Schoonbaert volledig - ie-net

kvivFSE sp2inl1 

BRANDDYNAMICA & 

BRANDBEHEERSING 

ALS BASIS VOOR ACTIEVE MAATREGELEN 

K VIV – SPECIALISATIE - CURSUS 2012 

Fire Safety Engineering 

Module 2 (a) 

Wettelijke basis 

• ARAB art. 52 : sprinklers in winkels groter dan 2.000 m² 

• Basisnormen : compartiment > 2.500 m² : RWA + Sprinklers 

• BBasisnormen i : compartiment ti t + 2 verdiep. di : RWA + Sprinklers S i kl 

• Parkeergarages > 2.500 m² : ‘iets’ doen tegen rookverspreiding 

• Hotels (Vlaams Decreet 1989) : branddetectie verplicht 

• Meer mogelijk in KB - bijlage 6 (o.a. straling / brandweerstand) 

• Afwijking van de basisnormen : dossier indienen bij FOD BiZa 

en gelijkwaardigheid g j g bewijzen j !! 

• Berekenen naar doelstellingen (performantie) i.p.v. met 

vastgestelde waarden (prescriptief) komt eraan (bijlage 7), naar 

analogie met buitenlandse ‘Performance Based Codes’ 


11/04/2012 

1

Gelijkwaardigheid = 

FSE in 3 stappen 

1. Kwalitatieve 

beoordeling (QDR) 

2. Kwantitatieve 

analyse 

3. Rapportering van 

de conclusies 


1. Kwalitatieve beoordeling 

• Vastleggen van doelstellingen en criteria 

• Beschrijving van het architecturale ontwerp 

• Vastleggen van gebouw-, gebruikers- en 

omgevingskarakteristieken 

• Identificatie van de mogelijke brandrisico’s 

• Vastleggen van de relevante brandscenario’s 

• Beschrijving van de beveiligingsconcepten 


11/04/2012 

2

2. Kwantitatieve Analyse 

• Uitvoeren van berekeningen via gekende 

rekenmodellen 

• Resultaten vergelijken met de geëiste criteria 

• Eventueel concept aanpassen 

• Resultaat van de ene berekening (submodule) 

is de input van een volgende 

• Alles berekenen tot een goed resultaat 


3. Rapportering 

SUB - MODULES (BS 7974 – ISO 13387) 

1. Initiatie en ontwikkeling van de brand in de 

aanvangsruimte * 

2. Verspreiding van rook * en toxische gassen 

3. Uitbraak van de brand * en structurele weerstand 

4. Detectie, activatie van bestrijdingsmiddelen * 

5. Interventie van de brandweer 

66. MMenselijke lijk factoren f t * 

7. Bevestiging van de risico-waarschijnlijkheid 

(* : wordt behandeld in deze lezing over branddynamica & brandbeheersing) 


11/04/2012 

3

Vuur Structuur Brandweer 

QDR Rook Det/Blus Evacuatie 


1 2 3 4 5 6 Subsystems 

Enkele theoretische begrippen 

• Brandlast / calorisch potentiaal / verbrandingswaarde 

van een brandbaar product = brandstof (kJ/kg of MJ/kg) 

– Naaldhout = 18 MJ/kg (m)ethanol = (20)-27 (20) 27 MJ/kg 

– Plastics = 25-40 MJ/kg olieproducten en aardgas ≈ 45 MJ/kg 

• Verbranding : Brandstof + O 2 restproducten + Hitte + H 2O 

• Hitte verspreidt zich op 3 manieren : 

– 5 % Conductie of geleiding (warmte aan omgevende wanden) 

– 75 % Convectie of verplaatsing (met rook als visueel element) 

– 20 % Radiatie of straling door een ijl medium (zon / kampvuur) 

• Calorisch vermogen of total Heat Release Rate (HRR) : 

‘waarneembare’ vrijgekomen hitte = verbranding per 

tijdseenheid (kJ/s = kW of MJ/s = MW) 


11/04/2012 

4

• Specifieke brandlast : calorisch potentiaal per oppervlakteeenheid 

(kJ/m² of MJ/m²); wordt bepaald door de hoeveelheid 

van brandgevaarlijk materiaal in een ruimte. 

criterium voor indeling naar categoriën bij allerlei 

normen (bv sprinkler-berekening) 

• Specifiek vermogen of specific Heat Release Rate : te 

verwachten vrijgekomen hitte per oppervlakte-eenheid (kW/m²), 

toe te passen in berekeningen voor typische omgevingen : 

– Bureel = 130-290 kW/m² winkelshops = 500-750 kW/m² 

– Hotelkamer = 250 kW/m² Opslagruimte = 1500 – 3000 kW/m² 

• Verbrandingssnelheid : afname van het gewicht aan 

brandstof door verbranding (kg/s) hoe hoger deze snelheid, 

hoe meer vrijgekomen energie voor dezelfde brandlast !! Deze 

snelheid is niet constant vermogenspiek 

• Rookproductie : waarneembare reststoffen, welke ongeacht 

de densiteit worden bijgemengd met omgevingslucht (kg/s of 

ook m³/s = temperatuur gecorrigeerd) 


Nuttige publicaties 

• An Introduction to Fire Dynamics (D. Drysdale – 1987/2001) 

• Fire Safety Design Guidelines for Federal Buildings (National 

Research Council of Canada – 1996) 

• BR 386 : Design Methodologies for Smoke and Heat Ventilation 

Systems (BRE/Fire Research Station + Institution of Fire 

Engineers – UK - 1999) 

• The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering 3th edition 

(Society of Fire Protection Engineers – USA – 2002) 

• The NFPA Fire Protection Handbook 19th edition (National Fire 

Protection Association – USA -2003) + NFPA Standards (= normen) 

• CIBSE Guide E “Fire Fire Engineering” Engineering (Chartered Institution of 

Building Services Engineers – UK – 2003) 

• BS 5588 parts 1-11 : Fire Precautions in the design, construction 

and use of buildings (British Standards Institute – UK) 

• Europese en Belgische Normen + ANPI- publicaties + ….. 


11/04/2012 

5

kvivFSE4 sp2tsq1 

kvivFSE sp2tsq2 

T – SQUARED FIRE GROWTH 

EEN REALISTISCHE KEUZE 



Module 2 (b) 

reactie bij brand 

actieve elementen 

Brandverloop 

weerstand tegen brand 

passieve elementen 

1


Volontwikkeld na Flashover 

Groeifase voor Flashover 

• Overgang van initiatiefase 

(incubatie op laag niveau) 

naar groeifase if 

• Afhankelijk van type 

brandstof en ventilatie 

• Vastleggen van een virtueel ontstekingspunt to • Groeikromme (x², x³, exponentieel) 

• Continu groeiend naar Flashover, brandstofbepaald 

of gestopt door blussing 


2

Keuze voor kwadratische groeicurve 

• Experimentele gegevens (1972 : FM, NIST, FRS) 

• Eerst 3 curves c r es : Slow, Slo Medium Medi m en Fast 

• Daarna nog een curve Ultra-fast 

• Tijdsconstante tg (sec) : tot 1.000 btu/sec 

600sec (S) ( ) – 300sec (M) ( ) – 150sec (F) ( ) – 75sec (UF) ( ) 



Q = 1.000 (t/tg)² (btu/sec) 

NFPA 92B (appendix C) 

3



Q = a t² (kW) 

met a = 1.055/(tg ( g )² ) (1 ( btu/sec = 1.055 W) ) 

Slow : a = 1.055/(600)² = 0,0029 

Medium : a = 1.055/(300)² = 0,012 

Fast : a = 10 1.055/(150)² /(10)² = 004 0,047 

Ultra-fast : a = 1.055/(75)² = 0,188 

Q = a .t² (kW) 

1,000 

750 

500 

250 

0 

a = 0,0029 (600 s) 

SLOW 

t (s) 

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 

4


Q = a .t² (kW) 

4,000 

3,500 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

a = 0,012 (300 s) 

a = 0,0029 (600 s) 

MEDIUM 

t (s) 

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 

Q = a .t² (kW) 

10,000 

9,000 

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 , 

1,000 

0 


a = 0,047 (150 s) 

a = 0,012 (300 s) 

a = 0,0029 (600 s) 

FAST 

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 

t (s) 

600 

5

Q = a .t² (kW) 

20,000 

18,000 

16,000 a = 0,188 (75 s) 

14,000 

12,000 

10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

4000 4,000 

2,000 

0 

kvivFSE4 sptsq11 


a = 0,047 (150 s) 

a = 0,012 (300 s) 

a = 0,0029 (600 s) 

ULTRA - FAST 

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 

t (s) 

600 

Keuze van groeiparameter a 

Woning of bureel : Medium 

Winkelruimte (shop) : Fast 

St Stockageruimte k i t : Ult Ultra-fast f t 

Hotelkamer : Medium 

Grote zaal (toneel, confer. ,...) : Fast - Medium 

Klassiek museum : Slow 

Actief museum : Medium 

Expositieruimte (Fl. Expo) : Fast 

Vluchtige brandstoffen (benzine, alcohol) : U-F 

.... : met overleg te bepalen 

6


Internationale groeicurves 

Fire And Smoke Transport – model (NIST) 


7

Andere factoren 

• Pré-flashover te berekenen in eenzelfde ruimte 

(sprinkleractivatie of RWA in een grote hall) 

•Post-flashover fl h levert l data d voor een aanliggend li d 

compartiment (RWA in een atrium) 

• Piekvermogen ± 200 % (brandlast / brandduur) 

(100 kg hout op 20 min = 1.800 MJ / 1.200 s x 200% = 3.000 kW) 

• Rekstapeling in stapelmagazijnen : Q = 0,045 t³ 

• Straling en terugstraling speelt een belangrijke 

rol ter bepaling van de flashover 


8

kvivFSE sp2cjt1 


DE ‘CEILING JET’ 

DE MOTOR TOT FLASHOVER 



Module 2 (c) 

Ceiling Jet – Principe (1955) 

• Warme lucht (rook) stijgt 

• Botst tegen plafond 

• Verspreidt zich egaal in 

de 4 richtingen 

• Snelheid = f (Q,H,r) 

• TTemperatuur t = f (Q,H,r) (QH ) 

• Direct boven de brand 

speelt de straal (r)geen rol 

1


Basisformules vaste vuurhaard 

Temperatuur (°C) : 

16, 

9⋅ 

Q 

voor r/H O 0,18 : ΔT 

= 5/ 

3 

H 

snelheid 

(m/s) 

tempe eratuur (°C x 100) 


voor r/H > 0,18 : 

Snelheid (m/s) : 

15.00 

14.00 

13.00 

12.00 

11.00 

10.00 

voor r/H O 0,15 , : 

900 9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

1.00 

voor r/H > 0,15 : 

2 / 3 

5, 38⋅ 

( Q / r) 

ΔT 

= 

H 

U g 

U g 

2/ 

3 

= 0, 96⋅ 

( (QQ 

/ H ) 

= 

0, 

195 

⋅Q 

r 

1/ 

3 

5/ 

6 

Ceiling Jet waarden voor H = 3m 

1/ 

3 

⋅ H 

1/ 

2 

0.00 

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 3 4 6 8 

Straal r (m) 

10 

snelheid met Q = 10,000 kW temperatuur met Q = 10,000 kW 




snelheid met Q = 500 kW temperatuur met Q = 500 kW 

2

snelheid 

(m/s) 



snelheid 

(m/s) 



13.00 

12.00 

11.00 

10.00 

9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

1.00 

Ceiling Jet waarden voor H = 5m 

0.00 

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 3 4 6 8 

Straal r (m) 

10 

11.00 

10.00 

9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

1.00 






Ceiling Jet waarden voor H = 10 m 

0.00 

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 3 4 6 8 

Straal r (m) 

10 






3

Met een T² groeiende vuurhaard 

1) Bepalen van een aantal tussenwaarden (dimensieloos*) : 

• t f *=0,954 (1+( r t f 0,954 (1 ( / H)) H)) 

• A = g / (To.ro) = 9,81 / (293 . 1,208) = 0,0278 

2) Bepalen van de fictieve DT en snelheid op tijdstip t: 


−1/ 

5 −1/ 

5 4 / 5 

( A ⋅α 

⋅ H ) 

r 

0, 

188 0, 

313⋅ 

( / ) 

⎛ t / 

− t 

ΔT* 

= ⎜ 

⎜ 

⎝ + H 

U* = 0, 

59 ⋅ H 

r −0, 

63 

( / ) ⋅ ΔT 

* 

f 

* ⎞ 

⎟ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

4 / 3 

(indien negatief DT* = 0 ) 

3) Bepalen Ceiling Jet temperatuur en snelheid 

Temperatuur (°C) : 

Snelheid (m/s) : 

2/ 

5 

2/ 

5 −3/ 

5 

( A ( T / 9, 

81) 

⋅ H ) + ( T − 273) 

t = ΔT 

* ⋅ 

α 

g 

o 

1/ 

5 1/ 

5 1/ 

5 

( A ⋅ ⋅ H ) 

U = U * ⋅ αα 

⋅ H 

U g 

Met a = 0,0029 (slow) / 0,012 (medium) / 0,047 (fast) / 0,188 (ultra-fast) 


o 

4


snelheid (mm/s) 

Temperatuur (° °C x 100) 

snelheid (mm/s) 

Temperatuur (°C C x 100) 


5.00 

4.50 

4.00 

3.50 

300 3.00 

2.50 

2.00 

1.50 

1.00 

0.50 

0.00 

5,00 

4,50 

4,00 

3,50 

300 3,00 

2,50 

2,00 

1,50 

1,00 

0,50 

0,00 

Ceiling Jet T-squared met H = 3 m en r = 2 m 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 

Tijdsverloop in seconden 

temperatuur (Ultra-fast) snelheid (Ultra-fast) 

temperatuur (Fast) snelheid (Fast) 

temperatuur (Medium) snelheid (medium) 

temperatuur (Slow) snelheid (Slow) 

Ceiling Jet T-squared met H = 10 m en r = 2 m 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 

Tijdsverloop in seconden 

temperatuur (Ultra-fast) snelheid (Ultra-fast) 

temperatuur (Fast) snelheid (Fast) 

temperatuur (Medium) snelheid (medium) 

temperatuur (Slow) snelheid (Slow) 

5

FAST 

Belangrijk : plaats vd vuurhaard ! 


FAST 

Belangrijk : grootte van het compartiment ! 


6


Bepalende factoren tot flashover 

1. Grootte van het compartiment, ofwel oppervlakte van de 

omgevende wanden At 

• Qloss(cond) = k1.At.Dtgas (kW) 

• Qloss(rad) = k2.s.At. (Tgas 4 -To 4 ) (kW) 

waarbij k2 = f (emissiviteit(e) en % aanstraling) 

en s = cte van Stefan-Bolzman = 5,67 x 10 -11 kW/m 2 K 4 

2. Grootte van de ventilatie-openingen 

• Ao : oppervlakte van de openingen (m²) 

• Ho : (gemiddelde) hoogte van de openingen (m) 

ventilatiefactor : (m5/2 ) 

A 

o o H 

Minimaal vermogen tot flashover 

Belangrijk onderzoek levert analoge bevindingen op : 

V. Babrauskas (1981) ( ) – P. Thomas (1981) ( ) – A. Heselden (1981) ( ) - 

J. Quintiere (1981) – M. Law (1983) – D. Drysdale (1985) 

basisparameter : flashover treedt op bij DT ≅ 550°C 

Eenvoudige formule : Qfo = 750 . AoHo 1/2 (kW) 

i Q 78A + 378 A H 1/2 

Preciezer : Qfo = 7,8 At + 378 . AoHo 1/2 

met At = Afloor + Aceiling + Awalls –Ao (m²) en At > 10 AoHo 1/2 


(kW) 

7


Q = 20.000 kW 

Q = 18.100 kW 

Q = 16.300 kW 

Q = 14.600 kW 

Q = 13.000 kW 

Q = 11.500 kW 

Q = 10.100 kW 

Q = 8.800 8 800 kW 

Q = 7.600 kW 

Q = 6.500 kW 

Q = 5.500 kW 

Q = 4.600 kW 

Q = 3.800 kW 

Q = 3.100 kW 

Q = 2.500 kW 

Q = 2.000 kW 

Q = 1.600 kW 

Q = 1.300 kW 

Q = 1.000 kW 

grafiekgrens 

Ventilatiefactor 

Ao(Ho)^1/2 

39 

36 

33 

30 

27 

24 

21 

18 

15 

12 

9 

6 

3 

0 

50 

60 

80 

110 

150 

Flashover Grenswaarden 

200 

Oppervlakte omsloten wanden At (m²) 

260 

330 

410 

500 

600 

710 

830 

960 

1.100 

1.260 

1.440 

Maximum temperatuur na flashover 

Hierbij spelen zowel de compartimentsgrootte, de ventilatiefactor 

als de totale brandlast in het lokaal een rol : 

(t )+ΔT 6000 (1 e-0 10x (t ) -05 (1 e-0 05y 

o)+ΔT = 6000.(1 – e ) (°C) 

-0,10x ).x-0,5 .(1 – e-0,05y ) ( C) 

Met x = A t / (A oSH o ) 

y = P / [18 S(A o .A t )] 

En P is de totale brandlast (MJ) 

P/18 = equivalent kg hout 


1250 

1000 

750 

500 

250 

ruimte van 10 m x 5 m x 3 m (met 1 opening) 

5 m x 2 m 3 m x 2 m 3 m x 1 m 

max temp °C 

kg hout 

250 350 500 1.000 2.500 5.000 10.000 

8

RTI = FLASHOVER VERMIJDEN 

Rap en op Tijd voor Interventie 

kvivFSE sp2rti1 



Module 2 (d) 

Snelle interventie na snelle ontdekking 

• Reukzin van de aanwezigen 

• Permanente monstername van de lucht 

• Visuele waarneming van de vuurhaard 

• Opmerken van rook 

• Rook detecteren in niet bemande ruimtes 

• Aanvoelen van stralingswarmte 

• Meting van een temperatuursverhoging 


1

Automatisch reageren op temperatuur 

• Thermische detector met vaste waarde 

• Thermodifferentieel detector 

• Lineaire detector (laserlicht-principe) 

• Tubulaire detector (drukverhogings-principe) 

• Smeltlood (sprinkler, rookluik, brandklep) 

• Glasbulb (sprinkler, rookluik) ( filmpje) 



Bepalende factoren voor werking 

van het detectie-element : 

1. Activatie-temperatuur : 

• Statische detectoren : 50 50°-58°-71°-92° 

58 71 92 

• Differentieeldetectoren : 5°/min - 8°/min – 14°/min 

• Smeltlood : 72° - 101° 

• Glasbulb : 57°(Or) – 68°(Ro) – 79°(Ge) – 93°(Gr) – 141° (Bl) 

2. Gevoeligheid (i.f.v.) : 

• Massiviteit van het geheel 

• Detectie-oppervlakte 

• Soortelijke warmte van het materiaal 

• Warmte-overdracht 

2

Gevoeligheid = Response Time Index (RTI) 



I. De detectie dient te gebeuren tijdens de aanvangsfase 

van de brand : De convectieve warmte-overdracht is 

overheersend over straling en geleiding Q = Qconv Qconv 

q = qconv = h.A.(Tg –Td) (kW) 

• q = de fractie van Q die het detectie-element bereikt 

• h = de convect. warmte-overdrachts coëfficiënt (kW/m²K) 

• A = de werkzame oppervlakte van de detector (m²) 

•Tg = Temperatuur van de hete gassen (K) 

•Td = Temperatuur van het detectie-element (K) 

II. Het element zal opwarmen in functie van 

de tijd en materiaal-eigenschappen 

dT dTd/dt /dt = q / (m.c) (m c) (°C/ (°C/s) ) 

• q = de fractie van Q die het detectie-element bereikt 

• m = de effectieve massa van het element (kg) 

• c = de soortelijke j warmte van het element (kJ/kg.K) ( g ) 

• dt = differentiële tijdstoename (s) 

•dTd = Temperatuurstoename van het element (K of °C) 

3

III. Voor elk detectie-element kan men een tijdsconstante 

berekenen, onafhankelijk van de warmtestroom q : 


[ h.A.(Tg-Td) = m.c.(dTd/dt) ] 

dt ⋅( 

Tg 

−Td 

) m⋅ 

c 

τ = 

= 

dT h ⋅ A 

d 

De warmte-overdrachtscoëfficiënt h is echter wél afhankelijk 

van de ‘Ceiling Jet snelheid’ (Ug) [ h = f( 1/Ug 1/2 ) ] zodat : 

RTI = t.Ug 1/2 

(s) 

(m 1/2 .s 1/2 ) (= cte) 

Deze Response Time Index is een vaste waarde en dient 

opgegeven door de fabricant van het detectie-element 

Typische RTI - waarden 

• Thermische detector : 30 

• Standaard sprinkler (bulb) : 135 - 350 

• Quick response sprinkler (bulb) : 50 - 80 

• Smeltlood : 25 (ESFR) - ??? (brandklep) 

• (Rookdetector : 0,5 0 5 en Tact. Tact = To To +15°) + 15 ) 

• Volgens testen van UL (thermische detectoren ) : 

van 11 tot 495 (in functie van spreiding onder het plafond) 


4


Activatietijd van een detector 

1) Met vaste vuurhaard : Q = cte 


Gekende gegevens : 

QT Q, To, HH, rr, RTI RTI, TTactt (detector of sprinkler) 

Tg (K) en Ug (m/s) 

volgen uit de Ceiling Jet 

formules (zie vorig Hfdk) 

⋅ ( T − T 

U ⋅ ( T − T ) 

dt g d ) 

Uit τ = 

volgt : 

dT 

d 

dT dTd g g d 

= 

dt 

RTI 

dTd / dt : temperatuursstijging v/d detector per tijdseenheid (K/s) 

Td : berekende detector-temperatuur (K) 

Het detectie-element zal reageren (electrisch signaal of 

sprinklerkop opent zich) wanneer Td > Tact 

Td Td wordt opgelost volgens de vergelijking : 

T 

d , t + Δt 

= T 

d , t 

+ 

( Tg 

− Td 

, t 

) ⋅ ( 1− 

e 

U g 

− 

RTI 

Hierbij wordt geldt als eerste waarde voor Td = To en 

wordt met een tijdstap Dt van 1 sec. telkens een nieuwe 

Td berekend totdat Tact wordt overschreden. 

) 

5



XLS - berekening 

Response time activatie na 74 seconden 

Q 8000 kW 

To 20 °C = 293 K 

Tact 68 °C = 341 K 

H 6 m 

r 5 m 

RTI 230 m^(1/2).s^(1/2) 

Ug 25m/s 2,5 m/s 

Tg 416 K = 143 °C 

start 293 tijd (s) 

294 1 

295 2 

296 3 

296 4 

FAST (cte) 

6

2) Met vuurhaard : Q = a.t² 

In principe kan dezelfde redenering worden opgebouwd maar dan 

met een warmtevermogen Q dat verhoogt met iedere tijdsstap. 

Zodoende zijn Tg en Ug niet constant en dienen deze telkens 

berekend zoals onder het hoofdstuk “ceiling jet”. 

De differentiaalvergelijk wordt dan ook opgelost met een 

bijkomende term : 

1 

− 

T Td , t + Δt 

= T Td 

, t 

Δ t 

ττ + ( T Tg 

, t + Δt 

− T Td 

, t ) ⋅ ( 1 1− 

e ) + ( T Tg 

, t + t − T Tg 

, ) ⋅τ 

⋅ ( e 

Waarbij t = RTI /Ug 1/2 en veranderlijk in de tijd 

Ook Tg start met de waarde To en wordt per seconde berekend 


Response time activatie na 246 seconden 

bij 2844 kW 

a 0,047 kW/s² 

To 20 °C = 293 K 

Tact 68 °C = 341 K 

H 6 m 

r 5 m 

RTI 80 m^(1/2).s^(1/2) 

XLS - berekening 

1 

− 

ττ 

1 

+ − 1 ) 

τ 

r/H 0,833 - 

tf* 1,75 s 

A 0,0278 

Tg Td 

start Q t2* DT* U* 293 Ug t 293,0 tijd (s) 

1 0 0,1 0,0 0,0 293 0,0 400,0 293,0 1 

2 0 0,1 0,0 0,0 293 0,0 400,0 293,0 2 

3 0 0,2 0,0 0,0 293 0,0 400,0 293,0 3 

4 1 0,3 0,0 0,0 293 0,0 400,0 293,0 4 

5 1 0,3 0,0 0,0 293 0,0 400,0 293,0 5 

6 2 0,4 0,0 0,0 293 0,0 400,0 293,0 6 

7 


8 

2 

3 

0,4 

0,5 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

0,0 

293 

293 

0,0 

0,0 

400,0 

400,0 

293,0 

293,0 

7 

8 

9 4 06 00 00 293 00 400 0 293 0 9 

7


FAST (Tsq) 

8

BLUSSING DOOR SPRINKLERS 

Is de bluswatercapaciteit echt nodig 

kvivFSE sp2spr1 



Module 2 (e) 

Installatie volgens de ‘norm’ 

• NBN S21-028, CEA 4001, EN 12845, NFPA 13, FMglobal,... 

• Conservatieve benadering = “worst case scenario” 

• Potentieel gevaar brandklasse debiet (densiteit x 

werkzame oppervlakte Buffercapaciteit (i.f.v. 

gevraagde werkduur) 

• Maximale druk aan laatste sprinkler 

• Bepalen l van pompkarakteristiek k k i i k(i (i.f.v. f leiding l idi lay-out) l ) 

• Electrisch- en/of Diesel-vermogen 

• Installatie, rekening houdend met structuur / obstakels 


1

Mogelijke optimalisatie 

1) Is het vereiste waterdebiet een vast gegeven ? 


NFPA 13 : 6,1 x 372 = 2x (8,1 x 139) !! 

2) Gebruik van het type sprinkler i.f.v. de parameters : 

opstelling / sproeicurve / snelheid / grootte(K-factor) 

Standard spray (pendent – upright) 


Flush spray (recessed) 

Sidewall 

Concealed Ceiling 

Extended Coverage 

EExtra t Large L Orifice O ifi 

Early Suppression Fast Response (stapeling) 

Large Drop 

2



Quick Response Sprinkler (L & OH) 

NFPA 13 

Verminderde werkzame 

oppervlakte bij gebruik van 

Quick Response Sprinklers* ! 

H > 6 m : - 0 % 

H < 3 m : - 40 % 

3 m [ H [ 6 m : (5 (5.H–55) H 55) % 

* Toepasbaar in kantoorgebouwen en (grote) winkelruimtes 

3) Wat is de werkelijke blussingskracht 

Uit debiet en druk ( Q = K . P 1/2 ) en het toegepaste 

sprinkler-type volgt : 

• Druppelgrootte (diameter dm of oppervlakte Ad) 

Ad y Q / dm y Q.P1/3 / Ø 2/3 

[ toepassing = watermist (120 bar) : 1 L / 6 m³ lokaal ] 

• PPenetratie i = f ( (snelheid lh id en grootte) ) 

• Hoeveelheid \ 

• Spreiding / Densiteit (L / min.m²) of mw (mm/s) 

3

NFPA handbook 



Een minimale densiteit is 

vereist i.f.v. de brandlast, 

anders is blussing onmogelijk : 

Bepaling van de blussingscurve (reëel) - 1993 

Q t − 

= Q 

( t act ) t act 

⋅ e 

⎛ 

⎜ 

( t − t 

⎜ 

⎝ 3⋅( 

m w ) 

act 

− −1 

, 85 

tact : tijdstip waarop de sprinkler wordt geactiveerd (s) 

mw : waterdensiteit van de sprinkler (mm/s) 

) 

⎞ 

⎟ 

⎠ 

4

TEST : Blussing bij 0,07 mm/s (4,2 L/min.m²) noemer = 410 


Medium / Qact = 2500 kW 

Vermogen (kkW) 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 

BLUSTIJD = f (densiteit) 

0 

80 

160 

240 

320 

400 

480 

560 

640 

720 

800 

880 

960 

1040 

1120 

1200 

1280 

1360 

1440 

1520 

1600 

1680 

1760 


tijd (s) 

densiteit = 2 L/min.m² densiteit = 3 L/min.m² densiteit = 4 L/min.m² densiteit = 5 L/min.m² 


5

U-fast / Qact = 7500 kW 

Vermogen (kkW) 


10000 

9000 

8000 

7000 

6000 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 

0 

90 

BLUSTIJD = f (densiteit) 

180 

270 

360 

450 

540 

630 

720 

810 

900 

990 

1080 

1170 

1260 

1350 

1440 

1530 

1620 

1710 

1800 

tijd (s) 



4) Finale berekening 

• Vastleggen van het vuurhaard-type en Tsq – curve 

• Keuze van type sprinklers (RTI) 

• Keuze van druk/debiet parameters (K-factor) 

• Activatietijd bepalen (ceiling jet !) en nakijken hoeveel sprinklers 

afgaan : blussing / controle 

• Blussingstijd berekenen 

• Benodigde watervoorraad (m (m³) ) : 

blustijd x aantal sprinklers x sprinklerdebiet 

• Let wel : Dit is een praktische FSE – benadering, géén norm !! 


6

kvivFSE sp2rad1 


STRALING & VLAMMEN 

Als de brand dan toch uitbreidt 

KVIV– K VIV SPECIALISATIE - CURSUS 2012 


Module 2 (f) 

Straling vanuit een open vlam 

• Gelijkmatig verdeeld over een halve bol 

• Omgekeerd evenredig tot de afstand ² (R) 

• Lineair afhankelijk van het warmtevermogen (Q) 

• Afhankelijk van de diameter van de vuurhaard (D) 

• Rekening houden met het stralingsaandeel (cr) 

χr 

⋅Q 

q = 

4π ⋅ R² 

[ cr = 0,21 – 0,0034.D y 20 % in open lucht ] 

(kW/m²) 

1

40 kW/m² : 

Zware 

structuren 

20 kW/ kW/m² ² : 

Lichte 

structuren 

15 kW/m² : 

VVeilige ili afstand f t d 

1,5 kW/m² : 

Zonnebrand 


Stralingsintensiteit 

(kW/m²) 

20 

19 

18 

17 

16 

15 

14 

13 

12 

11 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

STRALING VAN EEN OPEN VLAM 

2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 6 8 11 15 

afstand van de vlam (m) 

46.000 kW 

37.000 kW 

29.000 kW 

22.000 kW 

16.000 kW 

11.000 kW 

7.000 kW 

4.000 kW 

2.000 kW 

1.000 kW 

Straling vanuit een ruimte in flashover 

De straling gebeurt vanaf het raamoppervlak met een 

intensiteit van : 

qbron = Ø.e.s.( Tf 4 –To 4 ) ( ± 100 kW/m²) 

•Ø.e= configuratiefactor x emissiefactor = 0,5 

(vanuit een gesloten ruimte) 

• s= constante van Stefan Bolzman = 5 67 10 -11 (kW/m²K 4 • s= constante van Stefan Bolzman = 5,67.10 (kW/m K ) 

•Tf = vlamtemperatuur (1.400 K) 

•To = omgevingstemperatuur (300 K) 


2

Belang van 3 afstanden : 

• R : afstand tot de aangestraalde oppervlakte 

• h : de hoogte van het raam 

• b : de breedte van het raam 

q = qbron x F (kW/m²) 

met F : viewfactor of overzichtsfactor = f (R/b , h/b) 

Ofwel : een veilige afstand wanneer F < 0,15 



Ofwel : een veilige afstand wanneer F < 0,15 

Brandbeveiligingsconcept Min.bi.za (Nl) 

3

Hoogte van de 

ramen (m) 

15 

14 

13 

12 

11 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 


VEILIGE AFSTAND (15 kW/m²) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Breedte van de ramen (m) 

R = 30 m 

R = 20 m 

R = 15 m 

R = 12 m 

R = 10 m 

R = 8 m 

R = 6 m 

R = 5 m 

R = 4 m 

R = 3 m 

Vlamhoogte = eigenlijke stralingsbron 

1) Ongehinderd in een hoge ruimte : 

Specifieke warmtevermogen : qs (kW/m²) 

Bepalen v/d diameter D = (4/π.(Q/qs)) 1/2 

Vlamhoogte : 


L = A.Q 2/5 – 1,02.D (m) = f (e ¨¨ qs) 

120% 

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

Met A afhankelijk van atmosferische condities en 

typische verbrandingswaarden. Normaal : A = 0,235 

spec. vermogen 

vlamhoogte 

0% 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

4


2) Uitslaande vlammen in een gevelopening : 

Afstand van de vloer 

tot de bovenkant van de opening : h (m) 

Breedte van de opening : w (m) 

Breedte & diepte van de ruimte : b & d (m) 

At en ventilatiefactor AoSHo (zie Ceiling Jet) 

De afbrandsnelheid : R (in Flashover of Fuel Bed Controlled) 

1/2 

Rfo = 0,02 [At . AoSHo . (b/d)] 1/2 

R fbc = 1,5 Q / Hc (met Hc = kJ/kg) 

Hoogte van de vlam boven de opening : 


Zf = 12,8 (R/w) 2/3 -h 

(m) 

(kg/s) 

CIBSE Guide E 

Afbrandkromme i.f.v. 

Brandlast en 

ventilatiefactor : 

“30( 1 /4)” betekent : 

- 30 kg hout per m² 

- 25% ventilatie in één muur 

Z f 

5

kvivFSE sp2tep1 


DE THERMISCHE PLUIM 

Waar vuur is, is er rook 



Module 2 (g) 

1

De ‘Thermal Plume’ 

= Rookpluim recht boven de vuurhaard 


Basisparameters : 

• Totaal warmtevermogen : Q (= As x qs) (kW) 

• Convectief warmtevermogen : Qc ≈ 0,7.Q (kW) 

• Rookvrije hoogte z (of Y in NBN) (m) 

• Gemiddelde rooktemperatuur Tc = Qc / m.cp + To (K) 

- m = rookmassadebiet in kg/s (te berekenen) 

-cp = specifieke warmte ~ 1 kJ / kg.K 

• Rookvolume V = m.Tc / r.To 


(m³/s) 

2

Berekening van het rookmassadebiet m 

1) Voor een relatief kleine vuurhaard (L < z) 


[met L = vlamhoogte uit vorig hoofdstuk] 

m = 0,071. k 2/3 . Qc 1/3 . (z-zo) 5/3 + 0,0018.Qc 

Vereenvoudiging 1 : Er is geen invloed v/d zijwand : k = 1 

Vereenvoudiging 2 : de virtuële vuurhaard-bron zo bevindt op vloerniveau : 

Zo = 0,083.Q 2/5 – 1,02D ≈ 0 

o , Q , 

Vereenvoudiging 3 : Bij kleinere Qc of grotere z is de 2de term te schrappen 

Tc : Gemiddelde 

temperatuur (°C) 

200 

150 

100 

50 


m = 0,071. Qc 1/3 . z 5/3 

Temperatuur & Rookmassadebiet 

m : Rookmassadebiet 

(kg/s) 

0 

0 

2 3 4 5 7 10 14 20 30 

Rookvrije Hoogte z (m) 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

(kg/s) 

Tc bij Q = 11.000 kW 

Tc bij Q = 8.000 8 000 kW 

Tc bij Q = 5.500 kW 




Tc bij Q = 500 kW 

m bij Q = 11.000 kW 

m bij Q = 8.000 kW 

m bij Q = 5.500 kW 

m bij Q = 3.500 kW 

m bij Q = 2.000 kW 

m bij Q = 1.000 kW 

m bij Q = 500 kW 

3


2) Verdere benaderingen 

- Indien qs gekend is (kW/m²) en / of de perimeter P (m) van 

de vuurhaard gelden volgende andere formule ook : 

[ met As = Q/qs en Qc = 0,7.Q] 

z < 2,5.P en 200 < Qc/As < 750 

m = 0,188. P. z 3/2 (kg/s) NBN !! 

-Indien I di de d vuurhaard h deen langwerpige l i rechthoek h h kvormt 

(ratio Ls/bs > 3) en z < 5. Ls 

m = 0,21. Qc 1/3 . Ls 5/3 . z (kg/s) 

3) Voor een relatief grote vuurhaard 

(in een “open ruimte” en L > z) 

of Q > 1 /3 z5/2 (MW !!) 

m 16Q3/5 m = 1,6 Q (k / ) 

3/5 . z (kg/s) 

Deze situatie doet zich voor bij hoge 

brandlast en /of bij lage ruimtes. De 

rechtstreekse interactie tussen vlammen 

en de rooklaag geeft een expansief 

tempe-ratuursverloop tempe ratuursverloop en dit leidt snel 

tot flashover, als 1,3 Q 2/5 > h 

Op dat ogenblik zijn de formules niet 

meer geldig. 


Flashoverzone 

Q (MW) 180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

h of z (m) 

4

Rookventilatie door een horizontale opening 


Om tot een stabiele rooklaag te komen (op een hoogte z) dient 

een evenwicht ingesteld tussen mf (rookmassaproduktie) en 

mv ( rookafvoer). Het maken van openingen in het dak is 

hierbij het meest efficiënte middel. 

Basisparameters : 

• Dikte van het rookreservoir : d = h – z (m) 

• Rooktemperatuur Tc DT met de buitenlucht (K) 

• Oppervlakte Av van de opening (m²) 

• Aerodynamische coëfficiënt Cv (± 0,6 0,7) 

• r = 1,22 , kg/m³ g/ en e g = 9,81 9,8 m/s² /s 


mv = AvCv . r.( 2 . g . d . To . DT / Tc² ) 1/2 

(kg/s) 

5

Belang van temperatuur en toevoerlucht 

SFPE handbook 


Rookdichtheid en CO - productie 

Alhoewel zeer ‘gevoelige’ gegevens i.v.m. levensbedreigende 

situaties, komen ze in de FSE – benadering weinig voor : 

• Massa Rookpotentieel D m (m²/g) [hout = 0,05 ; PS = 1,00] 

• Optische Dichtheid (OD) : 

OD = 10 [D m . m f / V t] (dB/m) 

met mf = brandstofverbruik (g) en Vt = rookvolume (m³) na t sec. 

- Gipskartonplaten : 50 dB/m - Kerstboom : 100 dB/m 

- Matras / Stoel : 200 – 400 dB/m - Kunststof : 300 – 1000 dB/m 

• Zichtbaarheid (m) = 10/OD (bij reflectie van licht) 

= 25/OD (bij emissie van licht) 


6

Koolstofmonoxide is gradueel schadelijk : 


- Gemiddeld 25 ppm over 8 uur (ARAB) : OK 

- 150 ppm gedurende ½ u : geen effect 

- 300 ppm pp gedurende g ½ u : hoofdpijn p j 

- 1500 ppm gedurende 15 min. : bewusteloos 

- 3000 ppm gedurende 5 min. : dodelijk 

CO = 0,858 x 10 6 . [Y co . m f / V t] (ppm) 

MtY Met YCO = CO CO-productie d ti bij verbranding b di in i kg/kg k /k 

( hout = 0,004 / PP = 0,024 / PVC en PS = 0.06 ) 

7

kvivFSE sp2spp1 


DE UITSTROMENDE PLUIM 

Een verhaal van nog meer rook 



Module 2 (h) 

1

1 


Rookontwikkeling in een compartiment 

2 

1) Rookuitstroom voor Flashover (brandstof gecontroleerd) 

v = e2Dp/r (Bernoulli) 

m = A.Ce2rDp 

A = wv.hv (m²) 

C = ‘flow coëfficiënt’ 

En Dp = f (r, dy) + of – 

Neutrale lijn hn 

v = [ 2 g .y. (ra-r)/r ] 1/2 (m/s) 


8 

m = ⋅ C ⋅ w v g ⋅ ρ ( ρ a − ρ ) ⋅ ( h v − h 

3 

n 

4 

SFPE handbook 

3 / 2 

) 

(kg/s) 

3 

2

Gebruikelijke formules : 

CIBSE : m = 0,09 (Qc.wv²) 1/3 .hv 

en Qc = convectieve warmtestroom (kW) 

EN 12101-5 

BR 368 : 

m = 

⎡ 

⎢w 

⎢⎣ 

2 / 3 

(kg/s) 

C e ⋅ P ⋅ w ⋅ h 

C d = 0,65 h 

2 / 3 

3 / 2 

1 ⎛ C ⋅ P ⎞ ⎤ 

e + ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ 

C d ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦ 

C d = 1 

h 

Met P = omtrek (perimeter) van de vuurhaard (m) 

Ce = ‘entrainment’ – coëfficiënt (0,188 – 0,21 – 0,337) 

Cd = ‘discharge’ – coëff. : (0,65 – 1) i.f.v. ‘downstand’ 

2) Rookuitstroom na Flashover (ventilatie – gecontroleerd) 


m = 0,5 AweHw 

Bepalende factoren in de uitstroomzone 


• Is er een balkon aanwezig, en hoe breed is dit 

•‘Kleeft’ Kleeft de rook aan de bovenliggende gevel 

• Is de uitstroombreedte onder controle 

• Wat is de gewenste extra stijghoogte van de rook : 

Bepaald door een maximale temperatuur 

Bepaald door een minimale vrije hoogte 

• Is er uitstroom van vlammen 

• Wat is de resulterende temperatuur 

3

Balkon ‘dubbele’ pluim 

11. RRotatiefactor i f : 0,16 0 16 vs 0,077 0 077 

2. Bijmengfactor : 2 vs 1 

3. + 3 m : wel / niet effectief 


Breedte : 

Raam zelf (w) 

Onder balkon (L) 

(channeling) 

( g) 


BRE / FRS (BR 368) 

Geen balkon ‘enkele’ pluim 

4

Berekeningsmethoden 

NFPA 92B : (met balkon) W = w + b W = L 



Qc (kW) 

m = 0,36 (Qc.W 2 ) 1/3 .(zb + 0,25 H) (kg/s) 

En : Tc = To + Qc/m (K) en V = m.Tc / r.To (m³/s) 

NFPA 92B : (na flashover) 

Met vuurhaard, gecontroleerd 

door het ventilatie-oppervlak : 

QQc = 456 AAw.eHw H (kW) 

Definitie v/d ‘effectieve hoogte’ : 

a = 2,4 Aw 2/5 . Hw 1/5 - 2,1 Hw 

m = 0,071 Qc 1/3 .(zw + a) 5/3 + 0,0018 Qc 

(kg/s) 

Let op : bij m ↑↑ en DT ↓↓ : Aanzienlijke AvCv vereist !! 

5

BR 368 (BRE-FRS : H.P. Morgan Phd) y CR EN 12101-5 : 

1. Vastleggen van Vuurhaardgrootte (met of zonder sprinklers) 

2. Bepalen van het ventilatie – regime (FBC of VC) 

3. Berekenen van de rookuitstroom uit het compartiment 

4. Met of zonder ‘downstand’ – balkon – channelings 

5. Berekeningsalgoritme (‘ANNEX E’) 

66. Rekening houden met wandverliezen stratificatie 

7. Mogelijke ‘hybride’ oplossingen i.f.v. neutrale lijn 

8. Oplossing met AvCv (m²) of afvoerdebiet V (m³/s) 


+ 

Landschapsbureel zonder ‘downstand’ en enkele pluim / Grote winkel met ‘downstand’, balkon en dubbele pluim 


+ 

6


Tc ? 

Neutrale lijn 

Op zoek naar de ideale oplossing 

7

DE ROOKVULTIJD 

De tijd voor evacuatie en interventie 

kvivFSE sp2fit1 




Module 2 (i) 

Sterke rookontwikkeling leidt tot : 

• Verminderde zichtbaarheid 

• Toxische gassen 

• Hitte 

1

Welke parameters spelen een rol : 

• Thermisch pluim of uitstromende pluim (complex !!) 

• Oppervlakte van het rookreservoir (Ap) 

• Hoogte van de ruimte (h) 

• Vermogen van de vuurhaard (constant of groeiend) 

• Rook- en Warmteafvoer aanwezig (in het dak verondersteld) 

• Blussing van de vuurhaard na een zekere tijd of niet 

• Wordt een flashover – toestand bereikt 

• (initiele ruimtetemperatuur , stel 20 °C) 

• Er wordt géén rekening gehouden met warmteverlies aan 

de wanden (veilige benadering) 


Berekeningsmethode (thermische pluim) : 

( met vast convectief warmtevermogen Qc) 

1. Stel de initiële stijghoogte z = h 

2. Bereken de rookmassa voor een bepaalde tijdseenheid Dt (per 

seconde seconde, per 5 s, s per 10 s,...) s ) met de formule 

ms= 0,071 Qc 1/3 . z5/3 (kg/s) 

3. Bepaal temperatuur = Qc/ms en rs = ro . (Tc/To) (kg/m³) 

4. Het rookvolumedebiet V = ms / rs 

(m³/s) 

5. De indaalsnelheid Ut = V / Ap (m/s) 

66. Bepaal de nieuwe stijghoogte z t+1 =zt = z t – Ut Ut.Dt Dt (m) 

7. Bereken een volgende tijdseenheid (vanaf 2.) 

8. Maak een evaluatie van de verschillende grootheden (op grafiek) 


2

Zonder Rook-en warmteafvoer : 

Rookvulling met vaste vuurhaard 


rookmassa ms (kg/s) 

indaling v/d rook (cm/s) 

temperatuur rook (°C x 10) 

rookvrije hoogte z (m) 

Conv. Brandlast Qc = 2.000 kW 

hoogte ruimte h = 10 m 

vloeroppervlak Ap = 1000 m² 

50,0 

40,0 

30,0 

20,0 

10,0 

0,0 

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 

-10,0 

Met Rook-en Warmteafvoer : 

seconden 

• Op natuurlijke wijze (met rookluiken en gegarandeerde 

luchttoevoer) leidt dit automatisch tot een evenwichts-situatie, 

onder invloed van de thermische kracht 

mv = f ( AvCv, AiCi, (h-z), Tc, ) zie hoofdstuk ‘thermische pluim’ 

• Op mechnische wijze is dit veel delicater, want een vast 

afvoerdebiet (in m³/s) voert minder massa af naarmate de 

temperatuur stijgt 

mv = f (V, Tc) 

• Berekenings-stap 3. en 4. hebben nu de term (ms –mv) 

• Ook het moment van activatie speelt een grote rol 

( = i.f.v. de rookdetectie of manueel) 


3


en natuurlijke rookafvoer 


rookproductie ms (kg/s) 




rookafvoer mv (kg/s) 



vloeroppervlak Ap = 500 m² m 

Afvoeropp. AvCv = 5 m² 

Toevoeropp. AiCi = 5 m² 


en mechanische rookafvoer 








hhoogte t ruimte i t h = 5 m 


Afvoerdebiet V = 30 m³/s 

25,0 

20,0 

15,0 

10,0 

5,0 

0,0 

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 

-5,0 

-10,0 

45,0 

40,0 

35,0 

30,0 

25,0 

20,0 

15,0 

10,0 

5,0 

-10,0 

seconden 

0,0 

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 

-5,0 

seconden 

4

Met groeiende vuurhaard en blussing na bepaalde tijd : 

Zoals waargenomen op de vorige grafiek is het mogelijk dat de 

afgevoerde rookmassa mv groter is dan de productie ms 

( Opgelet, bij mechanische ontroking en z = h is mv O ms !! ) 

Als groeicurve grijpen we terug naar een t² - verloop 

Bij een groeiende vuurhaard is het temperatuursverloop geringer 

zodat de vlamhoogte L dient gecontroleerd t.o.v. de rookvrije 

hoogte z (gebruikslimiet van de formules) 

Bij blussing kan geopteerd worden voor een conservatieve 

benadering (Qc = constant) of met een bepaald blusdebiet 

exponentiële afname v/h warmtevermogen ( = hoofdstuk sprinklers ) 


Rookvulling met t ² - vuurhaard 


rookmassa ms (kg/s) ( g ) 




aangroeifactor a = 0,012 


vloeroppervlak pp Ap p = 1000 m² 

convectief vermogen in kW 

18,00 

16,00 

14,00 

12,00 

10,00 

8,00 

6,00 

4,00 

2,00 

2.500 

2.000 

1.500 

1.000 

0,00 

500 

0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 

-2,00 

-4,00 

0 

seconden 

5



en mechanische rookafvoer 









Afvoerdebiet V = 5m³/s 5 m /s 



en natuurlijke rookafvoer 










Afvoeropp. AvCv = 2 m² 

Toevoeropp. AiCi = 10 m² 


9,00 

8,00 

7,00 

6,00 

5,00 

4,00 

3,00 

2,00 

1.200 

1.000 

800 

600 

400 

100 1,00 

0,00 

200 

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 

-1,00 

0 

seconden 

10,00 

8,00 

600 6,00 

4,00 

2,00 

-2,00 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

0,00 

500 

0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 

0 

seconden 

6

kvivFSE sp2evac1 

DE GEBOUW – EVACUATIE 

Horizontale en vertikale beweging 

bij een gedwongen ontruiming 



Module 2 (j) 

Ontvluchtingstijd (RSET)

Oplossing ? In Belgische wetgeving : 

Bezettingsgraad = 1 persoon / 3 m² (publiek togankelijk) 

= 1 persoon / 10 m² (niet publiek toegankelijk) 

Breedte van de deuren : 1 cm per persoon (min 80 cm en veelvoud van 60) 

Breedte van de trap : 1,25 cm pp ⇓ of 2 cm pp ⇑ 

In het buitenland : 

5 mm per persoon (min 80 cm) 

Trap (+ 5% ) zowel ⇓ als ⇑ 

Bezetting : zie tabel (UK) 

FSE : rekenen met tijd !! 


Is gedrag bij evacuatie te voorspellen ? 

Het verwerven van de kennis van het menselijk gedrag bij 

brand is een zeer intensief studiedomein, met verscheidene 

topresearchers en regelmatig symposia. Het Amerikaanse NFPA 

heeft z’n code 101 ‘life safety y code’ een ® (Registered ( g Trademark) ) 

meegegeven, als enige naast de ‘fire alarm’ en ‘electrical’ code. 

Deze code (en handbook) levert de nodige uitleg bij de te 

voorziene evacuatiemogelijkheden en dit in algemene termen 

alsook in typische gebouwen (‘occupancies’) 

De gegevens die hierin zijn opgenomen zijn een bruikbare 

synthese van het onderzoekswerk dat in de jaren ’70 en ’80 

uitgevoerd i dwerd dgedaan. d Inzichten I i h worden d nog regelmatig l i 

bijgesteld, op basis van berekeningen en simulaties. 

De volgende rekenmodellen steunen op onderzoek van Pauls, 

Nelson en MacLennan (SFPE handbook of FPE) 


2

Enkele basisbegrippen : 

De stroom ‘flow’ = snelheid x dichtheid x breedte 

= m/s . Pers / m² . m = personen / seconde 

De dichtheid ‘density’ : D : initieel volgens vastgelegd ratio (tabel) 

De snelheid ‘speed’ : S = 0,85 . k (met D < 0,54 pers/m²) 

= k (1 – 0,266.D) (met D > 0,54 pers/m²) 

Met k = 1,4 voor gangen en deuren, 

1,23 voor ‘luie’ trappen (h/a = 0,5) 

1,00 voor ‘steile’ trappen (h/a = 0,75) 

De effectieve breedte ‘effective width’ : We = gecorrigeerde breedte, 

rekening houdend met handrails, obstakels, nadering van de muur (2 x 15 cm) 



k = 1,4 : Horizontale weg 

k = 1,23 : Trap 17 / 34 

k = 1,16 : Trap 17 / 31,5 

k = 1,08 : Trap 18 / 28,5 

k = 11,00 00 : Trap 19 / 25 25,5 5 

k = 1,4 : 1,19 m/s 

k = 1,23 : 1,05 m/s 

k = 1,16 : 0,99 m/s 

k = 1,08 , : 0,92 , m/s 

k = 1,00 : 0,85 m/s 

SFPE 

Trap met k-factor 1,08 

Experiment met een 

willekeurige evacuatie 

3

De ‘specific flow’ Fs = S . D = k (1 - 0,266.D)D 

De maximale evacuatie (per 

eenheidsbreedte) wordt bereikt bij 

D = 11,88 88 personen / mm² 

‘effective flow’ Fc = Fs . We 

k = 1,4 : Horizontale weg Fs max = 1,31 pers/sm 

k = 1,23 : Trap 17 / 34 Fs max = 1,15 pers/sm 

k = 1,16 : Trap 17 / 31,5 Fs max = 1,09 pers/sm 



De passagetijd Tp = P / Fc 

Met P = de totale populatie van 

het gebouw 

Dit dient logischerwijze opgesplitst in deelpopulaties met bijhorende flow 



FAST 

4


5

An Updated International Survey of 

Computer Models for Fire and Smoke 

STEPHEN M. OLENICK* AND DOUGLAS J. CARPENTER 

Combustion Science & Engineering, Inc. 

Columbia, MD 21045, USA 

ABSTRACT: In 1992, a comprehensive survey of computer models for fire and 

smoke was conducted at the request of the Forum for International Cooperation on 

Fire Research. This study serves as an update to that work. One hundred sixty eight 

computer modeling programs for fire and smoke from several countries were 

identified and categorized. The developers were contacted and given an opportunity 

to supply information about their particular model via an electronic survey. The 

results of the survey will be made available on the internet at www.firemodelsurvey. 

com. A discussion of the categories of computer fire models is included, followed by 

lists of the identified models. 

KEY WORDS: modeling, computer fire models, model survey, model database, 

computational fluid dynamics, CFD. 

INTRODUCTION 

IN 1992, FRIEDMAN [1] conducted a survey of computer fire models for the 

Forum for International Cooperation on Fire Research. This survey was 

widely published and offered a source of information on many computer fire 

models. The original survey work identified 74 computer-modeling 

programs, and outlined their use in the fire engineering profession. 

In the ten years since the original survey paper was published, computer 

modeling of fire and smoke transport has become a more accepted practice. 

Increased use of computer modeling is due to a greater database of fire 

knowledge that has become available in the last ten years from research and 

*Author to whom corresponding should be addressed. E-mail: solenick@csefire.com 

Journal of FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING, Vol. 13—May 2003 87 

1042-3915/03/02 0087–24 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/104239103033367 

ß 2003 Society of Fire Protection Engineers

88 S. M. OLENICK AND D. J. CARPENTER 

experimentation as well as from more-sophisticated computer resources 

allowing for improved and faster computation methods to be employed. 

This increased use of modeling is also attributable to the move towards 

performance-based building codes in the United States and other countries. 

Instead of using a prescriptive building code, engineers now can design for 

egress of building occupants in unique geometries under varying fire 

conditions. 

Due to the growth in the use of computer modeling, most of the computer 

programs listed in the original survey have been updated in the last 10 years. 

Furthermore, numerous new models have been developed. Hence, an 

updated list of available computer models for fire and smoke transport is 

warranted. The goals of this project were to: 

(1) Update the survey information of the models identified in the original 

survey. 

(2) Identify and survey new models developed since the original survey. 

(3) Include supplementary information about the models including contact 

information, availability, price, and additional references in response to 

a letter to the editor suggestion [135]. 

(4) Provide a logical categorization of computer modeling programs, and 

include a description of each category. 

(5) Post the full, categorized results of the model survey on the Internet, 

allowing access of these results to the entire engineering community. 

(6) Create a mechanism to update the survey periodically. This will allow 

ample time for model development, while not allowing the database to 

become outdated. 

The categories chosen for computer fire models include zone models, field 

models, detector response, fire endurance, egress, and miscellaneous. The 

miscellaneous category includes models that have characteristics covering 

several of the categories, making it difficult to be placed in a single category, 

or models that have unique capabilities which do not allow them to be 

categorized anywhere else. These categories are similar to those in the 

original survey [1] and to those outlined by Hunt [2], who provides a general 

description of each category. 

THE SURVEY 

While the original survey was intended to provide basic information 

about each model, this new survey is intended to provide a comprehensive 

index of models, and reference information for the model descriptions and 

background. The survey is not intended to be the sole informational source 

for a particular model, but instead will provide enough information so that

An Updated International Survey ofComputer Models 89 

readers can decide if a model may meet their needs. Then, readers can review 

the references listed or contact the developer to obtain more detailed 

information. 

The original survey of computer fire models [1] provided the following 

information: 

(a) Model name 

(b) Short description 

(c) Modelers, Organizations 

(d) References 

(e) Availability 

(f) Hardware 

(g) Language 

(h) Size 

(i) Detailed description 

This information provided a logical presentation of capabilities and 

critical data on each computer model. The current survey is modeled after 

Friedman [1], with some changes and additions: 

(1) The version number of the model is to be given. The reader will then 

know to what version the survey refers and whether the reader is 

working with an older or more recent version of the model. 

(2) A classification is provided as part of the model survey (i.e., zone model, 

field model, etc.) 

(3) Three types of references are requested: user’s guide, technical 

references, and validation references. 

(4) The cost of purchasing the model is to be given. While many models 

may be available, it is essential to know if the model is affordable, as 

well as if special prices are available for students or researchers. 

(5) Contact information for the developer, or person in charge of 

maintaining the model is requested. The contact information provides 

the user a point of contact for further information. 

A survey form encompassing all of the original and new information 

elements was then developed. Appendix A is a sample completed survey 

form for the NIST zone model FAST/CFAST. Complete results from 

the survey are available only on the internet at www.firemodelsurvey.com. 

In a number of cases, no updated survey information was obtained. 

This introduced gaps of information on some models in the database. 

When possible, these gaps were filled by using the original survey data. 

It is the intent of the authors to maintain and update this database. Hence, 

as other model surveys are submitted, they will be included in future 

updates.


THE MODELS 

Before the model survey was created, the fire engineering community was 

polled to identify computer models for fire and smoke. The models 

identified by the fire engineering community were combined with those 

listed in the original survey, as well as others found in assorted fire modeling 

literature to develop a complete list of known fire models. These models 

were then categorized, and a survey form was sent to developers or known 

points of contact to collect more information about each model. 

Availability of a model was found to be an important area of interest in 

the engineering community. It was decided that all models should be 

included in the database even if the model is unavailable, outdated, or not 

maintained. The reason for inclusion of these models was that while newer, 

more sophisticated and better maintained models may be available, previous 

research work may involve older, now outdated and no longer maintained, 

and possibly unavailablemodels. Thedatabasewith theinclusion of these 

models will provide researchers with a source that describes the characteristics 

of these older, no longer maintained, or unavailable models. 

A description of the overall model identification and categorization is 

provided below: 

Zone Models 

A zone model is a computer program that predicts the effects of the 

development of a fire inside a relatively enclosed volume. In most 

applications, the volume is not totally enclosed as doors, windows, and 

vents are usually included in the calculation. Zone models for compartments 

have been developed for both single-room and multiroom configurations. 

The ‘zonal’ approach theory to modeling plume and layer development in 

confined spaces was applied to fires by several groups in the 1970s, e.g. 

Zukoski [3]. The ‘zonal’ approach divides the area of interest into a number 

of uniform zones, that when combined, describe the area of interest as a 

whole [4]. Within each of these zones, the pertinent conservation laws (i.e. 

mass and energy), in the form of mathematical equations describing the 

conditions of interest, are solved [4]. The ‘zonal’ approach for an enclosure 

fire usually divides an enclosure into two distinct zones: the hot upper 

smoke layer and the lower layer of cooler air. The plume acts as an enthalpy 

pump between the lower layer and the hot upper smoke layer. In reality, 

depending on the room size and heat release rate of the fire, there is no 

perfectly defined ‘interface’ between the hot upper smoke layer and lower 

layer and the hot upper smoke layer is not an uniform temperature (as 

higher temperatures are observed closer to the fire and plume); however, the


use of two uniform zones allows for reasonable approximations of the 

development of a fire in an enclosure under many conditions. 

Since the original survey [1], only a few new zone models (approximately 

20) have been identified. While many of the models identified in the original 

survey have been improved, the basic zonal approach has been studied 

thoroughly and, therefore, the opportunities to develop a novel zone model 

arelimited. 

Table 1 lists the zone models which have been identified for the model 

survey. 

Field Models 

Field models, like zone models, are used to model fire development inside 

a compartment or a series of compartments. While a zone model divides the 

compartment into two zones, and solves the conservation equations (i.e., 

mass, energy, and momentum) within these zones, a field model divides the 

compartment into a large number (on the order of thousands) of control 

volumes and solves the conservation equations inside each control volume. 

This allows for a more detailed solution compared to zone models. Because 

there are more than two uniform zones, a field model can be appropriate for 

more complex geometries where two zones do not accurately describe the 

fire phenomenon. They can also be used for fires outside of compartments, 

such as large outdoor fuel tank fires [136]. 

While field models provide very detailed solutions, they require detailed 

input information, and usually require more computing resources in order 

to model the fire. This can create a costly time delay in obtaining a solution 

whilezonemodels usually providea solution morequickly. 

In this study, nearly twice as many field models were identified than that 

in the original survey. This trend of increasingly growing numbers of field 

models stems from improved computer hardware which allows for faster, 

more complex computational techniques. 

Table 2 lists the field models which have been identified for the model 

survey. 

Detector Response Models 

Detector response models predict primarily the time to activation of an 

initiating device. While most of these models predict the response of a 

thermal detector, sprinkler, or fusible link to a fire-induced flow, a few 

calculate the response of a smoke detector. 

Typically, these models utilize the zonal approach to calculate smoke and 

heat transport, but utilize submodels to determine the response of the


Table 1. Identified zone models for compartments. 

Model Country 

Identifying 

Reference Description 

ARGOS DENMARK [8] Multicompartment zone model 

ASET US [9] One room zone model with no 

ventilation 

ASET-B US [10] ASET in Basic instead of Fortran 

BRANZFIRE NEW ZEALAND [11] Multiroom zone model, including 

flame spread, multiple fires, and 

mechanical ventilation 

BRI-2 JAPAN/US [12] Two-layer zone model for 

multistory, multicompartment 

smoke transport 

CALTECH [117] Preflashover zone model 

CCFM.VENTS US [13] Multi-room zone model 

with ventilation 

CFAST/FAST US [14] Zone model with a suite of 

correlation programs-CFAST is 

the solver, FAST is a front-end 

CFIRE-X GERMANY [15] Zone model for compartment fires, 

particularly liquid hydrocarbon 

pool fires 

CiFi FRANCE [16] Multiroom zone model 

COMPBRN-III US [17] Compartment zone model 

COMF2 US [18] Single room postflashover 

compartment model 

DACFIR-3 US [44] Zone model for an aircraft cabin 

DSLAYV SWEDEN [19] Single compartment zone model 

FASTlite US [20] Feature limited version of CFAST 

FFM US [116] Preflashover zone model 

FIGARO-II GERMANY [21] Zone model for determining 

untenability 

FIRAC US [22] Uses FIRIN, includes complex 

vent systems 

FireMD US [121] One room, two zone model 

FIREWIND AUSTRALIA [23] Multiroom zone model with 

several smaller submodels 

(update of FIRECALC) 

FIRIN US [24] Multiroom zone model with ducts, 

fans, and filters 

FIRM US [118] Two zone, single compartment model 

FIRST US [25] One room zone model, includes 

ventilation 

FMD US [26] Zone fire model for atria 

HarvardMarkVI US [27] Earlier version of FIRST 

HEMFAST US [28] Furniture fire in a room 

HYSLAV SWEDEN [113] Preflashover zone model 

(continued )


Model Country 

Table 1. Continued. 

Identifying 


IMFE POLAND [29] Single compartment zone model 

with vents 

MAGIC FRANCE [30] Two-zone model for nuclear power 

stations 

MRFC GERMANY [31] Multiroom zone model for 

calculation of smoke movement 

and temperature load on structures 

NAT FRANCE [32] Single compartment zone model with 

attention to response of structures 

NBS US [112] Preflashover zone model 

NRCC1 CANADA [33] Single compartment zone model 

NRCC2 CANADA [34] Large office space zone model 

OSU US [35] Single compartment zone model 

Ozone BELGIUM [36] Zone model with attention to 

response of structures 

POGAR RUSSIA [37] Single compartment zone model 

RADISM UK [38] Zone model incorporating an 

immersed ceiling jet within the 

buoyant layer, sprinklers, and vents 

RFIRES US [115] Preflashover zone model 

R-VENT NORWAY [39] Single room smoke ventilation 

zone model 

SFIRE-4 SWEDEN [40] Postflashover zone model 

SICOM FRANCE [41] Single compartment zone model 

SMKFLW JAPAN [42] One-layer zone model for smoke 

transport in buildings 

SmokePro AUSTRALIA [122] Single compartment smoke layer 

interface position zone model 

SP UK [114] Preflashover zone model 

WPI-2 US [43] Single compartment zone model 

WPIFIRE US [124] Mufti-room zone model 

ZMFE POLAND [29] Single compartment zone model 

These models have been identified by the authors, but no references or survey information was 

provided: CISNV (Russia), Firepro (UK), FLAMES (France). 

thermal elements in the detectors to the heat and flow field. The inputs to 

the submodels are usually the characteristics of the thermal element (such 

as RTI and activation temperature), location of the thermal element, and 

the heat release rate of the fire. For some of the more sophisticated detection 

zone models, details such as compartment geometry and building material 

characteristics are required. 

The model then uses simplified modeling of the fire and calculates the 

heat transfer at the thermal element to determine the time to activation.


Model Country 

Table 2. Identified field models. 

Identifying 


ALOFT-FT US [45] Smoke movement from large 

outdoor fires 

CFX UK [46] General purpose CFD software, 

applicable to fire and explosions 

FDS US [47] Low Mach number CFD code 

specific to fire-related flows 

FIRE AUSTRALIA [48] CFD model with water sprays 

and coupled to solid/liquid phase 

fuel to predict burning rate and 

extinguishment 

FLUENT US [133] General purpose CFD software 

JASMINE UK [49] Field model for predicting 

consequences of fire to evaluate 

design issues (based on 

PHOENICS) 

KAMELEON FireEx NORWAY [50] CFD model for fire linked to a 

finite element code for thermal 

response of structures 

KOBRA-3D GERMANY [51] CFD for smoke spread and heat 

transfer in complex geometries 

MEFE PORTUGAL [52] CFD model for one or two 

compartments, includes 

time-response of thermocouples 

PHOENICS UK [53] Multipurpose CFD code 

RMFIRE CANADA [54] Two-dimensional field model for 

the transient calculation of smoke 

movement in room fires 

SMARTFIRE UK [55] Fire field model 

SOFIE UK/SWEDEN [56] Fire field model 

SOLVENT US [125] CFD model for smoke and heat 

transport in a tunnel 

SPLASH UK [57] Field model describing interaction 

of sprinkler sprays with fire gases 

STAR-CD UK [58] General purpose CFD software 

UNDSAFE US/JAPAN [59] Fire field model for use in open 

spaces, or in enclosures 


provided: FLOTRAN (US), STREAM (Japan), VESTA (France). 

Care should be taken in selecting the proper model as some are valid only 

for flat ceilings, while others are valid only for unconfined ceilings. These 

factors limit the applicability of each model. 

Since the original survey [1], a few new detection models have been developed. 

There also have not been many improvements in the detection models


Model Country 

identified in the original survey. This trend is due to the fact that detector 

response, particularly thermal detector response, is a well-known phenomenon 

that is already modeled fairly accurately by the current models. A 

growing number of field models also allow for smoke and thermal detection. 

Table 3 lists the detector response models identified for the survey. 

Egress Models 

Table 3. Identified detector response models. 

Identifying 


DETACT-QS US [78] Calculates thermal detector activation 

time under unconfined ceilings, 

arbitrary fire 

DETACT-T2 US [79] Calculates thermal detector activation 

time under unconfined ceilings, t 2 fire 

G-JET NORWAY [80] Smoke detection model 

JET US [81] Zone model with particular attention to 

fusible links of sprinklers and vents 

LAVENT US [82] Zone model with particular attention to 

fusible links of sprinklers and vents 

PALDET FINLAND [83] Response of sprinklers and fire detectors 

under an unconfined ceiling 

SPRINK US [123] Sprinkler response for high-rack storage fires 

TDISX US [84] Warehouse sprinkler response 


provided: HAD (US). 

Egress models predict the time for occupants of a structure to evacuate. A 

number of egress models are linked to zone models, which will determine the 

time to the onset of untenable conditions in a building, but there are also 

stand-alone versions available. Egress models are often used in performance-based 

design analyses for alternative design code compliance and for 

determining where congestion areas will develop during egress. 

Many of these models are quite sophisticated, offering unique computational 

methods, as well as interesting features including the psychological 

effects of fire on occupants due to the effect of smoke toxicity and decreasing 

visibility [5,6]. Many of these models also have useful graphical features so the 

movement of people in a building can be visualized during a simulation. 

Approximately four times as many egress models have been identified in 

this work than were identified in the original survey [1]. This trend is again 

due to the fact that improved computer resources allow egress models to be 

created for more complex geometries involving the movement of larger


groups of people. This trend is also due to the move that has been made or is 

being made towards performance-based design of buildings and therefore 

the evacuation of occupants through unique geometries and varying fire 

scenarios must be considered. 

Table 4 lists the egress models which have been identified for the model 

survey. 

Model Country 

Table 4. Identified egress models. 

Identifying 


Allsafe NORWAY [101] Egress model including human factors 

ASERI GERMANY [102] Movement of people in complex 

geometries, including behavioral 

response to smoke and fire spread 

buildingEXODUS UK [6] Evacuation model that includes 

interactions for thousands of people 

in large geometries 

EESCAPE AUSTRALIA [103] Evacuation of multistory buildings 

via staircases 

EGRESS UK [104] Cellular automata evacuation of 

multiple people through complex 

geometries. Includes visualization 

EgressPro AUSTRALIA [122] Egress program that includes coping 

times and sprinkler–detector 

activations 

ELVAC US [105] Egress program for use of elevators 

for evacuation 

EVACNET 4 US [106] Determines optimal building 

evacuation plan 

EVACS JAPAN [107] Evacuation model for determining 

optimal design 

EXIT89 US [108] Evacuation from a high-rise building 

EXITT US [5] Node and arc type egress model 

with people behavior included 

PATHFINDER US [129] Egress model 

SEVE-P FRANCE [109] Egress model with graphical output 

that includes obstructions 

Simulex UK [110] Coordinate-based egress model 

which models evacuation in 

multistory buildings 

STEPS UK [130] Egress model 

WAYOUT AUSTRALIA [111] Egress part of the FireWind suite 

of programs 


provided: BFIRE II, BGRAF, ERM, ESCAPE, Magnetic Simulation, PEDROUTE, Takahashi’s Fluid Model, 

VEGAS (UK).


Fire Endurance Models 

Fire endurance models simulate the response of building structural 

elements to fire exposure. Some of these models are stand-alone, while 

others are incorporated into zone or field models. The concept of fire 

endurance models is the same as that of the field models. The structural 

object is divided into smaller volumes, and the equations for thermal heat 

transfer and mechanical behavior for solids are solved to determine when 

the structure will fail. Typically, the material properties are required input 

for the model as well as the boundary conditions (i.e., the fire exposure) for 

the structural element. 

These models can be very useful for determining when a beam or column 

will deform or fail, and for solving for a temperature versus time curve at a 

certain depth inside the structural element. Since many structural elements 

are constructed differently, have different features, and have different 

practical applications, care must be used in selecting a model that properly 

characterizes the structural element. 

The number of fire endurance models identified in this survey has 

increased by a factor of two as compared to the earlier survey [1]. This trend 

is again due to improved computer resources, allowing more complete and 

complex finite element calculations to be conducted on structural elements. 

Also, the trend towards performance-based design has led to more model 

creation for structural elements. 

Table 5 lists the fire endurance models identified for the model 

survey. 

Miscellaneous Models 

The models which are not appropriate for one of the previous categories 

or have features which fulfill more than one of the other categories have 

been termed miscellaneous. Many of these models are computer programs 

which contain many submodels and therefore can be used for several of the 

categories listed above. These are suites of programs which have several 

separate models which each address an individual aspect of fire and are 

contained in one computer package. Others are programs which model 

unique aspects of fires such as radiation or risk. 

The number of these types of fire modeling programs has also increased 

substantially since the earlier survey was compiled. The models in this 

category can address such a wide variety of fire engineering subjects that 

their growth possibility is endless. 

Table 6 lists the models termed miscellaneous identified for the model 

survey.


Model Country 

Table 5. Identified fire endurance models. 

Identifying 


CEFICOSS BELGIUM [132] Fire resistance model 

CIRCON CANADA [85] Fire resistance of loaded, reinforced 

concrete columns with a circular 

cross section 

CMPST FRANCE [127] Mechanical resistance of sections at 

elevated temperatures 

COFIL CANADA [86] Fire resistance of loaded circular hollow 

steel columns filled with plain concrete 

COMPSL CANADA [87] Temperatures of multilayer slabs during 

exposure to fire 

FIRES-T3 US [88] Finite element heat transfer for 1-, 2-, 

or 3-D conduction 

HSLAB SWEDEN [89] Transient temperature development in a 

heated slab composed of one or 

several materials 

INSTAI CANADA [90] Fire resistance of insulated, circular 

hollow steel columns 

INSTCO CANADA [90] Fire resistance of insulated, circular 

concrete-filled tubular steel columns 

LENAS FRANCE [127] Mechanical behavior of steel structures 

exposed to fire 

RCCON CANADA [91] Fire resistance of loaded reinforced 

concrete columns with rectangular 

cross sections 

RECTST CANADA [92] Fire resistance of insulated rectangular 

steel columns 

SAFIR BELGIUM [93] Transient and mechanical analysis of 

structures exposed to fire 

SAWTEF US [94] Structural analysis of metal-plate 

connected wood trusses exposed to fire 

SISMEF FRANCE [127] Mechanical behavior of steel and 

concrete composite structures 

exposed to fire 

SQCON CANADA [95] Fire resistance of square reinforced 

concrete columns 

STA UK [126] Transient conduction in heated solid 

objects 

TASEF SWEDEN [96] Finite element method for temperature 

analysis of structures exposed to fire 

TCSLBM CANADA [97] Two dimensional temperature 

distributions for fire-exposed concrete 

slab/beam assemblies 

THELMA UK [98] Finite-element code for thermal analysis 

of building components in fire 

(continued)


Model Country 

Model Country 


Identifying 


TR8 NEW ZEALAND [99] Fire resistance of concrete slabs and 

floor systems 

WSHAPS CANADA [100] Fire resistance of loaded, protected 

W-shape steel columns 


provided: ABAQUS (US), ALGOR (US), ANSYS (US), COSMOS/M (US), FASBUS, LUSAS (UK), 

NASTRAN (US), TAS (US), VULCAN (UK), WALL2D (Canada). 

Table 6. Identified miscellaneous models. 

Identifying 


ALARM US [60] Economic optimization of code 

compliance measures 

ASCOS US [61] Network air flow analysis 

ASKFRS UK [134] Suite of models including a 

zone model 

ASMET US [62] Package of engineering tools for 

analysis of atria smoke management 

BREAK1 US [119] Window response to fire 

(glass breakage) 

Brilliant NORWAY [128] CFD model combined with analytical 

models 

CONTAMW US [63] Airflow model 

CRISP UK [64] Fire zone model with egress and 

risk assessment 

FIERAsystem CANADA [65] Risk assessment model that includes 

a suite of correlations 

FireCad US [129] Front end for CFAST 

FiRECAM CANADA [66] Risk damage assessment 

FIRESYS NEW ZEALAND [131] Suite of programs for designers 

working under performance-based 

fire codes 

FireWalk US [67] Uses CFAST zone model with 

improved visualization 

FIREX GERMANY [68] Simple zone models mixed with 

empirical correlations 

FIVE US [120] Fire induced vulnerability evaluation 

FPETOOL US [69] Suite of models and correlations 

including the zone model fire simulator 

FRAME BELGIUM [70] Fire risk assessment model 

FriskMD US [121] Risk-based version of zone 

model FireMD 

(continued)


Model Country 


Identifying 


HAZARD I US [5] Zone model with extensive egress 

capabilities 

MFIRE US [71] Mine ventilation systems 

RadPro AUSTRALIA [122] Fire radiation intensity model 

RISK-COST CANADA [72] Computes the expected risk to 

life and the fire cost expectation 

RiskPro AUSTRALIA [122] Risk ranking model 

SMACS US [73] Smoke movement through 

air-conditioning systems 

SMOKEVIEW US [74] Visualization program for FDS 

SPREAD US [75] Predicts burning rate and spread 

rate of a fire ignited on a wall 

using data from bench-scale tests 

UFSG US [76] Predicts upward flame spread and 

growth on non-charring and 

charring materials 

WALLEX CANADA [77] Calculation of heat transfer from 

window fire plume to wall 

above window 


provided: COFRA (US), DOW Indices (US), FREM (Australia), Risiko (Switzerland). 

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK 

The number of models identified by the fire engineering community has 

increased substantially over the last ten years. Of particular interest is the 

increase in available field and miscellaneous models. The field models 

are increasing in numbers and complexity due to increases in available 

computer resources, research, and practical knowledge. The miscellaneous 

models are increasing in numbers due to a greater, more accessible database 

of fire data. Therefore, computer fire modeling is moving in a trend to 

provide predictions that are more accurate, as well as predictions about fire 

phenomenon that previously no computer fire model addressed. 

The database of survey results will be made available on the internet for 

free, at www.firemodelsurvey.com and will likely supplement another model 

survey being conducted currently by the International Council for Research 

and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) which is surveying 

models on building performance, including fire performance [7]. It is the 

hope of the authors that the developers will continue to utilize the survey as 

a means of providing information about their model to the fire engineering 

community.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The authors wish to thank all the developers and points of contact of the 

models for taking the time to describe their model in the survey. The authors 

also wish to thank the members of the fire engineering community who took 

the time to bring computer models to the attention of the authors. Finally, 

theauthors wish to thank Vijay D’Souza for his help locating many of the 

references for the models. 

APPENDIX A 

Sample Survey Form 

Model Name: FAST/CFAST 

Version: 3.1.6 

Classification: ZoneModel 

Very Short Description: A zone model to predict the environment in a 

compartmented structure. 

Modeler(s), Walter W. Jones, National Institute of 

Organization(s): Standards and Technology. 

User’s Guide: A User’s Guide for FAST: Engineering Tools for 

Estimating FireGrowth and SmokeTransport, 

NIST Special Publication 921, 2000 Edition. 

Technical References: A Technical Reference for CFAST: An Engineering 

Tools for Estimating Fire Growth and 

SmokeTransport, NIST Technical Note1431. 

Validation References: (all of the following papers cite experimental 

comparisons with themodel): 

A Comparison of CFAST Predictions to 

USCG Real-Scale Fire Tests, Journal of 

Fire Protection Engineering (in press). 

A Technical Reference for CFAST: An Engineering 

Tools for Estimating Fire Growth and 

SmokeTransport, NIST Technical Note1431 

(2000). 

Quantifying fire model evaluation using functional 

analysis, FireSafety Journal 33 (1999), 

167–184.


Development of an Algorithm to Predict 

Vertical Heat Transfer Through Ceiling/Floor 

Conduction, FireTechnology 34, 139 (1998). 

Fire Hazard Assessment Methodology, 

NISTIR 5836 (1996). 

Progress Report on Fire Modeling and 

Availability: 

Validation, NISTIR 5835 (1996). 

Comparison of CFAST Predictions to Real 

Scale Fire Tests, Institut de Securite, Fire Safety 

Conference on Performance Based Concepts 

(1996). 

Calculating FlameSpread on Horizontal and 

Vertical Surfaces, NISTIR 5392 (1994). 

Modeling Smoke Movement Through 

Compartmented Structures, Journal of Fire 

Sciences, 11, 172 (1993). 

Improvement in Predicting Smoke Movement 

in Compartmented Structures, Fire Safety 

Journal, 21, 269 (1993). 

Verification of a Model of Fire and Smoke 

Transport, FireSafety Journal 21, 89 (1993). 

Availablefrom http://fast.nist.gov/ or the 

National FireProtection Association (http:// 

www.nfpa.org). 

Price: There is no cost from NIST for the download 

or having theCD; NFPA distributes the 

CD together with printed documentation for 

$25. 

Necessary Hardware: Intel architecture, running DOS 6.0 or later. 

Runs under Windows 3.1, 95, 98 and 2000, but 

not NT. Versions areavailablefor theSilicon 

Graphics systems. 

Computer Language: FORTRAN/C 

Size: Approximately 10 MB of disk space, and 4MB 

of RAM required. 

Contact Information: Walter W. Jones, 301-975-6887, wwj@nist.gov


Detailed Description: 

CFAST is the Consolidated Model of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport. It 

is the kernel of the zone fire models that are supported by BFRL. FAST and 

FASTLite are data editors and reporting tools which are ‘‘front’’ and 

‘‘back’’ ends for the model CFAST. For additional details on the naming 

convention, please visit the web site http://fast.nist.gov/versionhistory.htm. 

There are a several data editors which have been developed elsewhere: 

FireCAD from the RJA Group and FireWalk through the University of 

California, Berkeley. 

CFAST is a zone model and is used to calculate the evolving distribution of 

smoke, fire gases and heat throughout a constructed facility during a fire. In 

CFAST, each compartment is divided into two layers, and many zones for 

detailed interactions. The modeling equations used in CFAST take the 

mathematical form of an initial value problem for a system of ordinary 

differential equations (ODE). These equations are derived using the 

conservation of mass, the conservation of energy, the ideal gas law and 

relations for density and internal energy. These equations predict as 

functions of time quantities such as pressure, layer heights and temperatures 

given the accumulation of mass and enthalpy in the two layers. The CFAST 

model then solves of a set of ODEs to compute the environment in each 

compartment and a collection of algorithms to compute the mass and 

enthalpy source terms. The model incorporates the evolution of the species, 

such as carbon monoxide, which areimportant to thesafety of individuals 

subjected to a fire environment. 

Version 3.1.6 models up to 30 compartments, a fan and duct system for each 

compartment, 31 individual fires, up to one flame-spread object, multiple 

plumes and fires, multiple sprinklers and detectors, and the ten species 

considered most important in toxicity of fires including the effective fatal 

dose. The geometry includes variable area–height relations, ignition of 

multiple objects such as furniture, thermophysical and pyrolysis databases, 

multilayered walls, ignition through barriers and vents, wind, the stack 

effect, building leakage, and flow through holes in floor–ceiling connections. 

The distribution includes graphic and text report generators, a plotting 

package and a system for comparing many runs done for parameters 

REFERENCES 

1. Friedman, R., ‘‘An International Survey of Computer Models for Fire and Smoke,’’ Journal 

ofFire Protection Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1992, pp. 81–92.


2. Hunt, S., ‘‘Computer Fire Models,’’ NFPA Update Section News, Vol. 1, No. 2, Oct./Nov., 

2000, pp. 7–9. 

3. Zukoski, E. E., ‘‘Development of a Stratified Ceiling Layer in the Early Stages of a Closed- 

Room Fire,’’ Fire and Materials, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1978. 

4. Cox, G. ‘‘Compartment Fire Modelling,’’ Combustion Fundamentals ofFire, Academic 

Press, 1995, p. 334. 

5. Bukowski, R. W., Peacock, R. D., Jones, W. W. and Forney, C. L., Technical Reference 

Guide for the HAZARD I Fire Hazard Assessment Method, Volume 2, NIST Handbook 

146/II, National Instituteof Standards and Technology, June1991. 

6. BuildingEXODUS V3.0 User Guide and Technical Manual, Doc Rev 3.0. University of 

Greenwich, May 2000. 

7. CIB Program on Performance-Based Building http://www.cibprogram.dbce.csiro.au 

8. Danish Instituteof FireTechnology, ARGOS User’s Guide, Datovej 48, DK 3460 

Birkeroed, 1991. 

9. Cooper, L. Y. and Stroup, D. W., Calculating Available Safe Egress Time (ASET) – A 

Computer Program and User’s Guide, NBSIR 82-2578, National Bureau of Standards 

(now National Instituteof Standards and Technology), 1982. 

10. Walton, W. D., ASET-B: A Room Fire Program for Personal Computers, NBSIR 85-3144-1, 

National Bureau of Standards (now National Institute of Standards and Technology), 1985. 

11. A User’s Guide to BRANZFIRE Software, Building Research Association of New Zealand, 

2000. 

12. Nakamura, K. and Tanaka, T., ‘‘Predicting Capability of a Multiroom Fire Model,’’ 

In: Proceedings ofthe Second International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, 1988. 

13. Cooper, L. Y. and Forney, G. P., The Consolidated Compartment Fire Model (CCFM) 

Computer Code Application CCFM.VENTS, Part I, NISTIR 4342, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, 1990. 

14. Peacock, R. D., Reneke, P. A., Jones, W. W., Bukowski, R. W., Forney, G. P., A User’s 

Guide for FAST: Engineering Tools for Estimating Fire Growth and Smoke Transport, 

NIST Special Publication 921, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2000. 

15. Offenhauser, F., Barth, U. and Schnatz, G., ‘‘CFIRE-X: Simulation of Extinguishing 

Methods Concerning Room Fires,’’ VFDB, n. 1, 1991. 

16. Bodart, X. and Curtat, M., CIFI Computer Code: Air and Smoke Movement During a Fire 

in a Building With Ventilation Ducts Networks Equipment, CIB Publication 104, CIB W14 

Workshop on Fire Modeling, Berlin, West Germany, March 1987. 

17. Ho, V., Siu, N. and Apostolakis, G., ‘‘COMPBRN III–A FireHazard Model for Risk 

Analysis,’’ Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 13, No. 2–3, 1988. 

18. Babrauskas, V., COMPF2 – A Program for Calculating Post-Flashover Fire Temperatures 

Final Report, NBS Tech Note 991, National Bureau of Standards (now National Institute 

of Standards and Technology), 1979. 

19. A User’s Guide for DSLAYV: Simulating Fires in Natural and Forced Ventilated 

Enclosures, FOA Report C20637, National Defense Research Institute, Sweden, 1986. 

20. Portier, R. W., Peacock, R. D. and Reneke, P. A., FASTLite: Engineering Tools for 

Estimating FireGrowth and SmokeTransport, NIST Special Publication 899, National 

Instituteof Standards and Technology, 1999. 

21. Heins, T., ‘‘Simulation Model for the Safety Assessment of Spreading Smoke From Fires in 

Extended Enclosures,’’ Dissertation, Technical University Braunschweig, 1991. 

22. Nicholas, B. D. and Gregory, W. S., FIRAC User’s Manual: A Computer Code to Simulate 

Fire Accidents in Nuclear Facilities, NUREG/CR-4561, LA-10678-M, Los Alamos 

National Lab, 1986. 

23. Shestopal, V. O., ‘‘Computer Program for an Uninhibited Smoke Plume and Associated 

Computer Software,’’ Fire Technology, Vol. 29, No. 3, 1993, pp. 246–267.


24. Chan, M. K., Ballinger, M. Y., Owczarski, P. C. and Sutter, S. L., User’s Manual for 

FIRIN 1: A Computer Code to Characterize Accidental Fire and Radioactive Source 

Terms in Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities, Battelle Pacific Northwest Lab Report PNL-4532, 

NUREG/CR-3037 (Dec. 1982), Also Claybrook, S. W. FIRIN Preprocessor User’s 

Manual, Numerical Applications, Inc., Richland, WA 99352, November 1991. 

25. Mitler, H. E. and Rockett, J. A., User’s Guide to FIRST, A Comprehensive Single-Room 

Fire Model, NBSIR 87-3595, National Bureau of Standards (now National Institute of 

Standards and Technology), 1987. 

26. Milke, J. A. and Mowrer, F. W., ‘‘A Design Algorithm for Smoke Management Systems in 

Atria and Covered Malls,’’ Report FP 93-04, Report to the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), University of Maryland, 

May 1993. 

27. Rockett, J., Using the Harvard/National Institute of Standards and Technology Mark VI 

FireSimulation, NISTIR 4464, National Instituteof Standards and Technology, 

Gaithersburg, MD, November 1990. 

28. Dietenberger, M. A., ‘‘Validated Furniture Fire Model with FAST (HEMFAST),’’ NIST- 

GCR-89-564, National Instituteof Standards and Technology, June1989. 

29. Personal communication with Rector Jerzy Wolanin, Warsaw, Jerzy.Wolanin@sgsp.edu.pl. 

30. Gautier, B., Pages, O. and Thibert, E., ‘‘MAGIC: Global Modelling of Fire Into 

Compartments,’’ In: Proceedings of the 8th Interflam Conference, Vol. 2, Edinburgh, 

Scotland, 1999. 

31. Schneider, U., Lebeda, C. and Max, U., ‘‘An Evaluation and Applicability Study for Use of 

Different Fire Codes in NPP Fire Design,’’ In: Proceedings ofthe Post Smirt Conference n. 6, 

Lyon, France, August 1997. 

32. Curtat, M. R., ‘‘NAT (NATural FireConditions),’’ CIB Publication 104, CIB W14 

Workshop on Fire Modeling, Berlin, 1987. 

33. Takeda, H. and Yung, D., ‘‘Simplified Fire Growth Models for Risk-Cost Assessment in 

Apartment Buildings,’’ Journal ofFire Protection Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1992. 

34. Personal communication with David Yung, Fire Risk Management Program, National 

Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON. 

35. Sauer, J. M. and Smith, E. E., ‘‘Mathematical Model of a Ventilation-Controlled 

Compartment Fire,’’ Journal ofFire Sciences, Vol. 1, 1983, pp. 235–254. 

36. Competitive Steel Buildings through Natural Fire Safety Concept, Part 2: Natural Fire 

Models, Final Report, Profil ARBED, March 1999. 

37. Astapenko, V., Koshmarov, Y., Molchadski, I. and Shevlyakov, A., Termogazodinami of 

Fires in the Rooms, Moscow, Stroiizdat, 1988 (from Higher Engineering Fire-Technical 

School, Moscow). 

38. Persson, B. and Ingason, H., Modelling of Interaction Between Sprinklers and Fire Vents: 

Present Knowledge, Swedish National Testing Institute, SP REPORT 1996:32, Sweden, 

1996. 

39. Meland, O. and Skaret, E., ‘‘User’s Manuel for RVENT,’’ Report STF25 A91034, The 

Foundation for Scientific and Industrial Research at the Norwegian Institute of 

Technology (SINTEF), Trondheim, Norway, 1987. 

40. Magnusson, S. E., and Thelandersson, S., Temperature-Time Curves of Complete Process 

of Fire Development, Theoretical Study of Wood Fuel Fires in Enclosed Spaces, APS CI 

65, Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund University, Sweden, 1970. 

41. Introductory Report of a Compartment Fire Simulation using a Two-Zone Model–June, 

1999, Centre Technique Industriel de la Construction Metallqiue (CTICM), France. 

42. Matsushita, T., Fukai, H. and Terai, T., ‘‘Calculation of Smoke Movement in Building 

in Caseof Fire,’’ In: Proceedings ofthe 1st International Symposium on Fire Safety 

Science, 1985.


43. Satterfield, D. B. and Barnett, J. R., User’s Guide to WPI-HARVARD Version 2 (WPI-2) – 

A Compartment Fire Model, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Center for Fire Safety 

Studies, Worcester, MA, August 1990. 

44. MacArthur, C. D., Dayton Aircraft Fire Cabin Model, Version 3, U.S. Dept. of 

Transportation, Atlantic City, NJ, DOT/FAA. CT-81/69-I, June1982. 

45. McGrattan, K. B., Baum, H. R., Walton, W. D. and Trelles, J. J., Smoke Plume 

Trajectory from In Situ Burning of Crude Oil in Alaska – Field Experiments and 

Modeling of Complex Terrain, NISTIR 5958, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, 1997. 

46. CFX-5 User Manual, AEA Technology, Harwell, UK, 2000. 

47. McGrattan K. B. and Forney, G. P., Fire Dynamics Simulator – User’s Manual, NISTIR 

6469, National Instituteof Standards and Technology, 2000. 

48. Novozhilov, V., Harvie, D. J. E., Green, A. R. and Kent, J. H., ‘‘A Computational Fluid 

Dynamic Model of Fire Burning Rate and Extinction by Water Sprinkler,’’ Combustion 

Science and Technology, Vol. 123, No. 1–6, 1997, pp. 227–245. 

49. Cox, G. and Kumar, S., ‘‘Field Modelling of Fire in Forced Ventilated Enclosures,’’ 

Combustion Science and Technology, Vol. 52, No. 7, 1986. 

50. Kameleon FireEx 99 User Manual, SINTEF Energy Research report TRF5119, 

Trondheim, Norway. 

51. Schneider, V., WinKobra 4.6 – User’s Guide, I.S.T. Intefrierte Sischerheits-Technik GmbH, 

Germany. 

52. Viegas, J. C. G., Seguranca Contra Incendios Em Edificios. Modelacao Matematica De 

Incendios E Validacao Experimental (Fire Safety in Buildings, Mathematical Modelling of 

Fire and Experimental Validation), Lisbon, Portugal: Instituto Superior Tecnico, Ph.D. 

Thesis, 1999. 

53. PHOENICS User’s Guide, http://www.cham.co.uk/phoenics/d_polis/d_docs/tr326/ 

tr326top.htm. 

54. Hadjisophocleous, G. V. and Yakan, A., Computer Modeling of Compartment Fires, 

Internal Report No. 613, Institute for Research in Construction, National Research 

Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON, 1991. 

55. SMARTFIRE V2.0 User Guide and Technical Manual, Doc Rev 1.0, July 1998. 

56. Rubini, P. A., ‘‘SOFIE – Simulation of Fires in Enclosures,’’ In: Proceedings ofthe 5th 

International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, 1997. 

57. Gardiner, A. J., The Mathematical Modeling of the Interaction Between Sprinkler Sprays 

and the Thermally Buoyant Layers of Gases from Fires, South Bank Polytechnic, PhD 

Thesis, 1998 (now Under Development by FRS) 

58. Star-CD V3.100A User Guide, Computational Dynamics Ltd., http://www.cd.co.uk. 

59. Yang, K. T. and Chang, L. C., UNDSAFE-1: A Computer Code for Buoyant Flow in an 

Enclosure, NBS GCR 77-84, National Bureau of Standards (now National Institute of 


60. Weber, S. F. and Lippiatt, B. C., ALARM 1.0, Decision Support Software for Cost- 

Effective Compliance with Fire Safety Codes, NISTIR 5787, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, 1996 (available from NFPA). 

61. Klote, J. H. and Milke, J. A., Design ofSmoke Management Systems. American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 1992. 

62. Klote, J. H., Method of Predicting Smoke Movement in Atria with Application 

to Smoke Management, NISTIR 5516, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

1994. 

63. Dols, W. S., Walton, G. N. and Denton, K. R., CONTAMW 1.0 User Manual, Multizone 

Airflow and Contaminant Transport Analysis Software, NISTIR 6476, National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, 2000.


64. Fraser-Mitchell, J. N. and Pigott, B. B., ‘‘Modelling Human Behaviour in the Fire Risk 

Assessment Model CRISP 2,’’ In: Proceedings ofthe International Symposium CIB W14: 

Fire Safety Engineering, Part 3, p. 1, 1993. 

65. Benichou, N., Kashef, A., Torvi, D.A., Hadjisophocleous, G.V. and Reid, I., 

‘‘FIERAsystem: A Fire Risk Assessment Model for Light Industrial Building Fire Safety 

Evaluation,’’ Research Report 120, Institute for Research in Construction, National 

Research Council of Canada, November, 2002. 

66. Dutcher, C. R., Yung, D. T., and Hadjisophocleous, G. V., FiRECAM System Model 

Documentation, Internal Report 732, Institute for Research in Construction, National 

Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON, 1996. 

67. Bukowski, R. and Sequin, C., ‘‘The FireWalk System: Fire Modeling in Interactive Virtual 

Environments,’’ In: Proceedings ofthe 2nd International Conference on Fire Research and 

Engineering, Gaithersburg, MD, 1997. 

