Yi Wang, K. Meredith, Xiangyang Zhou, P. Chatterjee, Y. Xin, M. Chaos, N. Ren, S. Dorofeev
{"title":"Numerical Simulation of Sprinkler Suppression of Rack Storage Fires","authors":"Yi Wang, K. Meredith, Xiangyang Zhou, P. Chatterjee, Y. Xin, M. Chaos, N. Ren, S. Dorofeev","doi":"10.3801/iafss.fss.11-1170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Fire suppression tests with ceiling sprinkler protection in a rack storage fuel configuration are simulated using a Computational Fluid Dynamics tool. The fuel is arranged in a double-row, six pallet-load wide and three-tier high (2×6×3) rack storage array. Each pallet load consists of three nested double-wall corrugated cardboard boxes surrounding a metal liner. Two types of ceiling sprinklers are used in this study: a pendent quick response sprinkler designated as K14, and an upright standard response sprinkler designated as K11.2. The tests are simulated using FireFOAM, which couples necessary sub-models for fire growth, sprinkler response, and fire suppression. Numerical results are compared with experiments for both free burn tests under a 20-MW calorimeter and sprinkler suppression tests under a 7.6 m high ceiling. For the free burn case, the model results show good quantitative agreement of heat release rates in all three phases, from ignition to fire growth and steady burning. For the suppression cases, the model reproduces the suppression effectiveness of the two sprinkler protection designs: K14 sprinklers suppress the fire rapidly with only one sprinkler activation, while with K11.2 sprinklers, both in the tests and simulation, the fire spreads to the pallets on the end of the fuel array with multiple sprinkler activations. The modeled sprinkler activation times are within the estimated experimental uncertainty following three repeat tests. Quantitative results characterizing sprinkler suppression performance obtained from the simulations, such as the actual delivered density (ADD) and water evaporation rate, are also reported.","PeriodicalId":12145,"journal":{"name":"Fire Safety Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"38","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fire Safety Science","FirstCategoryId":"1087","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3801/iafss.fss.11-1170","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38
Abstract
Fire suppression tests with ceiling sprinkler protection in a rack storage fuel configuration are simulated using a Computational Fluid Dynamics tool. The fuel is arranged in a double-row, six pallet-load wide and three-tier high (2×6×3) rack storage array. Each pallet load consists of three nested double-wall corrugated cardboard boxes surrounding a metal liner. Two types of ceiling sprinklers are used in this study: a pendent quick response sprinkler designated as K14, and an upright standard response sprinkler designated as K11.2. The tests are simulated using FireFOAM, which couples necessary sub-models for fire growth, sprinkler response, and fire suppression. Numerical results are compared with experiments for both free burn tests under a 20-MW calorimeter and sprinkler suppression tests under a 7.6 m high ceiling. For the free burn case, the model results show good quantitative agreement of heat release rates in all three phases, from ignition to fire growth and steady burning. For the suppression cases, the model reproduces the suppression effectiveness of the two sprinkler protection designs: K14 sprinklers suppress the fire rapidly with only one sprinkler activation, while with K11.2 sprinklers, both in the tests and simulation, the fire spreads to the pallets on the end of the fuel array with multiple sprinkler activations. The modeled sprinkler activation times are within the estimated experimental uncertainty following three repeat tests. Quantitative results characterizing sprinkler suppression performance obtained from the simulations, such as the actual delivered density (ADD) and water evaporation rate, are also reported.