In the rapidly growing field of CFD-calculations (Computational Fluid Dynamics), companies and organizations are bringing forth new tools, tools that display an image of a given fire scenario. These tools are developed because they provide time efficiency as well as a sustainable economic approach. Another useful tool is analytical solutions, these analytical solutions serve the same purpose as CFD-modeling, providing results of a given scenario. The purpose of this thesis was to simulate a fire plume with two different CFDprograms and compare the gas temperature from each simulation with a full-scale test. Also, analytical solutions were used to perform the same comparisons. Four different calculation models were utilized to obtain results. The CFD-programs were FDS (Fire Dynamics Simulator) and FireFOAM. The analytical solutions were performed using McCaffrey´s plume equation and Eurocode solutions for localized fire temperatures. FDS is a very well documented program, due to this, problems that arose were easily fixed. The structure of FDS enables the user to maneuver the program easily. SmokeView was used to visualize the simulation. FireFOAM is written in C++ and is operated through the command prompt. The structure of the program was time-consuming to understand mainly because of two reasons, primarily because the authors lack of knowledge in coding in C++, and second because of the LINUX environment. Moreover, the process of working in FireFOAM was mostly through trial and error. On some occasions, issues arose that could be solved by communication with other CFD users at CFD-Online. When major problems occurred, regarding the code or other CFD issues, Johan Anderson at RISE Research Institutes of Sweden guided us through most of these problems and enabled us to move forward with the work. ParaView was used to visualize the simulation, and Excel was used to evaluate the temperature data from the FDS- and FireFOAM simulations. For the calculations in FDS and FireFOAM, a sensitivity analysis was performed to see which grid size presented best results in each program. A grid size of 5 cm, 10 cm, and 20 cm were applied in FDS, and in FireFOAM the grid dimensions were set to 5 cm and 10 cm. The results showed that 5 cm was the most appropriate grid size for both programs. It would have been more favorably to simulate with several different grid sizes, to further strengthen the grid analysis. Though, due to the time frame of the thesis, further simulations were not performed. Calculations were repeated for the same scenario only with a lower HRR (Heat release rate). An extensive sensitivity analysis was conducted for FDS in the form of two different simulations. One simulation where HRR was the same as the full-scale test but with twice the area of the burner. In the second simulation, the same area was used on the burner as the fullscale test, but with half the HRR. Results from the analytical solutions were easy to achieve; however, the model has some limitations regarding calculations within the flame region. The estimated gas temperature, using FDS, aligns well with the full-scale test. The temperatures analyzed from FireFOAM deviated in general through the flame region and reached unreasonable high temperatures close to the ceiling. Since the analytical solutions were based on different conditions compared to those applied in the full-scale test, it was expected that the results should deviate. However, McCaffrey plume equations can still be used to give an approximate picture of scenarios similar to that of the full-scale test, and the same applies to Eurocode solutions for localized fire temperatures. Analysis of the results shows that FDS can be used to simulate similar scenarios. FireFOAM simulates a gas temperature that is overestimated within the flame region. One of the reasons for this was due to the grid size since the sensitivity analysis III showed that a refined grid size resulted in more correct temperature value, the reason for not simulating with a more refined grid size was due to the restricted time frame of this thesis. FireFOAM is, at present, recommended for researchers who wish to use the code for specific purposes. Therefore, given the same premises, FireFOAM is not recommended for the standard fire safety analysis.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:ltu-75616 |
| Date | January 2019 |
| Creators | Edin, Erik, Ström, Mattias |
| Publisher | Luleå tekniska universitet, Byggkonstruktion och brand, Luleå tekniska universitet, Byggkonstruktion och brand |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds