See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283211938

How efficient is an under platform exhaust (UPE) system?

Conference Paper · May 2009

CITATIONS READS

0 1,680

2 authors:

Mohammad Tabarra Don Guan

Arup National Institutes of Health
40 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design optimisation of tunnel ventilation systems View project

Sustainability Metrics for Metro Stations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Tabarra on 26 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

How efficient is an under platform exhaust (UPE) system?

M Tabarra, D Guan,
DMJM Harris + Arup Joint Venture, NY

1. ABSTRACT
During non-emergency operations in an underground station, the trackway exhaust
systems (TES), such as the overtrack exhaust (OTE) system and the under platform
exhaust (UPE), are used to extract heat from the brake resistor grid (BRG) units and train
air conditioning condensers, so that a significant portion of heat can be removed at source
from the train before it reaches the occupied platform area and mixes with the station air.
There is a lack of data on the general efficacy of such extract systems. This paper
presents the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) results of studying both the static and
dynamic efficiencies of a typical UPE system in the vicinity of a BRG under a typical
subway car. The BRG surface temperature data from a field measurement exercise were
used as the boundary conditions. A sensitivity analysis was also performed to evaluate
how the relative position of the UPE intake grills with respect to the BRG units would
affect the efficiency, as this is what can happen in reality. It was found that without
special architectural changes at the platform level to enhance its performance, the
extraction efficiency of a typical one-sided UPE would not exceed 34% in a static
configuration, dropping to 24% in a dynamic transient case of a moving train.

Key words: subway, tunnel ventilation system, under platform exhaust, computational
fluid dynamics

2. Background
2.1 Background of UPE Design
The TES for a typical subway station may consist of an OTE and a UPE system (Figure
1). The OTE is designed to extract smoke from a car fire during a fire emergency mode,
and capture the heat released from the roof-mounted air conditioning condensers in non-
emergency mode. The UPE system is only designed to capture heat from the BRG during
non-emergency mode. It will remain closed during any fire emergency mode, including
undercar fires, so that smoke buoyancy is utilized and OTE smoke capture maximized.

In the case of air-conditioned stations, the operation of TES becomes more complex and
needs attention. In such cases, although some heat is extracted from the station when the
train is present in the station, the system operates continuously and hence removes cool
air-conditioned air at other times, when the there are no trains in the station. Ideally, the
TES should only operate in mid-season (spring and autumn) when the ambient conditions
provide adequate free cooling for the occupied areas at platform and mezzanine level, and
switch off during the summer season, when mechanical cooling is operating.
 Smoke Extract / Fresh Air
Supply Duct

Escalator

Mezzanine

OTE Duct OTE Duct

Supply Supply

Tunnel
Train
Platform

UPE Duct UPE Duct

Figure 1. Typical configuration of OTE and UPE systems

2.2 BRG Temperature Measurements

Reliable data on the BRG temperature and its thermal behavior were crucial for the
design of the TES, as the train braking is the main source of heat transfer into the station.
Because adequate information concerning BRG operating conditions was not available,
field tests were carried out to measure the surface temperatures of a BRG during a typical
evening peak passenger service with the assistance of NYCT (New York City Transit)[1].

The R143 subway car was selected for the study. As shown in Figure 2, successive stops
at stations can cumulatively raise the BRG temperatures up to 370°C (700°F), especially
when the journeys between stations are short and the BRG does not get a chance to cool
down in the tunnels. The typical heat rejection rate is about 50 - 100 kW per BRG unit
during a typical 30-second station dwell time [1].

3. Scope of Work and Modelling Assumptions

The purpose of the CFD analysis was to investigate the range of UPE efficiency that can
be achieved, during the station dwell time. Since the UPE operates continuously, with
the train approaching the station, stopping and then departing, there are times when the
BRG units line up with the UPE grilles and other times that they do not. While the
process is dynamic, it was impractical to model it by a transient CFD simulation.
Furthermore, the domain was simplified by leaving out the OTE and roof air conditioner,
so it was assumed that the heat is generated and extracted at high level, without affecting
the rest of the computational domain. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the geometry set-ups.

