Download Predictions of Railcar Heat Release Rates (PDF Available)

Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17-19, 2010
Predictions of Railcar Heat Release Rates
John Cutonilli & Craig Beyler
Hughes Associates, Inc
3610 Commerce Dr, Suite 817
Baltimore, MD 21227 USA
Email: [email protected], [email protected]
KEYWORDS: Railcar, Heat Release Rate, Modelling, Experimental
OVERVIEW
The design of tunnel ventilation and other fire safety systems for rail tunnels and stations depend upon
knowledge of the heat and smoke production rate from the rail car. This process involves the
determination of material fire properties of the railcar materials, predicting the fire growth based upon
the size of the initiating fire, and determining the heat and smoke generation rate history of the car.
This paper discusses a methodology that can be used to predict railcar heat release rates and discusses
the key concepts that impact the results.
The best method for determining the heat release rate history for a rail car is to physically test the
railcar itself using various fire scenarios in multiple full scale fire tests. This method has a number of
limitations. The primary limitation is in the cost. A new railcar is a multi million dollar piece of
equipment. Even mock-ups would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to construct and instrument.
Most situations will also require multiple tests that reflect different situations, such as different
ventilation conditions, different fire scenarios, or different materials in the cars. The size and
configuration of the railcar require unique fire test facilities that can conduct such tests.
Hughes has developed a methodology to overcome these limitations. The methodology involves a
combination of computer fire modelling and small-scale fire testing to determine the smoke and heat
release rate histories. The small scale testing is used to generate needed inputs to the computer fire
models. Two validated computer fire models (HAIFGMRail, and HAICFMRail) are used to predict
the heat and smoke generation during all stages of the fire, which may include the early stages of a fire
(pre-flashover), occurrence of flashover, fully-developed (post-flashover), decay, and complete
burnout. These computer models are be used to evaluate the potential for fire spread to adjacent
railcars in the train. The models themselves have been published in the peer reviewed fire science
literature [1,2], have been validated by comparisons with available data, and have been used for a
number of rail systems in support of emergency ventilation design.
The computer fire models used to determine the smoke and heat release rate histories require inputs
that are best obtained from small scale testing such as the cone calorimeter test. The cone calorimeter
data is used to develop model input parameters for all car materials, including thermal properties,
ignition temperature, pyrolysis and burning properties, heat release rate, and smoke and species yields.
Cone calorimeter tests are normally conducted in triplicate at three incident heat fluxes, in addition to
the determination of the critical heat flux for ignition. This small scale testing requirement can be quite
significant when as many as 10-12 materials often found in a rail car.
The primary sources of heat and smoke in the railcar come from the interior finish materials. Early
stages of the fire require that the spread of fire across these materials be determined. A pre-flashover
flame spread model (HAIFGMRail) is used to determine this spread along combustible surfaces within
a compartment, in this case a railcar. From this flame spread, the model predicts the amount of heat
495
Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17-19, 2010
and smoke generated during the early stages of the fire (pre-flashover) up to the occurrence of
flashover. The model incorporates heat feedback from the compartment to predict the transition to
flashover. It is also capable of predicting burnout of the flames if the conditions in the compartment do
not result in the transition to flashover within the compartment (decay of the fire).
The pre-flashover model is used as a part of the risk assessment of the railcar. This analysis is typically
performed on a number of different types of fire scenarios [3] including accidental and intentional
(arson) fire scenarios. Using the pre-flashover model, a determination of the fire size and associated
quantities of combustibles needed to flashover the railcar for the various fire scenarios can be made.
This information can then be used to determine the risk of the fully involved railcar. i.e. small fires
occur more frequently but to not cause the railcar to flashover while larger fires are more rare, but may
cause the railcar to flashover.
A second computer fire model (HAICFMRail ) is used to determine the heat and smoke release rate
histories after flashover. It is capable of predicting the window failure during the fire exposure and will
modify the ventilation into the railcar based on the failure of windows. Window failure is based on
some experimental results [4]. The change in ventilation into the railcar has a significant impact on the
heat release rate history [5]. If sufficient fuel is available, increasing the ventilation into the railcar
would result in an increase the heat release rate of the fire. Conversely, increasing ventilation into the
railcar could also cause the fire to transition into the decay stage if insufficient fuel is available to
support a fully-developed fire under the higher ventilation conditions.
