather, the test director reduced the layer information individually forthe eight thermocouple arrays using an alternative method [Ref. 32].

Burm room

Figure A-14. Snapshot from Simulation of NBS Multi-Room Test IOOZ

A-16


E=I-.-

CL

E

a,

400Room 1 HGL TemperatureNBS Multiroom, Test 100A

300

200

100

- Exp TIME vs UP BR...... CFAST TI..a HLTempl

0 5 10 15 2C

Time (min)

160

Tree 4 HGL Temperature140 NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

120

100 ...

80

60 -"

A,

2.0

1.5

"t 1

*i1.

Room 1 HGL HeightNBS Multiroom, Test 100A

Lý1- ---- - .- 4ap- A Al.

.......",*"***" ,*",* ,* , I ......U.u

n In0

I I- Exp TIME as HGT BR

0 5 10 15 21

Time (min)

Tree 4 HGL HeightNBS Multiroom, Test 100A

0

2.0

1.5

"8 1.0-r

20 -Eap TIME.sUP 18

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

0.5

0 5 10 15 2

Time (min)


2.0

1.5

0

160

140

120

100

80

E 60

40

20

0

160

140

120

100

C

0l

3:

10 15 20

Time (min)

0.5Exp TIME as HGT 38

00- rAT Tmev .HGLe50.0

0 5 10 15 2C

Time (min)


2.0

D

a,aE0-

80

60.

40-

Tree 6 HGL TemperatureNBS Multiroom, Test 100A

... ... .. --.... • • u = % . •

-Eat TIME asUP EI....CFAST nme aHý T,,Pa

3:1.0

0.5

0.0

................

. E... TIME as HGTEXI....CFAST Ta,. a. HG4. Hisl

20

01

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Figure A-15. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test 100A

A-17


400

0

2a0)a.EI-

200

inn

0

160

140

120

2 100

80

E 60a) 40

20

Room 1 HGL TemperatureNBS Multiroom. Test 1......

-Emp TIME vs UP 8R....CFAST Time Ha). lip 1

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Tree 4 HGL TemperatureNBS Multiroom, Test 1000

.. ........ .. .

2.0

•.1.5

8 1.0I

0.5

0.0

--vM(

2.0

1.5

" 1.0

0.5

0.0

Room 1 HGL HeightNBS Multiroom, Test 1000

- p TIME vs UP 15.CFASTTi, vs 10.TnT

-- S im G H"Exp TIM E v$ HGT BR

I. CFAST `im. v HG. ....I. 1 I

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Tree 4 HGL HeightNBS Multiroom, Test 1000

-Emp TIME - HGT 18....CFAST Time. HG01 HI, 14

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Tree 5 HGL HeightNBS Multiroom, Test 10000

- Ep TIME vs HGT 38.CFAST Time vsH Height 5

114,

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

1200

2 100

5Z 80

E 6040

20

0

2.

Z8 1.

0.iD

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 2(

Time (min)

0

160

140

120

100

• 80

E 60I,-

40

20

Tree 6 HGL TemperatureNBS Multiroom, Test 1000

.............

-EmP TIME vs UPEX....CFAST Timen osHlG.To1

6

2.0

1.5

1.0"1.0

0.5

0.0

Tree 6 HGL Height

NBS Multiroom, Test 1000

- EP TIME HGTEXI.CFAST Time vw HG1 H.•1h 6

0 5 10 15 20

Time (rmin)

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Figure A-16. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test 1000

A-18


400Room 1 HGL TemperatureNBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

300

E

2.0

1.5

Z 1.0x

Room 1 HGL HeightNBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

M AA rYl IJ2100

-EvP TIME vs UP BR....CFAST Thme HG.TwnP1

0.5

16

14

IE

040 5 10 15 2(

Time (mint

100 Tree 4 HGL Temoerature

NBS Multiroom, Test 100Z20

00

80

6040Y

20 Exp TIME vs UP 18'SCFAST Time vs HGL Tvp4

0 0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Tree 4 HGL HeightNBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

2.0

1.5

-r

02-

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

160

140 Tree 5 HGL TemperatureNBS Multiroom, Test 10OZ

120

100

80

60

40

20 -Exp TIME vaUP 38

0 ""-

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

160

140 Tree 8 HGL TemperatureNBS Muttiroam, Test 100Z

120

100.

San

0.5 ...... _cFAS' T,% ý G. He,.0.0

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Tree 5 HGL HeightNBS Multiroom, Test 100Z

2.0.

0

JI

0.5

SExp TIMEvs HGT 38.CFAST Tie vsHGL HgWh1 5

0.0-

0 5 10 15 21

Time (min)

Tree 8 HGL Height

2.0 NBS Multiroom, Test 10OZ

0

C-)

1EriO.

"I 1.0

xfEU I

20 -x ErTIME ULP T10.5

0.0

- Exp TIME vs HGT TR...... CFAST Time vw HGL Heighi 8

() 4 -

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

Figure A-17. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature and Height, NBS Multiroom, Test 1OOZ

A-19


Table A-i. Relative Differences for. Hot Gas Layer (HGL) Temperature-and Height

Measurement Exp CFAST Expe" e CFAST RelferveSeries Test Potn (C m

Case 1,- 55 62 4-.14 "WU Case 2" 86 99 1,56.

Case 3. 83! 91 , 13.9' 14.9 8,Tes 1 _____ 1231 135W. 1Test'. If __,__ .117 133 iý..3Test.2 229 235 •2 . -" "' - °Test8 & __ , 218 233 "Test 4 _______ 24 22~ 9 .11

Test-•10 • 198 221 •.•..Te6st,13 ______ 290, 311

W Test 16 .. __________ 2689. 290 . 8,, . . .',

Test1 1351 143 A )Test 3 207 243 2.8

e.t- 204 241 18 2.9., 2.8

Tek ,5 175:• •30 2.7198.130Test.14 208 242 6 2.9 28

Tet 5 ______ 2101 242MA , 1 2'9 2.8Test :1 __ • 193 24, . '2.9 2.8 - 30W:,Testl,18 .- 4'1 3,"'"4 i.••'= Y "'•• ,•,,193:•,•;;• , 24 2.9, :.' 2.81 ••••••,%

BE4 TestI. ... ... .. 700 .602 ,! 42 51 21BE5 Test44: ..... _ 151 172'.' '. ,, 4.3 3.5

Test-4 _ _ 59 69- - . .~z Test 5 ___J_ 44. 49,t ~I'"

TesUTl _____ 6 88 . 33?`Bum Room .259. 237 9 1.3 1.3 -

MVIO. ACorridor 18 86', 88 21 < A-, 1.2. 1.2 -%.

Cornidor 38 77 88 4 13 1.21Cbrdor Exit 74 , 88. • 1.2 1.2

BumRoom 312 -336,331 -336a3 MV1000 Corridor 18 106 75 : --3."-z Corridor 38. 99 75 ,, -2,

____Corridor Exit ~Bum.Room 286 240 '16, 1.3 1.3. 71

MV100Z Corridor 18 67 164 1.2 1.5Corridor 38 67 64 r 1.2 15Target Room 37 33 - 1.4 2.1

A-20


A.2 Ceiling Jet Temperature

CFAST includes an algorithm to account for the presence of the higher gas temperatures near theceiling surfaces in compartments involved in a fire. In the model, this increased temperature hasthe effect of increasing the convective heat transfer to ceiling surfaces. Temperature andvelocity of the ceiling jet is available from the model by placing a heat detector at the specifiedlocation. The ceiling jet algorithm is based on the model by Cooper [Ref. 8], with detailsdescribed in the CFAST Technical Reference Guide [Ref. 1]. The algorithm predicts gastemperature and velocity under a flat, unconstrained ceiling above a fire source. Only two of thesix test series (ICFMP BE #3 and FM/SNL) involved relatively large flat ceilings.

ICFMP BE #3 Test Series

400 400Ceiling Jet TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 7

200

Ea

Ea2

1UU100

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400 -

300 -

E100 -

Ceiling Jet TemperaturelCFMP BE #3, Test 2

400

300

S200

E

Ceiling Jet TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 8

100io h,v .............

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400Ceiling Jet TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 4

200

1 00

0

•vv

200

I--

lOO

300

200

a-Ei-•nn


0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

•V

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-18. Ceiling Jet Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-21

4


i2E

quUCeiling Jet Temperature

300 ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

300 " • •

200

100

-EM. rn..n Tr- 7.10 JT.CASUT 7-,.. C.4mg tTm

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

400

300

3 00

0.CLE


CIF Tm,. s Tee .7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


300

200

E

H100

EV T- w Tý MO IA CFASTTýnrýWV-Týp I

I . . . . . ...........................................

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)


300

2 200

E

100

400

300

200

- 100


0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-19. Ceiling Jet Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door TestsK

A-22



300

200

E

'-100

-EpI• .....-

20 25 30


300

2200

a

'-100

UP... .... 1ý710 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30



300

18200

EM100

-i

40

30

520

ES10

0

0


........................... ...........

0 .

0

[V Tmes eeTMem-1

.... :AT-P

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-20. Ceiling Jet Temperature, lCFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-23


FM / SNL Test Series

150 ." Ceiling Jet Temperature

FM/SNL, Test 4

IUU

1.

E,,50

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (minl)

Ceiling Jet TemperatureFM/SNL, Test 5

150

6100

I- 50

................... ............T oo. .dg 401 ......--------------CFASTT1n,=n.C=•.nOQJetTe002

-- Enp Tain•(151 v 1/(0,98 H)- ExpTime(15)o 11/(0,98 H)

0ýT 1).IO H

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200Ceiling Jet TemperatureFM/SNL, Test 5 .......

150

0 100

ECD

CCF AST Thy.:I A(01 J.TT:- 2CAST rovsCelMg ho Tem I

E.p T-.(10)~ 11(0.90 H)

0. EV T-(00.l ) 14/0.08 H)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-21. Ceiling Jet Temperature, FM/SNL Tests

A-24


Table A-2. Relative Differiences for Ceiling, Jet Temperature

Measurement Exp CFASTSeries Test Positon Di*fe.e, c,.

Test 1 155 -135Test-7 1 391 133 -Test 2 27t. 235 ,Test.8 "4#" 233.8Test 4 229 .222 ` . Z'

,' Test 10.i •"" •' 218 21 j.•i:i8• k:•.,,,• " 3o<•.24 .•,••$;

Test I.....0 "3W Test 16 :•"'• see 27. .8 29.0 , ;

Test 17 2%"

:-..::...~~56 1. . . .:S e3-: 7 .v143- -8 . ý,V-• ;

Tet3~_______24'1 24 W~Y

. :est9 __ __ _ 235 241, 3

.Test 5 _1____ 208 9 l-~"Test 14. d______ 4 4~~

TestS ________244 242Test 186 235. -243 . ,

Test4 Sec1 82 133'. 2~'_ ___ Sec3 66,ý 102

Z) -Seci 0 1 0l"--1 blS TestS e3 5 5 ~ 4'

Test 21 Sec 1 75 159 ~~4~~____ ______3SJ-3 77 12 ý~1~

A.3 Plume Temperature.

CFAST includLes aplume entrainment algorithm based on the work of McCaffrey [Ref. 7], whichmodels te mixing of combustio6nprodu cts released by the fre! withkair in the fire compartmentand movements of these gases intoth eupper layer.in the compartment Plume temperature is notdirectly calculated nor reported ina CFAST calculation. For this reason, comparisons ofexperimentally measured plume temperatures with CFAST calculations are not appropriateand are not included in this report.

A-25


A.4 Flame Height

Flame height is recorded by visual observations, photographs or video footage. Videos from theICFMP BE #3 test series and photographs from BE #2 are available. It is difficult to preciselymeasure the flame height, but the photos and videos allow oneto make estimates accurate towithin a pan diameter.

ICFMP BE #2

Figure A-22 contains photographs of the actual fire. The height of the visible flame in thephotographs has been estimated to be between 2.4 and 3 pan diameters [3.8 m to 4.8 m (12.5 ftto 15.7 ft)]. From the CFAST calculations, the estimated flame height is 4.3 m (14.1 ft).

A-26


Figure A-22. Photographs of Heptane Pan Fires, ICFMP BE #2, Case 2(Courtesy, Simo Hostikka, VTT Building and Transport, Espoo, Finland)

A-27


ICFMP BE #3

No measurements were made of the flame height during BE #3, but numerous photographs weretaken through the doorway, which measured 2 m x 2 m (6.6 ft x 6.6 ft). During BE #3, Test 3,the peak flame height was estimated to be 2.8 m (9.2 ft), roughly consistent with the viewthrough the doorway in the figure below.

Figure A-23. Photograph and Simulation of ICFMP BE #3, Test 3,as seen through the 2 m x 2 m doorway (Courtesy of Francisco Joglar, SAIC)

A-28


A.5 Oxygen Concentration

CFAST simulates a fire as a mass of fuel that bums at a prescribed "pyrolysis" rate and releasesboth energy and combustion products. CFAST calculates species production based on user-defined production yields, and both the pyrolysis rate and the resulting energy and speciesgeneration may be limited by the oxygen available for combustion. When sufficient oxygenis available for combustion, the heat release rate (HRR) for a constrained fire is the same asfor an unconstrained fire. Mass and species concentrations are tracked by the model as gasesflow through openings in a structure to other compartments in the structure or to the outdoors.

The following pages present comparisons of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrationpredictions with measurement for BE #3 and BE #5. In BE #3, there were two oxygenmeasurements, one in the upper layer, one in the lower layer. There was only one carbon dioxidemeasurement in the upper layer. For BE #5, Test 4, a plot of upper-layer oxygen and carbondioxide is included along with the results for BE #3.

Not surprisingly, the accuracy of the gas species predictions is comparable to that of the HGLtemperature. After all, CFAST uses the same basic algorithm for transport, regardless ofwhether it is the transport of heat or mass.

A-29


0.25

0.20

0

tS 0.15

a,E 0.10.3

0.05

02 and CO2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1

E,, Tkmevs 02.1Exvp Time vs 02.4CFAS Timevs021CFAST T-e vC CO2

0.25

0.20

0

t 0.15

E 0.10

0.05

0.00

02 and CO 2 Concentration

ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

... .... .... ....-.. ......Exp Tn.e v C02-4

CFASTTie v.s021CFAST Tie.• C021

u.uu0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0.25


ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a0

0.15LL

E 0.10

0.05

0.00

-E., TIn. v 02-1.Ee Ti.:s~ C02.4.CFAST T-m 02 1

.. CFAST r-sC02II

0.2

0.4,=E 0.1u.

0.1

0.0

02 and CO2 ConcentrationICFMP BE #3, Test 8

-- Exp Time vs 02.1

.... FASTTrna vs CO2-4

0

5T - . 2. .PT '..2

0.0v0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0.25

0.20

0 0.15

U.0,1

E 0.10..3o

02 and CO2 Concentratior

ICFMP BE #3, Test 4 ... .................0.25

0.20

.28 0.15L-

E 0.10.3M


ICFMP BE #3, Test 10

"'" ... • '"................................

