Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Smoke control design in large spaces

Dârmon R.1, Suciu M.2


1
Ruxandra Darmon T echnical University of Cluj-Napoca (ROMANIA)
2
Mircea Suciu T echnical University of Cluj-Napoca (ROMANIA)
Ruxandra.Darmon@ccm.utlcuj.ro, Mircea.Suciu@cfdp.utcluj.ro

Abstract
Over the life cycle of a building it is often the case that the initial design is modified due to changes of
the building destination or occupancy, refurbishment works, maintenance, accidental factors and others. As the
safety of the building users remains the priority for all the code requirements, any change of the original design
must be evaluated and it should meet the minimum safety levels required by the standards. This paper presents a
review of a study case for the actual smoke ventilation capacity of an atrium after the original design has been
changed by the new building owners. It is investigated whether the natural or mechanical smoke control system
would be appropriate in the actual conditions.
Keywords: atrium, natural ventilation, neutral plane.

INTRODUCTION
Changes of a building destination, occupancy, modernisation or refurbishment works usually bring
irreversible modifications to the original design. The proposed design should have at least the same level of
safety for the occupants and to not compromise the overall structural stability. Most of the fire safety building
codes require the smoke layer to be maintained above the people’s head height. According to the Eurocodes, the
smoke layer should not drop below 2.5 m above the floor.
The smoke ventilation strategy in case of large spaces as atriums is largely influenced by the geometric
dimensions and the position of the atrium into the general layout of the building [1]. The separations of the
atrium from the adjacent spaces and the available openings to the ambient conditions are also critical factors
affecting the final design approach.
This paper presents an assessment of the ventilation system for the atrium located in the centre of a
three storey building. The atrium base, shown in Fig. 1, below, is a squared hall of 18m x 18m, designed as an
exhibition place and constituting the main assembly point of the building.

Figure 1 Groundfloor plan and the cross section of the atrium

1
One side has the main entrance into the building and the other three have several doors connecting the
adjacent rooms of the building. The free height of the atrium is approximately 12.8 m. At the third floor,
surrounded by 2 m height glass wall, several windows were originally linked to the alarm system to open in case
of fire and maintain the smoke layer above the second floor openings. Since the layout of the groundfloor has
been modified, the original natural smoke ventilation strategy should be redesigned and updated to comply with
the fire safety requirements.
The intent of the new design has been to keep as much as possible from the original strategy, therefore
the aim of this study is to assess whether the smoke layer can be kept above the second level windows in the
atrium and what would be the total necessary outlet at the top of the atrium to maintain a natural ventilation of
the smoke and heat.

1 NATURAL VENTILATION STRATEGY


The smoke layer interface is imposed to remain above the second floor windows, which is about 9 m.
The calculation procedure aims to estimate the necessary outlet vent area Aout to keep the smoke above the
imposed height.

1.1 Initial assumptions


1.1.1 Openings at the lower level
At the ground floor there is only the main entrance with a surface of 5.2 m2 that opens to outside.
However, there are other 3 doors which open to adjacent rooms. In case of emergency, it has been estimated that
the windows from these rooms could be automatically open and enable additional air supply. As a conservative
assumption, for this study it is assumed that the door which are connected to adjacent spaces will have only half
capacity of ventilation, which means a total area of 8.2 m2 inlet at the bottom of the atrium.
The first and second floors have open balconies to the atrium. Both levels are designed as office spaces.
1.1.2 Air properties at ambient conditions
The properties of air at standard temperature and pressure are taken as:
 Density: ρa = 1.204 kg/m3;
 Specific heat: cp = 1.005 kJ/kg-K;
 Ambient temperature: Ta = 293 K = 20˚C.
1.1.3 Boundary conditions
The ceiling, the floor and the walls are made of concrete. The thermal properties for concrete and glass
are taken as in Table 1.
Table 1. Thermal properties of the boundaries at 500˚C

Conductivity Specific heat Density Thermal inertia kρc


Material k c ρ [W²s/m4K²]
[W/mK] [J/kgK] [kg/m³]

Floor, ceiling [2] 1.13 1000 2000 2260000

Glass [3] 0.8 840 2600 1800000

1.1.4 The heat losses to boundaries


It is assumed that the boundaries are semi-infinite solids at the same temperature as the smoke and hot
gases from the upper layer. The heat lost to the compartment boundaries, q̇ loss , is the heat conducted from the
smoke plume into the surrounding walls and ceiling surfaces, denoted Aw. This has been expressed as:
q̇ loss = hA𝑤 (Tg − Ta ) (1)
kρc
Where: h = √ is the heat conduction coefficient for thermally thick solids.
πt

2
Tg and Ta represent the smoke and ambient air temperatures, respectively and t is the time until steady
state conditions are reached into the atrium. For this study it is estimated that t = 600 sec, meaning that the
smoke layer interface should be constant after 10 minutes from the fire initiation.
1.1.5 Heat release rate
The amount of combustible materials at the groundfloor level is limited and controlled. However, due to
the destination as an exhibition place, the thermal load is subject to variations in time. For this study, it is
assumed that a car may be displayed in the centre of the atrium at a certain point in time. Based on available test
data from the literature [4], a burning car could sustain a 5 MW fire.

