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

~ £ 46
The SFPE Handbook of Fire
protection Engineering, 4th
Edition, 2009

~ £ 170

Principles of Fire Behavior

by James G. Quintiere
~ £ 65
 Fire Safety: protect Lives, Property and Business
Fire Service/Sprinkler
Structural Integrity
100%
Progressive
Process Completion

collapse

Untenable
conditions

Room
Critical
Floor
Critical
Building
Critical
time

from Physical Parameters Affecting Fire Growth,

Torero and Rein, CRCpress
 Heat release
rate (kW)

Time
Boundary at 256s
Discipline Boundaries

Fire &
Structures

Fire Structures
Heat Transfer
Lame Substitution of 1st kind

Fire &
Structures

Failure of
Fire structures at
Structures
550+X ºC
 Lame Substitution of 2nd kind
1200
Fire &
900 Structures

600

300
Fire Structures
0
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1
Burning Time [hr]
 Lame Substitution of 3rd kind

1200 Fire &

900
Structures
600 Failure of
300 structures at
0
550+X ºC
0.1 1.1 2.1 3.1
Burning Time [hr]
 Ignition – fuel exposed to heat
 Material start to decompose giving off gasses:
pyrolysis

 Ignition takes place when a flammable mixture of

fuel vapours is formed over the fuel surface

Before ignition After 5 minutes After 15 minutes

 Pyrolysis video
Iris Chang and Frances Radford, 2011 MEng project
 Timeto
Time to ignition
ignition
Experimental data for PMMA (polymer) from the literature. Thick samples
300
Classical theory (best fit)

Apparatus
250 AFM
Time to ignition

Cone calorimeter
FPA
2
FIST
 T  T 
 kc ig o

200 LIFT
t
 q e
igOthers apparatus with tungsten lamps heat source
4 
Others apparatus with flame heat source

150 Experimental conditions

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

Dashed area = experimental error

50
Time = 2s
Heat flux = +12 / -2 % [35]

0
0 50 100 150 200
Heat flux
Flammability
 Video from WPI (USA)
Effect of heat Release Rate on Flame height
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B9-bZCCUxU&feature=player_embedded
Burning rate (per unit area)

from Quintiere, Principles of Fire Behaviour

q 
m  
hp
 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

Q Heat Release Rate (kW) - evolves with time

1. hc Heat of combustion (kJ/kg-fuel) ~ constant

m Burning rate (kg/s) - evolves with time

2.
m  Burning rate per unit area (m2) ~ constant

3. A 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
 Heat of Combustion

from Introduction to fire Dynamics, Drysdale, Wiley

 Burning area A

A
A

*
IGNITION GROWTH MASS BURNING
area of the fire A increasing with time


Q  hc m A
Burn‐out and travelling flames

a)

Recently ignited
near burn-out, by flame
location running out of fuel

b) burn-out H
t b out 
H m 
 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
 On a uniform layer of fuel ignited, spread is circular

dR
S
 S  flame spread rate
A dt
R if S  constant  R  St
A  R   St 
2 2


Q  h m A  h m S t
2 2
c c
~material properties

Q  hc m S 2t 2  t 2
if flame spread is ~constant, the fire grows as t2
 t‐square growth fires
 Tabulated fire-growths of different fire types

ultra-
Q  t 2 fast fast medium
8

HRR (MW)
4 slow

0
0 240 480 720 960
time (s)
Sofa fire

Peak HRR= 3 MW
Average HRR ~1 MW

residual burning
growth burn- + smouldering
out

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

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
5000
4x4x2.4m – small premise in shopping mall
4500

4000 Suppression
with water
3500

3000
HRR (kW)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time (seconds)
Free burning vs. Confined burning

confined free burning

Burning rate (g/m2.s)

q 
m  
hp

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

 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
Feedback
Firepower larger and smoke hotter loop
 Compartment fires
Fire development in a compartment - rate of heat release as a function of time