- Exp Time vs 02.1.E Time 0 G02.4

..... CFASTTime.vsO21

CFASTTimevSCO21

-.... sp Timne vs 0O2.1-E.p Tfm.. 002.1

.CFASTTvi-0s2l

.OFASTTI-svC021

n nn-n 0 " .

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time (min)

0.25

0.20

p0.15U-

E 0.10

0.05

0.00

02 and CO 2 ConcentrationNICFMP BE #3, Test 13

EvTmý2sSO2-4.C.ASTT_ .. 021 I

.FAST Tme . C021

0.25

0.20

0.15U-

E•= 0.10

0.05

0.00

02 and CO 2 ConcentrationICFMP BE #3, Test 16

"• .. ,• ....... .. ..............................................

.!

- Ap T~me vs C02-1

CFASTTýflvsI021CFAST Tim. C021

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-24. Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-30


0.25

0.20

0.15

0E 0.10

0.05

0.00

02 and C02 Concentration


-- Exp Time 00 2-1

.CF*STT.1...... FAST 02CFAST T.-r . 021

0.25

0.20.2

0.15 -LiL

0.102"0

02 and CO. ConcentrationICFMP BE #5, Test 4

- Exp Ti-eo GA 2.02-- .. PT-eOGA2-CO2.. FAST Time 0021

.CFASTTime.C021

U.U5 +

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) 0 5 10 15 2

Time (min)

025

0

0.25

a012L.

0, and CO. Concentration

0.20 :4 ICFMP BE #3, Test 3

0.15

0.10CFAT Tunev.211

0.05

,,,A.. . .fl: : == ======== ===A=== = = === ========

0.20

0.15

0

0.05

0.00


ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

- Exp Time v O02.1... EbW T-m - C02-4

CFASTTm.ns021CFAST To .l C02 1

000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0.25

0.20

0.15U-0E 0.10

0.05


ICFMP BE #3, Test5

-- EzpT,Tm'. v.02-I

.Ep Timoe C02-4

.FAST Tne v021

.CFAST Tie v0C021

0.25 02 and CO2 Concentration

0.20 ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

0.15LL

0-- ExpTjm.o 02-10.10 T. ExpTi1 002.4

..... CFAST Time w21.CFAST Tie: C021

0.05

0.000 5 10 15 20 25 3C

Time (min)

0.2502 and CO 2 Concentration

A In 1 • ICFMP BE #3, Test 18

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

U.Z502 and CO2 Concentration

n Ln V ICFMP BE #3, Test 15

C0

S0.15LA.

E 0.10.2 .Ep Tme ý C024

.CFSTTn,.021IETA, V 02- j

0

S0.15L-

E 0.10

0.05

0.00

i

- EXO TUlle ve 02.1-ExpTe_ .02.4CFASTTme80021CFAST Time v. C

0 21

U.UU0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-25. Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests(Note that the single test from ICFMP BE #5 is included at the upper right)

A-31


Table A-3. Relative Differences for Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentration

Senes TestExp

:(molarfractJon)

CFAST

(molarfraction)I I. I,

II . I .- - I -. .

Test 1 10.065 i G.076

M

Test 7- 0.064:; -,. , 0.073Test 2 0.092., ; 0401,.Test 8i 0.096. 0.098.Test 4 0.079: . 0.060'Test 10 0.079 ý: " 0.059,Test. 00 r13 .101 011 1075Test 16 0.091 0.075,Test 17 0.033 .0Test3I U0052' 6.044Test 9 0.054,, 0.042Test 5 0.030 0.026

Test 14 A 0.055 °0.042-Test 15.. 0.052 -. 0.042

fractidn)0.038" 0.0380.054,

_0,.058" :'0.047.

0.0471..:M,0106if

,0..02600,.03503022

M &170.0321

0.0310.0310.01 31

CFAST

(molarfraction

0.044',0.043

0.0590.057.0.•350.035040640`044

0.0271.

0.0270.0270:027

0.012',Test 18 0.051 ., 0.044

BE5M I Test4 . 0.023, - 0.020'ý

A.6 Smoke Concentration

CFAST treats smoke like all other combustion products, with. an overall mass balance dependenton interrelated user'-specified species yields for major combustion species. To model smokemovement, the user prescribes the smoke yield relative to the yield of carbon monoxide.A simple combustion chemistry scheme in the model then determines the Smoke particulateconcentration in the form of an optical density. For BE #3, the smoke yield was specified as oneof the test parameters.

Figure A-26 and Figure A-27 contain comparisons of measured andpredicted smoke concentrationat one measuring station in the upper layer. There are two obvious trends in the figures. First,the predicted concentrations average 22% higher than the measured in the open-door tests,within experimental uncertainty witl a single exception for Testý 14. Second, the predictedconcentrations are roughly three time's the measured concentrations in the closed-door tests.

A-32


E

0EU)

Smoke Concentration


200

150

100 "

50 .0 -"- ~ '~e•S k oe

350Smoke ConcentrationIf'=%AO QC W1 T- 7

Ea 250

Z' 200

150

0 100E

50

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (mint

4-EME

Q

EU)

50uuSmoke ConcentrationICFMP BE #3, Test 2 ...........................

400

300

200

100

0

EE

2'

0

EC/3

5u0Smoke ConcentrationICFMP BE #3, Test 84 0 0.. .... ."

200

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300Smoke Concentration


E

E 200

" . CFAST Te OD I=• 150 . ' "..:.

1000Co 50.... . .

50m 50 • • .......................

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

150oa0

Smoke ConcentrationICFMP BE #3, Test 10

E., I-I CFAST r- ý OD I _j

0Eu) 5

30

25

E 20

0.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0

Smoke Concentration

io ICFMP BE #3, Test 16

00 '

nr ;-

Guu

-500.E

E 400

" 300

I 2000E

Co 100

0-

Smok,ICFMI

a ConcentrationP BE #3, Test 13

100

EU) 50

E, T- . &Ik. C..CFAST Tý n W

.CFASTm o eO

5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-26. Smoke Concentration, lCFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-33


2U

E

41

0ECO

000Smoke ConcentrationICFMP BE #3, Test 17

500

000

" ...... CF.T T.. v OD

500

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


300

250

E 200

• 15003

_2 100

EU) rn

Smoke ConcentrationLCFMP BE #3, Test 3

i

300

250

E 200

• 150

0E.210

Smoke ConcentrationICFMP BE #3, Test 9

..................................................... .....

U)

* - koOThOos Solok. Coot..CFAST11moODC

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min) -

250O

200-

150-00

1 50

0-

E

0a

ECI)

0 .5To.ODI

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


250 .ICFMP BE #3, Test 14

200

150150e .. ........ ;.................... *... ". . . . . . . . .

100 -

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

E

0

EU)

300- Smoke Concentration


200

150

100

E- E ToTe - k ot

0.

E

EC9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)



200

150

.CFAST 001

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-27. Smoke Concentration, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-34


Table A-4. Relative Differences for Smoke Concentration

Series Test Exp CFAST

Test1; 42 .321 -j.7W2-.Test 7 55. 307 " r,""Test 2. 128 420 228-Test.8 100 41.1f 4 3

:::Test4,' 80 177 ; :.22 .'-Test 1 71 177 ~1O

Test'13 224 480' >:.:'."w ",Test 16. 1397" 204 .

Test17, 353 1590. ;.35.,T est.3 : 11 81 14 0 .. 44-. ,'

" :Test9 !17. 139 ! .19-Jest 5 87.- .91Test .14 91 139 , 5 ,Test 15 124 140 _""13-;Test 18, 110. 140 1ý 27ý.j

A.7 CompartmentPressure

Experimental measurements for room presue are available only frbm the ICFMP BE #3 test series.The pressure within the compart was me at a single pointnear the floor. In the simulationsof the closed-door tests, the compartment is assumed to leak via'asmall vent near. the ceilingwith an area consistent with the measured leakage area.

Comparisons between measurement and prediction are shown in-Figure A-28 and Figure A-29.For those tests in which the- door to the compartment is open, the over-pressures are only a fewPascals, whereas when the door is closed, the over-pressures are several hundred Pascals.

In general, the predicted pressures are oftcomparable.magnitude to the measured pressures and,in most cases, differences can be explained using the reported uncertainties in the leakage areaand the fact that the leakage area changed from test to test because-of the thermal stress on thecompartment walls: The one notable exception is Test 16. This experiment was performed withthe door closed and the ventilation on, and there is considerable uncertainty in the magnitude ofboth the supply and return mass flow, rates.

A-35


80

60

40

& 20

-20

-40

-60

Compartment PressureI BM7,E.I,, Test I

...

- E~~h,.s~o J

a0~

2

a0~

60Compartment Pressure

40 A ICFMP BE #3, Test 7

20

-2=0 ....- FS rre•PelEpTm''vlCrp .........................................t " "

-20

-40-

-600 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

-Ov

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


Al. ICFMP BE #3, Test 2200

O. 0

-2000-

-400

-600C

200

100

0

-lOO

-200-

• -3000-

-400

-500

-600

300

200

100

0-100

a -2000.

-300

-400

-500

Compartment PressureICFAP RE #-3, Test 8

-I eC ATT4Co-=pP....CFAST Tn• •Pressre

= _-~IC~Ip.sTrI-~p.s~~

I 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

100 Compartment Pressure

0ICFMP BE #3, Test 10 .0:..'......Compartment Pressure

-) -E,pT-s~vCDmfpP.CFAST Tkne VS P- 1UV

................ v - .................. .......................aý -100

-200-

-300-

-400-

-500

CFAST Tý Pýý

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400


400

200

0

Compartment Pressure-BE #9, Tet 1

ax

a)

-40

-60

-80

-100

U

'0 V _

10

10

0 -Esph, s.olpPCFAST r- . Pr-.

1,I

a.

-200

-400-

-600

-1000 -E~pr-..CVSpPCFAST TIPV In POswO I

0U 1',nn J

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30


Figure A-28. Compartment Pressure, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-36


300

200

100

0 0a. -100

Compartment PressureICFMP RF f3i Test 17

Y I',F Open-Door Tests to Follow

-200

-300

-: .P

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a)0~

2

a)a.

.CFASTV0BE #3, Test 3

.0

0

a)

0.

-2

-3

a)0.

a)

a)0.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rmin)


-2 ........... .......................................

-2

-- E,•p r,-e ý CompP.... CFASTr .mmv P--mr i

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a)0~

a)

a)0.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


-2 ---.... .

*2

- ESTa)rimO0, I

30 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


0

-2

-Exp rime n CoP

~ -1

- E~T _oCo~P_

-30 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

1-

0

-3

-2

Compartment Pressur


. . ...

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-29. Compartment Pressure, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-37


Table A-S. Relative Differences for Compartment Pressure

Series Test Exp CFASTne

(Pa) (Pa) •%Test 1 •58 .42Testt 7:. 46., 29 ' -3Test2' 290 266, kt'4Test8. 189 2133: .. .Test 4 57 76 x 6.Tbest;lO , : 49,. 45 .,Test:13, 232 336 4 .

W Test 16: .81 309. L'30-28&7r3r ...Test,'.17 1951' 138 V':•-",. .Teast3. -1.9 -2. 1 %4O :Test 9 -2.0G -2Z 71'"ITest-5 -1.8 -2.0 - ,,Q'WTest14 -2.1 -2.1 ,Test 15 -2.4 -2.2 • -&Test 18 - -2.0 -2.1

I

A-38


A.8 Target Temperature and Heat Flux

Target temperature and heat flux data are available from ICFMP BE #3, #4, and #5. In BE #3,the targets are various types of cables in various configurations - horizontal, vertical, in trays,or free-hanging. In BE #4, the targets are three rectangular slabs of different materialsinstrumented with heat flux gauges and thermocouples. In BE #5, the targets are again cables,in this case, bundled power and control cables in a vertical ladder.

ICFMP BE #3

For each of the four cable targets considered, measurements of the target surface temperatureand total heat flux are compared for Control Cable B, Horizontal Cable Tray D, Power Cable F,and Vertical Cable Tray G.

CFAST does not have a detailed model of the heat transfer within the bundled, cylindrical,non-homogenous cables. CFAST assumes all cable targets to be rectangular homogeneous slabsof thickness comparable to the diameter of the individual cables. Material properties for the targetsare assumed to be those of the covering material for the respective cables.

A-39


a_E

Z.0.Total Heat Flux to Control Cable BICFMP BE #3, Test 1

2.0

1.5

I .... .... ..

0.5

0.0

* -~n E(~n.b~iTbth

* ~CFAST TIM (B Cabb B FhýSCFASTTrm.s.ýb9bý

14"E

X2LL

Toa HeaS t Flx oC Cntol abe

2 CM E#,Ts

N

0 =1" .....

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

150

.• 100loo

E

Control Cable B Surface TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 1

0.E

I.-


150

100 • .....

5o0,I = =i ==z. .B .-

U

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

Figure A-30. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests I and 7

A-40


8-

E

"4

CDM'2

8Total Heat Flux to Control Cable BICFMP BE #3, Test 2

E-- Eý T-w CabIe Tot p Fl4. .

.7FCST nm.. C B Fl.CFAST Tim ns CýdI 8 o

E,

Total Heat Flux to Control Cable BICFMP BE #3, Test 8

6

4

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

150

E 100

50

Control Cable 8 Surface TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 2

• .... "~~~ .... ............................CL

EaD

300Control Cable B Surface TemperatureICFMP BE #3. Test 8

250

200

150

100

O- "T[ ' I - E, Tn. . . B-T. 14.... OFAST Time. CR.k B Temp 0AT~. ~I e

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s) Time (s)

Figure A-31. Thermal Environment near Cable B, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8

A-41


8

6

'4

12

0


CFAST rm vs Cads BFu

81

6-

.x414

-r2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30


-- Exp txnxvCaxle Txte FIa-- Euoxv Tu xcaii Bad Gadd 3

. CFSTrTmx vs Ca B FlA,CF _SrO scs a

A

0 5 10 15 20 25 30


30

25

2.20

15

E(10

5

0

0

0

0


300

250

200

150

E10


......................................................

0 - ~~~~ExpT-~uB-Tlul4 - mxu .xSCFAST m Ca B TnCFAST r Ca B T

0 a.T00 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s) Time (s)


I

A-42



L4-

E

,'" 4

2

0

E-T ECrnweu. T" Ru.J04W o Tiaa n Cable Rod Ge4. 3

CýT T. . Cable 6 l,CFAST rýrnoa CON B R.e

10

8

6

4

2


-- Eeo V• -Cat R -e.. TCFA-TTU . CaIbe B.CFAST Thoe.CoG.B Ra

a00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

2000.E

100

0


.. . .. . .. . .. . . ........ ..

400

300

C-)S200

E

100


,Z ...............

-F. EopLoe.9T-4- Ep,T`.I.5-TS-14.CFAST TlSCable B Tho,

a00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)


A-43


8

6

x4

-2

0

6"E

'4

2'


......................

CFAST Tim- B Cdbl B Fkud

CFAST Ti-y CaMla B Bad

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

200-

E

100

0


..F...T... C . Ba

300

1 200CL

E

100


Bx M & Tamp

.............8 T-0

0 5 10 15 20 25 301 Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)


A-44


U.

lCFMPSBEm#3, Test

0 Wý 1w

6'-

'4

" 2

0-


-ExV TTn. v. Cak= TO=u, F=. 4

CFAST Tm,.v Cia. B FL,CFASTT.aC~ab. 8 .4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

200

E

100

0


400

300

.200

E

100

0

..............

