• Proceedings of the Korea Institute of Fire Science and Engineering Conference
• /
• 2000.04a
• /
• pp.80-85
• /
• 2000

• Fire Science and Engineering
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.46-52
• /
• 2001

To evaluate the usability of compartment fire models for predicting sprinkler response time, fire experiment was conducted and measured sprinkler response time. The experimental data was compared with zone model "FASTLite"and field model "FDS"and field Model "SMARTFIRE" A Compartment fire conducted in a 2.4 m by 3.6 m by 2.4 m ISO 9705 room and measured H.R.R was approximately 100.3 kW. In test, Sprinkler activation temperature used is $72^{\circ}c$ and responded at 198s. The output of FASTLite, SMARTFIRE and, FDS for this fire scenario were 209s, 183s, and 192s, respectively. As a results, prediction using FDS model approached to that of test very closely and other models showed good approximated results also.

• 한국도로학회지:도로
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.22-24
• /
• 2013

• Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers B
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.156-163
• /
• 2009

In this study, comparative analysis on the back-layer phenomena in the tunnel-fire driven flow is performed using numerical simulation with LES and RANS. FDS(Fire Dynamics Simulator) code is employed to calculate the fire-driven turbulent flow for LES and Smartfire code is used for RANS. Hwang and Wargo's data of scaling tunnel fire experiment are employed to compare with the present numerical simulation. The modeled tunnel is 5.4m(L) ${\times}$ 0.4m(W) ${\times}$ 0.3m(H). Heat Release Rate (HRR) of fire is 3.3kW and ventilation-velocity is 0.33m/s in the main stream. The various grid-distributions are systematically tested with FDS code to analyze the effects of grid size. The LES method with FDS provides an improved back-layer flow behavior in comparison with the RANS (${\kappa}-{\epsilon}$) method by Smartfire. The FDS solvers, however, overpredict the velocity in the center region of flow which is caused by the defects in the tunnel-entrance turbulence strength and in the near-wall turbulent flow in FDS code.

• KSCE Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering Research
• /
• v.41 no.6
• /
• pp.727-736
• /
• 2021

Road tunnel lengths are increasing. Some 1,300 tunnels with 1,102 km in length had been increased till 2019 from 2010. There are 64 tunnels over 3,000 m in length, with their total length adding up to 276.7 km. Safety facilities in the event of a tunnel fire are critical so as to prevent large-scale casualties. Standards for installing disaster prevention facilities are being proposed based on the guidelines of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, but they may be limited to deep underground tunnels. This study was undertaken to provide guidelines for the spacing of evacuation connection passages and the widths of evacuation connection doors. Evacuation with various spacing and widths was simulated in regards to evacuation time, which is the measure of safety, using the evacuation analysis simulation software EXODUS Ver.6.3 and the fire/smoke analysis software SMARTFIRE Ver.4.1. Evacuation connection gates with widths of 0.9 m and 1.2 m, and spacings of 150 m to 250 m, were set to every 20 m. In addition, longitudinal slopes of 6 % and 0 % were considered. It was determined to be safe when the evacuation completion time was shorter than the delay diffusion time. According to the simulation results, all occupants could complete evacuation before smoke spread regardless of the width of the evacuation connection door when the longitudinal slope was 6 % and the interval of evacuation connection passage was 150 m. When the evacuation connection passage spacing was 200 m and the evacuation connection gate width was 1.2 m, all occupants could evacuate when the longitudinal slope was 0 %. Due to difference in evacuation speed according to the longitudinal slope, the evacuation time with a 6 % slope was 114 seconds shorter (with the 190 m connection passage) than with a 0 % slope. A shorter spacing of evacuation connection passages may reduce the evacuation time, but this is difficult to implement in practice because of economic and structural limitations. If the width of the evacuation junction is 1.2 m, occupants could evacuate faster than with a 0.9 m width. When the width of a connection door is 1.2 m with appropriate connection passage spacing, it might provide a means to increase economic efficiency and resolve structural limitations while securing evacuation safety.