2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2010.06.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of FDS predictions by different combustion models with measured data for enclosure fires

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
26
0
3

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
1
26
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Figure 2(a), shows that there were same temperature difference in 10 mm and 30 mm mesh size from experiment as compared with 20 mm mesh. The same findings were reported by Jahn et al (2011), Yang et al (2010 and Harrison (2009). They found that a coarser mesh sometimes gives same results as a fine mesh.…”
Section: Mesh Sensitivity Analysis and Validationsupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Figure 2(a), shows that there were same temperature difference in 10 mm and 30 mm mesh size from experiment as compared with 20 mm mesh. The same findings were reported by Jahn et al (2011), Yang et al (2010 and Harrison (2009). They found that a coarser mesh sometimes gives same results as a fine mesh.…”
Section: Mesh Sensitivity Analysis and Validationsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…The default value in FDS numerical model is calibrated based on the validation of the numerical solution against full scale measurement to predict smoke movement in a very large enclosure . Yang et al (2010) investigated the influence of LES Smagorinsky turbulence model parameters on temperature predictions. They varied the constant values from 0.1 to 0.25 and it gave deviation of 10% from experimental measurements and this indicates that changing the constant value may change the results slightly.…”
Section: Mesh Sensitivity Analysis and Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some of these parameters are known to carry a significant amount of uncertainty and to be important for fire modelling [9,10,22,27]. However, they have not been considered here for the sake of simplicity but their effects should be investigated in future studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Increasing computational power has certainly broadened the scope of predictions in compartment fires. Based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD) techniques, the ability of fire models to simulate the many chemical and physical features in compartment fires has been demonstrated [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. These models have gained immense popularity in the fire protection engineering community and have been widely used for compartment fire safety designs (e.g., sprinkler activation system, smokes detection system, smoke extraction, etc.)…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[5,8,10,11]. There has also been increased research interest on the consideration of suitable chemical mechanisms leading to the prediction of combustion products (carbon dioxide and water vapor) and soot particles [1,6,7,12]. In compartment fires, the hot smoke layer below the compartment ceiling generally comprises combustion products that act to augment the global radiation and is considered to be the dominant factor for radiative heat transfer [1,13,14].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%