-- Erxp Tm~e vs B-Tsi 14

...... CFAST Time n. Cable B Toup]

10 15 20 25 300 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s)Time (s)


A-45


ou

60

x40

" 20

0-

Total Heat Flux to Control Cable BlCFMP BE #3, Test 15

W Time w CaWeTW Fý 4Tim, - -, - G"e" 3

CFASTn...C.ýbCFAST Tiý ý Cabl, 0 Fýd

........................... .................................

10

8

1L4

2

rotal Heat Flux to Control Cable BCFMP BE #3, Test 18

- Expr ca...TotaJ Fux. 4

-. T E TTsCC.RWCý. 4E, •{ Tim Z Cable Rtee Gauge 3

CFAST Ti-C C. . B F%,CFS~CCa0.R.C

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30


400

300

!D ,

200a)E9

4

C.

E0


200--

I VV

- Exp Tio ý B-TC-14 . - Exp Time v -Ts-14. CFAST TIn.. CCble a Temp CFAST Time Ceale B Temp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (s) Time (s)


A-46


10 Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray D

ICFMP BE #3, Test I

3.0 -Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray DICFMP BE #3, Test 7

aIr

6

2

0

-CFASTrmv-c.OFI..,.ST = . Csb 5R

s60 a mp-

E2.

1.

0.

U~

0.

.5 C-. .. ý.= z

E* E~TdTOVSCtJTo Pý jx8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

400Cable Tray D Surface TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 1

300Thaocoýpl. iwopWbab

200

Et, 1 0 0 . .. . . . . . . .. . .. .... . .. . . . . . . . .

-Exp Tim D-Ts-12

...... CFAST Time vs Cable D Temp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0.

E

I-

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

25 30

Figure A-37. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests I and 7

A-47


"E

- Total Heat F14 to Cable Tray D

8 lCFMP BE #3jTet 2

6CFAST Tkne vs Cable D FW,UAST Time w Cabl, 0 Rý

4 EXP Tm vs Cýe Tý FWx 8Fý Tm . CebW lRad G-P I

I;

E

-r"

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray DlCFMP BE #3, Test 8

a - 1

6

C ASTTk--ClWDM.4 CFASTTkne.Cable, Red

Up Tý - Cebe Ree

2 2

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Tlmd (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time (min)

400

300

200CLE

100

Cable Tray D Surface TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 2

400

300

2000CLE

100.............

-- Fxp im ovsD-Ts-12.CFAST Time vs Cable D TespI

Cable Tray D Surface TemperaturelCFMP BE #3, Test 8

................... * .............................

EpTi-13--12CFAST Tim n Cab4. D T-p

g

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-38. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, lCFMP BE #3, Tests 2 and 8

A-48


10

8

E

n-4

"a

F Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray DICFMP BE #3, Test 4

10Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray DICFMP BE #3, Test 10

CFA.T aeý. Cý 1O19".CFAST Tk- . Ub C. D R.

-Eý, Ti, " CU ToC Fba I-Eo T-o . C.0W Rad Goge 7 6

LL

CFAST n- wCýodeO Fka.CFAST TkM " ,07D

-, ) o p To,-C Coil TCd 7,E. EoTh,.-CCý leolG.oC7

4 {A I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300 -

200

E

100

0-



.......................

300

S200

Ea)100

0

300

.• 200CLEp-lOO

............... * ..............

- EoPTin,ovs -Ts-12.CFAST Tmn -oCbi.D0To-n

- Eop Time- O-D-Ts-12...... CFAST Time n_ C"be D Temp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-39. Thermal Environment near Cable Tray D, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 4 and 10

A-49


12

10

6

4-

2

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray 0ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

IL a CFAST Time. Cab. . Wta

;. CFAST Tr, w Cak DRad- Em Tb,, n Cab.s Tot Fkx 8- Eý Time, Ca. . Ra Ga•. 7

12

10

x6,-

74.

2

(7

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray DICFMP BE #3, Test 16

, CFASTTe Ca•DFOFRtCFAST T,.. a Cab. C Fka

-- Exp mCab. ToW Gub.8

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

A•t•

E1!

@uuCable Tray D Surface TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 13

300

200

100-- Exp Time vs D-Ts-1

CFAST Time .sCbeDTm

a

ELEa2

30

20

40 0Cable Tray D Surface TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 16

0

0 .-

0

-Ep Tim,. 88 D-Ta.12

.CFAST rT-a8Cab. D Tap]

0 1ýTI~

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

20 25 30


A-50


10

8

4

WT

10

8

E

FL 4

"I


24+"-•.

0CFAST lime Dae i

..CFAST Time DC CabeS RaC

0 TIM ==Tme 25 30Time (min)

400

300

2 200a)E12 100

0

5D

E0T

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30



A-51


10. 10 .Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray DICFMP BE #3, Test 5

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray DICFMP BE a3 Teat 14

4-x

a

6 4-

"1"x

64

4

2

6

4

2

0

10,

-CFAST inC. C. C 0 FluxCFASTT(rO.UC.M. 0 CCC

-EVTrn-, CC.Total u.$UPTi ~. CC R. G.,ý.7

... ............

2

0CASIT uho ::CC. Fs

- C'FýT D RaC~.CUP TC CCTOCFlu. 8

0 -EC.T= PdG u.o 25 30Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

2 200

E

100


400Cable Tray D Surface TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 14

..............

..........................

L 20000E

100

-x EsTbe C.O-Ts-12

.CFAST Tin, Cabl 0 T_.,]I

.................................

Up E~Ti- u.s -T.2

.CFAST in .COC0Te~

0 5 10 15 20 25 300 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

30

Time (min)


A-52


30-

25

E 20

1 15

10

5

Total HeICFMP

aat Flux to Cable Tray DBE #3, Test 15

CF= Tr-~. -CC= 0 ICEtST~onC b.OFao

- V =o R. C-9 7aeTtlF


8

"E

L. 4

-CFASTTUý.RCal.W02

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

........... I .................... .1ý

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

400

300

. 200

E100

0

400

300

200

E

100

00 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30



A-53


2.0

1.5E

x 1.0

'0.5

00.

Total Heat Flux to Power Cable FICFMP BE #3 Test 1

Up Tm \ C eFACFAST Ti- vs FA FluCFAST Tmn v C.PI F Rad

2.0

1.5E

' 1.0

' 0.5

Total Heat Flux to Power Cable FICFMP BE #3, Test 7

•"...........

C.. ST rs. w. Cas s F Fu,CFASTTh Wo Cabe F ,av

V.V0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

150

100CLE

50

Power Cable F Surface TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test I

...... ..... ......................

... ... El FT

200

150

100a)E

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30


Figure A-44. Thermal Environment near Power Cable F, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7

A-54


oTotal Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

bI Total Heat Flux to Power Cable F

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

4- I;,-E

'3

IL 1- CAT-m t.FISCFAST Tms Cale F

'(3U-

2 CFASTT r- rWa. F Raa

F 10 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

rime (min)

300

250

•- 200

1500.

100I--

50

0

Power Cable F Surface TemperatureICFMP BE #3, Test 2

300

250

•- 200

150CLE 100I--

50


r=• I" "'l ....

-Ep Tame n F.Ts-20.CFAST 'n_, n Call, F T-.p]

-. -r. .b, F-T1-20.... CFAS r-,n Cable F TePa

20 25 300 5 10 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


A-55


6-Total Heat Flux to Power Cable FICFMP BE #3, Test 4


5

132

I

-Ep~n at) T"d FW 2

CFAST Ti- v Cob) F Flu.CFAST TO SCot) F FLO.

xE-r

4-- T-pree - Cot). ToW F"o 2EM EAT- wob.RoG.

........ CF wT T C. cb•C F Fek.CFAST Tiwm n Co, F R.0

3.

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

00 5 10 15 20 25 30


300

250

2- 200

150a,

E 100

50

0

300

250

O- 200

f 150

100I--

50

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

30


I

A-56


6

'4

- 2

0


. CFAST TIMs Cable F FdCFAST T"s Cý. F eal I-


6

EM-Eql Tb e Cab lTotiFhu 2

CFAST T-, ve Cable F Fbx

2z CFASTTm.vCaebeCFRa

00 5 10 15 20 25 30Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200'00

150

100I.-

50

0

Power Cable F Surface TemperatureICFMP BE #3. Test 13

8

S6

E

X 4

M 2.......

/It" i

-EIIP Time n. F--s.20.CFAST rem. a Cable FTep

00 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


A-57


8

6

2 2

0


E.T.. CS T, l FW. J2

.CFAST Thi . Cable F Fi

.CFAST7r- . C~able F

8

•6

•4

" 2

0

Toa -eatFlxto Pwaber ableaF

.CFAST ThCableU.F FW

.CFASTT-t.vCeblaFýs

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

30 0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

30

300

250

6-2002

150

100I.-

50

0


.............

300

250

200

1505.,

100I-

50

0


..........

= Us Tsa, F-Ts-2

.IAT TIn..s Ca, ble F T..,

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

- PEp T-r. a, F-T`-20.CFAS Tr-s abse F Temnp

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

20 25 30


A-58


a4-

8 Total Heat Flux to Power Cable FlCFMP BE #3, Test 5

2E- ETImvC- .a~CFAST imn C.&WO F FýCFAST T.-WC.I. F~h

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

E

2:

8

6 - n- Tn. 'CableToW Fin. 2

FAS T- Cým F.g 1

2

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

150CL

E 100I-

50

0


300

250

200

1500.E

100

50

1,


- Exp Tine .s F-Ts-20.CFAST T-.e vs Cable F Temp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

-E,.p Time . F-T.-20.CFAST Time . Cable F Temp

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

30


A-59


30

25

E 20-

X 15

l0-

5

rotal Heat Flux to Power Cable FCFMP BE #3, Test 15

-U E.pTmee. Cab Teal fla- Eep Tm.. Cab. Ra Gig I

4CFAST Tm-:a Cab F Ru,CbSTaa.Cb Re

20E

15

LL 10

a5

n

rotal Heat Flux to Power Cable FCFMP BE #3, Test 18

I-E*T...CýW Wd, ;FE.pT...Cýft =1

CASTT='=FFWýTGFAST Tý ý16

....... _ ..

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

rime (min)

800

600

2 400

a- 200E-

800

600

T 400a

' 200

I-


..... ... ... .. . .

0 5 10 15

Time (min)

20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


A-60


2.0

Up EvTm usC~b sR G~qe 70.5 ~~CFASTTI,. sCemSGIFl..CFAST Tim, ws CaIe G33 RM

25

2.0

S1.5

ILL 1.0

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray GICFMP BE #3, Test 7

0.5 C Tm Tim. "We.R Gag FimCIFAST T-i u Cab M3 Fl,

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200

150

•.1000)

E50

0

200Vertical Cable Tray G Surface TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 1

150

~~~~~~. ........ .... ........

CLE)E0)

I.- CiP Tims vvaudl Cable T,;-35- Sp --me us veac Cabl T,-31

.CFAST Timev Call 031 Temp

.CFAST Time v C.ll G35 Temp

100

50

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 7

. .. ..........

.. Sp T is: vs Ve Cale s T e- pSa ciov esal Cable Ts-31

CAT Tsm vs C.able G31 Temp.CFAST limo vs Cable G35 T-np

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-51. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray G, ICFMP BE #3, Tests 1 and 7

A-61


8

-"6-

04

"2

0


UEp re. Cale Toa Flux a G..- "" ..- ' -- T~o n., Cv W RaWb a Gauge IA

•.,,,' ....... FAST TA,. ,. CabW. G FluxFAST TW•o, Cable G33 Red

8-

6-

S

,..-

M 2

0


CEo T- n. Cable Total Mx. AEV Tm vs Cable Wad GaJge 10CFAST Tm,.CableA FbI-CFAST TWA. Cable G33 PWa

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

150

E• 100I--

50

0


." .. . ... -..W

0.

E

- Ex Tire. v Ver :I Cable Ta-35- _F- p Ti7.e vs Verb.al Cable T5-31

.CFAST Tme vs Cable G31 Temp

.CFAST Thne Cable G35 Temp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


I

A-62


8

6aE

8.Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray GICFMP BE #3, Test 4

-- Ea• Tiube a Cable Total FlI 9- Eta Tette •i Cab~e Rab Gabge lb

.CFAST Tine in Cable G Flue

.CFAST Tint as Cable G33 Rlab

X2M

2

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

6E

2

0

S


E - Eb TinevoCalýe Ttal Fe 9

.CFAST .. .TS Cable.G.Flab

.CFAST Tvel ns Cable G33 la

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time (min) Time (min)

300

250

6- 200

150a.E

100

50

0

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface TemperaturesICFMP BE #3. Test 4

- Exp Time va Vetrlcal Cable Ts-35V- T-p eTmvs Vemotal Cable Ts-31

.CFAST Time .s Cable G31 Tetp

.CFAST Time n Cable G35 Temp

300

250

- 2002

150a)

E 100I-

50

0


o......'..

T-1Epmey VV=ua Cable T"115

r.a.im xVetba Cable T -31

.CFAST floe vsCable G31 =enp

.CFAST Taent vCable G35 Temp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


A-63


14- Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray G

12 ICFMP BE #3. Test 13

10I;-E

S6

S4

2

0

-ExOT-~. Cabl. TW Fý-ý Eg T,.x.Cli O G 10

.EFAST l CtOSFg

.CFAsT r- . CAOIG33RWý

14 Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray G


4 FaCFAST TimeoG FluxCFAST niUn COe F RO

2

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

4-40

D:"

I1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

" 150

EE 100

50-


-- Ep "ri-e w Vertical Cabla To-35-- Ep Tr-e go VertWl Cable Ts-31

.CFAST T-m vs Cable G31 Te-p

.CFAST T..e "o Cable G35 T-ep

300

250

O. 200

s 150WC0

4)100

50

0.020 25 30 5 10 15

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


I

A-64


10

a,

12

0


- ExpTS. vs C........... ¶

C ASrThlld.wCableG ft,.OFAST T-. w Cable G33 R.d

E

,

8

6

4

2 -Eq ul 5OtsTtlFa- ý EC sb Catis dad AOtes

C FAST rm evsCable G Fk,xOFAST rT-~ Cm. 033 bal

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

•- 200

150

100I-

50

0

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 3 ............

300

250

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface TemperaturesICFMP BE #3. Test 9

F- p r-: o Vo~lo ITl T311.CrAST ml-. Cable 031 ls-sP.CFAST T*-.,n Cabla 035 Tsvp

=EI-

200

150

100

50

0

Sep Thý eVertical Cable T.-3EpTime, vs Vertical Cable Ts-31CAST TI-s,. Cable G31 To-spCAST Tiese vs Cable 030 Tsvp

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (min)

30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


A-65


8

6


4~ AI kh%

X

u:

2 -E.P To .. Cable Total Fin

SCFAST Terew.CaG FbaSCFAST ThreoCaelG33 Ra

12

10

x 6E

•4

2

0

EQaT-raCabýTotaFW.UPaeo ra. Caý Rad G='. I

CFASTT r-a. CatG FinCFATr Th GMC~e53 a

Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray GCFVP BE #3,Test 14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

200

15002

E 100I--

50

0

500

450

400

350

T 300

250

- 200

l 150100

50

0

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface TemperaturesILI-M' ILb- i , iest 14 ...............................

..

- ESp 7..e s Voflio Cbl Ts-35

.Cd325osC.133,6

.Col 325 orCol 337

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


A-66


8

E

4z

6

4


u E.. . e.`..:C: bl Toal F., "

CFAST Tmiy Cabda G Flu,CFAT Tm y Catie =3 Ftw

a

ID

u. Total Heat Flux to Cable Tray GlCFMP BE #3, Test 18

8-- EV r-e . Cable Tota Flu

6 -- E l-me vs Cab ,ad Gage 104 CFASTTimewCaGFI

.....CFAST Tire • Clek G33 RLad

4 ....... ....

2

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

25 30

500

450

400

350

p 300

250(D 200

E 150

S100

500

Vertical Cable Tray G Surface TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 15 .......................

................

. - Pop Time e Vertical Cable TS-35-- Ep Thee "x Vertcal Cable Ts-31

CFAST Tene vs Cable G31 TempCFAST Time nx Cable G35 Tamp

a

9D

E9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

- PExp Time vs Vertical Cable Ts-35Pep Thee vs Vetcal Cable Ts-31

.CFAST Tire ox Cable G31 Ternp

.CFAST Tire ox Cable G35 Temp

10 in)Time (mai)


A-67


ICFMP BE #4

Targets in BE #4, Test I were three material probes made of concrete, aerated concrete and steel.Sensor M29 represents the aerated concrete material while Sensors M33 and M34 represent theconcrete and steel materials respectively.

Figure A-58. Location of Three Slab Targets in ICFMP BE #4

A-68


40

x 30u.

• 20

10

0

60

50

. 40

30Li.

• 20

10

0

60

50

• 40

" 30u-

• 20

10

0

600

500

•- 400

300

a 200I-

100

015

Time (s)Time (min)

600Concrete Surface Temperature


400

300

~200

100

0C-... T T ,. T..)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30


a)

C.EI-

30 10 15


Figure A-59. Heat Flux and Surface Temperatures of Target Slabs, ICFMP BE #4, Test I

A-69


ICFMP BE #5

A vertical cable tray was positioned near a wall opposite the fire. Heat flux gauges were insertedin between two bundles of cables (one containing power cables, and the other containing controlcables). The following pages present plots of the gas temperature, heat flux, and cable surfacetemperatures at three vertical locations along the tray.

A-70


•4

x 3U.LL

2

10Time (min)

200

150

. 100

200Power Cable Surface TemperaturesICFMP BE #5, Test 4

150

Ioo

E

50

Contro.lS Caal Surac TemperatureI.CFAS BE #C, Test 4

........ CO37 .. *a

Ea r- h,.TCO 1-3

.CFAST Tim TCCOOI7 T-np

0 5 10 15 20Time (min)

00 5 10

Time (min)

15 20

Figure A-60. Thermal Environment near Vertical Cable Tray, ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

A-71


Table A-6. Relative Differences for Radiation and Total Heat Flux to Targets and Target Temperature

Test Cable Exp CFAST Ex CFAST "Ojffy" E p CFAST O"if f

.. (k/m MA %k/m KE' kWm 7WiT J L (C)BE3 B, 1. 1 1:5 •!.37 -'• 1.9 1.7 •:.1. ~1 106 103 I•;; -•3':,•

Test 1 1.4 1 6~zI~~uIzi P ', ____

F O09, T.4, ~ 1j 18~ -2 83 { 68G33 1.5. 1.6. Rh QR ~ 4 £Q#~ -~

B, 1.2 1.5 248 18 1.6 . -2 109 102 -7Test7 D 1.3 16 .I .0 2.5 .1.7 87-33•i, B7 102 I .

F 0. 8 1.4 . ,2 1.5 1.7 13, 90 73 ,..,,:MG33 1.5 1.6 '1 -1.9 17' .... 78. 93 19B .9 4 35,!,, .5.3 4Z6 --1Z 176 144 •--8

Test 2 D 4.2- . 4.3 . 4 9.8 4*8 -52 ,, 126 146F. 2.0 3.9 •96- . 4.8 46 ! . l4t 129 112 .l

G33ý 6.0 ..4,3 X 7.. . 107 138'B .9 4.1, .. 5.6 46 '.6 41 183 142 -23wT t 8'3.6 4.3 _ 8.5 4•'..4.7 - 150 143 '2,- -4 ,4 :

F! 1.9 3.8 ½9& Y 4.9 45 . 131 110 'w

G33 . 6.0 4.3: 29 6.0 :46 •-2, 107 136 27-B' . 9 3 9 ,, 5. 4,1 -, ,-2 149 3156 "' ". 15

Test 4 U, 33.3 7.2 4.3, '.:-41, 113 157 $-(39-otr- . 6 8 5.0 4.2 _'1T' 149 115 _ __

G33 6.0& 4.0 ) '-:,, 6.4 42 K-34, . 125 149 ,19,B 2.7. 349 41 1;7• 144 162 .13

Test D 2.9 4,0. Y6.. 674.2 £;3 , 132 164 ý!-.. 24

10 F:- 1.9' 3.6 ••.,u.i86 ' 4.4 4.0 -7 .. 150 129 -.G33 5A4 4.0Q •-t27 6.2 4.2 " ' 3ZI•X"> 148 149

.4.8 78.3 84 8A 2 186 165 ,,1Test D. - .6.6 8.0 -22 .. 112 • 8.7 .- !- 22.' :173 169 -.

13 F 2.9 7.2' . 7 7.3 8.,11. 3 143 143G33:..G3 10.1 . 8.0- ' u. '12.2 18.6 - .. 133 164 23,B,4.1 65 A 59; 8.4 72 • -1• .. 160, 166 3Te t ..-' 4.1 ' %. " "6 .8 ýi : -W " .4 "71"'• ••'

Test D-4.8 68.>,, K ,11.7 7.4 . .... 156 170 -16 F. 2.8 60 " .,,, 6 . 68 l11!) 168, 148 .Z2 I

_ :__ G33 12.0 ' 6.8 ,, ' 12.2. 73 .•,0,• 169 150. 1B. 1.3 21 60¶ 2.4 '26 " 10 .- ,-

Test .. 0: - 1.5 2.2 45N. . 3.3 2.7"-$1 ' "" ____ _-____ ___ ....17 FP 0.9 1 1 .9 24______

G33 '2.4 T23 , , 3.1 72-7- _____ _____ -,.13,9 "1• 7.1 449' ,.-31 226 221

,Dt .9.5 5.1 46; 210 223 6Test 3 D .. "•,,:: ::e , ;..,,;', :">.•• " t •. !Fr 3.0 45 -53 ,, 5.5 ., 49 -..' 195 160 -18

G33 5.4 5.5 .6. 5Z5 "1 1169 224.':"•B 4.3 47 9- 6.6 48 -28 228 218 -4

Test9 05.3 4.9 - • 9.1 49 . 220 219 -1 .Test 9 D 53 .

Fý 2.7 4.3 '"- ;-'.'*""59`,,,, . 5.1 4.7 '-. 7 . 195 156 -20G33 5.2 5.3 2• 6.4 5.3 47 t 166 221 .33

Test 5 B. -3.9 .3.6 &7 . 6.9 3.6 7 .. .150 183 22D: 4.8 3.7 ___2, 8.5 3.8 "5 -1 132 184 1'39

2.6 3.3 1,:1251 .1 6.4 1 3.6 4 1175 11281 *2., ,2

A-72


Test Cable Ex CFAST Duffi FT p Exb CFAST ,Diff x CFAST . Diff; ._k_ _____l__ _;- (kW/mr) -kWCm) 0 k:.( 0.,.J.

G33 5.4 4.2 •6.7 4.2 :3-W 161 190".."B 2.,8 4.1 c 6 3.8 4.3 1 199 207 - 4

Test D-.. ________ ____.__ 6.1 4.4 . , . 178 208 .14 F. 2.1 3.9 3 .3.55 4.3 "1'K2• 171, 145 •156;:"

'-__ G33 10.5 7,3 *t--3 10.9 7.3 --33-), 270 262 '-3,B 46.5 3.9 , 577 40 ,' •-3- : 416 207 .. ...

Test D 20.9 42 .-. 243 209 k .14.15 F 18.3 36 1 -& O. 239 40 !83•i 669_ 155 -77.

S G33. 3.7 7.0 W-51 0 .37. ! 16.1 263 63B' 5.2 51 3 76 5.1 -,33 236 227 -

Test " ,D_- __"_ " . 7.8." 5'0 217 221.18 F,1 5.2 57. 8.7 5.9 -32- 232 188 .•-1,

:,G33 2.8 44 54•i 4.4 4Z5 _____

BE4 WS2 27.2 365 ". 4, 356 360 'Test I WS,33 . 46.6 37.3 -20.. 308 412 34 .

-_ WS 4 32.4 35.8: •,3.A,-' '489 514 _,., _

BE5 WS,2/TCO 1-3 3.6 17.7'-6787 67 -23TCO.2-3 .'.,r_. 112 85 . . .

WS3/TC -5 4 96.9 2.2 .,'98- 110 88. 2Test 4 TCO'2-5 . , 146 115 .2

WS4 /TCO 1-7 5.7 2,2 .!•!2: 107 87 4'r,18._____TCO 2-7 .. __... 140 114 ... i ..

A-73


A.9 Heat Flux and Surface Temperature of Compartment Walls

Heat fluxes and surfaces temperatures at compartment walls, floor, and ceiling are available fromICFMP BE #3. This category is similar to that of the previous section, "Heat Flux and SurfaceTemperature of Targets," with the exception that the focus here is on compartment walls,ceilings, and floors.

ICFMP BE #3

Thirty-six heat flux gauges were positioned at various locations on all four walls of thecompartment, plus the ceiling and floor. Comparisons between measured and predicted heatfluxes and surface temperatures are shown on the following pages for a selected number oflocations. More than half of the measurement points were in roughly the same relative locationto the fire and hence the measurements and predictions were similar. For this reason, data for theeast and north walls are shown because the data from the south and west walls are comparable.Data from the south wall are used in cases where the corresponding instrument on the north wallfailed, or in cases where the fire was positioned close to the south wall. The heat flux gaugesused on the compartment walls measured the net (not total) heat flux.

A-74


2.0-

1.5-

04 1.0

0• 5

100

Eg50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

1.5

14 1.0E

1.0Z0.5

100

MCL

E050

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6 200Long Wall Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test 2

4-1

E-X

- V ETm, oNot U-1-Eoo11. T- S-MW 11-

.CFAST T, N U.1 Flo3 CFAST ToowoS U4Ok~

2 .E0

1

0 1/I0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time (min)

6-

5-

E~ 4-

o3

D2

0

Long Wall Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test 8

.CAT rn... -I. FI-

.CFAST Ten,. vsN z.4Fo

200

150I

.100

50

0

Long Wall Temperaturesl CFMP BE #3, Test 8

EV0 T~enw TC NOrM -.12EVo metton TC No.1 442

.OFAST Tote yeN 0- Teon

.CFAST Ti.. Ne I. T.,r/10 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-61. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-75


6-

5-

•2U-"

1'


20

15

10

E9-5

0Long Wall TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test,,

0

0-E:. Tte vs TC NývLt -2- =.iTtivsCNyaU-2-

.CFAST -nNLMTCrU0 N T

* . CFATT-tuvNU-I Rv.CFST Tm,. NUI-I Fu.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6

5

.3U-

10

150

2 100

Eso

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

9An

8

"E

L 4

2

0


FttRt Gauge tnop-.iUvo

.ACFST T- :.N U-F

.CFAST Tm vNU-4 Fl

C.,

a

aEa

I-

Long Wall Temperatures200 ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

150

100

50 -Q ETýM nTC N'5SU-1-21

SOFAST Tm. vs N U-I TeniSCFST T~i~eIsNU- Týn

n3 I I0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

8.

6E

x4

2


F-ux Gag.W r,.h

is I

.C AST Ti.. ... N..I.F.• • ..... CFAST TftI N " NUI.

250

200

a 150

•-100

50 -

&tp T-m. TC N-tt U-v.2CFAST TymovhNU-1 TmpCFUST Time vN Ui4 Tn

5

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-62. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests I

A-76

ILong Wall Heat FluxICFMP BE #3. Test 17

2.5

E 2.0

x 1.5

1.0

0.5

E12


50Long Wall TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 17

00 A

50

-- E?,Tro TC I• U-120 • • ..... CFAST Tým N U*I T-p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

ExpT Ti,. sNa i .4

-CFAST Tý N U-4 FW

000 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)



n Long Wall TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test39110(. .

X 3

762

0

6

5

•3

•2U--

.CFAST Tu..N Mi. So

.EFAST TOM v U.SF.

150

E100I-

50 apT E.rvTC NoetU.1-

.CFASTrT.. M W -AreP

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


.......... I .....................

250

200

T 150aLaC100

50

5.0

Long Wall TemperatureslCFMP BE #3. Test 9.

-EST Tm vstN SSLI T

.CFASTTueoU-4Terr

1 *

0.

.CFAST Tangw N U.? Fýy

.CFASTTi-,VNU.4F0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-63. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-77


inI

4-

EC

x


8EZp *re n Nýrt U-1

UFS Tie•NUI FI

6 CFASTTimnN U-4FI-

4

2 .- ..... .

Wus •Long Wall Temperatures


200

...150 ...... ...

100

Ev-- .ý.50 Ev r-m. ml TC hmmt1 U-.2

CFAST Tme : N U-1 TMpCFAST "Te . N U-4 Temp

0 r

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

I^

E

M

,M

ULong Wall Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test 14

8

6

4

2 -- -- EAp Tm..e NonE U.4

Long Wall TemperaturesICFMP RF 91 Teat 14

200

.150

0

250 [ 1... . . .r. . . .. .

t-~ ET-enTC Nope U.1.2- p EmT- TC NoOOUP2

._Cl'ASTrP. nNU.iTý

.CMST =~e 1.4N TemP

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a

I

0

8


250-

200 -

2 150

0. 100E

5-50.

4 11

Long Wall Temperatures

.ECTu Tm SC UT3-2....... CFAS" T-r . S U-1 Tý2

-EmlT............ -=.FST~mUlb :pL.FASTTU1nS U-3 Fba

n4[u .0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10Long Wall Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test 18

8

6-

.. ........... ...A . . ..........

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

I

400

350

300

250

200

E 150

100

50

0

2-Fý T- lný S O-lý

04

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-64. Long Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-78


20'

01

0

.0

5 -r.. Tim.-F-eIU-1

150(

'. 100

E

50

U.U

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30


2.0

1.5"E

1.0

0 0.5

0.0

6-

5

E~ 4-

1

I

0

150

~-10002

g50

Short Wall TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 7

...........

-EV Ti-VOVITC Eai932-EVPTIOVITCE U2.2

.CAT TiO. E U-3 ToMP

.CFAST Time E-2 TVWP

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Short Wall Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test 2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

