352-363 - Water Application Rates

Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17-19, 2010
Water Application Rates for Fixed Fire Fighting Systems

in Road Tunnels
Kenneth J. Harris
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Sacramento, California USA
ABSTRACT
Road tunnel deluge systems require substantial amounts of water, which can have significant impact on
the storage, delivery and drainage systems. Fixed fire fighting systems (FFFS) are gaining attention as
a means for providing an early response to a road tunnel fire. While these systems have been used for
a considerable time in Japan and Australia, their incorporation into road tunnels in other parts of the
world is now being evaluated. One of the major issues this paper explores is the water application rate.
The objectives and strategies, exposure protection, control of burning, suppression and extinguishment
for an FFFS are identified. Fire point theory is then used to quantify the effects of water application
rate on heat flux. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis using varying water application rates
is then performed on shielded and unshielded stacked solid fuel packages that would represent a severe
fire incident. The analysis showed that rather than being a continuum of performance, the effect of
water application rate occurred in discrete effects. In other words, while some minimum water
application rate would accomplish a certain objective, a marginally higher rate would not necessarily
improve the situation. The application of significantly higher rates would move to a different
objective, whereby again marginally higher increases would have little benefit. These confirm the
application of fire point theory to assess how much water is sufficient to accomplish FFFS objectives.
This now allows an objective to be identified within the overall framework of tunnel safety systems
and the FFFS to be sized to accomplish that objective.
KEYWORDS: fixed fire fighting systems, road tunnels, water application rate
INTRODUCTION
Road tunnel deluge systems require substantial amounts of water, which can have significant impact on
the storage, delivery and drainage systems. The required amount of water is determined by the product
of the area of coverage and the water application rate. Flexibility in defining the area of coverage
(sprinkler zone size) is limited due to physical constraints. The zone width is governed by the tunnel
width and the zone length is determined by vehicle dimensions. The other parameter, water
application rate, is usually dictated by prescriptive requirement, but little hard data exists on how
much is sufficient? This paper offers information that may be helpful to the engineer when
attempting to answer that question.
Fixed fire fighting systems (FFFS) are gaining attention as a means for providing an early response to a
road tunnel fire. While these systems have been used for a considerable time in Japan and Australia,
their incorporation into road tunnels in other parts of the world is now being evaluated. One of the
major issues with FFFS is the determination of a suitable water application rate. A FFFS is usually a
deluge sprinkler system that releases water through open nozzles to a selected zone. If an incident
occurs on the boundary between two zones, both may need to be activated. The current practice on
water application rate derives from some early investigative work, the requirements of local authorities
and a body of code work. These application rates and typical zone sizes can result in flow demands in
the range of 7,570 to 15,140 liters per minute (2000 to 4000 gpm), which can have a significant impact
on supply and drainage system requirements.
351
One of the more difficult aspects of this problem is to define the objectives of a FFFS that will dictate
the design. Five possible objectives can be defined for a FFFS.
Prevention of fire. Dissolve, disperse or cool flammable vapor, gases or hazardous materials.
Extinguishment. Complete elimination of the fire heat release rate and all protected surfaces
cooled to prevent flashback.
Suppression. Reduction of fire heat release rate such that open flaming is arrested; however, a
deep-seated fire will require additional steps for extinguishment.
Control of burning. Application of water spray to equipment or areas where a fire can occur to
control the rate of burning and thereby limit the heat release from a fire until the fuel can be
eliminated or extinguishment effected.
Exposure protection. Absorption of heat through application of water spray to structures or
equipment exposed to a fire, to limit surface temperature to a level that will minimize damage
and prevent failure.
All five of these objectives can be shown to utilize the same basic mechanism for reduction of heat or
heat release rate. Of these five, prevention is not practical because it implies activation of the system
before the incident can be detected. The remaining four, however, can be influenced by water spray
after the incident has occurred.
BACKGROUND
Most FFFS for road tunnels are deluge sprinkler systems. Zoned deluge systems consist of open
sprinkler heads or nozzles that discharge water sprays through all nozzles when a system activation
valve is opened. This is in contrast to conventional sprinkler systems in which individual nozzles are
activated by the heat generated by a fire. The objective of this approach is to have only those nozzles
near the fire discharge water. These systems are not effective in tunnels. In a tunnel, the hot
combustion gases do not remain over the fire site, but instead travel some distance. Under these
conditions, a conventional sprinkler system would activate nozzles that are not in the vicinity of the fire
and thus provide little benefit. In addition, traffic-induced airflows and mechanical ventilation can
spread hot gases downstream, activating many more nozzles. This would cause a drop in system water
pressure and would neutralize the system effectiveness or exhaust the available water supply.
Water application rates for sprinklers and water spray systems in the United States are governed by
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 13, Standard for Sprinkler Systems [1] and
NFPA 15, Standard for Fixed Water Spray Systems [2]. NFPA 13 describes minimum water
application rates by Hazard Classification and area as shown in Figure 1. This derives from work
which characterized water demand by analyzing sprinkler operation in large numbers of building fires
where control was successful [3].
NFPA 15 recognizes four different strategies and gives water application rate ranges. These are
combined and also shown in Figure 1. While not shown on the figure, NFPA 15 also recommends
water application rates up to 20 mm/min (0.5 gpm/sf) for some strategies
One other system that is considered for road tunnel application is water mist. This is covered by NFPA
750, Standard for Water Mist Systems [4]. Water mist systems have traditionally been listed systems
used to protect enclosed areas such as machine rooms on ships. As such, water mist systems have been
tested by listing organizations for particular hazards and may only be used within the limitations and
requirements of the listing.
Japan and Australia each have their own specified water application rates to be used for road tunnel
FFFS design which are 6 mm/min (0.15 gpm/sf) [5] and 10 mm/min (0.25 gpm/sf) [6] respectively. In
full-scale tunnel sprinkler tests conducted in Europe (2nd Benelux), a water application rate of 14
mm/min (0.35 gpm/sf) [7] has been tested. These values have been added to Figure 1 to demonstrate
352
the significant variation in prescribed water application rates for which little research has been done to
compare their effectiveness when applied under similar conditions
Japan
Australia
NFPA 15 range
European
(Benelux)
Figure 1 NFPA 13, NFPA 15, and other International Water Application Rates
FIRE POINT THEORY
In contrast to the empirical methods described above, fire point theory relates the effectiveness of the
suppression agent, water, to fundamental fire properties [8]. This model is based on the interaction
between the heat required to vaporize a solid or liquid fuel and the effect that water has on the
prevention of this vaporization. This interaction is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Dynamics of Fire and Extinguishment

