Performance of a ventilated‐façade system under fire conditions: An experimental investigation

Abstract

Summary During a fire event, ventilated facade systems may contribute to external fire spreading to the upper floors of a building via the facade, thus representing a significant risk. In this frame, the performance of a typical ventilated façade system under fire conditions is experimentally investigated, using a full‐scale compartment‐facade test rig. Two alternative façade configurations are examined and comparatively assessed, namely a plain façade (PF) and a ventilated façade (VF) system. Emphasis is given on the estimation of the thermal characteristics of the developed Externally Venting Flames (EVF) and the thermal boundary conditions developing on the façade's exposed surface. An extensive set of sensors was installed at the interior of the fire compartment, the façade systems and the exterior of the test configurations. Analysis of the experimental data suggests that even though gaseous combustion products managed to penetrate the air cavity of the VF system, no consistent flaming conditions were established. On the unexposed face of both PF and VF systems, temperatures remained constantly below 180°C throughout the duration of both fire tests. The Eurocode correlations are assessed against the obtained experimental data; certain parameters, such as EVF length, width and centreline temperature, are found to be under‐estimated by the Eurocode methodology.

A review of the contribution of smoke management systems in building design by CFD analysis

“…More than 22 years ago, a team of scientists and engineers by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the United States of America, in collaboration with the Technical Research Centre (TRC) of Finland, developed a powerful computer program to answer critical questions about the safety of buildings against fire. It may not be the only fire modeling simulator, but it remains the most advanced [20], [21].…”

“…Arrangements (c) and (d) are prohibited. Display (e) is also permitted; however, its effects are controversial, and it is advisable to avoid it [21].…”

A Systematic Review on Cavity Fires in Buildings: Flame Spread Characteristics, Fire Risks, and Safety Measures

“…However, in most of the studies, significant idealization of fire scenarios and system configurations was done, and thus, future tests must consider more realistic fire conditions and the actual system configurations as much as possible. A fire within a room is more likely to enter the cavity through the perimeter of a window opening [3,7,39] for rainscreen façades, while the fire enters through inner glass pane cracking for double-skin façades [14,40]. The studies on external fire scenarios consider the combustion of cladding material as the path for the fire to enter the cavity.…”

“…For a scenario where fire enters the cavity due to flame ejecting through a window opening of a rainscreen façade cavity arrangement, larger cavity widths and large fire sizes allow more flame to enter the cavity, which increases the risk [3,7,39]. Sultan [15] identified a risk of fire/flame spreading into upper levels through double-stud wall-floor joints for a fire scenario on the floor below the joint and found that when the cavity is narrower than 25 mm in width, it has less chance of fire penetrating the cavity.…”

“…Sultan [15] identified a risk of fire/flame spreading into upper levels through double-stud wall-floor joints for a fire scenario on the floor below the joint and found that when the cavity is narrower than 25 mm in width, it has less chance of fire penetrating the cavity. Based on other existing research on façade cavities, it can be expected that a cavity width of 25 mm [39] reduces the risk of fire entering upper levels, whereas 50, 70, 100, 150, 170, and 200 mm [3,7] cavities show high chances of fire getting into upper levels. However, the experiment [39] that showed a 25 mm cavity width to reduce the risk was a non-combustible cavity.…”