Introduction to Fire Dynamics for Structural Engineers

by Dr Guillermo Rein
School of Engineering University of Edinburgh

Training School for Young Researchers COST TU0904, Malta, April 2012

Textbooks
Introduction to fire Dynamics by Dougal Drysdale, 3rd Edition, Wiley 2011

The SFPE Handbook of Fire protection Engineering, 4th Edition, 2009

~170

~46

Principles of Fire Behavior by James G. Quintiere

~65

Technological Disasters 1900-2000

, , , , , , , , , , Explosions and Fire

NOTE: Immediate fatalities as a proxy to overall damage. Disaster defined as >10 fatalities, >100 people affected, state of emergency or call for international assistance.
EM-DAT International Disaster Database, Universit catholique de Louvain, Belgium. www.emdat.be Jocelyn Hofman, Fire Safety Engineering in Coal Mines MSc Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 2010

Technological Disasters 1900-2000 Fire and Explosions

, , , ,

EM-DAT International Disaster Database, Universit catholique de Louvain, Belgium. www.emdat.be Jocelyn Hofman, Fire Safety Engineering in Coal Mines MSc Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 2010

Objective of Fire Safety Engineering: protect Lives, Property, Business and Environment
Structural Integrity
Roo me vacu atio Fl n oo rE va cu at io n

100%
Process Completion

Progressive collapse

Untenable conditions
Room Critical Floor Critical Building Critical

time

from Torero and Rein, Physical Parameters Affecting Fire Growth, Chapter 3 in: Fire Retardancy of Polymeric Materials,CRC Press 2009

Objective of Fire Safety Engineering: protect Lives, Property, Business and Environment
Fire Service/Sprinkler Structural Integrity
Roo me vacu atio Fl n oo rE va cu at io n

100%
Process Completion

Rescue operations Untenable conditions

Room Critical Floor Critical Building Critical

time

from Torero and Rein, Physical Parameters Affecting Fire Growth, Chapter 3 in: Fire Retardancy of Polymeric Materials,CRC Press 2009

Boundary at 256s
The boundary between fire engineers and structural engineers is at the onset of flashover.

Heat release rate (kW)

Time

Discipline Boundaries
Fire & Structures

Fire

Structures
Heat Transfer

The boundary between fire and structures is the intersection of these two sets of expertise. In the 21st C. we are very lucky this intersection is recognized now by all to take place under the realm of heat transfer that the fire insult to the structural element is a heat flux.

Lame Substitution of the 1st kind

Fire & Structures Failure of structures at 550+X C

Fire

When structural engineers are entirely replaced by pseudoscience. It can still be observed in several papers and standards

Lame Substitution of the 2nd kind

1200

Fire & Structures

900

600

300

Structures
0.1 1.1 2.1
Burning Time [hr]

0 3.1

When fire engineers are entirely replaced by pseudo-science. It is mainstream all over science and technology of structural engineering.

Lame Substitution of the 3rd kind

1200

Fire & Structures Failure of structures at 550+X C

0.1 1.1 2.1
Burning Time [hr]

900

600

300

0 3.1

When both fire and structural engineers are simultaneously replaced by pseudo-science. Any similarities with reality is a mere coincidence.

Objective of this talk

Provide an introduction to fire dynamics to the audience, a majority of structural engineers working on fire and structures

This introduction will make emphasis on the mechanism governing fire growth in compartments The two most fundamental flaws of current design fire methodologies will be reviewed

Ignition fuel exposed to heat

Upon receiving sufficient heat, a solid/liquid fuel starts to decompose giving off gasses: pyrolysis Ignition takes place when a flammable mixture of fuel vapours is formed over the fuel surface
radiant heat radiant heat

Before ignition

After 5 min

After 15 min

Ignition fuel exposed to heat

Heat flux Pilot

Temperature Depth

Flammable mixture

Tambient (t0)

T(t1)

T(t2)

T(t3)

T(t ignition)

time

by Nicolas Bal

Pyrolysis
from Introduction to fire Dynamics, Drysdale, Wiley

Pyrolysis of liquid

Pyrolysis of solid

When a solid material heats up, it eventually reaches a temperature threshold where it begins to chemically break down. This process is called pyrolysis and is similar to gasification but with one key difference pyrolysis is the simultaneous change of chemical composition (eg, long hydrocarbon chains to shorter chains) and physical phase (ie, solid or liquid to vapour) and is irreversible. When a solid is burning with a flame, it is actually the pyrolysis vapours (aka pyrolyzate) directly above it that is burning, not the solid itself.