It is important to note that a solid or liquid fuel itself will not burn. A fuel will burn only after it is
converted to a gaseous state by vaporization, which requires energy. A heat source (q) is required to
vaporize the fuel. This heat source may either be radiated from the flame itself or radiated from an
external source, such as an object burning nearby. The rate of conversion from solid or liquid to gas is
the mass loss rate of the fuel (m). The magnitude of the heat required to vaporize the fuel is Hg.
353
The heat that is generated by the burning of the fuel source (HT) times the total amount of fuel gives
the fires total energy potential.
The primary way in which applied water suppresses a fire is by cooling, which occurs when a portion
of the fires energy is used to evaporate the water instead of vaporizing the fuel. Cooling a fire by
applying water causes the mass loss rate of the fuel to be reduced below a critical value, preventing
vaporization of the fuel. This cooling occurs at the solid/gas interface. The exact process is not well
understood and is still an active area of fire research. The measure of waters potential to suppress a
fire is its heat of gasification (Hw). The minimum rate of water application to extinguish a fire per
unit area is known as the critical water application rate or critical application density (mw,ex).
Generally speaking, the amount of water required to extinguish a fire (mw,ex) depends on the net heat
flux on the fuel surface, which is the combination of:
The amount of radiation emitted by nearby burning objects, plus

The amount of radiation emitted by the flame itself.
The mass loss rate of the fuel (m) is described by the energy balance at the fuel surface [9] given in
Equation 1.
m" =
H m" + q" q" q"

t
cr
agent
(1)
Where qe is the heat flux at flame extinction, is the maximum fraction of combustion energy flame
reactions may lose to the surface by convection without flame extinction, described as the kinetic
parameter, and mcr is the critical fuel mass loss rate. The heat fluxes are external (qe), reradiated
from the fuel surface (qr), and that removed from the surface or flame (by an extinguishing agent) as
the flame extinction condition is reached (qagent).
When water is the extinguishing agent, then qagent = qw and the heat flux removed from the surface of
a burning material by water evaporation is given by Equation 2.
q '' = m" H
w
(2)
Where qw is the heat flux removed from the surface by water, w is the water application efficiency
and Hw is the heat of gasification of water (2.58 kJ/g).
If part of the water forms a puddle, such as on a horizontal surface, then the heat flux from the flame
will be blocked from the fuel surface and the fuel vapor can be expected to be blocked from leaving the
surface. Equation 3 shows this modification.
q"w = m"w ( w H w + w )
(3)
Where w is the energy associated with the blockage of the flame heat flux and fuel vaporization at the
surface per unit mass of fuel vaporized.
Combining Equations 1 and 3, noting that at flame extinction m = mcr, and solving for the water
application rate, mw, gives Equation 4.
m"w =
354
H T m"cr q"r m"cr H g

q"e
+
wH w + w
w H w + w
(4)
The first term on the right is the external heat flux component and the second term is the critical water
application rate for flame extinction, which is related to the fundamental fire properties of the material.
In contrast to the second term, the first can be considered to account for general fire effects such as
shape and arrangement of materials. It is not dependent on the particular materials used.
Table 1 reflects the input values and results for polystyrene, commonly used in foam cups, insulation
and packing materials as an example, showing the relative importance of the two terms. Water
application efficiency was assumed at 100 per cent with no puddling. The asymptotic flame heat flux
or maximum potential flame heat flux of polystyrene is used as the external heat flux. The case with
no external heat flux essentially represents the process at flame extinction.
Table 1 Effect of External Heat Flux on Water Application Rate (w = 100%)
Polystyrene
q"e
w Hw w m"cr
HT
Hg
q"r
kW/
kJ/g
g/m2 g/m2- kJ/g
kJ/g kW/
-sec
m2
sec
m2
w/o ext. flux
0
1.0 2.59 0.0 4.00 0.21
39.2
1.70 13.0
w/ext. flux
75
1.0
2.59
0.0
4.00
0.21
39.2
1.70
13.0
m"w,ex
(g/m2-s)
m"w,ex
(gpm/ft2)
5.07
0.007
34.03
0.050
Table 1 shows that the external heat flux is clearly the more significant factor in determining the
critical water application rate required for flame extinctions. This means that the water application rate
can be based on external heat flux rather than be dependent on specific fuel properties. This suggests
computational modelling can be used to compare the effectiveness of water application rates for solidfuel types of fires, provided it makes an accurate representation of the items affecting external heat flux
(convection, radiation, surface cooling, water evaporation, etc). The other significant factor is that the
estimated water application rate is at the low end of standard requirements, lower than required by
most agencies and suggests a lower bound on water application rates.
COMPUTATIONAL MODELING
Introduction
While numerous physical fire tests have been performed, these tests have generally been conducted on
the premise that a given water application rate can be used to control a fire. The method of control is
usually specific to the particular test and may involve cooling, prevention of spread or control and
extinguishment. The question of the variability of water application rate has not been addressed and
how sensitive the control concept is to this.
The purpose of this analysis is to determine the effect of a FFFS on the heat release rate of an
unshielded and shielded fire. The heat release rate (FHRR) was selected to be representative of a
heavy goods vehicle (HGV) fire. In a road tunnel, these types of fires are considered among the most
severe and are often the controlling scenarios for determining design fire properties. A computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) approach was used. The CFD program used was the Fire Dynamics Simulator
(FDS) Versions 5.4.1 (unshielded) and 5.4.2 (shielded) [10]. FDS solves numerically a form of the
Navier-Stokes equations appropriate for low-speed thermally-driven flow, with an emphasis on smoke
and heat transport from fires. Key elements in its selection were the following:
Ability to track particles (water droplets), especially their interaction with surfaces.
Ability to model the vaporization of water droplets.
Ability to model the absorption of thermal radiation by water droplets.
Ability to model heat transfer from both gas and solid media for water droplets.
Ability to model pyrolysis of solid fuels and determine if a combustion condition exists.
FDS models the absorption and scattering of thermal radiation as well as the heating and evaporation
355
of liquid droplets. Reasonable correlation has been shown for absorption and scattering of thermal
radiation for single spray nozzles. It is noted in the FDS validation references that the model can
accurately predict the attenuation of thermal radiation in a single spray or as quoted ...when the
hydrodynamic forces are weak. Review of the data shows that the correlation improved as the water
flow rate increased, and that the correlation was 88 percent when the flow was less than 10 percent of
that proposed to be used in the simulations. Accordingly, any change in FHRR could be evaluated
with respect to change in heat flux.
FDS assumes that combustion is mixing-controlled, and that the reaction of fuel and oxygen is
infinitely fast, regardless of the temperature. For large-scale, well-ventilated fires, this is a good
assumption. The physical mechanisms of the combustion process are still an active area of fire
research. However, since the purpose of this analysis was to determine the impact on FHRR of
different water application rates, all fire parameters were kept identical, so any biases were applied to
all cases.
For solid fuels, if the surface of the fuel is planar, it is possible to characterize the decrease in the
pyrolysis rate as a function of the decrease in the total heat feedback to the surface. Unfortunately,
most fuels of interest in fire applications are multi-component solids with complex geometry at scales
unresolvable by the computational grid. Work has been done in this area that has resulted in empirical
formulae for a few specific situations. These however are based on global water flow and burning
rates. FDS assumes that the global nature of this action also applies locally. If this method is used,
input of an empirical constant is required. This method has not been used in these simulations.
Flame extinction is controlled in the gas phase by lowering temperature and reducing oxygen supply.
FDS uses a simple algorithm that, in effect, says that a flame is extinguished if it is below a certain
temperature or oxygen concentration.
Model details
The tunnel is modeled as a rectangular grid with no slope. The overall dimensions are 30 meters long,
9 meters wide and 6 meters high. This cross section is typical of a two-lane road tunnel. Each cell is a
cube of 0.125 meters on each side. A 3-meter per second air velocity is maintained through the tunnel
at all times. Two identical fuel piles are used. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the plan and elevation of
the model. Each pile consists of a stacked crib of material with each component being 0.125 meters
wide and high with a length as necessary to form the crib, generally either 6 meters or 3 meters long.
Stacking was selected to permit air circulation. A noncombustible shield is used in half of the
simulations on the incident crib to prevent the water spray from impinging directly on the fire. Figure
3 shows the plan view without the shield and Figure 4 shows the elevation with the shield in place.
Figure 3 Model Plan View
356
A thermocouple (T) was placed on the face of the target crib (upstream pile) at the top on the side
facing the downstream pile to measure material surface temperature. This location was observed to be
the one that ignited first on the upstream crib with no suppression activated. The downstream crib has
a 300 kW burner that is activated for the first 20 seconds of the simulation to ignite the fire. The crib
material is not a real substance, but was devised for this comparative study. Its thermodynamic
properties were selected to provide a fire that would grow reasonably quickly to a high heat release rate
that would be sustained for a reasonable period of time. The selected properties are defined in Table 2.
Table 2 Model Combustion Properties
Specific Heat
Conductivity
Density
Reference Temperature
Heat of Reaction
Heat of Combustion
1.0 kJ/kg/K
0.05 W/m-K
100 kg/m3
350 C
2500 kJ/kg
20000 kJ/kg
Shield
T
Figure 4 Shielded Model Elevation View

Deluge nozzles are spaced on a 3.8 meters by 3.66 meters grid. Figure 5 shows the placement of the
nozzles over the fuel piles for the unshielded case. The shielded model is similar. The droplet velocity
is 10 meters per second, and the spray angle is between 30 and 80 degrees. The mean water droplet
diameter is 750 microns. The deluge nozzles were activated at 15 seconds, a time equivalent to the
FHRR attaining a magnitude of approximately 12 MW FHRR. The nozzle flow rates are listed in
Table 3. They are adjusted to achieve the required coverage.
Table 3 Water Application and Flow Rates
Design Density
(mm/min) (gpm/ft2)
0
0.00
2
0.05
4
0.10
6
0.15
8
0.20
10
0.25
12
0.30
16
0.40
20
0.50
Nozzle flow rate

(liters/min) (gpm)
0.00
0.00
28.25
7.46
56.50
14.92
84.75
22.39
113.00
29.85
141.25
37.31
169.50
44.78
226.00
59.71
282.50
74.64
357
Figure 5 Enlarged Plan View Showing Deluge Nozzles (circled) for Unshielded Pile.
RESULTS AND IMPLEMENTATION
Simulation Results
The results of the simulations are presented in Figures 6 through 9. The heat flux on the tunnel wall
adjacent to the fire is shown in Figure 6. With no water application, boundary heat fluxes are 80 and
85 kW/m2 for the shielded and unshielded fires, respectively. With the unshielded fire, heat flux drops
linearly with water application rate until about 6 mm/min 0.15 gpm/ft2) at which there is only marginal
improvement with more water. With the shielded fire, the maximum boundary heat flux drops
somewhat then stabilizes as more water is applied. Above 10 mm/min, there is another decrease that
plateaus, even as more water is applied. These high heat fluxes are from the fire under the shield
where the water cannot directly reach. In areas where the water can reach the fuel surface, i.e. the
other fuel pile, the heat fluxes drop to low levels that do not sustain combustion. In other worlds the
fire is prevented from spreading. For reference, the ignition of wood requires about 12 kW/m2 [11].
Figure 6 Heat Flux on Boundary Surfaces vs. Water Application Rate

Figure 7 shows the surface temperatures in the target fuel pile. These temperatures are measured by a
thermocouple located at the top of the target face adjacent to the incident pile. It was determined from
simulations without suppression that this area experienced the highest heat fluxes. The results suggest
358
that any amount water above 2 mm/min (0.05 gpm/ft2) would prevent the fire from spreading to the
adjacent fuel pile. The target temperature reached a maximum of 168 degrees C.
Figure 7 Surface Temperatures at Target vs. Water Application Rate
Figure 8 Fire Heat Release Rate for Varying Water Application Rates-Unshielded Fires
359
Figures 8 and 9 show the net result in FHRR for both shielded and unshielded fires. Figure 8 for the
unshielded fire shows the FHRR being controlled to varying levels with increasing amounts of water
up to about 6 mm/min (0.15 gpm/ft2). Adding more water has little incremental affect. Figure 9 shows
the effect of water application rate on shielded fires. The results break into distinctive groups. The
first is the fire with no suppression. Then two distinct application rate bands and a transition rate are
observed. The upper band, with water application rates between 2 and 6 mm/min, (0.05 and 0.15
gpm/ft2) shows that the FHRR peaks at about 90 MW and then declines. This is consistent with the
incident fire being unaffected by the water spray, but the fire not being able to spread to adjacent fuel
sources.
Figure 9 Fire Heat Release Rate for Varying Water Application Rates-Shielded Fires
The lower band, with application rates between 10 and 20 mm/min (0.25 to 0.50 gpm/ft2), results in a
peak FHRR of about 50 MW suggesting that there is a significant reduction in the heat flux on the
incident pile from surrounding surfaces. An application rate of 8 mm/min (0.20 gpm/ft2) appears to be
a transition point. In this case, the FHRR appears to be controlled for a while, but at approximately
160 seconds it begins to rise and peaks at 80 MW then following the upper band. This indicates that
particularly for shielded fires, there are optimum water application rates that achieve certain results.
Implementation
Four strategies for the use of FFFS in road tunnels can be considered:
360
Exposure protection - This can be achieved by the absorption of heat through the application
of water spray to structures or equipment exposed to a fire to limit the surface temperature to a
level that will minimize damage and prevent failure. A FFFS can reduce heat and limit surface
temperatures for both shielded and unshielded fires. The results presented suggest that
exposure protection can be provided with as little as a 2 mm/min (0.05 gpm/ft2) water
application rate. The application of water can assist in controlling surface temperatures and
can absorb radiative heat flux.
Control of burning - This can be achieved by applying water to control the rate of burning and
thereby limit the rate of heat release from a fire until the fuel can be eliminated or
extinguishment effected. Control of burning can be expected for both shielded and unshielded
fires (although the mechanisms are different). A FFFS reduces the heat flux and prevents the
spread of fire. This action can prevent the initial incident from becoming a much more serious
one. The results suggest that the spread of fire beyond the initial point could be controlled
with as little as 2 mm/min (0.05 gpm/ft2) for both an unshielded and a shielded fire. This is
similar to exposure protection and shows that significant benefit can be obtained even with
relatively light water application rates.
Suppression - This can be achieved by applying water to reduce the fire heat release rate such
that open flaming is arrested; however, a deep-seated fire will require additional steps for
extinguishment. The results suggest that unshielded fires can be suppressed with as little as 2
mm/min (0.05 gpm/ft2), although 4 to 6 mm/min (0.1 to 0.15 gpm/ft2) gives significantly better
results. Application rates above this level did not appear to offer additional benefit. The
situation with shielded fires is more complicated. While minimal suppression is predicted to
occur with application rates as low as 2 mm/min (0.05 gpm/ft2), no significant improvement
was predicted up to 6 mm/min (0.15 gpm/ft2). By increasing the water application rate to 10
mm/min (0.25 gpm/ft2), a significant reduction in FHRR was predicted. However, increasing
the application rate above this value appears to offer minimal benefit.
Extinguishment This can be achieved by applying water to completely suppress a fire and by
cooling protected surfaces to prevent a re-ignition. This can realistically only be considered for