200Short Wall Temperatures5CFMP BE #3, Teat 2

150-E.tP Tim.nte Eati u-1-ESS Time -s Ea.% .1-

.CFASTT mSE .IPFN,

.CFAST Ti,- E .2F,

0Z

- 50

0

-- Fxp "me TC Ent U-1-2

- UEP Timw VTE Ent U,2-2.CFAST Tim E U-1 Temp.CEAST Toll, E U-2 Tep

.1... -

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

5 Short Wall Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 8

ALI.

E 3

E- ETimOOEastU-1C Vp Tim: IS East U-2CFASTrhlllVEU 1 FL.

EkEAS2TTOE U-2 F-

250

200

2 150

.2100

0

50


... ...

- VT~m llTCEas ~.2.CFAST T-" WE UTemp

.CFAST Time EU-2Tep

2-

F..0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

lime (min)

Figure A-65. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-79


U-=2

0

tSoftWl etFu

-- P E#3 eshort Wall Heat FluxCFMP BE #3, Teat 4

- UEP T~m -a U-i

.CF0TTon.nEU.1F0

.CFAST Tkn.VSEu.2 FW

200Short Wall TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test.+'.4..

150•

a

. ........... .............

E

50

0

- Eta r.n~v TO Eat U-1-2E ... TFAST Te s 0. U4-2

.CFAST T= - IEU-1 TImP

.EFAST T_ Es U-2 T-,p

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

6Short Wall Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test 10

SShort Wall Temperatures200

x3

QD2I

0

P T ý Eý WFEU r= :-2

CF TT !-E U-CFýAST T= E ý2 ýFý

-- -- ---------- . ... ...

a2 150

E

50 Up r-Es .mnTC E~t.1UEp Thn. TC ESAU.2-

.FAST r-t, -s 1 0. T p

.CFAST T"tSE -2 TOý

0 5 10 .15 20 25 30

Time (min)0 5 10 15 20 25 30

rime (min)

9•t•10 .

"E

a.

1"

- Short Wall Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test 13

8

64 -- --V.. - E 11F4 /.......CFASTT .EU-F..

2n

Ea

Short Wall Temperatures2ICFMP BE #3, Test 13

- ExpTm, TC East U.1-2

u- EXp T•e vSTC East U-42

150 J\ -CWATr-T- E U-1 Tnp

100

50

U

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

250 -

E

,..-

a"


6

4 f

CFAST Ti- E U-1 FluO

2 CFAST T- E U-2 Fh

M

a

a


200

1 5 -Esp rt ns TC Ea U-2-2

SOFAST Tm Es U-1 Tten

SOFAST TOTI SE W. TOTV

100

50

10 ,AATieE'Tm

000 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-66. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-80


a.UShort Wall Heat Flux

2.5 ICFMP BE #3, Test 17

2.0[

Short Walt TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 17A

E

a= 1.5u.

0.5

0.0

•/• l -~- ESU•TUMSir v tU.t- Eap Time Us East U-2... FAST Tr-n EU-3 Fit

..CFasT Tim E U-2 F... ..... ................................... .

El

E

60

40

20 - sp T-. aTC a .

.EFSTTI~sE--Sn~

.EVAST Tir nu -UTn

0 5 10 15 20 25 300 5 10 15 20 25 30



6

5E 4x 3

I1-

Short Wall Heat Flux

IlCFMP BE #3, Test 3

.......

.... ....

250

200

2 150

CL100E

50

Short Wall TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 3 ""

•.... .'. .

- mTime1TCEsU--

.CFAST TMsE U-1 Tom I

.EFAST T.e . E U-2 TomI

- E xp T i oe vs E a st U -1- Eap Tesa "East U-2

.CFAST Tie E U-.1 "I"CFAST Two vs E U-2 Fm

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Z

5E 4x3.2"-t-

a

Short Wall Heat Flux - EMpTim a East U-3

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9 EM Tim"Easst U-4CFAST Time . E U-3 FitCFASTFiime . EtaUr4 F-ur

6%at -gsll E U4 -4 I wast• ........-.

.. . ...

0)at

DUVShort Wall Temperatures

20 CFMP BE #3, Test 9 .......

200 ..~~~......... ".......... "-.15010 •ii •'" "....•"" '

5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-67. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-81


6iShort Wall Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test 55

- Exp Time .sEast U-1E 4 - Exp Tim vEast U-2

.CFAS Tt-r • Fl E U-.1

.CFASTTtýtC U-2 A.×3

.2

0


...................... \

200

2 150

100

50-

... ... .. .. ... .. .. ... ..

.CFAST Tb,. WE U-1 Tm,,

.CFAST Tb,. WE .12 Tmp

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

ID

6Short Wall Heat Flux


4.

3-

250

200

2 150

E 100

50

Short Wall TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 14 ... ,...-""..

21

n

A - EspTim~ets-sstb-Ep Timeaist U-2

.Cot3V5WC ItA-- Cop Tm a TC E :.t U-3.2

SEa T_ . W TC East U-2-2.... -1 CMI345....Cot 325W Cot 344

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

rime (min)

K1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time (min)

5-

E4

x3

-I-1-

0-

Short Wall Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test 15 250

Short Wall TemperaturesICFMP BE #3. Test 15

Upý1- E-pimt. ub3-Eip Time " Enst U-2

.CFASTr..WE U:3 Fin

.CFAST r.. E U 2 Fbi

Ea

50U ~

100

50 U? -ZstaTC fttt1t2ý

PPTPp Tm.iFT_ TCEat12..CFST'oIWE-

m

0 CFAFT.aCF WEU.2TT I

0 5 10 15 20 25 300 5 10 15 20 25 30


E

I

6

5


3 .

2 ..... ..

- V C~T-m E-sU-31~~~~ T~ ,pim- ~East U-2Ij.CFAST Tim.,. E 11.3 FI.

.FASTiI.: .E 11.2 Fbi,

E

LouShort Wall TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 18200 -"....... '

150 . -

Inn

50-CP Tm. a TC E&t1 U-3-2- I CT_ t. TC Ea-t U-2.2CFAST T- E -3 TempCFAST Tir- WE 112 T-mp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rain)

Figure A-68. Short Wall Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-82


E

x2.-

0

250

200

2 150

100

50

0

Ceiling TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 1

......... E, T1m-v TOCain9

P.1.UP ETImeI* TO CuIkg 0.4-2

SOFAST r-m vi 0.1 Ten.pSOFAST TImv nC-4 Temp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

2.0

E

-i-

250

200

B 150

100E

50

0

-eiling TemperaturesCFMP BE #3, Test 7

.......... ... ... ,

EýW "im=v' TCC Cedng U12

.CFAST r-v 0 1 T em

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

to

1 Ceiling Heat Flux

ICFMP BE #3, Test 2

IAE

.-

-- Evi' Te~e vi 04m U-1- Ep Tmow v Cuig L24

.CFAST Time V.0.4 Flu

5 ........................

EB

Ceiling TemperaturesICFMP B#3, Test 2

300 Cp Time v TC Cetng U-1.2U- Ep Time v TC Oeng 0"4.2

.CFAST T-• v -1 Temp.OFASTTamneviT..,em

200

100

U

0v

5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

15

10

5

400

300

E 200ao

Ceiling TemperatureslCFMP B

,ýýst 8

Up Twn. TC Ceýg ý1-2" Time TC Cýg Cý2

ýT '_ - ý-' -4 T

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-69. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-83


10

8

E

" 4

"1

Ceiling Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test 4

::ue Tenon - Cpa- U-I'-- £xp Tree Cexg ul-1

.CFASTTm -sC-1 Flux

.CFASTT-C", Flux

300

200

E4 100


- upTim -sTO Ceaing U-1.2Se~p Time v TC Ceing C.4.2

.CFST T.-SCA Tmnp

.OFAT Tr- v C- Temp

2 I1A..0 4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10 Ceiling Heat Flux


Gauge U4 I opeme

04

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

E

u. 4.1-0

2-

Ep Tm. vs 0.1U,

% EeP Tnme v Cdea" U4.CFAST Te mxsp- Fda.CFAST rmevsw Fle

200

10

0E

E 1000.-

0

Ceiling TemperatureslCFMP BE #3, Test 10

r'- TC ýWft U 1.2

A.. EV T- TC C.UM Cý.2

ýZST T'-P

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10-

8

f 6-

U: 4

2

0

RGtnCeiling Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test 13

F dGauge Ineperles

i iI CFAST Tý C.7 F.u7•% CF~AST Tm " •Fw

I Ceiling Temperatures

An 1 . ICFMP BE #3, Test 1."

A

B

E0

-- Exn To° s TC Ce!ing C-7-2-- Pop Timex, TC Ceix, n0 .5-2

300..FAST Timex. C-7 Temp.CFAST ýme.s C-5 Tp

200

100 / / o:" • •

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

8

6E

x4

'2


Flux Gauge npeom

............................ .......

500

400

, 300

0L 200E

I-

100

0


.U T_ - Te Cv•s e . 7Te 2

.CFT Tens vm s 0 TenO-/ ~ ~ ~ Cý T-,\ ...........

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (rmin)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-70. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-84


E

Ceiling Heat Flux


3

2

0FAST T CS

EI-

300ICeiling TemperatureslCFMP. B #3, Test 17

200

0T TC

....CFA.ST Time w C-1 Tamp

100. .. .. ......

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)


E

X-

2-Ceiling Heat Flux

0 lCFMP BE #3, Test 3

8-

400Ceiling TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 3

C-) .SUU1-

2

0

.- Ep Ten v Ceang U-IU- Tmn. vs C.An" U-A

.CFAST Tin,. . C. FIt..CFAST Tim,,.n C4A Ff1

,-I.-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

20-

15

x 10-

5-


- Lp Ti_~v Cang 71U- xp Time v Cemi U-4

.CFATT-C- I.2

.CFAST Tim. vs C4 F!iR

....... CATTm*C4F

E

100

0

400

300

C.

E 200

1

100

/ ~...... .... ....V -- enT i TC C.i g U-1-2M

• 7....CFAST Tmah vs C-c• TamCFAST Than " C- Tampa

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Ceiling Temperatures -

ICFMP BE #3, Test 9

-5

p Timm vs TC CfIno C-2.

.CFAST T-n vC-2Tam~p

.CFAST TunevaC4 Tamp

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-71. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-85


E

x4

- 2

0

400Ceiling Temperatures

ICFMP BE #3, Test 5

300

- 200

E

100 *. - I E~~n~TC CeflhgU-1,1- E~pT-rev TC Calins C-.52

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time (min)

Ei

AI

-Ceiling Heat Flux

8

6

2- Up EzT~ C.Iing U-IEM EeTom Celrg U-5

CU35 .Col 370

400

300

5200

E

0 r

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

10

8-"E

6.

I. 4

M


-- E -PT.iv C=gU-l-- EC Time v Cedrlg U1-4

.... FAST Tien vs C-1 Fda,

..CFASTTine sC-4 FL,

Gaues npasge

400

300

200

E9


z

0=0 5 10 15 20 25 3X

Time (min)

10Ceiling Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test 18

8-

6 Gug. U Inow e e

4.

iuu • -

I , -E . Tme TC Camg iu-1-2

-Ev Tim n TC CýM C-4-2. CFAST T, C-ITemp

.... CFT n= " "T-4Tm

0 5 10 15 20 25 3a

Time (min)

101

U-

E

8E

u- 4

2

0


SBJOS U- Ilona

- EýP Tm- Ce~nn U-1- Ep Timn CedAg U4

.CFASTTimen C-1 FLuxCFAST~anv C-4 FT C

2-- Ep Time n Ceding U-I

- E.P Time . Ceding U-.CFAST Tim.e CýC F-1u

....CFAST Tim. . C4 Flux

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-72. Ceiling Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-86


3.0

2.5

E 2.0

U-6 1.0

0.5

1!0Floor Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test

E

9

10Floor Temperatures Time vs TC Floor -1-2

ICFMP BE #3, Test 1 -- rim. T io TC Flo U-2. CFAST TimCe w F-1 Temp. CFAST Tim. s F-4 Tenp

100

50/I ~5

-- Tip rme F oor U-I"- Cp Time vs Fioor U-4

.CFAST Ta.o F- i Flu.FASTTime o 4s2.4F0

U

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

3.0

2.5

E 2.0

X 1.5U-,

W 1.0

0.5

0.0

10

8

U-4

I

200

CD,aLEaD

Floor TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 7

150 - Exp Time C Floor U-1-2

.... CFAST Time vii F.4 Tapmp

100

s0

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

300

250

6" 200

E 150M0-

100

50

Floor TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 2

- Eop Toevs TCiFlor u1-2

- Eop Time . TC Flor U2-4-2.CFAST Ti•m• Fv .Temp.CFAST Tim• F-4 Temp

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

1UFloor Heat FluxCFMP #3, Test 8

L4

a

2

0

- Lop TOe Fe r u-.1LEp Timeos FlOOr 03-4

.CFAST Time - F-1 FIl*.-*• . CFAST Time FA Fin

S-. 200

150a.

S100CL-

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 ,ou , 0


Figure A-73. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-87


4-4

zI

200

2 150

B1005-

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30


10 300

"-

0T

IZ

Floor Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test 10

8

6 0

-- EpTmes FT Wu,-1

.CFASTTime• .F- FIxo~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~FS :/ . .......2 ...........

C-,0

00.B0

I-

00 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

1

"E

.2

10Floor Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test 13

8-

Flux Gauge lrnperbf

6- :

4.

300 -

250

S. 200

1500CL

0E 100so

Floor TemperaturesICFMP BE #3. Test 13

2CF A Tim F I F-C l,

• •. -- Exp Time wTC loor U-1-2

- EXP Time . TC Floor U-2.2. CFAST Time as F-i Temp

-o.• .... OFAST Tm. v F-2 Tmp

U4 ,.0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

"-

6-

' 4

2-

0-

-loor Heat FluxCFMP BE #3, Test 16

,• Flue Guege InupeelsU'eTiA FF-i Flux

[FA51 TT Tme F4 Flu.--- -- --

Floor TemperaturesI.F:MP RP U.3 Test 16

250 - ' -- '-' ' --- -

E0

200 E[- AThiTC FWU-1-2- E.P Timeu TC Fl-n LI-C-C

5CFAST Times F- 1Temp

150 CFAST Time wF-2 Tmp

100

.. ZI/g

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-74. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Closed-Door Tests

A-88


2.0 100Floor TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 17

E

M

2 60

O40

20 - ".ý E Za T, TC FU Pl

0.0 000 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)

25 30


5

4

3

00


300

250

6200

150

E 100

Floor TemperaturesICFMP BE #3. Test 3

- ý -op -ie FlrU-i

.CFsT r-o FlpI Flu,

.CFAST rmienF.2 FWx

iz" --5

50 ***** Sa E.vs .TCF aO U- 2- '

0 5 10I11

5 10 15 20 25 30Time (min)

0

Time (min)

4-


8

6[-E"p T': " F=oo U-1

.CFAST Tý VS F-I Fm

.CFASTTe VSF-2 Fk

C.LEa2

Floor Temperatures25 lCFMP BE #3, Test 9 [- E,= T-- cou-I-220- Eý T-. O TC FRoo U-2-2

200.CF .STTmoe .F-1 Terni

150100o2

0

aU

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Time (min)

Figure A-75. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-89


x6LL

2

0

Time (min)

200

150

100

50

0

300

250

•- 200

150

E 100

a 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

a4-

4 Floor Heat FluxICFMP BE #3, Test 14

2

1

0

* ~ : -oTineoFiowp.Z* ~CFAST Timt n F-I Fi.

CFAST Time n F-2 Flu.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30


5

E4x3

2

0

3.5

3.0

.' 2.5

12.

S1.

0.5

0

300

250-

200 -

CLS150

E 100

50

Floor TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 15 L- F E Time mTC F-FrU -2-2

EopfmevTC floo U-2-2.CFAST T-o F-I Tem.CFAST ron. -P Tem

05 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Floor Heat FluxICFQMP BE #3. Test !8 .. ,

S/ I-- prime. FlT=rý- -I

-... FATner FloIr 2.. CFAST Tim . F-I Firm

.. CFAST Tomner F-P FIrm

300,

250

Floor TemperaturesICFMP BE #3, Test 18 !- FpTpu o =,r- Fl-r1-- FoprTne o TCF ooU-2-2

. CFAST T-1e o F-I Temp.CFAST T.r o F-2 Temp

200

150 -

E 100o-

50

u.u00 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30


Figure A-76. Floor Heat Flux and Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #3, Open-Door Tests

A-90


ICFMP BE #4

Thermocouples are positioned against the back wall of the compartment. Because the fire leanstoward the back wall, temperatures measured by the thermocouples are considerably higher thanthose in other tests and higher than those predicted by the CFAST model that does not includethe effects of an non-symmetric, wind-aided plume.

800 Wall Surface Temperature

ICFMP BE #4, Test I

600

CL

2 400 EM - M 9

20T-0 20

CFFASTAS rTio M20 Tep

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time (min)

Figure A-77. Back Wall Surface Temperature, ICFMP BE #4, Test I

A-91


ICFMP BE #5

Wall surface temperatures are measured in two locations in the BE #5 test series. Thethermocouples labeled TW 1 -x (Wall Chain 1) are against the back wall; those labeled TW 2-x(Wall Chain 2) are behind the vertical cable tray. Seven thermocouples are in each chain, spaced0.8 m (2.6 ft) apart. In Figure A-78, the lowest (1), middle (4), and highest (7) locations are usedfor comparison.

1

EM-

25Back Wall Temperature

100 -ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

75

50

25 ... Elp Tml •• 1-7

CFAST r`n v, TWe-1 TapCFAST T- TW1e TampCFAST T-me . IWI-7 T-p

n,0 5 10

Time (min)

15 20

125a)

M5EI-

125Side Wall Temperature (behind cables)ICFMP BE #5, Test 4

100 EV T 1 2-1

- E. i v1

-0

21Ep T vsTW 2-7

75 CFAST TimeTs1w2-1 Tem-.CFAST ime . TW2_4 Temp

CFAST Time W TW2-7 Temp

25

25......... .........................

00 5 10

Time (min)

15 20

Figure A-78. Back and Side Wall Surface Temperatures, ICFMP BE #5, Test I

A-92


Table A-7. Relative Differences. for Surface Heat Flux and Temperature