1.2 Steady state conditions


If steady state conditions are assumed into the atrium, as shown in Fig. 2, the space will be divided into
a cold, lower layer at ambient temperature and a hot upper layer of smoke and hot gases having the temperature
Tg, which should reach the equilibrium after approximately 10 minutes time. After the smoke layer stabilizes, the
volume of the upper layer will remain constant and at a constant temperature T g. Thus, dVg/dt = 0 and dρg/dt = 0.
If the burning rate of the fuel is neglected, the mass balance equation for the atrium takes the form:
miṅ = ṁp = mout ̇ = ṁ (2)
Where:
ṁin and ṁout are the mass flow rates into and out of the compartment, respectively, and
ṁp is the plume mass flow of smoke and heat into the upper layer.

The conservation of energy equation is used to express the energy balance for the upper layer. The
plume flow rate should be equal with the flow rate of hot gases exiting the compartment plus the heat lost to the
compartment boundaries.
Q̇ = mouṫ cp (Ta − Tg ) + qloss
̇ (3)

Figure 2 Atrium energy balance and the pressure profiles

1.2.1 Smoke layer average temperature


The temperature of the upper layer can be calculated combining the equations (1) and (3), as:

Tg = Ta + (4)
mout cṗ +hAw

1.3 Pressure difference across the lower openings


The mass flow rate of fresh air into the compartment can be written as a function of the inlet opening
area, Ain, as:
ṁin = Cd ρa vin Ain = ṁ (5)
Where:
Cd is the discharge coefficient, which accounts for the flow efficiency through an opening. Due to the
friction stresses at the corners of a vent, the velocity of the flow is diminished, therefore, considering this effect;
the recommended value for Cd is 0.6-0.7, for air. [5]

3
vin is the velocity of the fresh air into the compartment.
From Bernoulli principle, the velocity of the flow into the compartment can be expressed as:
2∆Pl
vin = √ (6)
ρa
Replacing the expression for velocity in equation (6), the pressure difference across the lower openings can be
written as:
ṁ 2
∆Pl = (7)
2ρa (Cd Ain )

1.4 Pressure difference across the upper openings


The pressure difference across the upper is equal to the hydrostatic pressure difference, since the velocity is the
same inside and outside. Therefore, taking the height from the opening to the neutral plane, with the notations
from Fig. 2, the pressure difference across the upper vents will be written as:
∆Pu = (ρa − ρg )g(H − HN ) (8)
Where: (H-HN ) is the height from the upper vent to the neutral plane.

1.4.1 The total pressure difference across both openings


The total pressure difference across both openings, expressed as a function of densities is:
ΔP = (ρa – ρg)g(H-z) (9)
For convenience, the pressure difference across the upper vent is written as the difference between the total
pressure and the pressure difference across the lower vent, from equations (8) and (9):
∆Pu = (ρa − ρg )g(H − z) − ∆Pl (10)

1.5 Mass flow rate through the upper openings


The mass flow rate of the smoke leaving the compartment can be written as a function of the outlet
opening area, Aout, as:
ṁout = Cd ρg vout Aout = ṁ (11)
From Bernoulli principle, the velocity of the flow out of the compartment can be expressed as:
2∆Pu
vout = √ (12)
ρg

Combining the equations (10) and (11), the mass flow rate through the upper vent becomes:

ṁout = Cd Aout √2ρg [−∆Pl + (ρa − ρg )g(H − z)] (13)

1.6 Plume mass flow rate


The plume mass flow rate is estimated using the Zukovski correlation [6]:
ρ 2g ̇ z 5/3
ṁ = ṁ = 0.21( a )1/3 Q1/3
p (14)
cp Ta

2 RESULTS

2.1 Smoke layer above the second floor windows


If the ambient temperature is taken as 20°C and the smoke layer is imposed to be above the second floor
windows, z = 9.5 m, the plume mass flow rate is ṁ = ṁ p = 55.69 kg/s.
The pressure difference across the lower vent results ΔP l = 53.26 Pa.
Replacing the value for the enclosure area in contact with the smoke, Aw=562 m2, into equation (4), the
average smoke temperature resulted Tg =359.02 K.
From the ideal gas law, the density of the smoke layer can be written as a function of temperature:
353
𝜌𝑔 = = 0.983 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 (15)
𝑇𝑔

The area of the outlet openings is expressed, from equation (13), as:
ṁout 55.69
Aout = = (16)
Cd √2ρg[−∆Pl +(ρa −ρg)g(H−z)] 0.6√2∙0.983[−53.26+(1.2−0.983)9.81(12.8−9.5)]

4
The equation above does not have a natural solution, because the expression under radical, representing the
pressure difference across the upper vent, has a negative value. With the actual constraints, as the inlet area, Ain
= 8.2 m2 and the smoke layer height z = 9.5 m, it is not posible to reach steady state condition with natural
ventilation through the upper openings.