Q max flashover
Heat release rate (kW)

(b)
Q fo

(a) (c)

Time
(a) growth period
(b) fully developed fire
(c) decay period
Discipline Boundaries

Fire &
Structures

Fire Structures
Heat Transfer
 GI  GO

If the input is incomplete/flawed, the

subsequent analysis is flawed and cannot
be trusted for design

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
 Traditional Design Fires
 Standard Fire ~1917
 Swedish Curves ~1972
 Eurocode Parametric Curve ~1995
1400

1200

1000
T emperat ure (°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 experiments
(~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 et al, Fire Risk M anagement 2009

 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
Arup Campus
Shard
 Edinburgh Survey 3,080 compartments

 1850‐1990 buildings: 66% of volume within limitations

 2008 building: 8%

Modern architecture increasingly produces buildings out of range

Jonsdottir et al
Fire Risk M anagement 2009
 Traditional Methods

 Traditional methods are based on experiments

conducted in small compartment experiments
(~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 et al, Fire Risk M anagement 2009

 Fuel Load

Mixed livingroom/office space

Fuel load is ~ 32 kg/m2
Set-up D esign for robustness and high repeatability
Compartment Temperature

Stern-Gottfried et al., Fire Safety Journal 45, pp. 249–261, 2010. doi:10.1016/ j.firesaf.2010.03.007
Cardington Results
 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%
 Travelling Fires
 Real fires have been 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
 Design Fires

“Problems cannot be solved by the

level of awareness that created
them"
Attributed to A Einstein
Travelling Fires

Fire environment split

into two:
Near-field ≈ 1000-1200 ºC

Far-field ≈ 200-1200 ºC
(Alper’s correlation)

Total burning
duration is a function
Temperature

of the area of the fire

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

Stern-Gottfried et al, SPFE PBD, 2010, Lund

Example – 25% Floor Area fire in a 1000 m2
 Near field temperature 1200ºC for 19 min
 Far field temperature ~ 800ºC for 76 min

Structural
Element

Core

1400
Temperature (ºC)

1200 Point B, Rebar temperature

1000 Point B, Gas temperature
800
600
400
200
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time (min)
 Structural Results – Rebar Temperature

500

2.5%
Rebar Temperature (°C)

400 5%

10%

25%
300
50%

100%

200

100

0
0,1 1 10 100
Time (hours)
Case Study:
Generic Multi‐Storey Concrete Structure

Stern-Gottfried et al, SPFE PBD, 2010, Lund

Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011

Rebar Temperature
 Using a 3D Finite Element Model

100% burn area

400ºC
Temperature

0ºC
600 minutes 1200 minutes
Time
Rebar Temperature

50% burn area

100% burn area

400ºC
Temperature

0ºC
600 minutes 1200 minutes
Time
Rebar Temperature

25% burn area

50% burn area
100% burn area

400ºC
Temperature

0ºC
600 minutes 1200 minutes
Time
Rebar Temperature

10% burn area

25% burn area
50% burn area
100% burn area

400ºC
Temperature

0ºC
600 minutes 1200 minutes
Time
Rebar Temperature

5% burn area
10% burn area
25% burn area
50% burn area
100% burn area

400ºC
Temperature

0ºC
600 minutes 1200 minutes
Time
Rebar Temperature

2.5% burn area

5% burn area
10% burn area
25% burn area
50% burn area
100% burn area

400ºC
Temperature

0ºC
600 minutes 1200 minutes
Time

Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011

Max Rebar Temperatures vs. Fire Size
500
1h 18 min
Rebar Temperature (°C)

400

300

Travelling Fires
200
Standard Fire - 1h 18min

EC Short
100
EC Long

0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Burning Area

Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011

Max Deflection vs. Fire Size
0,35

1h 54 min
0,3

0,25
Deflection (m)

0,2

0,15
Travelling Fires

0,1 Standard Fire - 1h 54min

EC Short
0,05
EC Long

0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Burning Area

Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011

 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
Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011