Fire spread to adjacent cars can occur through hot gas/flame projections out of side or end windows.
Calculations based on these two models are conducted to evaluate the potential for fire spread to
adjacent railcars based on window failure times. If fire spread to an adjacent car is predicted, then the
heat and smoke release rate histories of the newly ignited railcar will be predicted and added to the
railcar already burning.
FLAME SPREAD MODEL
The flame spread model, HAIFGMRail, is a computer fire growth model developed by Hughes
Associates, Inc. (HAI) [1, 6-10] to determine pre-flashover heat release rates from combustible
finishes. It has been in development for over twelve years and is the primary tool for calculating the
upward and lateral spread of fire on combustible wall and ceiling surfaces in a corner configuration in
the presence of a hot gas. It uses various sub-models based on published data and methodologies to
address the following aspects of the calculation:
•
The flame and thermal plume heat fluxes to the wall and ceiling surfaces;
•
The ceiling and wall boundary temperatures;
•
The compartment temperature; and
•
The ignition and pyrolysis of combustible lining materials.
HAIFGMRail computes the fire spread in a combustible corner on an elemental basis. A corner region
is defined by two walls and a ceiling; each wall and the ceiling are subdivided into a number of
elements or material cells over each of which the temperature, flux, and pyrolysis conditions are
assumed constant. The cell size is user selectable and is typically on the order of 0.1 m or less. Figure 1
depicts a typical corner region.
Flame spread is governed by the thermal properties and ignition temperature of the exposed material.
When the surface temperature of a material cell reaches or exceeds the ignition temperature of the
surface material, the cell is ignited. The surface temperature is calculated by a heat balance between the
incident heat flux, the heat flux conducted into the material, and the heat flux convected and radiated
back into the compartment is performed at the element surface. This heat balance is performed using a
transient finite difference calculation through the total cell thickness and results in an array of
temperatures that approximate the temperature distribution through the boundary at that cell location.
496
Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17-19, 2010
The incident heat flux is comprised of three components: the heat flux direct from the source fire, the
heat flux from burning wall or ceiling cells, and the heat flux from the hot gas layer, if present. The hot
gas layer is computed using a two-zone model that is based on the work of McCafferey, Harkleroad,
and Quintiere [11–13]. The key parameters that are calculated using this sub-model are the upper layer
temperature, the lower layer temperature, layer interface elevation above the compartment floor, and
the neutral plane elevation.
The heat release rate from a burning cell is determined using cone calorimeter transient heat release
rate data measured at a reference incident heat flux. The data heat release rate and the time at which
this heat release rate occurs are scaled from the reference heat flux to the current incident heat flux and
the fire duration at any one location is a function of the total energy evolved at the scaled heat flux. The
approach effectively provides for a variable heat of gasification and allows a reasonably accurate
simulation of the burning of materials that char or undergo a physical change.
Figure 1. Typical Corner Model Grid.
POST FLASHOVER COMPARTMENT MODEL
A sophisticated single room, one-layer model is used to predict the burning rates within the fully
involved rail car. As fires grow, railcar conditions become the dominate factor in determining fire
growth and the subsequent burning rates. Typical models are not sufficiently sophisticated to predict
the burning rate [14, 15]. Instead they leave this important parameter for the user to determine. The
present model, HAICFMRail, allows the interrelationship between the compartment temperature, the
airflow rates, and the burning rate to be determined to properly model the burning rate based on
compartment conditions.
The one layer model is a classical method for calculating compartment conditions during a fire [16]. A
one layer model is typically used to calculate post-flashover fires because the interface has already
moved to a height near the floor and conditions are generally uniform during the fully developed
burning period. Several researchers have also shown success in using a one-layer model to approximate
compartment conditions [17-19]. The one-layer model was chosen because it is a simple proven
497
Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17-19, 2010
method that can adequately represent a range of fully developed fire conditions.
The most important feature of the model is the ability of the model to predict the burning rate of
multiple materials. An unlimited number of materials can be modeled. The model allows a user
specified burning rate, but the model will always limit the maximum burning rate based on the surface
area, mass and compartment conditions. During the early part and late stages of the fire (growth and
decay stages), the burning rate is based on radiative feedback from the compartment and from the fire
itself. The burning rate will solely be based on radiative feedback from the compartment if the
compartment reaches fully developed burning. The model also predicts the failure of windows and
reflects the effect of the change in ventilation on burning rate in the car.