Page 2 of 12
 700

650 BRG
Station Stop

600
Temperature (Deg F)

550

500

Jefferson
Montrose

Morgan

DeKalb

Myrtle

Halsey
450

400

350
19:42:14 19:43:41 19:45:07 19:46:34 19:48:00 19:49:26 19:50:53 19:52:19
Time

Figure 2. Typical BRG surface temperature history in a rush hour journey

UPE intake

Track way BRG unit

Figure 3. Geometry overview – UPE aligned with BRG, UPE duct flush with
platform wall.

Page 3 of 12
 UPE intake
11 ft centreline offset

Brake Resistor Grid unit

Figure 4. Geometry overview – UPE with 11-foot offset from BRG, UPE duct
flush with platform wall.

A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate how the misalignment between the UPE
intake and the BRG would affect the efficiency. Two cases were investigated: One with
the UPE intake and BRG aligned, and a second one with a 3.35 m (11-foot) centerline
offset from each other. The BRG’s nearest edge was 0.9 m (3 ft) away from the nearest
edge of the UPE.

The BRG was modeled as 11 individual vertical steel plates (emissivity = 0.55, measured
in field tests [1]) surrounded by the platform walls and near-field pressure outlet
boundaries. Note the correct measurement of emissivity is quite sensitive to the distance
of the target to the infrared thermometer and should be done with great care, or else large
errors can result [2]. Each plate was 5 mm (1/5 inch) thick. Porous media was used for
the fluid volume between the plates to provide viscous flow resistance while the radiation
heat transfer was modeled with the Discrete Ordinate (DO) function in the Fluent®
software. An extract airflow rate of 2.83 m³/sec (6,000 CFM) was applied to each UPE
intake grille of area 1.5 m² (L = 3.5 m = 11.5 ft, H = 0.43 m = 1.4 ft) representing an air
velocity of 1.9 m/s. The ambient temperature was specified as 28 °C (82°F), and the
external platform wall surface temperature was set at 32 °C (90°F), reflecting the warmer
track environment under the car. A sensitivity study was carried out for the link between
the UPE efficiency and the BRG’s heat dissipation rates using 50, 75, and 100 kW.

Although for best performance, the UPE should ideally protrude from the platform wall
to have the intake grille as close as possible to the BRG (ideal gap would be 10 cm), this
is highly impractical due to architectural constraints. In the vast majority of station
designs, UPE ducts remain flush with the platform. Both scenarios have been modeled
and results compared in this study.

Page 4 of 12
Each car has two BRG units — one per side. Preliminary studies showed that the UPE
marginally affected the flow field around the BRG on the opposite side of the car. Part of
the heat rejection from the BRG on the opposite side could be captured by the OTE
system. Thus, only the near-field domain of a BRG and its associated UPE intake was
modeled. The UPE maximum dwell efficiency was thereby defined as:
UPE efficiency = Net heat flux captured by UPE/ Total heat flux through BRG (1)

In the CFD modeling, the “net heat flux captured by UPE” cannot be obtained by a single
CFD run, as the heat flux from a flow boundary determined by Fluent® is not an absolute
but a relative value with respect to a hard-coded reference temperature of 25°C (77°F).
In other words, for a flow boundary, part of its energy flux is associated with the energy
entrained from the ambient boundary conditions. As a result, the UPE efficiency needed
to be determined through two CFD runs. The first run, with the BRG inactive, sets the
base energy removal from the system by removing mass and thereby energy from the
domain. The second run, with the BRG active, determines the energy removal from the
domain in addition to the ambient removal. The heat flux was defined as:

UPE efficiency = (E1 - E2) / (Q x 2) (2)

where
E1 = Heat flux through UPE when the grid resistor is active (W)
E2 = Heat flux through UPE when the grid resistor is inactive (W)
Q = Total heat flux through one BRG (50 kW, 75 kW, and 100 kW)

Note that the heat dissipated from the BRG at the opposite side of the car cannot normally
be captured by the UPE system at the design airflow velocity, which is why the UPE
efficiency was cut in half. This means the maximum theoretical efficiency for the UPE is
only 50%, based on the amount of heat rejected by all the BRG units.

4. Case Studies
4.1 BRG active (with 50 kW heat dissipation) and UPE inactive
The first case was similar to the field-test condition [1], where a UPE system did not exist
(Figure 5). The predicted BRG surface temperatures in the stations are in the range of
200-260 °C (400-500°F), which is the same range that was observed in the experimental
study. The close correlation of both heat dissipation rate and surface temperatures with
the actual measured values was essential for the physics of the problem to be correctly
modeled. This indicated that the CFD modeling assumptions, the geometry setup and the
boundary conditions were suitable for the heat transfer simulation.

4.2 BRG aligned with the UPE, UPE intake flush with the platform wall, BRG heat
dissipation rates are 50, 75, and 100 kW
The second case had aligned BRG units with the UPE grilles with the faces flush with the
platform wall. The distance between the BRG and the UPE intake was 0.75 m (2.3 ft).
Three heat dissipation rates (50, 75, and 100 kW) were examined to check how sensitive
the UPE efficiency would be with respect to the BRG heat release. The temperature
contour and velocity vector plots in Figures 6 and 7 show that the UPE had good control
over the local airflow when the BRG heat dissipation was relatively low, i.e., 50 kW at
33.4% heat removal efficiency.

Page 5 of 12
Figure 5. Grid resistor grid surface temperature (UPE inactive, 50 kW).

Heat loss through

platform-car gap.

Heat loss under

car away from
UPE.

Figure 6. Temperature contours (UPE aligned with BRG, UPE grille flush
with platform, 50 kW).

Page 6 of 12
 Heat loss under car Heat loss through
away from UPE. platform-car gap

Figure 7. Velocity vectors overlaid with temperature contours (UPE aligned

with BRG, UPE grille flush with platform, 50 kW).

However, when the BRG heat dissipation rate was increased, the momentum force
generated by the UPE airflow was not able to overcome the buoyancy forces. Less
energy was captured by the UPE system, resulting in only 28.4% efficiency at a heat
dissipation rate of 75 kW and 25.4% at a heat dissipation rate of 100 kW. The
temperature contour and velocity vector plots in Figures 8 and 9 depict that most of the
heat escaped into the station, away from the UPE.

Page 7 of 12
 Heat loss through
platform-car gap.

Heat loss under car

away from UPE.

Figure 8. Temperature contours (UPE aligned with BRG, UPE grille flush
with platform, 100 kW).

Heat loss through

Heat loss under car platform-car gap.
away from UPE.

Figure 9. Velocity vectors overlaid with temperature contours (UPE aligned

with BRG, UPE grille flush with platform, 100 kW).

Page 8 of 12
4.3 BRG aligned with the UPE, UPE intake protruded from platform wall, BRG
heat dissipation rate was 50 kW
Compared with the previous case in which the UPE intake grille was flush with the wall,
the third case had a protruded UPE intake, so that distance between the UPE intake and
BRG was reduced to 0.09 m (0.3 feet). This allowed the UPE airflow to remove almost
all of the heat generated by the BRG, as the higher local air velocities overcame the
buoyancy forces, resulting in an efficiency of 47.7%.

4.4 BRG with an 11-foot offset from UPE, UPE intake flush with the platform wall,
BRG heat dissipation rates were 50, 75, and 100 kW
The fourth and final case helped to better understand the effect of a misalignment
between BRG and UPE intake. Although, the UPE intake was designed as a long and
narrow slot (L = 3.5 m = 11.5 ft, H = 0.43 m = 1.4 ft) to minimize any misalignment,
drivers may be unable to stop the train at the exact same location all the time.
Misalignment could also be caused by a different rolling-stock.