Pyrolysis video
htttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UusEwufhWaw Iris Chang and Frances Radford, 2011/2012 MEng project Pyrolysis of clear PMMA slab 25mm high

Time to Thick Time to ignition ignition Samples

Experimental data for PMMA (polymer) from the literature. Thick samples
300
Classical theory (best fit) Apparatus AFM Cone calorimeter FPA 2 FIST LIFT ig o Others apparatus with tungsten lamps heat source ig Others apparatus with flame heat source

Time to ignition

250

200

T T t = kc q 4 &e

150

100

Experimental conditions No black carbon coating or no information Black carbon coating Vertical sample Controled atmsophere (18% < O2 < 30%) Miscellaneous

50

Dashed area = experimental error Time = 2s Heat flux = +12 / -2 % [35]

0 0 50 100 150 200

Heat flux
from Bal and Rein, Combustion and Flame 2011

Flammability

Time to ignition Thin Samples

Thermally thin (h/k=Bi<0.1) means that one single temperature represents the whole slab is thickness, is density, c is specific heat No temperature gradients lumped system For thin fuels exposed to high radiant heat fluxes, tig can be plotted against qe to give a straight line of gradient c.

tig

(T = c

ig

T0 ) &e q

Buoyancy controls flame shape

Candle burning on Earth (1g) and in microgravity inside the ISS (~0g)

Flame and Firepower

Effect of heat Release Rate on Flame height (video WPI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B9-bZCCUxU&feature=player_embedded

Firepower Heat Release Rate

Heat release rate (HRR) is the power of the fire (energy release per unit time)

& & & Q = hc m = hc m A

1. 2. 3.

& Q hc & m & m A

Heat Release Rate (kW)

- evolves with time

Heat of combustion (kJ/kg-fuel) ~ constant Burning rate (kg/s) - evolves with time Burning rate per unit area (m2) ~ constant Burning area (m2) - evolves with time

Note: the heat of reaction is negative for exothermic reaction, but in combustion this is always the case, so we will drop the sign from the heat of combustion for the sake of simplicity

Burning rate (per unit area)

from Quintiere, Principles of Fire Behaviour

& q & m = hp

Heat of Combustion

from Introduction to fire Dynamics, Drysdale, Wiley

from Introduction to fire Dynamics, Drysdale, Wiley

Temperature of the plume

Fire spread
A A

*
IGNITION GROWTH MASS BURNING

area of the fire A increasing with time

& = h m A & Q c

Burn-out and travelling flames

a)

near burn-out, location running out of fuel

Recently ignited by flame

b)

burn-out

tb out

H = & m

Flame Spread Rate

s S t ig
s

Flame spread is inversely proportional to the time to ignition

Thick fuel

Thin fuel

Downward

Upward

Tig To t ig = kc q &e 4 (Tig T0 ) tig = c &e q

Flame Spread vs. Angle

Rate of flame spread over strips of thin samples of balsa wood at different angles of 15, 90, -15 and 0. Test conducted by Aled Beswick BEng 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8gcFX9jLGc

Flame Spread vs. Angle

downward vertical spread

upward vertical spread

Upward spread up to 20 times faster than downward spread

Test conducted by Aled Beswick BEng 2009

Flame spread
On a uniform layer of fuel, isotropic spread gives a circular pattern

A R

dR = S = flame spread rate dt if S = constant R = St A = R = (St ) & = h mA = h mS 2t 2 & & Q

2 2 c c

~ material properties

& & Q = hc mS 2t 2 = t 2
when flame spread is ~constant, the fire grows as t2

t-square growth fires

Tabulated fire-growths of different fire types

& Q = t 2
HRR (MW)

8 6 4 2 0 0

ultrafast

fast

medium

slow

240

480

720

960

time (s)

Sofa fire

Peak HRR= 3 MW Average HRR ~1 MW

growth

burnout

residual burning + smouldering

from NIST http://fire.nist.gov/fire/fires

Examples of HRR
from NIST http://fire.nist.gov/fire/fires

workstation

mattress

wood crib

Fire Test at BRE commissioned by Arup 2009 4x4x2.4m small premise in shopping mall

190s

285s

316s

Fire Test at BRE commissioned by Arup 2009 4x4x2.4m small premise in shopping mall
Suppression with water hoses

Free burning vs. Confined burning

from Introduction to fire Dynamics, Drysdale, Wiley
free burning confined

& q & m = hp

Burning rate (g/m2.s) Time (s)

Experimental data from slab of PMMA (0.76m x 0.76m) at unconfined and confined conditions

Smoke and walls radiate downwards to fuel items in the compartments

Sudden and generalized ignition (flashover)

What is flashover? Sudden period of very rapid growth caused by generalized ignition of fuel items in the room Some indicators:

Average smoke temperature of ~500-600 C Heat flux ~20 kW/m2 at floor level Flames out of openings (ventilation controlled)

NOTE: These three are not definitions but indicators only NOTE: Average temperate of 600C implies that the room space is occupied mostly by interment flames

Flashover
Mechanism for flashover:
Fire produces a plume of hot smoke Hot smoke layer accumulates under the ceiling Hot smoke and heated surfaces radiate downwards Flame spread rate and rate of secondary ignition increases Rate of burning increases Firepower larger and smoke hotter
Feedback loop

Compartment fires
Fire development in a compartment - rate of heat release as a function of time

& Qmax
Heat release rate (kW)

flashover

(b)
& Q fo

(a)
Time

(c)

(a) growth period (b) fully developed fire (c) decay period

Discipline Boundaries
Fire & Structures

Fire

Structures
Heat Transfer

GI GO When problems arise at the interface between fire and structures, most consequences travel downstream, ie. towards the structural engineer If the input is incomplete or wrong, the subsequent analysis is flawed and cannot be trusted Fire is the input (boundary condition) to subsequent structures analysis.

Design Fires
The Titanic complied with all codes. Lawyers can make any device legal, only engineers can make them safe"
Prof VM Brannigan University of Maryland

What follows is a review of the current state of the art on design fires in fire and structures.

Traditional Design Fires

Standard Fire ~1917 Swedish Curves ~1972 Eurocode Parametric Curve ~1995
1400

1200

1000

Temperature (C)

800
EC - Short EC - Long Standard

600

400

200

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240

Time (minutes)

Traditional Methods
Traditional methods are based on experiments conducted in small compartment (~3 m3)
1. Traditional methods assume uniform fires that lead to uniform fire temperatures (?) 2. Traditional methods have been said to be conservative (?)

Stern-Gottfried, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh 2011.

Limitations
For example, limitations according Eurocode: Near rectangular enclosures Floor areas < 500 m2 Heights < 4 m No ceilings openings Only medium thermal-inertia lining

< 500 m2 floor? <4 m high? Rectangular?

Excel, London

Proposed WTC Transit Hub

Insulating lining?

No ceiling opening?
Arup/Peter Cook/VIEW

Renzo Piano Shard Arup Campus

Edinburgh Survey of 3,080 compartments

We surveyed most of the enclosures in the Kings Buildings campus of the University of Edinburgh. Results: Buildings from 1850-1990 have on average 66% of its volume within limitations Newest building from 2008 has 8% of its volume within limitations (see figure) Conclusion: Modern architecture increasingly produces buildings out of range
Jonsdottir et al, Out of range, Fire Risk Management 2009

Size Effects
During the last few years, we have been working on two problems that stem from the assumptions made by current design fires used in the field The main problem is that in a large enclosure, the concept of flashover is not possible. Average temperature of 600C implies the whole enclosure is an massive intermitting flame, which could not be possibly fed by enough ventilation. This scenario would resemble an explosion and be short-live instead. We currently do not know what the upper enclosure size for flashover is, but Eurocode suggests is in the order of 500 m2 floorplate.

Traditional Problems
Traditional methods are based on experiments conducted in small compartment (~3 m3)
1. Traditional methods assume uniform fires that lead to uniform fire temperatures (?) 2. Traditional methods have been said to be conservative (?)

Stern-Gottfried, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh 2011.

Fuel Load

Mixed livingroom/office space Fuel load is ~ 32 kg/m2 Set-up Design for robustness and high repeatability

Average Compartment Temperature

Compartment Temperature

Stern-Gottfried et al., Fire Safety Journal 45, pp. 249261, 2010. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2010.03.007

Cardington Results

Stern-Gottfried et al., Fire Safety Journal 45, pp. 249261, 2010. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2010.03.007

Temperature Distributions

Peak local temperatures range from 23% to 75% above compartment average, with a mean of 38% Local minimum temperatures range from 29% to 99% below compartment average, with a mean of 49%
Stern-Gottfried et al., Fire Safety Journal 45, pp. 249261, 2010. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2010.03.007

Three different beams used

Unprotected steel I-beam Protected steel I-beam to 60 min (12mm high density perlite) Concrete beam with 60 min rating

Example: Cardington 2

Stern-Gottfried et al., Fire Safety Journal 45, pp. 249261, 2010. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2010.03.007

Stern-Gottfried et al., Fire Safety Journal 45, pp. 249261, 2010. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2010.03.007

Structural Results at 80th Percentile

Criteria taken as steel or rebar temperature of 550C Unprotected steel Temperature rise increase from 4% to 15% Time to failure decrease of 5% to 26% Protected steel Temperature rise increase from 4% to 18% Time to failure decrease of 5% to 15% Concrete Temperature rise increase from 5% to 25% Time to failure decrease of 6% to 22%

Conclusions on homogeneity
Fire tests show considerable non-uniformity in the temperature field of post-flashover fires One single temperature for a whole compartment is not a correct assumption Heterogeneity has significant impact on structural fire response Fire tests with crude spatial resolution have led to erroneous conclusions Future tests should be instrumented as densely as possible

Traditional Problems

Problems cannot be solved by the level of awareness that created them"

Attributed to A Einstein

Traditional Problems
Traditional methods are based on experiments conducted in small compartment (~3 m3)
1. Traditional methods assume uniform fires that lead to uniform fire temperatures (?) 2. Traditional methods have been said to be conservative (?)

Stern-Gottfried, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh 2011.

Travelling Fires
Real fires are observed to travel
WTC Towers 2001 Torre Windsor 2005 Delft Faculty 2008

Experimental data indicate fires travel in large compartments In larger compartments, the fire does not burn uniformly but burns locally and spreads Flashover in large compartment has never been observed

Travelling Fires
Reject homogenous temperature assumption. Fire environment split into two regions:
Near-field, short & hot 1000-1200 C Far-field, long & cold 200-1200 C

Stern-Gottfried and Rein, Fire Safety Journal, 2012

Travelling Fires

spread

spread

Temperature

Distance

Temperature

Distance

Ceiling Jet

from Alpert, Ceiling jet flows, SFPE handbook

Travelling Fires
Each structural element sees a combination of Near Field and Far Field temperatures as the fire travels

Stern-Gottfried and Rein, Fire Safety Journal, 2012

Conservation of Mass burning time for near field

Time during which the near field burns at any given fuel location:

m hc tb = & Q
For typical office buildings, burning time is ~20 min

where tb is the burning time, m is the fuel load density (kg/m2), Hc is the effective heat of combustion and Q is the heat release rate per unit area (MW/m2)
Stern-Gottfried and Rein, Fire Safety Journal, 2012

Case Study: Generic Multi-Storey Concrete Structure

Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011

Example 25% Floor Area fire in a 1000 m2

Near field temperature 1200C for 19 min Far field temperature ~ 800C for 76 min
Structural Element

Core

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 50 100 150 200 Time (min) 250

Temperature (C)

Point B, Rebar temperature Point B, Gas temperature

300

350

400

Structural Results Rebar Temperature

Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011

Rebar Temperature

2.5% burn area 5% burn area 10% burn area 25% burn area 50% burn area 100% burn area
400C Temperature 0C 600 minutes Time 1200 minutes

Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011

Effect of fire size and rebar depth

Stern-Gottfried and Rein, Fire Safety Journal, 2012

Effect of fuel load

Stern-Gottfried and Rein, Fire Safety Journal, 2012

Max Rebar Temperatures vs. Fire Size

1h 18 min

Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011

Max Deflection vs. Fire Size

1h 54 min

Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011

Steel Structure

Stern-Gottfried and Rein, Fire Safety Journal, 2012

Conclusions
In large compartments, a post flashover fire is not likely to occur, but a travelling fire Provides range of possible fire dynamics Novel framework complementing traditional methods Travelling fires give more onerous conditions for the structure Strengthens collaboration between fire and structural fire engineers

Thanks Sponsors: Collaborators: J Stern-Gottfried A Law A Jonsdottir M Gillie J Torero

Stern-Gottfried and Rein, Fire Safety Journal, 2012 Stern-Gottfried, PhD Thesis, 2011 Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011 Jonsdottir et al, Fire Risk Management 2009 Rein et al, Interflam 2007, London
ARUP

Encouraging initial reactions to this work?

Abstract submitted to 2008 Structures in Fire (SiF) conference Title: ON THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN FIRES FOR VERY LARGE ENCLOSURES Outcome: Rejected
Reviewer #1: This abstract does not it fit with [conference] theme. Reviewer #2: This paper is outside the scope of the conference Reviewer #3: The authors are encouraged to submit their paper somewhere else

Abstract submitted 2012 Structures in Fire (SiF) conference Title: TRAVELLING FIRES IN LARGE COMPARTMENTS: MOST SEVERE POSSIBLE SCENARIOS FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN Outcome: Rejected
Reviewer 1: Several works has been done and published Reviewer 2: No significant input Reviewer 3: Authors must provide examples for typical case studies Problems cannot be solved by the level of awareness that created them Attributed to A Einstein

Effect of near field temperature

Stern-Gottfried and Rein, Fire Safety Journal, 2012