The model also has sophisticated flow rate and heat transfer routines. The flow rate routines calculate
flows into and out of the compartment based on compartment temperatures. An unlimited number of
vents can be specified and the openings of each of these vents can change with time. The heat transfer
routines allow a compartment to be divided into an unlimited number of different heat transfer regions
or boundaries. For example, the walls, ceiling, floor, and windows can all be specified as different
regions. Each of these regions can be specified with multiple materials and each material specified with
temperature dependent properties. This allows a window to be specified as a single material, while
walls, ceilings and the floor specified with multiple materials (i.e., lining and insulation).
EXAMPLE
To demonstrate this methodology, a sample analysis was conducted on a representative intercity type
railcar. Figure 2 depicts the layout of the railcar. The primary fuel source for the railcar fires was the
interior finish materials. Fire performance data was measured using the cone calorimeter using
representative samples of the interior finish materials.
24.5 m
1.44 m
20.5 m
0.72 m
2.49m
1.17m
2.84 m
Seat Pair
0.75 m x 1.0 m
Exit Door
0.76 m x 1.91 m
2.22 m
Window Pairs
0.60 m x 1.37 m
Figure 2. Railcar layout.
Railcar Modeling Results
The fire growth modeling was performed to predict whether the railcar would reach flashover. This
model has three types of input, information on the materials of the railcar, initiating fire sizes, and
ventilation conditions. For most situations the materials of the railcar are given and the minimum
initiating fire size to cause flashover needs to be determined for different ventilation conditions. The
model could also be used the other way around. A maximum design basis fire size could be chosen and
different materials could be chosen to prevent the railcar from flashing over.
The typical used of the model involves modeling the conditions that develop inside of the railcar with
different types and sizes of initiating fires in the railcar. Different initiating fires have different growth
498
Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17-19, 2010
curves, which influences the size of the initiating fire needed to flashover the railcar. An arson fire
such as a flammable liquid spill fire might have a rapid fire growth, but burn for only a short duration.
An accidental fire such as a trash bag fire or carryon luggage would have a slower growth rate, but will
burn for a much longer duration.
For each fire type there is a minimum fire size that leads to flashover. Figure 3 shows a flammable
liquid arson spill that is not able to flashover the car. Figure 4 shows a slightly larger fire that flashes
over the railcar in about a minute. From this information, a determination of the creditability of the
scenario and determine the speed at which flashover will occur.
The post-flashover fire model was used to predict the gas temperatures, ventilation flow rates, window
failure, and heat release rate of fires inside of the intercity railcar. Heat release rate curves from the
flame spread model were used to determine the fire growth rate prior to flashover. Once the
compartment flashed over, the post flashover model predicts the heat release rate curve. Inputs for this
model revolve around the materials and the ventilation. Most of the time the materials are given, but
the model can be used to help select materials if a certain heat release rate is needed.
The ventilation, including the initial ventilation and window failure times affect the peak heat release
rate and the time at which it occurs. This effect of ventilation has been demonstrated in scale model fire
tests [5] which confirmed that the spread and size of the fire inside the railcar was mainly controlled by
ventilation.
The windows typically fail after flashover creating significant increases in the ventilation.
Unfortunately there can be a large variation in window failure times given small changes in the type of
the window. Test data was used to determine window fallout times. The test configuration consisted of
0.050 m thick polycarbonate windows 0.60 m high and 1.37 m wide exposed to a line fire that
produced a heat flux of 25-30 kW/m2 [4]. Window fallout times took approximately 6 minutes if the
entire window was constructed of a single sheet of polycarbonate. If the windows were made of two
smaller (0.60 m high and 0.68 m wide) sheets of polycarbonate reinforced in the center of the window,
the window failure time doubled to around 12 minutes. These results were used to deduce window
failure criteria in terms of the back face temperature at window failure. The window failure criteria for
glass windows would differ from the polycarbonate window results.
To evaluate the effects of the ventilation on a railcar, the model was used to evaluate the impact of the
number of doors initially open (one door or two) and the time that the polycarbonate windows fallout.
Figures 5 and 6 show the heat release rate and gas temperatures for a fire in the railcar with one door
open. The results show that the delay in the ventilation has a significant effect on the heat release rates
and temperatures in the compartment. The reasons for this can be seen in Figures 7 and 8, which show
the remaining masses of the various interior materials. The majority of these materials burn away
around the time the smaller windows fail, limiting the heat release rate of the railcar.
Initial openings also have an effect on the heat release rate and temperatures in the compartment. For a
fire in the railcar with two doors open the heat release rate is in the 15-20 MW range with peaks to 35
MW. If the doors remain closed, heat release rates in the 5 MW range have been calculated. The
differences in the heat release rate can clearly be seen when contrasted with the one door open case
(Figure 5).
Comparison of Data
There is a limited amount of heat release rate data on fully developed fires inside of actual railcars. Most of
this testing has focused on railcar fires located inside tunnels and has been used to support tunnel design
projects [20-23]. A detailed description of the tests is provided in Ref. [23]. Several different variations of
railcars were evaluated including an aluminum subway railcar (18.0 m long, 2.8 m high, 3.0 m wide) and
two steel intercity railcars (26.1 m long, 2.4 m high, 2.9 m wide). The subway railcar and one intercity
railcar (IC-train) contained older interior finish materials, while newer interior finish materials were
contained in the other intercity railcar (ICE-train). All of the tests were run with the doors closed and only
499
Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17-19, 2010
2500
600
Total
Source
Wall
Heat Release Rate
Temperature
500
400
1500
300
1000
200
500
Temperature (C)
Ceiling
2000
100
0
0
200
400
600
0
1000
800
Time (sec)
4000
800
3500
700
3000
600
Total
Source
2500
500
Wall
Ceiling
Temperature
2000
400
1500
300
1000
200
500
100
0
Temperature (C)
Heat Release Rate (kw)
Figure 3. Heat Release Rate and Temperature for Fuel Spill with no flashover of the railcar.
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Time (sec)
Figure 4. Heat Release Rate and Temperature for a Fuel Spill causing flashover of the railcar.
45
12 min. Window Fallout
6 min. Window Fallout
Heat Release Rate (MW)
40
35
30
25
20 Windows Fallout
15
Windows Fallout
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time After Flashover (min)
Figure 5. Heat Release Rate for One Door Open with Large Windows (6 min fallout) and Reinforced
Windows (12 min fallout).
500
Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17-19, 2010
1200
12 min. Window Fallout
6 min. Window Fallout
1000
o
Gas Temperature ( C)
1100
900
800
700
600
500
400
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time After Flashover (min)
Figure 6. Temperature for One Door Open. with Large Windows (6 min fallout) and Reinforced
Windows (12 min fallout).
Seat
Seat Shroud
Floor Carpet
Wall Carpet
Window Mask
Window
Wall Lining
Ceiling Lining
Window Drape
250
Mass (kg)
200
150
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time After Flashover (min)
Figure 7. Mass of Interior Material for One Door Open with Large Windows (6 min fallout).
Seat
Seat Shroud
Floor Carpet
Wall Carpet
Window Mask
Window
Wall Lining
Ceiling Lining
Window Drape
250
Mass (kg)
200
150
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time After Flashover (min)
Figure 8. Mass of Interior Material for One Door Open with Smaller Windows (12 min fallout).
501
Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17-19, 2010
one window open. The windows were made of glass. During the subway railcar test, the aluminum skin
melted, which increase the ventilation into the railcar. The subway railcar fire had a peak heat release
rate of 35 MW, while the longer intercity railcars had peak heat release rates of 13-20 MW. A plot of
the heat release rates measured in these tests can be seen in Figure 9.
A direct quantitative comparison could not be made between the results of the sample
HAIFGMRail/HAICFMRail analysis and the test data due to limited information on the interior finish
materials (including windows) denoted in the test reports and limited information on the ventilation
conditions during the test. A qualitative comparison can be made however. The peak heat release
rates, between the model and the tests, are in the same range as each other. The largest difference is in
the time it takes to reach the peak and the duration of the fire. HAIFGMRail/HAICFMRail predicts
increases in heat release rate (2-4 minutes), while the testing time to peak varied between 5 and 20
minutes. The long duration, low severity fires seen in the intercity cars are indicative of the limited
ventilation available as evidenced from the 35 MW peak of the subway car when the roof vented.
Duration is dependant on ventilation which is discussed above.
Some of the difference in the heat release rate histories can be attributed to test conditions. It was
decided to analyze a subway style railcar in addition to the intercity analysis presented above to
facilitate a more even comparison with what was tested. The results of the subway railcar analysis are
shown in Figure 10. The subway railcar in the tests is similar to the railcar used in the sample analysis.