In the sensitivity study, the BRG was placed with a 3.35 m (11-ft) offset from the UPE
intake for which three levels of BRG heat dissipation (50, 75, and 100 kW) were
analyzed. The 3.35 m offset corresponds to a 0.9 m distance along the track between the
nearest points of the BRG and UPE, respectively. As expected, only a small portion of
energy was exhausted with the UPE airflow. Consequently, the UPE efficiency was less
than 10% when the centerlines of BRG and UPE intake had a 3.35 m offset. Figure 10
clearly shows the lack of momentum force necessary to control the buoyancy forces.

Figure 10. Temperature contours (11-foot offset with BRG, UPE grille flush
with platform, 50 kW).

Page 9 of 12
5. Discussion of CFD Results
5.1 Static Efficiency of the UPE
With the UPE intake flush with the platform wall and UPE and BRG aligned, the UPE
extract efficiency ranged from 25% to 34%. The efficiency dropped to less than 10%
when the centerlines of UPE and BRG were misaligned by 11 feet (3.35 m). The
efficiency was also sensitive to the transverse distance between UPE intake and the BRG.
When the UPE duct intake was protruded and close to the BRG, an efficiency of 48%
was observed. Table 1 summarizes the UPE efficiencies for all steady-state conditions.

Table 1

Heat captured UPE efficiency

BRG heat dissipation rate (W) by UPE (W) (%)

UPE intake flush with platform wall

2 x 50,000 43,200 34
2 x 75,000 52,300 28
2 x 100,000 60,500 25

UPE intake flush with platform wall and 11-foot offset from BRG
2 x 50,000 18,700 9
2 x 75,000 21,300 8
2 x 100,000 23,400 7

UPE intake protruded from platform wall (close to BRG)

2 X 50,000 57,500 48

The actual station dwell time may vary between 15 seconds during off peak service and
30 seconds during peak service. Thus, the UPE efficiency could be sometimes even
lower than shown above. Also, if regenerative braking technology were incorporated,
part of the kinetic energy of the train during braking would be converted back to
electricity, so that less heat would be dissipated into the station, making the UPE system
less useful.

Long and narrow UPE intakes are required to minimize the misalignment. Higher heat
dissipation rates cause higher BRG temperatures, resulting in reduced UPE extract
efficiency.

Page 10 of 12
5.2 Equivalent Dynamic Efficiency of the UPE
Note that in addition to the station dwell time, part of the train is in the station during
arrival and departure; it can thus be argued that the UPE system is partly effective during
this period as the BRG units pass in succession in front of the UPE grilles. Therefore, an
equivalent dynamic efficiency can be defined for the UPE.

Based on typical train speeds of 30-40 mph (48-64 km/hr), and train acceleration and
deceleration rates of about 2 mph per second, a typical duration of 20 seconds is
anticipated for the time the front of the train enters the station until it comes to a complete
stop. Similar times are expected for the departure phase. Given the variable length of
the train in the station during these transient periods, it can be seen that the equivalent
time that one full train length is present in the station, even though moving, is 20 seconds.
This is in addition to the assumed 30 seconds of station dwell time when the train is
completely stationary.

To estimate the heat capture of the UPE during this transition period, it is useful to note
that given the dimensions of the UPE grilles and the assumed 18.3 m (60 ft) spacing
along the platform, the BRG units and the UPE grilles go through periodic degrees of
offset, ranging from zero to a maximum of 9.1 m (30 ft), center to center. In fact, about
80% of the transition period is spent in an offset configuration while for only 20% of this
time the BRG units line up with the UPE intake grills. It is therefore reasonable to
assume a maximum offset efficiency of 9% from the CFD results on Table 1, based on
the average offset of 3.35 m (11ft).