Jonsdottir et al, Interflam 2010, Nottingham

Stern-Gottfried et al, SPFE PBD, 2010, Lund

Stern-Gottfried et al, Fire Risk M anagement 2009

Jonsdottir et al, Fire Risk M anagement 2009

Rein et al, Interflam 2007, London

ARUP
Strengthening the bridges
from Introduction to fire Dynamics, Drysdale, Wiley

Temperature of the plume

Conservation of Mass – burning time
Burning at average heat release per unit area

m hc
tb 
Q 
 50 MW fire on 200 m2 burns for 30 min
 50 MW fire on 1000 m2 burns for 15 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)

Rein et al, Interflam 2007, London

Aftermath
Average Compartment Temperature
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
Results for Insulated Steel:
Parametric vs. Travelling fires
Jonsdottir et al, Interflam 2010, Nottingham

 Compared to parametric fire, 110% higher temperatures

for a protected steel with 39 mm-gypsum
Structural Behaviour
1 0.06
0.9
0.8 0.05

Normalized strain_
Normalized stress_
0.7
0.04
0.6
0.5 0.03
0.4
0.02
0.3 Reb ar t emp erature Sag g ing s t rain
St and ard Fire St and ard Fire
0.2 Paramet ric - Sho rt ho t 0.01 Parametric - Sho rt ho t
0.1 Paramet ric - Lo ng co o l Parametric - Lo ng co o l
0 0
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
Fire area Fire area

0.2 1
0.18 0.9

Normalized deflection_
0.16 0.8
Normalized strain_

0.14 0.7
0.12 0.6
0.1 0.5
0.08 0.4
0.06 Ho g g ing s train 0.3 Deflect io n
Stand ard Fire Stand ard Fire
0.04 Parametric - Sho rt ho t
0.2 Parametric - Sho rt ho t
0.02 Parametric - Lo ng co o l 0.1 Parametric - Lo ng co o l

0 0
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
Fire area Fire area
Fire Progression

Core Core

Sudden Gradual
Base case Corner Ring - inwards Ring - outwards

1st burn region 2nd burn region 3rd burn region 4th burn region
Fire Shape/Path

Core Core

Linear Corners

Core Core

Ring - Inwards Ring - Outwards

Far Field Temperature Discretization
1400

One Far Field

1200
Two Far Fields

Monotonic Far Field

1000
Temperature (°C)

800

600

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Distance from End (m)

Sensitivity Results
500
Temperature (°C)

400

300

200

100

0
Base case Two Far Fields Monotonic - Monotonic - Corner Ring - Inwards Ring - Outwards
Sudden Gradual

0,35

0,3
Deflection (m)

0,25

0,2

0,15

0,1

0,05

0
Base case Two Far Fields Monotonic - Monotonic - Corner Ring - Inwards Ring - Outwards
Sudden Gradual
Unprotected steel – up to 10% higher steel temperature
(independent of fire size)

Protected steel – from 65%-95% higher steel

temperature
Maximum over prediction (110%) at fire areas of 5-
10%
Maximum under prediction (20%) at fire areas over
85%
The above methodology was applied to a real building, The
Informatics Forum Building of the University of
Edinburgh
 Tmax-method / Tmax-parametric curve - for unprotected steel:

2,0
Tmax-method/Tmax-parametric curve

HE-A 600
1,8

HE-A 300
1,6

HE-A 200
1,4

1,2

1,0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

percentages of floor area

 Heron Tower
ARUP

 46 Storey Office
Building in City of
London
 3-storey atriums
forming ‘villages’
 First ever project to
consider the
robustness of a
structure in a multi-
storey fire.
Heron Tower

ARUP
 Sudden and generalized ignition
(flashover)

q ~ T 4

 When feedback heat flux is ~20 kW/m2 (above the critical

ignition for most known fuels) enhanced flame spread and fast
secondary ignition take places in the compartment → onset of
flashover
 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, Université 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, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium. www.emdat.be