This test shows rapid increases in the heat release rate, with a peak heat release rate of 35 MW reached
5 minutes after ignition, which is similar to the sample subway railcar analysis.
The intercity railcars that were tested show some inconsistencies with other tests. In another series of
tests [24], a different intercity railcar showed results that were more inline with the subway rail cars.
Flashover conditions were measured inside within 140 seconds and full involvement of all materials in
the car was observed at 175 seconds. While the heat release rate in this particular test (Ref. [24]) was
not recorded, the times to flashover were indicative of the rapid heat release rate predicted in the
sample analysis.
In the intercity fire tests [23] ventilation conditions were constantly changing. Windows were heard
breaking as early as 2 minutes into the test and as late as 42 minutes although exact window breakage
times were difficult to determine from the test reports. The limited ventilation along with burnout
limited the peak heat release rates and extended the duration of the fire.
Some of the differences in heat release rates may be attributed to differences in materials used.
Subsequent modeling conducted by Hughes on different versions of the same railcar suggests that
newer railcars may produce heat release rates substantially higher than older railcars. There is a general
trend to replace metals with plastic composites and glass with polycarbonate. These represent real
concerns with new car designs with respect to the design fire size. The intercity railcar tests were
conducted on older railcars, which may explain differences between the results.
The comparison of the sample HAIFGMRail/HAICFMRail modeling to test data and other modeling
efforts show similarities and differences. All of the comparisons show peak heat release rates in the
same range or higher compared to the sample modeling results. Differences are seen in the time to peak
and duration, but these differences can be attributed to differences in the car, initiating source and
ventilation conditions during the test.
502
Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17-19, 2010
40
Intercity (IC-train)
Intercity (ICE-train)
Subway (Aluminum)
Heat Release Rate [MW]
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Time [min]
Figure 9. Large-scale railcar test data [4]
Heat Release Rate (MW)
30
25
20
15
10
Windows Fallout
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Time After Flashover (min)
Figure 10. HAICFMRail Compartment Modeling of Subway Railcar
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the methodology presented here provides a reasonable alternative to full scale railcar
testing. The value of this modeling comes from the wide range of fire scenarios and ventilation
conditions that can be evaluated so that a suitably conservative design basis fire can be selected. This
modeling also has the ability to assess the contribution of new materials on car performance and to use
the modeling in the material selection process.
The modeling indicates that fully-developed fires inside of railcars are dependent on the fire properties
of interior finish materials, the surface area and combustible mass of fuel inside of the railcar, and the
ventilation conditions into the railcar. Changes in ventilation, such as window failure, can result in
large increases in heat release rate.
Comparisons of the modeling results to full scale testing show both similarities and differences. The
differences are attributed to insufficient information on tested railcar construction, ventilation
conditions during the tests, and no material fire property data. Future large-scale test programs on
503
Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17-19, 2010
railcars need to report surface area of each interior finish material, initial ventilation opening area, and
occurrence of window fallout or other ventilation path development. Cone calorimeter test data on
interior finish materials should also be reported. Prior to testing, simulations should also be conducted
to determine the ventilation conditions that will result in the worst-case heat release rate for the railcar.
REFERENCES
[1]
Lattimer, B., Hunt, S., Wright, M., and Beyler, C.," Corner Fire Growth in a Room with
Combustible Lining." Fire Safety Science - Proceedings of the Seventh International
Symposium Worcester, Massachusetts, 2002, pp. 12
[2]
Lattimer, B, Beyler, C, “Heat Release Rates of Fully-developed Fires in Railcars” Fire Safety
Science- Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium, 18-23 September, 2005,
Beijing, China, International Association for Fire Safety Science, 2005, pp. 1169-1180.
[3]
ASTM E 2061-03, “Standard Guide for Fire Hazard Assessment of Rail Transportation
Vehicles,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003.
[4]
Strege, S., Lattimer, B., and Beyler C., “Fire Induced Failure of Polycarbonate Windows in
Railcars,” Fire and Materials 2003, 2003, pp. 269–278.
[5]
Ingason, H, “Model scale railcar fire tests” Fire Safety Journal, Vol 42, Elsevier, 2007, pp.
271–282.