Series Test Measurement Exp CFAST •Djff Exp CFAST '" •D....PositionW(

BE3 Test 1 Long Wall 1.4A 1.7 54, 89 1 1 64, ý ý,i1.8. 1.7 68 89 J31

Short Wall 1.3 1.7 602,32!' 55 891.7 .1.7 1."3'2¢ 71 89 L 26

Floor 0.9 J 1.4 " 38 71 'A.....2.4. 1.3 ---jý- 77 69 12-1-

Ceiling 1.,9 1.7 81 923.8 1 .7 f 176. 91 -49

Test 7 'Long Wall 1.4 1.6 ',19?;• 53 87 " 631, .9 1-14 70 87 2

Short Wall 1.2 1.6:%~ 4 58 58!ý.1.8 1.6. ,.9[ .70 87 24

*Floor 0.9 13 36 69 ___

2.3. 1.3 .- 44 78 67 -. 4 -Ceiling, 1.9 1.7 80! 89 ..: 2.

______ __________ ______ ~191 88Test 2 Long Wall 3.8 44 t 96:. 96 150 ....

.__._._1 4.5' 43 • 120 151 261"•Short Wall 3.6 44 . 4. 2i't' 110 150

_.___.,_ 4.6 4.4 . 125 2151 - 20Floor 2.6. 37 , 4i. . 74 127. _ 71 "

-_8.9. 3.5 . 156 124* .- 21Ceiling 5.6 4& 5 4,5 14 154 ,. .

__.145 4 4 ,0 308 152 J -5.

Test 8 Long Wall 3.8 4.3 .• 13 95 149 . 5.3.3 4.3 i 3.'J 132 149 13

Short Wall 2.5 4.3 '76i V 109 148 ' "36.________. 4.7 4.3 - : -8. 125 149 r iFloor 2.6. 3.6 , .. 71125.. ..

8.6 3;5 o,$6 ,. 148 121 ".8-.Ceiling 6.1 4.4 , ; 148 153 _._'612: 4,34 -7:•• .. i

___ 12.9 .4327,, 325 150 -54Test 4 Long Wall 3.4 4.0 >i6 97 150' 54,

__ _ 13.5 4.0 . .!3 146 152 4Short Wall 3.3 4.0 "'".!21. 106 149 41

4.0 3.9 .' -1: 121 150 24Floor 2.5 3.3 15 -, " ':'• 76 130 -7

8.5 3.2 -62k 152 127 -16Ceiling 5.1 4.0 - 147 153 4

6.0 4.0 . .-3 180 153 -15Test 10 Long Wall 3.3 3.9 94 150 59

I. 4-I . 4 43.5 •3.9 13 163 151

Short Wall 3.1 3.9 -26 I 106 149 '41

A-93


Series Test Measurement, Exp CFAST Exp CFAST D,,.:Position*)

____-/r) ___ ____ iW/¶1iY (CC) (*0) 0__Y3.9 3.9 1.17 150 28

Floor 2.3 3.3 ,, , 1 ,30 8i_ 7.9 3.2 -,•j5 j 127, [ -2O

Ceiling ,4.8 4.0 7" 138 153 11 ~4 I!*~.... 4 9.

221 153Test 13 Long Wall '_ _____ .110 195

___ ___ _______ • •-• ! 199 198 - .Short Wall _.,__ -1277 194 ____53_',T

_______ 2'~ 145 :196 5Floor _____-__ , 89 166 87,

________ _____149 161 ___

Ceiling ___ <f 319 197 -38____________ ________ 498 197:. -60:

Test 16 Long Wall ____107 175 64,,'0'

S217: 180 -. 1717Short Wall ______., '., 123 '175 ' "42

.141-.:' 176 24Floor. _______ , 80 148 85-,.

146 144 -1Ceiling! ",- . , 284 178 -37'

,_____________% ;W 441 180 -59Test 17 Long Wall 1.5 2.1 :" ,45". 39 53 36.

0.9, 2.3"3 !,8w-kU 82, 65 -2,.Short Wall 1.6 7-271-, •35! 56 52 <i-9=

____________ 1.9 2.1 ýý4I;:, 61 -54 ~ 1~Floor 0.9 1.4 .',2-,, 24 34 $ 4O:\

1.5 1.3 .I it1K,.1 527 33 ___-.__

Ceiling *.Ži,/f. ' 69 58 -16230230 -65 -72__

Test 3 LongWall 3.5 4.5 , :';j•4 2- "14 187 `264.4.3 1 5.0 -.172 203 18

Short Wall '2.5 &36- Iv4:': -, 87 152.A 744.4 4.6 i ''3. - .-" 146 191 - ,.-

Floor 2.0 3.2' z y62,.2 54 143 _,___,,

4.1 3.1 2 119 139 .Ceiling 4.6. 4.7 . . 155 194 2

9.9 4.8 ' 287 197 .- 31.Test 9 Long Wall 3.4 4.3 25.~ 113 184 63

4.2 4.8 .178 200 .12,'Short Wall 2.4 3.4 42 88 148 68'1 .__ ___ "_____ .______ : 135 188 J '39Floor 1.9 3.0 ' 59 53 139 '161

_______ 3.9 2.9 •"25 122 135 Ij 10Ceiling 5.5 4.5 204 191 -ý6:

I I'. -~.. -- I9.4 4-.6 290 194 -33A .1 __________ I _________

A-94


Series Test Measurement Exp. J CFAST Erff•, Exp;.'. CFAST IT',Dlff;,•'-ý'Position..___°cc

_____ ________ kW/ii2 ýk(~/a)'. (OC) (OC) (4Test 5 Long Wall 2.7.7 3. 1 4,1i4 -,,/. I, 94 146 5 5!<

I I I I . . . .. .

3.8 3.7 I;:. 155 168 9~Short Wall 2.0, 2.5 2 71 116 L.62z,

_ 3.3 3.1 118 •148 , 26Floor 1.4 22 ,56• ' 42. 107 L

• i._10.1 . 1 -19: 171 104 _.3__.

I Ceiling 3.4 I _ 3.2 2, , 125. 151 2 . ,667.." 3.4 I.•49,, 263 .159% 40..

Test 14 Long Wall 613:5 4.3 , 114 1 84 6,.... 8.1 2 25.7. ' " . 255 222-4. ....

Short Wall 2.4 3.5. • • 8 .-149. ,, --4.5 4. ",' 148 14895 &9- __-

Floor 1.9 3.1 64,,'46 52, 141 ' 16.3.0: 3.0: . 1 104 137 3.,

Ceiling 4.7 4.5 , -.-- 3,1 158 192 22•,,;:,.,,,9.0 4.8 4, ;-46 , 352 200

Test 15 Long Wall 3.6 . 4.1 ,, , 220: 183 - -17 .T_______,_ 7.5 '4.2 - - 205 188

Short Wall 2.6 3.3 . 96 145 .,504.7". 4.2. 510,• 151 -187 . 2,•

Floor 61.9. .29. - - ' 52. 137 T, f61. ._'5.2 2.8 • 132 132

Ceiling:. -1 22,__..... __............__,_ *287 . 186

Test 18 Long Wall 3.4, '4.3 118 185I '1.7. I - 4

:tt- -,. • 312- 248 I',' ' r 2 . `

Short-Wall 2.6 3.5 :,3 .:¶ 94. 154' 84-4.7 [ 4.5 . .153 . 190- ,24&-

Floor 1.8 3.1 . , 4, 50 1413.1 3. 107 - 137 29

Ceiling 4.5 A .;5 145 193 K', 3W týZ`4. I~ 7~71. 4 . +

250 194 * -23kBE4 Test I M19 . ' 59.546.

_____._.___ M20 _ _ 7___ 7 722 238 2,-67£".BE5 TestA4 TW 1-1 '__-_.__ , 56 37 -34

TW 2-1 .4 24 4 1

TW1-4 ______ 87 36 -58TW 2-4 ____,__ .--.,_68 35 -' -49TW 1-7 .... '": 83TW 2-7 - : 72 37 -49%

A-95

BCFAST INPUT FILES

This appendix includes the CFAST input files used for the simulations in this V&V study.

They are organized by test series, as follows:

B. I ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #2

B.2 ICFMP Benchmark Exercise #3



B.5 FM /SNL Test Series

B.6 NBS Test Series

B-1

CFAST Input Files


Case 1, Input File

VERSN,6,ICFMP 2 Test 1 Leakage vents only

!!Environmental Keywords

TIMES, 600, -10,0,10,1EAMB, 293.15, 101300, 0TAMB, 293.15,101300,0,50

LIMO2,10WIND, 0, 10, 0.16CJET, WALLSI t

!!Compartment keywords

COMPA,Compartment 1,13.8,27,19,0,0,0,SteelBE2,ConcreteBE2,SteelBE2ROOMA, 1,4,372.6,372.6,51.3,51.3ROOMH, 1,4,0,12,17.1,19

!!vent keywordsi i

HVENT, 1,2,1,0.71,0.71,0,1,6.55,0,4,1HVENT, 1, 2,2,0.71,0.71,0, 1, 6.55, 0,2,1HVENT, 1, 2,3, 0.71,12.71,12, 1, 6.55, 0,4,1HVENT,1,2,4,0.71,12.71,12,1,6.55,0,2,1I i

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NRC BE2 1,1,7.2,16,0,1,1,0,0,0,1

Case 1, Fire Definition File

NRC BE2 17,0,0,0,0,1.08,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,13,1245000,0.0279148,0,1.08,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,90,1709000,0.03831838,0,1.08,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,288,1858000,0.04165919,0,1.08,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00,327,1783000,0.03997758,0,1.08,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.35,409,1356000,0.03040359,0,1.08,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,010000,438,0,0,0,1.08,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0

110.254.46E+07METHANE

B-2

CFAST Input Files

Case 2, Input File

VERSN,6,ICFMP 2 Test 2 Leakage vents only


TIMES, 600, -10,0,10,1EAMB, 293.15,101300,0TAMB,293.15,101300,0,50LIMO2, 10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET, WALLS



!!vent keywords

HVENT, 1, 2, 1, 0.71, 0.71,0, 1, 6.55,0,4,1HVENT, 1, 2,2, 0.71,0.71, 0, 1, 6.55, 0,2,1HVENT, 1, 2,3,0.71,12.71,12, 1, 6.55,0,4,1HVENT, 1,2,4,0.71,12.71,12,1, 6.55,0,2,1iII

!fire keywords

OBJECT,NRC BE2 2,1,7.2,16,0,1,1,0,0,0,1


NRC BE2 29,0,0,0,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,14,2151000,0.0482287,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,30,2542000,0.05699551,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,91,3063000,0.06867713,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.O049,o,0,o0,193,3259000,0.07307175,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.35,282,3129000,0.07015695,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,010000,340,2737000,0.06136771,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,01,372,2275000,0.05100897,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,01,395,0,0,0,2.o01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.254.46E+07METHANE

B-3

CFAST Input Files

Case 3, Input File

VERSN,6,ICFMP 3 Test 3 Leakage vents and mechanical ventilationI1

!!Environmental Keywords11

TIMES, 600,-10,0,10,1EAMB,293.15,101300,0TAMB, 293.15,101300,0,50LIMO2,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET,WALLSII

!!Compartment keywordsII


!!vent keywords

HVENT, 1,2,1,0.71,0.71,0,1,6.55,0,4,1HVENT, 1,2,2,0.71,0.71,0,1,6.55,0,2,1HVENT,1,2,3,0.71,12.71,12,1,6.55,0,4,1HVENT, 1,2,4,0.71,12.71,12,1,6.55,0,2,1HVENT, 1,2,5,0.8,4,0,1,8.9,8.9,1,1HVENT, 1, 2,6, 0.8,4, 0, 1, 8.9, 8.9, 3, 1MVENT, 1,2,1, H, 12,3.14, H, 12,3.14,11,200,300,111

!!fire keywordsI1

OBJECT,NRC BE2 3,1,7.2,16,0,1,1,0,0,0,1


NRC BE2 38,0,0,0,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,13,2426000,0.05439462,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,63,3184000,0.07139014,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,166,3601000,0.08073991,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00,256,3639000,0.08159193,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.35,292,3450000,0.07735426,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,010000,330,2654000,0.05950673,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,01,345,0,0,0,2.01,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,010.254.46E+07METHANE

B-4

CFAST Input Files


Test 1, Input FileVERSN, 6,"BE 3, Test 1, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV Off"


TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1EAMB,295.15,101300,0TAMB, 295.15,101300,0,34LIMO2,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET,WALLS

!!Compartment keywordsiI

COMPA, Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3II

!!vent keywordsii

HVENT,1,2,1,8.47,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1ii

!!fire keywordsII

OBJECT,NRC BE3 1,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1iI

!!target and detector keywords

TARGET, 1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-I,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP P BE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

B-5

CFAST Input Files

Test 1, Fire Definition File

NRC BE3 14,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,148,410000,0.009111111,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,1350,410000,0.009111111,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,1500,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0

00.4410000110.254.5E+07METHANE

B-6

CFAST Input Files

Test 2, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 2, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV Off"

!!Environmental KeywordsIt



COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3

!!vent keywords

HVENT, 1,2,1,8.29,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1II

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NRC BE3 2,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1


TARGET, 1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICITPDETARGET, 1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-IMARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-IMARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-l,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,I,GYPBE3,IMPLICITPDETARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, I,l0.85,2,3.2,0,0,-l,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-I,XLP C BE3,IMPLICITPDETARGET, 1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-l,XLP P BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, I,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

B-7

CFAST Input Files


NRC BE3 24,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,180,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,625,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,626,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,000.4410000110.254. 5E+07METHANE

B-8

CFAST Input Files

Test 3, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 3, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV Off"


TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1EAMB, 303.15,101300,0TAMB, 303.15,101300,0,34LIM02,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET,WALLSii



!!vent keywords

HVENT,1,2,1,2,2,0,1,2.58,0,4,1

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NRC BE3 3,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1


TARGET, 1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,I,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1, 0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,12. 15,0,21.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,I,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0, 0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0, -I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, ,130.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,I1,GYPBE3,IMPLICITPDETARGET, 1,9.11,2,0,0,0, 1,GYPBE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0, 1, GYPBE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-I,XLPC CBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I, 10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-I,PVCCBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-I,XLP P BE3,IMPLICITPDETARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C_BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLPC_BE3,IMPLICITPDE

B-9

CFAST Input Files


NRC BE3 34,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0

0.1002,178,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,1379,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,1562,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,000.4410000110.254.5E+07METHANE

B-10

CFAST Input Files

Test 4, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 4, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV On"II

!!Environmental Keywords'I

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1EAMB, 300.15,101300,0TAMB, 300.15,101300,0,44LIMO2,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET,WALLSiI

!!Compartment keywordsI?


!!vent keywords'I

HVENT, 1,2,1,8.29,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1MVENT,2,1,1,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,0.9,200,300,1MVENT,1,2,2,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,1.7,200,300,1

!!fire keywordsII

OBJECT,NRC BE3 4,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1

!!target and detector keywords1 1

TARGET, 1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0, 0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,I,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2,3.2,0, 0,,-I,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1I,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-I,XLPCBE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP P BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

B-1I

CFAST Input Files


NRC BE3 44,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,178,1200000,0.02666667,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,814,1200000,0.02666667,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,815,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,000.4410000110.254.5E+07METHANE

B-12

CFAST Input Files

Test 5, Input File

VERSN, 6,"BE 3, Test 5, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV On"II


TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1EAMB,301.15,101300,0TAMB,301.15,101300,0,37LIM02,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET,WALLS

!!Compartment keywordsI1

COMPACompartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3

!!vent keywords

HVENT, 1,2,1,5.8,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1HVENT, 1,2,2,2,2,0,1,2.58,2.58,1,1MVENT,2,1,1,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,0.9,200,300,1MVENTI,2,2,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,1.7,200,300,1II

!!fire keywords

OBJECTNRC BE3 5,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1