Jocelyn Hofman, Fire Safety Engineering in Coal Mines MSc Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 2010
 Buoyancy

Candle burning on Earth (1g) and

in microgravity inside the ISS (~0g)
 Family of possible fires
1400

1%
1200 2.5%
Far Field Temperature (°C)

5%
1000 10%
25%

800 50%
100%
Std Fire
600
EC Short
EC Long
400

200

0
0,1 1 10 100
Time (hours)

Stern-Gottfried et al, SPFE PBD, 2010, Lund

 Far Field Temperature
 Maximum temperature at ceiling jet. Average
calculated over the correlation with the distance
from the fire (Alpert’s correlation)
rff

4
1400
T max dr

4 rnf
T
Ceiling Jet Temperature (ºC)

1200
rff  rnf
ff
1000

800
Tmax  T 
 r
5. 38 Q   23

600
H
400

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance from Fire (m)
 Products of Combustion
Mass flow of combustion products at the flame:
(Atmospheric air is 21% Oxygen, MWair=29 g/mol)
Flow of products
of combustion
 MWair x  y 4 
m pc  m  m st ,air 
 m 1  ~ m 1  16 
 MW 0.21 
 fuel

fuel flow rate flow of eg, value for propane

by pyrolysis stoichiometric air

m ent  m pc  m smoke  m pc  m ent  m ent

 Smoke is mostly made of entrained air

 Most of the smoke is N2!
 Ventilation flows
Flows in and out of the compartment are controlled by
buoyancy which scales with the density differences and
the size of the opening.

v 2  gH 0
H o , Ao
for buoyant flows

m  vA0  m  A0 H 0

m a ,max  0.5 A0 H 0 ventilation factor

m a ,max  m a
•The flow through openings has a
m a Mass flow of air into compartment (kg/s) maximum possible limit.
•At steady state, flow of smoke out
Ao Opening area (m2) is approximately equal to the flow
of air in.
Ho Height of opening (m)
 Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis of a liquid

Pyrolysis of a 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.
Flame Spread – rate of area growth

s
S
t ig
Flame spread is inversely
s

proportional to the time to

ignition
2
  T ig  T o 
t ig  k c  
4  qe 
Downward Upward
 Ignition – fuel exposed to heat
 Material start to decompose giving off gasses:
pyrolysis

 Ignition takes place when a flammable mixture of

fuel vapours is formed over the fuel surface

Heat flux

Pilot Flammable mixture

Temperature
Depth

Tambient (t0) T(t1) T(t2) T(t3) T(t ignition)

time
 Flame Spread vs. Angle

downward upward
vertical vertical
spread spread

Upward spread up to 20 times faster than downward spread

 Examples of HRR
workstation mattress wood crib
 Under Ventilated fires and
External flaming

0:00 min 4:15 min 5:00 min

Polypropylene: burning inside a small compartment (0.4m cube)
 Ceiling Jet

from Alpert, Ceiling jet flows, SFPE handbook

 Size Matters
Surface Area to Volume Ratio vs Floor Area for a 3m High Square Compartment

2.5

Fire Tests
Surface Area/Volume (1/m)

Real Buildings
1.5

0.5

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Floor Area (m²)

Stern-Gottfried et al, Fire Risk M anagement 2009

 Encouraging initial reactions to this work

 Abstract submitted in 2007 to Structures in Fire (SiF)

 Title: “ON THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN FIRES FOR
VERY LARGE ENCLOSURES”
 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 in 2011 to Structures in Fire (SiF)

 Title: “TRAVELLING FIRES IN LARGE
COMPARTMENTS: MOST SEVERE POSSIBLE
SCENARIOS FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN”
 Reviewer 1: Several works has been done and published
 Reviewer 2: No significant input
 Reviewer 3: Authors must provide examples for typical case studies
Thanks