[6]
Williams, F.W., Hunt, S.P., Beyler, C.L., and Iqbal, N. (1996), “Upward Flame Spread on
Vertical Surfaces,” NRL Ltr Rpt 3902 Ser 6180/0065.1, Naval Research Laboratory,
Washington, DC, March 8, 1996.
[7]
Beyler, C.L., Hunt, S.P., Iqbal, N., and Williams, F.W. (1996), “Upward Flame Spread on
Vertical Surfaces,” Thirteenth Meeting of the U.S./Japan Government Cooperative Program on
Natural Resources (UJNR) Panel on Fire Research and Safety, NISTIR 6030, 1, National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, March 13–20, 1996.
[8]
Williams, F.W., Beyler, C.L., Hunt, S.P., and Iqbal, N. (1997), “Upward Flame Spread on
Vertical Surfaces,” NRL/MR/6180-9-7908, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC,
January 13, 1997.
[9]
Beyler, C.L., Hunt, S.P., Iqbal, N., and Williams, F. (1997), “A Computer Model of Upward
Flame Spread on Vertical Surfaces,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on
Fire Safety Science, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 297–308, 1997.
[10]
Lattimer, B.Y., Hunt, S.P., Wright, M., and Sorathia, U. (2003), “Modeling Fire Growth in a
Combustible Corner,” Fire Safety Journal, 38 (8), December 2003.
[11]
Walton, W.D. and Thomas, P.H. (2002), “Estimating Temperatures in Compartment Fires,”
Sections 3–6, The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd Edition, P.J. DiNenno,
Editor-in-Chief, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2002.
[12]
Karlsson, B. and Magnusson, S.E. (1991), “Combustible Wall Lining Materials: Numerical
Simulation of Room Fire Growth and the Outline of a Reliability based Classification
Procedure,” Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium of Fire Safety Safety Science,
Elsevier Applied Science, London, United Kingdom, 1991.
[13]
Steckler, K., Quintiere, J., and Baum, H. (1982), “Flow Induced by a Fire in a Compartment,”
NBSIR 82-2520, Washington, DC, p 93, 1982.
[14]
Jones, W.W., Forney, G.P., Peacock, R.D., and Reneke, P.A, “A Technical Reference for
CFAST: An Engineering Tool for Estimating Fire and Smoke Transport,” NIST TN 1431,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, April 2003.
504
Fourth International Symposium on Tunnel Safety and Security, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, March 17-19, 2010
[15]
McGrattan, K. and Forney, G., “Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 4) User’s Guide,” NIST
Technical Special Publication 1019, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD, February 2005.
[16]
Drysdale, D., An Introduction to Fire Dynamics, John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex, England,
1998.
[17]
Floyd, J.E, Hunt, S.P., Williams, F.W., and Tatem, P.A., “A Network Fire Model for the
Simulation of Fire Growth and Smoke Spread in Multiple Compartments with Complex
Ventilation,” Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 15 (3), August 2005, pp. 199–229.
[18]
Hurley, M.J., “Evaluation of Models of Fully Developed Post-flashover Compartment Fires,”
Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, 15 (3), August 2005, pp. 175–197.
[19]
Yii, E.H., Buchanan, A.H., and Fleischmann, C.M. “Simulating The Effects of Fuel Type and
Geometry on Post-flashover Fire Temperatures,” Fire Safety Journal, 41, 2006,
pp. 62–75.
[20]
Ingason, H., “Design Fires in Tunnels,” ASIAFLAM ’95, Interscience Communications, 1995,
pp.77-86.
[21]
Steinert, C., “Smoke and Heat Production in Tunnel Fires,” International Conference on Fires in
Tunnels, Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, 1994, pp. 104-122.
[22]
Blume, G., “Smoke and Heat Production in Tunnel Fires – Smoke and Hot Gas Hazards,”
International Conference on Fires in Tunnels, Swedish National Testing and Research Institute,
1994, pp. 138-146.
[23]
EUREKA 1995, “Fires in Transport Tunnels – Report on Full-Scale Tests,” EUREKA Project
EU 499:FIRETUN, Studiengesellschaft Stahlanwendung e.V., D-40213 Dusseldorf, 1995.
[24]
White, N, Dowling, V, Barnett, J, “Full-Scale Fire Experiment on a Typical Passenger Train”
Fire Safety Science- Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium, 18-23 September,
2005, Beijing, China, International Association for Fire Safety Science, 2005, pp1157-1168.
505