unshielded fires.
CONCLUSIONS
Deluge systems which are the type of FFFS system most commonly used in road tunnels can require
large amounts of water. In many cases, it may not be desirable or possible to select arbitrary water
application rates. Fire point theory shows that there are optimum rates of water application that can
control a fire and are significantly less than the rates generally prescribed. Furthermore, this theory
suggests that there are minimum water application rates that can reduce the heat flux below certain
critical limits required to sustain combustion and once these limits are reached, more water offers little
or no benefit. The selection of a water application rate for a FFFS can be made by assessing both the
strategy to be used and a water application rate appropriate for that strategy. The results of the
comparative analyses described in this paper suggest that water application rates as low as 2 mm/min
(0.05 gpm/ft2) can offer some benefits by cooling exposed surfaces and assisting in limiting the spread
of fire from the initiating point.
In the study addressed in this paper, computer modelling was used with the full understanding that
especially in fire modelling; all computer programs are simplifications of many complex processes. An
engineer should use caution and judgement in determining if the results accurately reflect the situation
being considered. While this analysis has been useful in understanding the mechanisms of fire
suppression, full-scale testing under road tunnel conditions would validate that these strategies could
be used in real world applications.
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
I would like to thank Matt Bilson, Bill Connell, Joe Gonzalez, Bill Kennedy, Bob Melvin, and Tom
ODwyer of Parsons Brinckerhoff for their comprehensive reviews and input on the subject. I would
also like to thank Parsons Brinckerhoff for their support to be able to attend this conference.
361
REFERENCES
1. NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, National Fire Protection
Association, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 2007 edition.
2. NFPA 15, Standard for Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection, National Fire
Protection Association, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 2007 edition.
3. Bratlie, Ernest H. Jr, Automatic Sprinklers: How Much Water? Fire Journal, January
1968.
4. NFPA 750 , Standard for the Installation of Water Mist Systems, National Fire Protection
Association, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 2006 edition.
5. Chiyoda Engineering Consultants, Sprinklers in Japanese Road Tunnels, Report
commissioned by the Center for Tunnel Safety of the Netherlands Ministry of Transport,
2001.
6. Bilson, M., Purchase, A., and Stacey, C., Deluge System Effectiveness in Road Tunnels
and Impacts on Operating Policy, 13th Australian Tunneling Conference, Melbourne, May
2008.
7.
Project Safety Test, Report on fire Tests, Report on fire tests conducted in the Second
Benelux Tunnel, Netherlands for the Directorate of Public Works and Water Management,
Center for Tunnel Safety, August 2002.
8. Rasbash, D. J., The Extinction of Fire with Plain Water: A Review, Fire Safety ScienceProceedings of the First International Symposium, pp.1145-1163, Hemisphere Publishing
Co., New York, 1986.
9. Tewarson, A., Generation of Heat and Chemical Compounds in Fires. In The SFPE
Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering 2nd Edition (Phillip J. DiNenno, Ed.), National
Fire Protection Association, One Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101, 1995.
10. McGrattan, Kevin, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Fire Dynamic
Simulator (Version 5) Technical Reference Guide, October 18, 2009.
11. Lees, F.P. (Editor), Ch. 16.22, Effects of Fire: Injury. In Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, Second Edition, Vol. 2, p. 246, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, OX2
8DP, 1996.
362

352-363 - Water Application Rates

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

352-363 - Water Application Rates

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17-19, 2010

Water Application Rates for Fixed Fire Fighting Systems

Figure 2 Dynamics of Fire and Extinguishment

The amount of radiation emitted by nearby burning objects, plus

H m" + q" q" q"

H T m"cr q"r m"cr H g

Figure 3 Model Plan View

Figure 4 Shielded Model Elevation View

Nozzle flow rate

Figure 6 Heat Flux on Boundary Surfaces vs. Water Application Rate

Figure 7 Surface Temperatures at Target vs. Water Application Rate

Potrebbero piacerti anche