Thus the maximum static efficiency of the UPE can be regarded as 34% for the 30-sec
station dwell time, but the equivalent dynamic efficiency for the entire 50 seconds that a
full train is present in the station platform is estimated at:

Equivalent Dynamic Efficiency = (0.34 x 30 + 0.09 x 20) /50 = 24%

5.3 Temperature Drop in Station Due to UPE

A simple calculation reveals the expected maximum temperature drop in a typical station
(190 m long, 15 m wide, 5 m high) due to the targeted heat capture of the UPE system.

∆T = Q η d / (V ρ cp) (3)
where,
∆T = Temperature rise at platform level (K)
Q = Heat release from registers (2 trains x 10 cars/train x 2 BRG/car x 50 kW)
η = Equivalent dynamic efficiency of UPE system (0.24, as shown above)
d = 50 seconds equivalent dwell time of train in station
V = Air volume at platform level (14,200 m3 or 500,000 ft³, for a typical station)
ρ = Air density (1.2 kg/m3)
cp = Specific heat capacity (1,008 J/kg.K)
∆T = 2 *10 * 2 * 50,000 W * (0.24 * 50 s) / (1.2 kg/m3 x 14,200 m3 x 1,008 J/kg.K)
= 1.4°C (2.5°F) for two trains in the station

Page 11 of 12
 It should be noted that the 1.4°C (2.5°F) temperature drop would only occur in the event
of two trains in the station simultaneously. For one train this would halve. Given the
relatively low heat removal via the UPE system, it is anticipated that the mechanical air
supply to the public areas, a minimum of 14 air changes per hour at platform level
provided by the OTE system, and the air circulation caused by the piston effect should be
able to absorb the additional heat if the UPE system were eliminated.

6. Summary and Conclusion

The Subway Design Handbook [3] indicates a linear relationship between the UPE
capture efficiency and the flow rate based on a field test carried out in Toronto Subway.
It has been usual for many engineers to assume an efficiency of 50% for design purposes.

Recent field temperature measurements on active BRG units and the subsequent CFD
modeling have enabled a review of the UPE efficiency. Case studies with three different
UPE intake configurations and three BRG heat dissipations were analyzed. CFD analysis
has shown that the maximum static UPE heat removal efficiency is about 34%, with an
equivalent dynamic efficiency of 24%, once the time-transient periods of the train arrival
and departure are also taken into account. This results in an average platform air
temperature drop of approximately 1.4°C (2.5°F), assuming two trains simultaneously
stop in the station, or about 0.7°C (1.2°F), with only one train.

The analysis also showed that a UPE that protrudes from the platform displays a
significantly improved efficiency (ideal gap of 10 cm), but this has disadvantages from an
architectural and construction point of view. Higher extract air velocities (above 2 m/s)
should also improve efficiency, but noise issues may pose an upper limit of 3 m/s.

Given the relatively low effectiveness of a standard UPE system in removing the heat at
track level, great care has to be taken in proper integration of this element into the
platform architecture. UPE efficiency is highly sensitive to the extract flow rates and
relative distance of the UPE grille to the BRG unit. If these cannot be optimized in a
station platform design, then the added-value of a UPE system is severely undermined.
In the Second Avenue Subway Project, the UPE system was therefore deleted in the final
design phase, in line with the initial engineering judgment of NYCT.

7. Reference
[1] Mohammad Tabarra, Don Guan, “Temperature Monitoring of New York Subway
System: Stations and Trains, 12th International Symposium on Aerodynamics and
Ventilation of Vehicle Tunnels, Portoroz, Slovenia, 2006.

[2] Madding R. P., (1999) “Emissivity measurement and temperature correction accuracy
considerations”, Inframetrics, Inc.; North Billerica, MA; Thermosense XXI; Proc. SPIE;
Vol. 3700; pp. 393-401; April 1999.

[3] Associated Engineers, “Subway Environmental Design Handbook, Part 1, Principles

and Applications”, Second Edition, NTIS No 254-788, Transit Development Corporation,
Urban Mass Transportation Administration, March 1976

Page 12 of 12

View publication stats