68. Schneider, V., FIREX 2.2 – User’s Guide. I.S.T. Intefrierte Sischerheits-Technik GmbH, 

Germany. 

69. Nelson, H. E., FPETOOL User’s Guide, NISTIR 4439, National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, 1990. 

70. De Smet, E., FRAM: Handbook for the User of this Fire Risk Assessment Method for 

Engineering, 1999 Edition. 

71. Chang, X., Laage, L. W. and Greuer, R. E., User’s Manual for MFIRE: A Computer 

Simulation Program for Mine Ventilation and Fire Modeling, U.S. Bureau of Mines, I.C. 

9254, 1990. 

72. Beck, V. R. and Yung, D., ‘‘A Cost-Effective Risk Assessment Model for Evaluation Fire 

Safety and Protection in Canadian Apartment Buildings,’’ In: Proceedings ofthe 

International Fire Protection Engineering Institute-V, Ottawa, Canada, 1989. 

73. Klote, J. H., ‘‘A Computer Model of Smoke Movement by Air Conditioning Systems 

(SMACS),’’ Fire Technology, Vol. 24, 1988, pp. 299–311. 

74. Forney, G. P. and McGrattan, K. B., User’s Guide for Smokeview Version 1.0 – A Tool for 

Visualizing FireDynamics Simulation Data, NISTIR 6513, National Instituteof Standards 


75. Mitler, H. E., ‘‘Predicting the Spread Rates of Fires on Vertical Surfaces,’’ 23rd 

International Symposium on Combustion, TheCombustion Institute, 1990. 

76. Delichatsios, M. A., Chen, Y. and Motevalli, V., ‘‘Flame Spread on Charring 

Materials: Numerical Prediction of Experimental Results,’’ In: Proceedings ofthe Fall 

Technical Meeting ofthe Eastern Section ofthe Combustion Institute, TheCombustion 

Institute, 1991. 

77. Oleszkiewicz, I., ‘‘Heat Transfer from a Window Fire Plume to a Building Facade,’’ 

collected Papers in Heat Transfer – 1989, HTD – Vol. 123, American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers, pp. 163–170. 

78. Evans, D. D. and Stroup, D. W., ‘‘Methods to Calculate the Response Time of Heat and 

Smoke Detectors Installed Below Large Unobstructed Ceilings,’’ Fire Technology, Vol. 22, 

1986, pp. 54–65. 

79. Evans, D. D., Stroup, D. W., and Martin, P., Evaluating Thermal Fire Detection Systems 

(SI Units), NBS SP 713, National Bureau of Standards (now National Institute of 


80. Jensen, G., Lonvik, T. and Heskestad, A. W., ‘‘Application Specific Sensitivity: A Simple 

Engineering Model to Predict Response of Installed Smoke Detectors,’’ In: Proceedings of 

the 11th International Conference on Automatic Fire Detection ‘‘AUBE 1999,’’ University of 

Duisburg, Germany, 1999. 

81. Davis, W. D., The Zone Fire Model JET: A Model for the Prediction of Detector 

Activation and Gas Temperature in the Presence of a Smoke Layer, NISTIR 6324, 

National Instituteof Standards and Technology, 1999.


82. Davis, W. D. and Cooper, L.Y., Estimating the Environment and the Response of 

Sprinkler Links in Compartment Fires with Draft Curtains and Fusible Link-Actuated 

Ceiling Vents–Part II: User Guide for the Computer Code LAVENT, NBSIR 89-4122, 

National Bureau of Standards (now National Institute of Standards and Technology), 

1989. 

83. Bjorkman, J., Huttunen, O. and Kokkala, M., ‘‘Calculation Models for Fire Detectors,’’ 

Research Notes 1036, Technical Research Centre of Finland. 

84. Yu, H.-Z., A Sprinkler-Response-Prediction Computer Program for Warehouse 

Applications, FMRC Technical Report, J.I. OR2E1.RA, 1991. 

85. Lie, T. T. and Celikkol, B., ‘‘Method to Calculate the Fire Resistance of Circular 

Reinforced Concrete Columns,’’ ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 88, No. 1, 1991. 

86. Lie, T. T. and Chabot, M., ‘‘A Method to Predict the Fire Resistance of Circular 

Concrete-Filled Hollow Steel Columns,’’ Journal ofFire Protection Engineering, Vol. 2, 

No. 4, 1990. 

87. Lie, T. T., ‘‘Calculation of the Fire Resistance of Composite Concrete Floor and Roof 

Slabs,’’ Fire Technology, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1978. 

88. Bresler, B., Iding, R. and Nizamuddin, Z., FIRES-T3: A Computer Program for the Fire 

Response of Structure-Thermal (Three-Dimensional Version), UCB FRG 77-15, 

University of California, Berkeley, NIST GCR 95-682, National Institute of Standards 


89. A User’s Guide for HSLAB: HSLAB – A Program for One-Dimensional Heat Flow 

Problems, FOA report C20827, National Defence Research Institute, Sweden, 1990. 

90. Lie, T. T., ‘‘A Procedure to Calculate the Fire Resistance of Structural Members,’’ Fire 

and Materials, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1984. 

91. Lie, T. T. and Irwin, R. J., Evaluation of the Fire Resistance of Reinforced Concrete 

Columns with Rectangular Cross Sections, Internal Report No. 601, Institute for 

Research in Construction, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON, 1990. 

92. Lie, T. T., ‘‘Temperature Distributions in Fire-exposed Building Columns,’’ Journal of 

Heat Transfer, Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 99, No. 1, 1977. 

93. Nwosu, D., Kodur, V., Franssen, J. M. and Hum, J., User Manual for SAFIR: A 

Computer Program for Analysis of Structures at Elevated Temperature Conditions, 

Internal Report 782, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON, 1999. 

94. White, R. H., Cramer, S. M. and Shrestha, D. K., Fire Endurance Model for a Metal- 

Plate-Connected Wood Truss, Res. Pap. FPL-RP-522, USDA Forest Service, Forest 

Products Lab., 1993. 

95. Lie, T. T., Lin, T. D., Allen, D. E. and Abrams, M. S., Fire Resistance of Reinforced 

Concrete Columns, DBR Paper No. 1167, NRCC 23065, Natioanl Research Council of 

Canada, Ottawa, ON, 1984. 

96. Sterner, E. and Wickstrom, U., TASEF – Temperature Analysis of Structures Exposed to 

Fire – User’s Manual., Swedish National Testing and Research Institute (SP), SP Report 

1990:05, Boras, 1990. 

97. Lie, T. T., ‘‘Calculation of the Fire Resistance of Composite Concrete Floor and Roof 

Slabs,’’ Fire Technology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 26–46. 

98. Spearpoint, M., ‘‘Predicting the Temperatures of Steel Members in the Cardington Fire 

Tests Using the THELMA Finite Element Model,’’ Fire Technology, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2001. 

99. Wade, C. A. and Lovatt, A. J., User’s guide to BRANZ TR8, Software for Calculating 

Fire Resistance of Concrete Beams and Floor Systems, Building Research Association of 

New Zealand. 

100. Lie, T. T. and Almand, K. H., ‘‘A Method to Predict the Fire Resistance of Steel Building 

Columns,’’ Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Vol. 27, 

No. 4, 1990.


101. Heskestad, A. W., Jensen, G., Meland, O. and Torlen, E., ‘‘ALLSAFE: An Engineering 

Tool for Evacuation Safety Design,’’ In: Proceedings ofthe Fire Safety by Design 

Conference, Vol. 3, CIB W14, UK, 1995. 

102. Paulsen, T., Soma, H., Schneider, V., Wiklund, J. and Lovas, G., Evaluation of 

Simulation Models of Evacuation From Complex Spaces (ESECX), SINTEF Report 

STF75 A95020, 1995. 

103. Kendik, E., ‘‘Determination of the Evacuation Time Pertinent to the Protected Area 

Factor in the Event of Total Evacuation of High-Rise Office Buildings via Staircases,’’ 

Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 5, 1982, p. 223. 

104. Ketchell, N., Cole, S., Webber, D. M., Marriott, C. A., Stephens, P. J., Brearley, I. R., 

Fraser, J., Doheny, J. and Smart, J., ‘‘The EGRESS Code for Human Movement and 

Behaviour in Emergency Evacuations,’’ Engineering for Crowd Safety, Institution of Civil 

Engineers, London, 1993. 

105. Klote, J. H. and Alvord, D. M., Routine for Analysis of the People Movement Time for 

Elevator Evacuation, NISTIR 4730, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

1992. 

106. EVACNET4 User’s Guide, http://www.ise.ufl.edu/kisko/files/evacnet/EVAC4UG.HTM 

107. Takahashi, K., Tanaka, T. and Kose, S., ‘‘An Evacuation Model for the Use in Fire Safety 

Designing of Buildings,’’ In: Proceedings ofthe 2nd International Symposium on Fire Safety 

Science; International Association for Fire Safety Science, 1988. 

108. Fahy, R. F., ‘‘EXIT89 – An Evacuation Model for High-Rise Buildings – Model 

Description and Example Applications,’’ In: Proceedings ofthe Fourth International 

Symposium, International Association for Fire Safety Science, 1994, pp. 657–668. 

109. Personal communication with Michel Curtat, Centre Scientifique et Technique du 

Batiment, France, curtat@cstb.fr. 

110. Thompson, P. A. and Marchant, E. W., ‘‘A Computer Model for the Evacuation of Large 

Building Populations,’’ Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 24, 1995, pp. 131–148. 

111. Shestopal, V. O. and Grubits, S. J., ‘‘Evacuation Model for Merging Traffic Flows in 

Multi-room and Multi-storey Buildings,’’ In: Proceedings ofthe 4th International 

Symposium on Fire Safety Science, IAFSS, 1994, pp. 625–632. 

112. Quintiere, J. and McCaffrey, B., The Burning of Wood and Plastic Cribs in an Enclosure: 

VolumeI, NBSIR 80-2054, National Bureau of Standards (now National Instituteof 


113. Hagglund, B., A Room Fire Simulation Model, Department of Defense, FAO Report 

620501-D6, Stockholm, Sweden, 1983. 

114. Wickstrom, U. and Goransson, U., ‘‘Flame Spread Predictions in Room/Corner 

Test Based on the Cone Calorimeter,’’ In: Proceedings of the Interflam Conference, 1990. 

115. Pape, R., Waterman, T., and Eichler, T.V., ‘‘Development of a Fire in a Room from 

Ignition to Full Room Involvement – RFIRES,’’ NBS-GCR 81-301, National Bureau of 

Standards (now National Instituteof Standards and Technology), 1981. 

116. Dietenberger, M., Technical Reference and User’s Guide for FAST/FFM Version 3, 

NIST-GCR-91-589, National Instituteof Standards and Technology, 1991. 

117. Zukoski, E. and Kubota, T., ‘‘Two-Layer Modeling of Smoke Movement in Building 

Fires,’’ Fire and Materials, Vol. 4, 1980. 

118. Janssens, M. L., An Introduction to Mathematical Fire Modeling, 2nd Edn., Technomic 

Publishing Company, Inc., 2000. 

119. Joshi, A. A. and Pagni, P. J., Users’ Guide to BREAK1, The Berkeley Algorithm for 

Breaking Window Glass in a Compartment Fire, NIST-GCR-91-596, National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, 1991. 

120. Mowrer, F. W., Methods of Quantitative Fire Hazard Analysis, Electric Power Research 

Institute, EPRI TR-100443s, 1992.


121. Personal communication with Dr. Frederick Mowrer, University of Maryland, 

Department of Fire Protection Engineering, College Park, Maryland, 

fmowrer@eng. umd.edu. 

122. Personal communication with Peter Simenko, SimCo Consulting, 

SimCo@alphalink.com.au. 

123. Sleights, J. E., Sprink 1.0: A Sprinkler Response Computer Program for Warehouse 

Storage Fires, Masters Thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 1993. 

124. Haynes, E. K., Development of WPI/FIRE 3.0: A Multiroom Model, Masters Thesis, 

Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 1994. 

125. http://www.tunnelfire.com 

126. Personal communication with Dr. Raymond Connolly, Fire and Risk Solutions Ltd., 

Connollyrj@eircom.net. 

127. Personal communication with Dr. Zhao Bin, Centre Technique Industriel de la 

Construction Me´tallique, France, binzhao@cticm.com. 

128. Personal communication with Geir Berge, Petrell AS, geir.berge@petrell.no. 

129. Cappuccio, J. A., Jones, W. W. and Forney, G. P., ‘‘FireCAD Development for Hazard 

Analysis,’’ In: Proceedings ofthe 2nd International Conference on Fire Research and 

Engineering (ICFRE2), National Instituteof Standards and Technology and SFPE, 

Gaithersburg, MD, August, 1997. 

130. Personal communication with Dr. Nicole Hoffman, Mott McDonald Limited, UK, 

nh2@mm-croy.mottmac.com. 

131. Personal communication with Cliff Barnett, Macdonald Barnett Partners, Ltd., 

New Zealand, cliff@macbar.co.nz. 

132. Personal communication with Cajot Louis-Guy, ProfilARBED Research, Luxembourg, 

lg.cajot@profilarbed.lu. 

133. Fluent/UNS and Rampant 4.2 User’s Guide, 1st Edn., 1997. 

134. Deal, S., Technical Reference Guide for FPEtool Version 3.2, NISTIR 5486-1, National 

Instituteof Standards and Technology, 1995. 

135. Babrauskas, V., ‘‘Letter to the Editor,’’ Journal ofFire Protection Engineering, Vol. 5, 

No. 1, 1993, p. 35. 

136. Baum, H.R. and McGrattan, K.B., ‘‘Simulation of Oil Tank Fires,’’ In: Proceedings of 

the Interflam ’99 Conference, Vol. 2, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1999.

Schoonbaert volledig - ie-net

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?