TARGET,l13.91,7.04,1.49,0,-i, 0MARIBE3,IMPLICITPDETARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICITPDETARGETI,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGETI,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0, 0MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-i,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, I,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-iMARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-i MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGETI,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICITPDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.11,2,0,0,0,I,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3, IMPLICITPDETARGET, I,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-IXLP C BE3,IMPLICITPDETARGET, 1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-IPVC C BE3,IMPLICITPDETARGET, 1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-IXLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP P BE3,IMPLICITPDETARGET, I,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

B-13

CFAST Input Files

Test 5, Fire Definition FileNRC BE3 54,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,178,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,1379,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,1562,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,000.4410000110.254.5E+07METHANE

'1

B-14

CFAST Input Files

Test 7, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 7, PVC Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV Off"


TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1EAMB, 297.15,101300,0TAMB,297.15,101300,0,58LIMO2,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET,WALLSii


COMPACompartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3i,

!!vent keywords

HVENT, 1,2,1,10.17,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1I,

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NRC BE3 7,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1


TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGETI,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-l,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,I,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-I,PVC P BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

B-15

CFAST Input Files '


NRC BE3 74,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,129,400000,0.008888889,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,1332,400000,0.008888889,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,1460,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,000.4410000110.254.5E+07METHANE

B-16

CFAST Input Files

Test 8, Input File



TIMES, 1800,-10,0,10,1EAMB,298.15,101300,0TAMB,298.15,101300,0,63LIMO2,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET,WALLS



!!vent keywordsII

HVENT,I,2,1,9.21,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1

!!fire keywordsii

OBJECT,NRC BE3 8,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1


TARGET, 1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,I,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-l,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-l,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-l,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-l,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,l,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,I,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-l,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-l,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,I,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-l,XLP P BE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-l,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

B-17

CFAST Input Files


NRC BE3 84,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,176,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,610,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,611,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0

00.4410000110.254.5E+07METHANE

B-18

CFAST Input Files

Test 9, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 9, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV Off"!I


TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1EAMB, 300.15,101300,0TAMB,300.15,101300,0,62LIMO2,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET,WALLS



!!vent keywords

HVENT, 1,2,1,2,2,0,1,2.58,0,4,1I I

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NRC BE3 9,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1

!!target and detector keywords1I

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0, 0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-I,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1, PVC C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-I,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-I,XLPPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

B-19

CFAST Input Files


NRC BE3 94,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,175,1170000,0.026,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,1376,1170000,0.026,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,1560,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,000.44

10000110.254.5E+07METHANE

B-20

CFAST Input Files

Test 10, Input File

1VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 10, PVC Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV On"'i

!!Environmental KeywordsiI

TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1EAMB, 300.15,101300,0TAMB, 300.15,101300,0,63LIMO2,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET,WALLSI,


COMPA, Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3it

!!vent keywords

HVENT, 1,2,1,10.17,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1MVENT,2,1,I,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,0.9,200,300,1MVENT,I,2,2,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,1.7,200,300,1

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NRC BE3 10,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1


TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICITPDETARGET, 1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICITPDETARGETI,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGETI,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGETI,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICITPDETARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3, IMPLICITPDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,I,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,I,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,PVC P BE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

B-21

CFAST Input Files


NRC BE3 10

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,176,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,826,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,827,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0

00.4410000110.254.5E+07METHANE

B-22

CFAST Input Files

Test 13, Input File






!!vent keywordsII

HVENT,1,2,1,11.9,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1II

!!fire keywordsit

OBJECT,NRC BE3 13,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1


TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-i,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-l,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,I,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-I,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-i,XLPCBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,l,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-I,XLP P BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLPCBE3,IMPLICIT, PDE

B-23

CFAST Input Files


NRC BE3 134,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,177,2330000,0..05177778,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,364,2330000,0.05177778,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,365,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,000.4410000110.254.5E+07METHANE

B-_24

CFAST Input Files

Test 14, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 14, Test 3, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV Off"


TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1EAMB, 301.15,101300,0TAMB, 301.15,101300,0,61LIMO2,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET,WALLSI?

!!Compartment keywordsII


!!vent keywords

HVENT, 1,2,1,2,2,0,1,2.58,0,4,11I

!!fire keywordsII

OBJECT,NRC BE3 14,1,10.83,5.21,0,1,1,0,0,0,1


TARGET, 1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,I,9.11,2,0,0,0,I,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-I,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-I,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP P BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, I,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

B-25

CFAST Input Files


NRC BE3 144,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,176,1180000,0.02622222,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,1381,1180000,0.02622222,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,1567,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,000.4410000110.254.5E+07METHANE

B-26

CFAST Input Files

Test 15, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 15, Test 3, PVC Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV Off"it


TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1EAMB, 291.15,101300,0TAMB, 291.15,101300,0,95LIMO2,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET,WALLS

!!Compartment keywordsii


!!vent keywords11

HVENT, 1,2,1,2,2,0,1,2.58,0,4,1

!!fire keywordsI1

OBJECT,NRC BE3 15,1,10.83,5.21,0,1,1,0,0,0,111


TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-i,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-IMARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,9.11,2,0,0,0,I,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-I,PVCCBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,I,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-I,PVC P BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICITPDE

B-27

CFAST Input Files


NRC BE3 154,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,180,1180000,0.02622222,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,1380,1180000,0.02622222,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,1567,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,000.4410000110.254.5E+07METHANE

B-28

CFAST Input Files

Test 16, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 16, PVC Cable, Heptane, Door Closed, MV On"1I


TIMES, 1800,-10,0,10,1EAMB, 299.15,101300,0TAMB,299.15,101300,0,55LIMO2,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET,WALLS



!!vent keywordsii

HVENT, 1,2,1,10.17,3.82,3.81,1,0.555,0,4,1MVENT, 2,1,1,V,2.4,0.49,V, 2.4,0.49,0.9,200,300,1MVENT,1,2,2,V,2.4,0.49,V,2.4,0.49,1.7,200,300,1

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NRC BE3 16,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,11I


TARGET, 1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-i,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I,21.7,5.76,2.43,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-1,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, I,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.11,2,0,0,0, 1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I,l0.85,2,3.2,0,0,-l,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-I,PVC P BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

B-29

CFAST Input Files


NRC BE3 164,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,177,2300000,0.05111111,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,382,2300000,0.05111111,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0

295.15,383,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0

00.4410000

110.254.5E+07METHANE

B-30

CFAST Input Files

Test 17, Input File

VERSN, 6,"BE 3, Test 17, PVC Cable, Toluene, Door Closed, MV Off"


TIMES, 1800,-10,0,10,1EAMB, 300.15,101300,0TAMB, 300.15,101300,0,40LIMO2,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJETWALLSii

!!Compartment keywordsI1

COMPA, Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3

!!vent keywords

HVENT, 1,2, 1, 10.17,3.82,3.81, 1,0.555,0,4,1II

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NRC BE3 17,1,10.85,3.52,0,1,1,0,0,0,1

!!target and detector keywordsTI

TARGET,1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-1,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-1,0, 0,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-l,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-l,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,1GYPBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,I,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,0,-I,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC C BE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0, -1,PVCCBE3, IMPLICIT, PDE

TARGET, 1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,PVC P BE3, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-l,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP C BE3, IMPLICIT,PDE

B-31

CFAST Input Files


NRC BE3 17, ,,,,,,,,,,

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.022,0.058,0,0,00.0921,181,1160000,0.02577778,0,1,0,0.19,0.022,0.058,0,0,0395.15,272,1160000,0.02577778,0,1,0,0.19,0.022,0.058,0,0,0295.15,273,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.022,0.058,0,0,00,,,,,,,1,,,,

0.44,,,,,,,,,,,,

10000, , , , , , , , , , ,

0.25,,,,,, ......

4.50E+07,,,,,,,,,,,,METHANE,,,,,,,,,,,,

B-32

CFAST Input Files

Test 18, Input File

VERSN,6,"BE 3, Test 18, XPE Cable, Heptane, Door Open, MV Off"I,


TIMES,1800,-10,0,10,1EAMB, 300.15,101300,0TAMB, 300.15,101300,0,40LIMO2,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET,WALLS

!!Compartment keywordsI?

COMPA,Compartment 1,21.7,7.04,3.82,0,0,0,MARIBE3,GYPBE3,MARIBE3II

!!vent keywordsII

HVENT, 1,2,1,2,2,0,1,2.58,0,4,1it

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NRC BE3 18,1,12.33,1.55,0,1,1,0,0,0,1

!!target and detector keywordsII

TARGET, 1,3.91,7.04,1.49,0,-1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, I,12.15,7.04,1.87,0,-I,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,3.91,0,1.49,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,9.55,0,1.87,0,1,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,12.15,0,1.87,0,1,,0MARIBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,21.7,1.59,2.43,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,1.12,-I,0,0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,21.7,5.76,2.43,-I,0, 0,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,3.04,3.59,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,9.11,5.97,3.82,0,0, -I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,2.39,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,5.17,3.82,0,0,-I,MARIBE3,IMPLICITPDETARGET,I1,13.02,5.97,3.82,0,0, -I,MARIBE3, IMPLICIT, POE

TARGET, 1,3.04,3.59,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,9.11,2,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3, IMPLICIT,PDETARGETI,10.85,2.39,0,0,0,1,GYPBE3,IMPLICITPDETARGET,1,10.85,2,3.2,0,0,-1,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,10.85,1.25,2.7,0,0,-1,PVC C BE3,IMPLICITPDETARGET, 1,10.55,1.3,2.8,0,0,-1,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.85,0.5,2.2,0,0,-1,XLP P BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-1,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,10.8,6.8,1.75,0,-I,0,XLP C BE3,IMPLICIT,PDE

B-33

CFAST Input Files


NRC BE3 184,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,178,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,1379,1190000,0.02644444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,1562,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,000.4410000110.254.5E+07METHANE

B-34

CFAST Input Files


Test 1, Input File

VERSN, 6,CFAST Simulation


TIMES, 1800, -10,0,10,1EAMB, 293.15,101300,0TAMB,293.15,101300,0, 50LIMO2,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET, WALLS


COMPA,Compartment 1,3.6,3.6,5.7,0,0,0,ConcreteBE4,LiteConcBE4,ConcreteBE4

!!vent keywords

HVENT, 1,2,1,0.7,3,0,1,1.8,1.8,1,1MVENT,1,2,1,H,5.7,1.46,H,5.7,1.46,1.1,200,300,1MVENT, 1,2,2, H, 5.7,1.46,-H,5.7,1.46,1.1,200,300,1

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NRC BE4 1,1,1.8,1.8,0,1,1,0,0,0,1I !


TARGET,1,3.6, 1.5,1.8,-i, 0,0,ConcreteBE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,0,2.8, 1.7,1,0,0,SteelBE4, IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,0,1.9,1.7,1,0,0, ConcreteBE4, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,0, 0.7,1.7, 1,0, 0,LiteConcBE4, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,2.45,3.6,1.5,0, -1,0, GYPSUM, IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,2.45,3.6,3.35,0,-1,0,GYPSUM,IMPLICIT,PDE

B-35

CFAST Input Files


NRC BE4 19,0,0,0,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.165,92,119840,0.0028,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,180,1583600,0.037,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,260,2623640,0.0613,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00,600,3197160,0.0747,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.35,822,3351240,0.0783,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,010000,870,3381200,0.079,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,01,1368,3518160,0.0822,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,01,1395,0,0,0,1.08,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.254.28E+07METHANE

B-36

CFAST Input Files


Test 4, Input File

VERSN, 6,CFAST Simulationii

!!Environmental KeywordsI1

TIMES,2300,-10,0,10,1EAMB, 293.15,101300,0TAMB,293.15,101300,0,50LIMO2,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET,WALLSi,

!!Compartment keywordsii

COMPA,Compartment 1,3.6,3.6,5.6,0,0,0,LiteConcBE4,LiteConcBE4,ConcreteBE 4

!!vent keywords

HVENT, 1,2,1,0.7,3.6,1.4,1,1.8,1.8,1,1HVENT, 1,2,2,0.6,1.4,0.7,1,1.8,1.8,2,1

!!fire keywordsII

OBJECT,NRC BE5 4F,I,3.05,1.75,0.6,1,1,0,0,0,1OBJECT,NRC BE5 4B,1,0.6,2.1,0.4,1,1,0,0,0,1II


TARGET,1,0.41,2.13,1.2,1,0,0,LiteConcBE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,0.41,2.13,2,1,0,0,LiteConcBE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,0.41,2.13,2.8,1,0,0,LiteConcBE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,0.41,2.13,3.6,1,0,0,LiteConcBE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I,0.41,2.13,4.4,1,0,0,LiteConcBE4,IMPLICITPDETARGET,1,0.44,2.24,1.2,1,0,0,PVC P BE4,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,0.44,2.24,1.6,1,0,0,PVC P BE4,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET,1,0.44,2.24,2,1,0,0,PVCPBE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,0.44,2.24,2.4,1,0,0,PVC P BE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,0.44,2.24,2.8,1,0,0,PVC P BE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,0.44,2.24,3.2,1,0,0,PVC P BE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,0.44,2.24,3.6,1,0,0,PVC P BE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I,0.44,2.24,4,1,0,0,PVCPBE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,0.44,2.24,4.4,1,0,0,PVC P BE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,0.44,2.05,1.2,1,0,0,PVC C BE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,0.44,2.05,1.6,1,0,0,PVC C BE4,IMPLICITPDETARGET, 1,0.44,2.05,2,1,0,0,PVC C BE4,IMPLICITPDETARGET,1,0.44,2.05,2.4,1,0,0,PVC C BE4,IMPLICITPDETARGET,1,0.44,2.05,2.8,1,0,0,PVC C BE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,0.44,2.05,3.2,1,0,0,PVC C BE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,0.44,2.05,3.6,1,0,0,PVCCBE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,I,0.44,2.05,4,1,0,0,PVCCBE4, IMPLICIT,PDE

B-37

CFAST Input Files

TARGET,1,0.44,2.05,4.4,1,0,0,PVC C BE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,2.6,3.6,0.4,0,-1,0,ConcreteBE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET;1,2.6,3.6,2.8,0,-1,0,ConcreteBE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,2.6,3.6,5.2,0,-1,0,ConcreteBE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET, 1,0,2.2,0.4,1,0,0,ConcreteBE4,IMPLICIT, PDETARGET, 1,0,2.2,2.8,1,0,0,ConcreteBE4,IMPLICIT,PDETARGET,1,0,2.2,5.2,1,0,0,ConcreteBE4,IMPLICIT,PDE

Test 4, Fire Definition Files

NRC BE5 4F12,0,0,0,0,0,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.046,60,120000,0.003921569,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,120,220000,0.007189543,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,180,280000,0.009150327,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00,240,290000,0.009477125,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.2,300,300000,0.009803922,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,010000,480,320000,0.01045752,0,0..49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.7,600,330000,0.01078431,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.7,900,340000,0.01111111,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1,1800,360000,0.01176471,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,03.06E+07,2299,360000,0.01176471,0,0.49,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0METHANE,2300,0,0,0,0,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0

NRC BE5 4B7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.165,1200,0,0,0,0,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,1201,50000,0.001168224,0,0.09,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,2100,50000,0.001168224,0,0.09,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00,2120,100000,0.002336449,0,0.09,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.35,2280,100000,0.002336449,0,0.09,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,010000,2300,0,0,0,0,0,0.18,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.30.30.44.28E+07METHANE

B-38

CFAST Input Files

B.5 FM / SNL Test Series

Test 4, Input File

VERSN,6,FM Test 4


TIMES, 1200, -50,0,10,1EAMB, 288.15,101300,0TAMB, 288.15, 101300, 0,50LIMO2, 10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET, WALLS


COMPA,Compartment 1,18.3,12.2,6.1,0,0,0,MariniteFM,ConcreteFMMariniteFM

!!vent keywords

VVENT,2,1, 1.08,2,1MVENT, 2,1,1, H, 4.9,0.66, H, 4.9,0.66,0.38,200,300,1

!!fire keywordsI t

OBJECT,FM SNL 4,1,12,6.1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1


FM SNL 411,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,30,7968.75,0.0001770833,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15, 60,31875, 0.0007083333, 0, 1, 0,0.19, 0. 0026, 0. 0049, 0, 0,0295.15,90,71718.75,0.00159375,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00,120,127500,0.002833333,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.35,150,199218.8,0.004427084,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,010000,180,286875,0.006375,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,01,210,390468.8,0.008677085,0,i,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,01,240,510000,0.01133333,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.25,600,510000,0.01133333,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,04.5E+07,601,0,0,0,0,0,0.19,0.002 6,O .OO4 9 ,0,0,0METHANE

B-39

CFAST Input Files

Test 5, Input File

VERSN,6,FM Test 5


TIMES, 900, -50,0,10,1EAMB, 293.15,101300,0TAMB, 293.15,101300,0,50LIMO2, 10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET, WALLS


COMPA,Compartment 1,18.3,12.2,6.1,0,0,0,MariniteFM,ConcreteFM,MariniteFM

!!vent keywords

VVENT,2, 1,1.08,2,1MVENT, 2, 1, 1, H,4.9, 0.66, H,4.9,0.66, 3.78,200,300,1EVENT,M,2, 1,1,540,0,1

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,FM SNL 5,1,12,6.1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1


FM SNL 54,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,240,480000,0.01066667,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,540,480000,0.01066667,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,541,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,000.3510000110.254.5E+07METHANE

B-40

CFAST Input Files

Test 21, Input File

VERSN,6,FM Test 21


TIMES, 1800, -50,0,10,1EAMB, 288.15,101300, 0TAMB, 288.15, i01300, 0,50LIMO2, 10WIND, 0, 10,0.16CJET, WALLS


COMPA,Compartment 1,18.3,12.2,6.1,0,0,0,MariniteFM,ConcreteFM,MariniteFM

!!vent keywords

VVENT, 2,1,1.08,2,1MVENT, 2,1,1, H, 4.9,0.66, H, 4.9,0.66,0.38,200,300,1

!!fire keywords

OBJECT, FM SNL 21,1,12,6.1,0,1,1,0,0,0,1


FM SNL 21 -

4,0,0,0,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,00.1002,240,47ý0000,0.01044444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0395.15,1140,470000,0.01044444,0,1,0,0.19,0.0026,0.0049,0,0,0295.15,1141,0,0,0, 1,0,0.19, 0.0026,0.0049,0,0,000.351000011

0.254.5E+07METHANE

B-41

CFAST Input Files

B.6 NBS Test Series

Test MVI00A, Input File

VERSN,6,"NBS Test MV100A, Open Corridor Door, No Target Room"


TIMES, 1500,-i0,0,10,1EAMB, 296.15,101300,0TAMB, 296.15,101300,0,45LIMO2,10WIND, 0, 10,0.16.CJET, WALLS


COMPA,Fire Room,2.34,2.34,2.16,9.85,0,0,CeramicNBS,FireBrickNBS,CeramicNBSCOMPA,Entry to FireRoom, 1.03,1.02,2,11.16,2.34,0,MariniteNBS, GypsumNBS,MariniteNBSCOMPA,Corridor,12.19,2.44,2.44,0,3.36,0,MariniteNBS,GypsumNBS,MariniteNBSCOMPA,Target Room,2.22,2.24,2.43,2.07,0.33,0,GypsumNBS,ConcreteNBS,GypsumNBSCOMPA,Entry to TargetRoom, 0.94,0.79,2.04,2.07,2.57, 0, GypsumNBS, ConcreteNBS, GypsumNBS

!!vent keywords

HVENT, 1,2,1,0.81,1.6,0,1,1.42,0,3,1HVENT, 2,3,1,0.81,1.6,0,1,0.11,0,3,1HVENT, 3,6,1,0.76,2.03,0,1,0.84,0,4,1HVENT, 3,5, 1, 0.79,2.04,0, 1,2.14,0, 1, 0HVENT, 4,5,1,0.79,2.04,0,1,0.075,0,3,0

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NBS MVI00A,I,I.17,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1

Test MV100A, Fire Definition File

NBS MV100A4,0,0,0,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,00. 016, 10, 110000,0. 0022,0,0. 1156, 0, 0,0.07,0,0, 0,0493,890,110000,0.0022,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0300,900,0,0,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,000.250.40.40.65

B-42

CFAST Input Files

5E+07METHANE

B-43

CFAST Input Files

Test MV 1000, Input File

VERSN,6,"NBS Test MV1000, Closed Corridor Door, No Target Room"


TIMES, 1500, -10,0,10,1EAMB, 293.15,101300,0TAMB, 293.15,101300,0,45LIM02,10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET,WALLS

!!Compartment keywordsIii

COMPA,Fire Room,2.34,2.34,2.16,9.85,0,0,CeramicNBS,FireBrickNBS,CeramicNBSCOMPA,Entry to FireRoom, 1.03,1.02,2,11.16,2.34,0,MariniteNBS,GypsumNBS,MariniteNBSCOMPA,Corridor,12.19,2.44,2.44,0,3.36,0,MariniteNBS,GypsumNBS,MariniteNBSCOMPA,Target Room,2.22,2.24,2.43,2.07,0.33,0,GypsumNBS,ConcreteNBS,GypsumNBSCOMPA,Entry to TargetRoom,0.94,0.79,2.04,2.07,2.57,0,GypsumNBS,ConcreteNBS,GypsumNBSI I

! !vent keywords

HVENT, 1, 2, 1,0.81,1.6, 0, 1, 1.42, 0,3,1HVENT, 2,3,1,0.81,1.6,0,1,0.11,0,3,1HVENT, 3,6,1,0.76,2.44,2.43,1,0.84,0,4,1HVENT, 3, 5, 1, 0.79, 2.04,0, 1, 2.14,0, 1, 0HVENT, 4,5, 1, 0.79, 2.04,0, 1, 0. 075, 0,3, 0I i

!!fire keywords

OBJECT,NBS MV1000,1,1.17,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1

Test MV1000, Fire Definition File

NBS MV10004,0,0, 0, 0,0. 1156, 0,0,0.07,0,0,0,00.016,10,110000,0.0022,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0493,890,110000,0.0022,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0300,900,0,0,0, 0. 1156, 0,0,0.07,0,0,0,000.350.40.40.655E+07METHANE

B-44

CFAST Input Files

Test MV1OOZ, Input File

VERSN,6,"NBS Test MVI0OZ, Open Corridor Door, Open Target Room"


TIMES, 1500, -10,0,10,1EAMB,295.15,101300,0TAMB,295.15, 101300,0,62LIMO2, 10WIND, 0,10,0.16CJET, WALLSI !


COMPAFire Room,2.34,2.34,2.16,9.85,0,0,CeramicNBS,FireBrickNBS,CeramicNBSCOMPA,Entry to FireRoom,1.03,1.02,2,11.16,2.34,0,MariniteNBS,GypsumNBSMariniteNBSCOMPACorridor,12.19,2.44,2.44,0,3.36,0,MariniteNBS,GypsumNBSMariniteNBSCOMPATarget Room,2.22,2.24,2.43,2.07,0.33,0,GypsumNBSConcreteNBS,GypsumNBSCOMPA,Entry to TargetRoom,0.94,0.79,2.04,2.07,2.57,0,GypsumNBS,ConcreteNBS,GypsumNBS

!!vent keywords1i

HVENT, 1, 2,1i,0.81, 1.6, 0,1, 1.42,0,3,1

HVENT, 2,3,1,0.81,1.6,0,1,0.11,0,3,1HVENT, 3,6,1,0.76,2.03,0,1,0.84,0,4,1HVENT, 3,5,1,0.79,2.04,0,i,2.14,0,1,1HVENT, 4,5,1,0.79,2.04,0,1,0.075,0,3,1i 1

! !fire keywords

OBJECTNBS MV100Z,II.17,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1

Test MVIOOZ, Fire Definition File

NBS MV100Z4,0,0,0,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,00.016,10,1i0000,0.0022,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,0493,890, 110000,0. 0022,0,0. 1156, 0, 0,0.07,0,0,0,0300,900,0,0,0,0.1156,0,0,0.07,0,0,0,000.350.40.40.655E+07METHANE

B-45

NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER(9-2004) (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,NRCMD 3.7 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET(See instructions on the reverse) NUREG-1824

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

Verification and Validation of Selected Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications MONTH YEAR

Volume 5: CFASTMay 2007

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

R. Peacock (NIST), P. Reneke (NIST) Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (if NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

provide name and mailing address.)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Regulatory Research (RES), Washington, DC 20555-0001Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), 4920 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA 94022National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST/BFRL), 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (if NRC, type 'Same as above'; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,and mailing address.)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Regulatory Research (RES), Washington, DC 20555-0001

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 8412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

There is a movement to introduce risk-informed and performance-base analyses into fire protection engineering practice, bothdomestically and worldwide. The move towards risk-informed decision-making in nuclear power regulation was directed by theU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.One key tool needed to support risk-informed, performance-based fire protection is the availability of verified and validated firemodels that can accurately predict the consequences of fires. Section 2.4.1.2. of NFPA 805, Performance-Base Standard forFire Protection for Light-Water Reactor Electric Generating Plants, 2001 Edition requires that only fire models acceptable to theAuthority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) shall be used in fire modeling calculations. Futhermore, Sections 2.4.1.2.2. and 2.4.1.2.3.of NFPA 805 state that fire models shall be applied within the limitations of the given model, and shall be verified and validated.This report is the first effort to document the verification and validation (V&V) of five models that are commomly used in nuclearpower plant applications. The project was performed in accordance with the guidelines that the American Society for Testingand Materials (ASTM) set forth in ASTM E 1355, Standard Guide for Evaluating the Predictive capability of Deterministic FireModels. The results of this V&V are reported in the form of color codes describing the accuracies for the model predictions.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

fire, fire modeling, verification, validation, performance-based, risk-informed, firehazards analyses, unlimitedV&V, FHA, CFAST, FDS, MAGIC, FIVE, FDTs 14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

(This Page)

unclassified(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Federal Recycling Program

UNITED STATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

OFFICIAL BUSINESS