3 DISCUSSIONS

3.1 The influence of the openings area


The equation (16), above can be solved if the pressure across the upper vent is diminished by increasing
the inlet area, or if the smoke layer height is decreased. The neutral plane would descend, remaining closer to the
highest vent area.
If the inlet area would be increased, the pressure difference across the lower vents approaches zero and
the flow velocity would also decrease. Plotting the inlet area versus outlet area from the equation (16), it can be
seen from Fig.3, that there is a very small variation interval for the inlet in order to keep the outlet area to a
feasible range. The outlet vent openings should be evenly spread at the top level and the area of each window
should not be greater that 2(H – z)2, in order to avoid the plug holing phenomenon [3].
Given these considerations, the optimum solution should lie close to the mean line between the two
axes. As the inlet area is limited to the available door openings from the building, estimated as A in = 8.20 m2, the
only variable remains the smoke layer interface.

Inlet vs.outlet
120

100
Inlet area [m²]

80

60

40

20

0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Outlet area [m²]

Figure 3 The variation between the inlet and outlet openings for a steady state flow
Therefore, if the smoke layer is allowed to descend up to 6.5 m, above the first floor windows, the equilibrium in
the compartment could be reached for an outlet area of Aout = 27, 20 m2. In this case, the mass flow rate into the
atrium would be equal to the mass flow rate out and to the mass plume rate, each of approximately 29.5 kg/s.

3.2 Alternative solutions


With the actual available inlet area, there is not possible to maintain the smoke layer at 9.5 m above the ground
floor. Three alternative solutions should be further analysed as costs and safety implications upon the building
occupants.
3.2.1 Mechanical inlet provided at the atrium base
The inlet area can be supplemented by a number of fans blowing air into the atrium, in case of fire. This
will create an overpressure at the lower part of the atrium arresting the smoke layer to descend below a certain
height.
3.2.2 Mechanical extract provided at the top of the atrium
Knowing the upper layer gas temperature, one can calculate the necessary volume rate for a fan
extracting the smoke at the top of the atrium, as:
𝜌𝑔
̇
𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 = ̇ (17)
𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑡

5
3.2.3 Lowering the smoke layer height and providing smoke barriers at the second floor balcony
If the natural ventilation represents the preferred solution and given that a fire occurrence is an
accidental phenomenon, smoke screens can be provided along the second floor border towards the atrium space
or the balconies can be closed with glass windows. This solution would allow the smoke layer to drop up to 6.5
m and would create the conditions for a steady smoke layer contained above the first floor windows.
3.2.4 Limiting and controlling the fuel load inside the atrium
For this particular case, lowering the fire size five times decreases the plume mass flow rate by 40%,
but it will still require an additional smoke extraction strategy. Therefore, this preventive method can be used in
conjunction with an active control system. Moreover, limiting the fuel load could also decrease the cost
associated with high power fans because the fan capacity is proportional with the fire size.

4 CONCLUSIONS
Subsequent changes in the original design of a building affects more or less all the systems
implemented into the building by the original design. This study has shown how a slight decrease in the inlet
area, would require a great increase of the outlet area for a feasible natural ventilation strategy.

REFERENCES
[1] Milke, J. (2016). Smoke control by mechanical exhaust or natural venting, Chapter 51, SFPE Handbook
of Fire Engineering, Fifth Edition, Springer.
[2] Vassart, O. (2008). Dissemination of structural fire safety engineering knowledge (DIFISEK), Part 1:
Thermal and mechanical actions, WP1, Final Report EUR 23332 EN, ISBN 978-92-79-08354-9.
[3] NBN S21-208-2. (2010). Fire protection in buildings – Design and calculation of smoke and heat
extraction installations – Part 2: Covered car parking buildings, ICS: 13.220.01: 13.220.20, Ontwerp.
[4] Karlsson, B., Quintiere, J. (2000), Enclosure Fire Dynamics, CRC Press, Boca Raton London, New York,
Washington DC.
[5] EN 12101-2:2003. Smoke and heat control systems-Part 2: Specification for Natural smoke and heat
exhaust ventilators.
[6] Zukovski, E.E. (1995). Properties of fire plume. Combustion Fundamentals of fire, Cox,G.,Ed.,Academic
Press, London.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi