A PPLI E D S CI E NCE AN D
S E CT I O N 3
FI R E PR EVE NTION
A N D P R OT E CT I O N
LEAR N I NG OBJ ECTIVE S
Develop an understanding of
the phenomena that encompass
fire dynamicsfrom fuel release,
dispersion, and ignition through
fire spread, growth, and possible
flashoverculminating in the
devastation produced and the
subsequent investigation.
Gain an appreciation of safety
and loss-prevention issues in-
volved in the occurrence of fires
and of factors that can mitigate
the extent of subsequent damage.
Develop the ability to calculate
useful information from empirical
equations that describe observed
fire phenomena, permitting
deductions for other situations
that are interpolated or extrapo-
lated from a limited amount of
experimental data.
Learn to use mathematical
modeling concepts related to
computer-based calculation
procedures known as the zone
method and the computational
fluid dynamic (CFD) method for
simulating fire growth, smoke
production, and travel from fires.
E NG I N E E R I NG : F I R E DYNAM ICS
David G. Lilley
THE ULTIMATE GOAL of this chapter is to improve scientific
understanding of fire behavior leading to flashover in structural
fires. Topic areas are release, spread, and ignition of flammable
materials; burning rates; radiant ignition of other items; fire spread
rates; ventilation limit imposed by sizes of openings; flashover
criteria; and fire modeling. Within each topic area is information
dealing with background and theory, followed by comments. The
references given provide a good cross-section of experimental
and theoretical studies related to the understanding of real-life
fires. These provide useful test data for development of the theory
of fire growth and its application to real-world fire situations.
The development of structural fires can be understood more
readily when technical knowledge puts the phenomena on a firm
scientific footing. The theory can assist in understanding and ap-
plying scientific information to real-world fire situations. Recent
extensive study, research, experimentation, and field observations
and measurements have led to the need for critical evaluation of
phenomena associated with fire dynamicsthe term chosen to
represent topics associated with fire behavior, including ignition,
fire development, and fully developed fires. The scientific topics
of chemistry, physics, aerodynamics, and heat transfer all play
their part. Technical information about fuels, burning rates, fire
spread, and flashover and backdraft phenomena is also relevant.
These topics are addressed in the light of the relevant equations
embodied in such computer programs as FPETool, FASTLite,
CFAST, and HAZARD. The references provide further details.
The purpose of this chapter is to review a few of the ideas
involved in appreciating how technical understanding or engi-
neering analysis can assist in determining responsibility, that is,
to determine where the blame lies as to why the incident occurred.
1
2 Section 3: Fire Prevention and Protection
Investigators are aided by knowledge of failure modes
of appliances, fire causes and ignition, dynamics of
fuel release and dispersion, and dynamics of fire be-
havior. The extensive reference list provides additional
information. Various aspects of safety related to fire
protection are addressed in handbooks from the So-
ciety of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) (2002) and
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) (Cote
2003). Emmons (1985), Thomas (1974), Zukoski (1985),
and other references address technical engineering
aspects of fire phenomena. Appliance operations are
discussed in American Gas Association (AGA) (1997
and 1988), Berry (1989), Carroll (1979), Patton (1994),
and elsewhere. This chapter builds on the authors pre-
vious fire-related papers, including his short course
(Lilley 1995a and 2004) and his general review (Lilley
1995b). Specific theories, equations, and data about
fuel burning properties are given in Lilley (1997a and
1997b). Graphic illustrations are now given to exem-
plify the theories and their application to real-world
situations. More extensive treatment of the discus-
sion here is given in Lilley (1998a and 1998b), with
theory and calculation methodology included. The
present brief contribution concentrates on the phe-
nomena, specific problems, and graphical illustration
of the sample calculations.
Fire modeling plays an important role in fire pro-
tection engineering and building design engineering.
Two different modeling techniques are commonly used
in fire modeling: field modeling (computational fluid
dynamics technique) and zone modeling. In field mod-
eling, computational demands are very large, and cor-
rect simulation ultimately depends on the empirical
specification of things such as ignition, burning rates,
fire spread, ventilation limitation, and so on. At this
time, field models are being developed and applied
for the simulation of structural fires. But the zone
method represents a more mature field for fire and
smoke transport; the methods have been developed
and applied for many years.
F I R E I NVE STIGATION
Major structural fires require investigation. The analy-
sis of failure modes is important in determining why
the fire occurredwhat went wrongand whether
it was incendiary or otherwise. If incendiary, was it
an act of arson? If otherwise, was it a design defect,
manufacturing defect, installation error, operating error,
repair error, or something else? Engineering analysis
is often needed to determine the cause of the fire
what happened, why the incident occurred, and what
can be done to prevent future incidentsin short, to
assist in having a safer situation in the future.
Origin and cause investigations deal with the
where and how of the fire. Why the fire began is the
issue in question when responsibility for the fire is
addressed. Of particular concern is the source of the
fuel for the fire, and the ignition source, as either or
both of these might well be associated with responsi-
bility. For example, it may be that a welder, plumber,
or other workman using an acetylene torch might be
responsible for causing a fire by supplying the igni-
tion through negligent actions. On the other hand,
the workman might not have been negligent, having
taken prudent precautions, but was working in an
environment where gaseous vapors were (without
his knowledge) present. Then responsibility may be
on the imperfection that caused the release of the gas-
eous vapors. Affixing responsibility for a fire is not
always a clear-cut situation, and engineering analysis
is often needed.
When research, experiments, theory, or calculations
are needed to confirm or deny a suggested fire scenario,
a complete and thorough investigation is undertaken.
Beyond origin and cause of fires, the technical engi-
neering investigation focuses on the fire scenario and
the real cause of the fire. Deficiencies are identified with
regard to adherence to codes and standards, whether
installation and maintenance procedures were ade-
quate, and whether design or manufacturing defects
contributed. Product-liability issues are addressed, with
questions of whether an item was defective and un-
reasonably dangerous. Safety engineers are particularly
concerned with all these issues.
F I R E S EVE R ITY
Assessment of fire-hazard potential involves more than
just enclosure surface area and total fuel load in terms
Applied Science and Engineering: Fire Dynamics 3

of mass of equivalent ordinary combustibles per unit
area (in kg/m2 or lbm/ft2). The arrangement of com-
bustibles, their chemical composition, physical state,
ease of ignition, rates of fire growth, and so on are all
factors to be evaluated, in addition to room geometry
and size, ventilation capability, and fire protection facil-
ities. Generally, the faster a fire develops, the greater
the threat will be. Typical fire loads are given by the
NFPA (Cote 2003) for different occupancies.
Interior finishes of walls, ceilings, and floors can
significantly affect the initial fire growth. Fire spread
over interior finishes therefore deserves special atten-
tion, and it may be noted that fire spread rates vary
enormously. The relative hazard of an interior finish
is usually determined by the so-called Steiner tunnel
test in accordance with ASTM E 84-07(b) (2007), NFPA
255 (2006b) and UL 723 (2003). Classification of inte-
rior finish materials is A, B, or C according to flame
spread rating 025, 2675, or 76200. Smoke devel-
opment and fuel-contribution ratings are also found
in the test via temperature and smoke density record-
ings. NFPA 101, Life Safety Code (2006a) limits the use
of interior wall, ceiling, and floor finish. These issues
are important because combustible interior finishes,
such as low-density fiberboard ceilings and plastic floor
coverings, offer significant factors in fire development
permitting a fire to spread to objects far from the
origin of the fire.
Fires that reach flashover or full-room involve-
ment produce acutely lethal products of combustion,
including smoke, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide,
acrolein, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxide(s), and
so on, in addition to heat and insufficient oxygen. These
gases are produced in large quantities and driven to
remote areas, causing life-threatening situations
inhalation of fire gases (toxic products of combustion)
tion of experimental information related to whether
flashover will occur. It turns out that a particular fire
size is required (in terms of heat release rate in kW or
Btu/hr), this value depending on the extent of ven-
tilation, room size, insulation rating of the walls, and
so on. One can then assess whether an especially haz-
ardous situation existswhether a given fire scenario
has the potential to develop flashover or full-room
involvement.
C OM B USTION
The Basic Elements
In the release and dispersion of flammable material,
a vapor cloud is formed that spreads and disperses as
the released material mixes and is carried downstream
in the atmosphere. It is important to know if a poten-
tial ignition source is located within the flammable
or explosive limits, these being the percentage (usu-
ally by volume) of an in-air substance that will burn
once ignited. Most substances have both a lower (lean)
and an upper (rich) flammable (explosive) limit, called
the LFL and UFL, respectively (or LEL and UEL, respec-
tively). Some typical values for several fuels are given
in Table 1, for fuel-in-air mixtures on a volume per-
cent basis. Either too much or too little fuel in the
vapor-air mixture can prevent burning. But, at the edge
of a fuel-rich vapor cloud will be a region with other
more flammable fuel-air ratios, so that, as such a cloud
approaches, ignition is certainly possible from an ig-
niting source. There is a wide range of fuels with dif-
ferent flammable limits. Higher temperatures and/or
higher pressures generally increase the range over
TAB LE 1

being the major cause of death in fires. For these rea- Examples of Flammable Ranges
sons, any combination of finishes, combustible build- Lower Limit Upper Limit
ing materials, or contents and furnishings that could Fuel (%) (%)
result in flashover (full-room involvement) in a few Gasoline vapor 1.4 7.6

minutes represents a severe fire hazard in many types Methane (natural gas) 5.0 15.0
Propane 2.2 9.6
of occupancies. Protection by automatic sprinklers and Butane 1.9 8.5
fire-rated construction separations is often needed and Hydrogen 4.0 75.0
is sometimes mandated by relevant codes. Computer Acetylene 2.5 81.0
Carbon monoxide 12.5 74.0
fire models include the mathematical characteriza-
4 Section 3: Fire Prevention and Protection
which a given fuel-air mixture is capable of being ig-
nited and burned. Beyler (2002) gives an extensive
table of values for many gaseous fuels, and discusses
temperature and pressure effects on the LFL and UFL.
Drysdale (1998) discusses the chemistry and physics
of fire. Slye (2002) concentrates on flammable and
combustible liquids, and Babrauskas (2003) provides
a wealth of information about the ignition problem.
Crowl and Louvar (1990) address chemical safety issues
of, among other things, limits of flammability of gas-
eous mixtures, temperature and pressure effects, and
explosions.
Most gases and vapors burn with a chemical reac-
tion that uses the oxygen readily available in the sur-
rounding air. Gases that do not burn include nitrogen,
helium, carbon dioxide, steam, and carbon tetrachlor-
ide. Some chemical reactions occur without oxygen,
using, for example, chlorine or nitrous oxide that inter-
act with the fuel. Mixtures of gaseous or vapor fuels
with air can be too lean or too rich in the relative
amount of fuel to permit burning.
Very rapid burning will cause explosions. Explo-
sions are produced when oxygen-fuel mixtures are
within flammable limits and an ignition source is
present. In explosions, great volumes of gases are pro-
duced. These burning gases expand so rapidly and
violently they produce heat, light, sound, and kinetic
energy, which is associated with motion. For a fire to
be produced, the following conditions must exist: there
must be a fuel, that fuel must be heated to its ignition
temperature, and there must be sufficient oxygen.
Two concepts are used: the fire triangle and the fire
tetrahedron.
The Fire Triangle
The fire triangle illustrates the interdependency of the
three ingredients necessary to sustain fire. If one side
of the triangle is missing, the figure is incomplete. In
like manner, if one of the three ingredients (oxygen,
heat, or fuel) of fire is missing, there can be no fire.
While the fire triangle is useful in teaching the
basic elements of fire, the observed phenomena and
the research performed on the theory of fire suggests
a more complicated reaction taking place within the
flame than can be accounted for with simply the fire
triangle. These observations suggest there is another
basic ingredient necessary to sustain fire. A need for
a fourth side of the triangle became evident. Research
identified this fourth ingredient as the chemical or unin-
hibited chain reaction, resulting in the production of free
radicals. Certain combinations of elements, which are
unstable and chemically highly reactive, are produced
in all flames and are a necessary part of the burning
reaction. The model chosen to illustrate this fourth
side is the fire tetrahedron.
The Fire Tetrahedron
The tetrahedron is a three-dimensional, four-sided
pyramid with each side being a triangle. Each side of
the tetrahedron is labeled with one of the four ingre-
dients of fire. Similar to the edges of the fire triangle,
the fourth side is labeled chemical chain reaction,
or uninhibited chain reaction.
Note that uninhibited chain reaction occurs when
excess heat from the exothermic reaction radiates back
to the fuel to produce vapors and causes ignition in
the absence of the original ignition source. From this
tetrahedron theory has come the halon extinguish-
ing system, which functions by interrupting the chain
reaction, thus breaking the tetrahedron and extin-
guishing the fire without removing either heat, fuel,
or oxygen. Halon is a coined and generic name for
several halogenated hydrocarbon compounds that have
found significant use as fire-extinguishing agents. The
fire-extinguishing mechanism is that heat breaks down
the halogenated compound into reactive hydride radi-
cals that interrupt the chain reaction of the combustion
process.
Chemical Reactions
This discussion is restricted to two typical types of fuel:
hydrocarbon fuels of the form CxHy and alcohol and
other oxygen-containing fuels of the form CxHyOz.
The general burn involves the air-bracket multiplier (m)
and how this compares with the correct or stoichiometric
multiplier (ms). The reaction is then classified as
1. Stoichiometric m = ms
2. Fuel rich m < ms and f = ms/m > 1
Applied Science and Engineering: Fire Dynamics 5

3. Fuel lean m > ms and f = ms/m < 1 such as cellulose (C6H10O5), are of the form CxHyOz
4. Minimum oxygen m = mmin and can be handled in the same fashion.
If stoichiometric burning occurs, the equation
Here m is the multiplier of the air bracket in the
becomes
chemical balance equation. Also ms is the correct or
stoichiometric multiplier of the air bracket, for which CxHyOz + (x + y/4 z/2)(O8 + f N2) n2CO2 +
there is just enough oxygen to complete the carbon n3H2O + n4N2 (3)
and hydrogen reactions to carbon dioxide and water and it is clear that this amount of oxidant produces
vapor, and there is no excess oxygen in the products. entirely CO2 and H2O in the product stream, their
With this correct multiplier, there is enough oxygen amounts are easily determined, and there is no CO
that no carbon monoxide is in the products unless or O2 or H2 in the products with
there is inadequate mixing of the fuel and oxygen.
m = ms = x + y/4 z/2
The symbol f = ms/m is the equivalence ratio, which
n2 = x
is a nondimensional number representing the degree
n3 = y/2
of fuel richness that the reactant mixture has with
n4 = mf
respect to fuel and oxygen.
n1 = n5 = n6 = 0
Focusing on 1 kg-mole of fuel (an amount of fuel
equal to its molecular weight written in kg), the If fuel rich burning occurs, the equation becomes
equations that follow apply.
CxHyOz + m(O2 + f N2) n1CO + n2CO2 +
Hydrocarbon fuels: n3H2O + n4N2 (4)
CxHy + m(O2 + f N2) n1CO + n2CO2 + and it is deducible that there is no O2 or H2 in the
n3H2O + n4N2 + n5O2 + n6H2 (1) products. Hence

Alcohol and oxygen-containing fuels: n1 = 2(ms m)

n2 = 2(m mmin)
CxHyOz + m(O2 + f N2) n1CO + n2CO2 + n3 = y/2
n3H2O + n4N2 + n5O2 + n6H2 (2) n4 = mf
Here m determines the amount of oxidant supplied n5 = n6 = 0
relative to the amount of fuel supplied. The value of with the following formulas for stoichiometric and
f determines the amount of nitrogen relative to the minimum air-bracket multipliers:
amount of oxygen in the air. The value of f = 3.76 gives ms = x + y/4 z/2
the familiar combination that represents standard air, mmin = x/2 + y/4 z/2
with 21 percent oxygen and 79 percent nitrogen, on
a volume basis. The n1, n2, n3, n4, n5, n6 values are the If fuel lean burning occurs, then
molar (kg-mole) amounts of product species from the CxHyOz + m(O2 + f N2) n2CO2 + n3H2O +
burning of 1 kg-mole of fuel. Neglecting dissociation n4N2 + n5O2 (5)
(the partial break up at higher temperatures of CO2
to CO and O2, and the partial break up of H2O to H2 Now there is no CO or Hz in the products and the
and O2), n6 = 0 for all cases considered. product stream amounts are
Hydrocarbon fuels have the form CxHy, where x n1 = 0
and y are known for the fuel of interest. The most n2 = x
familiar paraffins have y = 2x + 2. Examples are meth- n3 = y/2
ane CH4, propane C3H8, and butane C4H10. Alcohol n4 = mf
fuels have the form CxHyOz. Examples are methanol n5 = m ms
CH3OH and ethanol C2H5OH. Other well-known fuels, n6 = 0
6 Section 3: Fire Prevention and Protection

If minimum oxidant burning occurs, then MW = [n1 MWCO + etc]/nT, where

CxHyOz + (x/2 + y/4 z/2)(O2 + f N2) n1CO +
n3H2O + n4N2 (6)
It is seen that this amount of oxidant is just
enough to oxidize all the fuel to CO and H2O and
there is no CO2 or O2 in the products (minimum
amount of air required) with
m = mmin = x/2 + y/4 z/2
n1 = x
n3 = y/2
n4 = mf
n2 = n5 = n6 = 0
Note that n3 = y/2 and n6 = 0 occurs in all the
cases, the no-dissociation assumption prohibiting
hydrogen from occurring in the products.
Temperature of the Combustion Products
The mean specific heat of the products CPm( J/kg K)
can be calculated by taking the molar weighted aver-
age of the molar specific heats of the products. Approx-
imating this mean specific heat at 1000 K requires
individual species values of specific heat CP at 1000
Kelvin. Table 2 provides these values along with the
molecular weight (MW) of the product species of
interest. The mean specific heat can be expressed as
CPm = [n1MWCO CP, CO + etc]/M (7)
where
MWCO = Molecular weight of CO, etc
M, as the total mass of the product per kg-mole
of fuel (kg), is determined by
nT = n1 + n2 + n3 + n4 + n5 + n6
The adiabatic flame temperature is defined as the
temperature of the combustion products when all the
energy released by the fuel on burning goes to heat up
the products. The adiabatic flame temperature (AFT)
of the products is
AFT = 298 + T (9)
where
T = temperature rise = (heat liberated)/[(total
mass) (CPm)]
T = hrp/[(M)(CPm)]
Here M is the total mass (in kg) of the product
per kg-mole of fuel, CPm is the mean specific heat of
the products (in J/kg K), and hrp is the heat liberated
(from reactants to products) per kg-mole of fuel (in
J/kg-mole of the fuel). That is, hrp for the fuel is equal
to Hc MWfuel, where Hc is the heat of combustion of
the fuel in mass units (that is, in J/kg) and MWfuel
is the molecular weight of the fuel (in kg/kg-mole).
Lilley (2007) gives the details.
Flammability Limits
As introduced above, most substances have both a
lower (lean) and an upper (rich) flammable (explo-
sive) limit, called the LFL and UFL, respectively. Some
typical values are given in Table 1, for fuel-in-air
mixtures on a volume percent basis. Either too much
or too little fuel in the vapor-air mixture can prevent
burning. Higher temperatures and/or higher pressures

M = [n1MWCO + etc]
TAB LE 2
The specific gas constant for the product mixture
R is a constant and can be calculated from the relation Molecular Weight and Specific Heats
CP at 1000K (J/kg K)
R = R/MW (8)
Species MW CP (J/kg K)
where CO 28 1185
CO2 44 1234
R is the universal gas constant, the value of H2O 18 2290
which is 8314 J/kg-mole K N2 28 1167
O2 32 1090
MW is the mean mixture molecular weight of the
H2 2 1510
products in kg/kg-mole K
Applied Science and Engineering: Fire Dynamics
generally increase the range over which a given fuel-
air mixture is capable of being ignited and burned [see
discussion and figures in Slye (2003), for example].
For some situations, it may be necessary to esti-
mate the flammability limits without experimental data.
Then the approximate expressions are recommended
by Crowl and Louvar (1990):
LFL = 0.55 Cst (10)
UFL = 3.50 Cst (11)
where Cst is the stoichiometric volume percent of
fuel in fuel plus air. In fact, Cst may be found directly
from the stoichiometric chemical balance equation,
(Equation 3) via
1 5.
Cst = __________ (12)
1 + ms/0.21)
and then estimates of the lower and upper flamm-
ability limits follow from Equations 10 and 11. For many
fuels, the estimates are very good compared with ac-
cepted data. However, for some alkanes, although
the estimate of the LFL is reasonable, the estimate for
the UFL is higher than found in practice. For exam-
ple, with propane C3H8 the estimates compute as 2.2
to 14.1 percent, whereas the familiar values are 2.2 to
9.6 percent, these being the values given by NFPA
(Cote 2003) and elsewhere.
E VOLUTION OF F LAM MAB LE M ATE R IAL
The Basics
The release of flammable material falls within the sci-
ence of chemical process safety, health and loss pre-
vention, topics addressed in SFPE (2002), NFPA (Cote
2003), Lees (1980), Crowl and Louvar (1990) and AIChE
(1990). These and other authors discuss the many prin-
ciples, guidelines, and calculations that are neces-
sary for safe design and operation, and analysis of
failures, including fires and explosions, vessel over-
pressure protection, hazards identification and risk
assessment, source models, and dispersion model-
ing. For example, material may be released from holes
and cracks in tanks and pipes, from leaks in flanges,
pumps, and valves, and from a large variety of other
sources.
7
Source models represent the material release pro-
cess. They provide useful information for determin-
ing the consequences of an accident, including the
rate of material release, the total quantity released,
and the physical state of the material. Source models
are constructed from fundamental or empirical equa-
tions, which represent the physicochemical processes
occurring during the release of materials. Several basic
source models are available, each applicable to its
particular release scenario:
1. flow of liquids through a hole
2. flow of liquids through a hole in a tank
3. flow of liquids through pipes
4. flow of vapor through holes
flow of vapor through pipes
6. flashing liquids
7. liquid pool evaporation or boiling
Problem parameters come into play in determining
the amount of release or rate of release. The purpose
of the source model is to determine the form of mate-
rial released (solid, liquid, or vapor), the total quantity
of material released, and the rate at which it is released.
Energy Balance Equation
Source releases are driven by pressure differences, and
resulting velocities depend on the density of the fluid
(liquid or gas), whether or not the fluid is compres-
sible, and whether or not choking (maximum flow)
conditions occur. The volume flow rate (m3/s or ft 3/s)
and mass flow rate (kg/s or lbm/s) may be deter-
mined via introduction of the flow passage cross-
sectional area and density of the flowing material. A
correction factor is introduced to cater for the flow
being less than ideal, via multiplication by C0 (called
the discharge coefficient, a number less than one). A
mechanical energy balance describes the various energy
forms associated with flowing fluids,
g
___
dP
r
V 2 + __
+ ____
2agc gc
z + F = 0 (13)
where
P = the pressure (N/m2 = Pa or lbf/ft2)
r = the fluid density (kg/m3 or lbm/ft3)
8 Section 3: Fire Prevention and Protection
V = the average instantaneous velocity of the
fluid (m/s or ft/s)
gc = the conversion factor constant (= 1 kg-m/N-s2
or 32.2 lbm . ft/lbf-s2)
a = the unitless velocity profile correction factor
with the following values,
= 0.5 for laminar flow
= 1.0 for turbulent flow with almost a flat
velocity profile
g = the acceleration due to gravity (= 9.81 m/s2
or 32.2 ft/s2)
z = the height above some datum (m or ft)
F = the net frictional loss term (J/kg or ft . lbf/lbm)
For incompressible liquids the density is con-
stant and the first term in Equation 13 is replaced by
P/P.
Flow of Liquid Through a Hole
Because no altitude change occurs, only the pressure
and kinetic energy (by virtue of the square of the velo-
city) terms remain. There is a trade-off between pres-
sure energy and velocity produced. That is, high pressure
and zero velocity inside the container, with the result-
ing liquid escaping into zero gage pressure at a high
velocity. In practice the driving pressure gives a lower
exit velocity than the idealized equation gives, because
of losses associated with the flow going through the
area reduction. This is taken into account by multi-
plying the ideal answer by a number less than unity,
this number being called the discharge coefficient
(C0). Some advice is given after Equation 15 about
the value to use for this coefficient. The resulting equa-
tion for the velocity (m/s or ft/s) of fluid exiting the
leak is
2gc Pg
V = C0 _____ (14)
r the leak. The instantaneous mass flow rate Q m (in
and the mass flow rate Q m (in kg/s or lbm/s) due to
a hole of area A (m2 or ft 2) is given by
Q m = rVA = AC0 2rgc Pg (15)
The total mass of liquid spilled is dependent on
the total time the leak is active. In these equations gc
is the familiar conversion factor (= 32.2 lbm-ft/lbf-s2
in U.S. customary units and = 1 kg-m/N-s2 in SI
units) and Pg is the gage pressure pushing the fluid
through the hole to an ambient zero gage pressure.
The discharge coefficient is a complicated func-
tion of the Reynolds number of the fluid escaping
through the leak, the contour of approach to the exit,
and the diameter of the hole. The following guidelines
are suggested.
1. For sharp-edged orifices and for Reynolds
numbers greater than 30,000, C0 approaches
the value 0.61. For these conditions, the exit
velocity of the fluid is independent of the
size of the hole.
2. For a well-rounded nozzle the discharge
coefficient approaches unity.
3. For short sections of pipe attached to a vessel
(with a length-diameter ratio not less than 3),
the discharge coefficient is approximately
0.81.
4. For cases where the discharge coefficient is
unknown or uncertain, use a value of 1.0 to
maximize the computed flows.
Flow of Liquid Through a Hole in a Tank
When the hole in a tank is below the liquid surface
level, there is an additional hydrostatic pressure due
to depth acting as well as the pressure in the region
just above the liquids surface level. The resulting
equation for the instantaneous velocity (m/s or ft/s)
of fluid exiting the leak is
gc Pg
V = C0 2 ____ + ghL (16)
r
where hL (m or ft) is the liquid surface height above
kg/s or lbm/s) due to a hole of area A (m2 or ft 2) is
given by
gc Pg
Qm = rVA = rAC0 2 ____ + ghL (17)
r
As the tank empties, the liquid height decreases
and the velocity and mass flow rate will decrease.
Applied Science and Engineering: Fire Dynamics
Flow of Vapor through Holes
Free expansion leaks for gas (vapor) through holes
differs from that of liquid flow because of the much
lower density of the fluid and because it is compressible.
The gas obeys the ideal gas law
P = r RT/M (18)
where
P = the absolute pressure (N/m2 = Pa or lbf/ft2)
r = the fluid density (kg/m3 or lbm/ft3)
R is the universal gas constant
(= 8314 J/kg-mole K or 1545 ft-lbf/lbm-mole R)
T = the absolute temperature (degrees K or R)
M = the molecular weight of the gas (kg/kg-mole
or lbm/lbm-mole)
For the isentropic (no heat transfer and no mech-
anical losses) expansion of the gas P/r g = constant
where g is the ratio of the heat capacities, g = Cp/Cv .
In general g is the specific heat ratio of the gas emerg-
ing, which is equal to 1.67, 1.40, and 1.32 depending
on whether the gas is monotomic, diatomic (or air),
or triatomic, respectively. Introducing the discharge
coefficient and keeping absolute pressures, yields the
equation for mass flow rate (in kg/s or lbm/s) as
2 gc M ____
g P 2/g
P (g+1)/g
Qm = C0 AP0 _____ __ __
RgT0 g 1 P0 P0
where P is the absolute pressure of the external sur-
roundings, P0 is the absolute pressure of the source
(both in N/m2 or lbf/ft 2), and R g = R stands for the
universal gas constant. The above equation holds only
for flows that are not choked, that is flows with up-
stream absolute pressure less than about twice the
downstream absolute pressure (which is usually the
atmosphere). For high-pressure ratios (with upstream
absolute pressure greater than about twice the down-
stream absolute pressure), the flow becomes sonic at
the hole. Then the flow rate only depends on the up-
stream, driving, absolute pressure (P0) and the mass
flow rate (in kg/s or lbm/s), which is given by
ggc M _____
_____ 2 (g+1)/(g1)
(Qm)choked = C0 AP0
RgT0 g + 1
9
where M is the molecular weight of the escaping vapor
or gas, T0 the absolute temperature of the source, and
R g the universal gas constant.
For sharp-edged orifices with Reynolds num-
bers greater than 30,000 (and not choked), a constant
discharge coefficient C0 of 0.61 is indicated. How-
ever, for choked flows, the discharge coefficient in-
creases as the downstream pressure decreases. For
these flows and for situations where C0 is uncertain,
a conservative value of 1.0 is recommended when the
maximum (worst) possible scenario is being estimated.
D I S PE R S ION OF R E LEAS E D M ATE R IAL
The Basics
The information about source release is required for
any quantitative dispersion-model study. Dispersion
models describe the airborne transport of materials
away from the accident site. After a release, the air-
borne material is carried away by the wind in a char-
acteristic plume or a puff. The maximum concentration
occurs at the release point, which may or may not be
at ground level. Concentrations downwind are less,
due to turbulent mixing and dispersion of the sub-
stance with air. A wide variety of parameters affect
atmospheric dispersion of toxic materials:
(19) 1. wind speed
2. atmospheric stability
3. ground conditions, buildings, water, trees
4. height of the release above ground level
5. momentum and buoyancy of the initial
material released
Two types of vapor cloud dispersion models are
commonly used: the plume and puff models, collec-
tively known as the Pasquill-Gifford model, using dis-
persion coefficients that empirically specify the rates
of spread of the dispersing material. The plume model
describes the steady-state concentration of material
released from a continuous source. The puff model de-
scribes the temporal concentration of material from
a single release of a fixed amount of material. Models
are available that permit concentration (kg/m3) and
volumetric concentration percent (%) to be calculated
(20)
at location (x, y, z) as a function of time (t) after initial
10 Section 3: Fire Prevention and Protection

release. It is important to determine if the mixture is TAB LE 3

within the flammability limits at a nearby ignition
Atmospheric Stability Classes for Use with the
source, in the case of fuel release. Useful references Pasquill-Gifford Dispersion Model
include AIChE (1990), ASME (1973), Crowl and Louvar
Day Radiation Intensity Night Cloud Cover
Wind Speed
(1990), Lees (1980), Hanna and Drivas (1987), and
(m/s) Strong Medium Slight Cloudy Calm and Clear
Lilley (1996). Sprays of liquid droplets and particles <2 A AB B
may be handled via computation of particle trajec- 23 AB B C E F
tories, including air resistance and wind effects, as 35 B BC C D E
outlined by Chow (1979) and Lilley (2008). 56 C CD D D D
In both plume and puff models, it is common to >6 C D D D D
utilize the dispersion coefficients, sx, sy , and sz. Stability classes for puff model are A and B, unstable; C and D, neutral;
These represent the standard deviations of the con- E and F, stable.

centration in the downwind, crosswind, and vertical (Adapted from well-known sources, see Lilley 2004)

TAB LE 4

Equations and Data for Pasquill-Gifford Dispersion Coefficients

Equations for Continuous Plumes
Stability sy from fitted equation
Class (m)
A: Unstable sy = 0.493x 0.88
B: Unstable sy = 0.337x 0.88
C: Neutral sy = 0.195x 0.90
D: Neutral sy = 0.128x 0.90
E: Stable sy = 0.091x 0.91
F: Stable sy = 0.067x 0.90

Stability x sy from fitted equation

Class (m) (m)
A: Unstable 100300 sz = 0.087x 1.10
3003000 log10 sz = 1.67 + 0.902 log10 x + 0.181(log10 x)2
B: Unstable 100500 sz = 0.135x 0.95
5002 10 4
log10 sz = 1.25 + 1.09 log10 x + 0.0018(log10 x)2
C: Neutral 100105 sz = 0.112x 0.91
D: Neutral 100500 sz = 0.093x 0.85
5
50010 log10 sz = 1.22 + 1.08 log10 x 0.06(log10 x)2
E: Stable 100500 sz = 0.082x 0.82
500105 log10 sz = 1.19 + 1.04 log10 x 0.070(log10 x)2
F: Stable 100500 sz = 0.057x 0.80
4
50010 log10 sz = 1.91 + 1.37 log10 x 0.119(log10 x)2

Equations for Puff Releases

Stability sy from fitted equation sz from fitted equation
Class (m) (m)
A and B: Unstable sy = 0.14x 0.92 sz = 0.53x 0.73
0.92
C and D: Neutral sy = 0.06x sz = 0.15x 0.70
E and F: Stable sy = 0.02x 0.89 sz = 0.05x 0.61

(Data and equations adapted from well-known sources, see Lilley 2004.)
Applied Science and Engineering: Fire Dynamics 11

(x, y, and z) directions, respectively. The dispersion
coefficients are a function of atmospheric conditions
and the distance downwind from the release. The at-
mospheric conditions are classified according to six
different stability classes shown in Table 3. The stabil-
ity classes depend on wind speed and quantity of sun-
light. During the day, increased wind speed results
in greater atmospheric stability, while at night the
reverse is true. This is due to a change in vertical
temperature profiles from day to night. The Pasquill-
Gifford dispersion coefficients (sx = sy for horizon-
tal dispersion and sz for vertical dispersion) for a
continuous source are given in Table 4, showing fit-
ted curves simplified from data in Lees (1980) and
Crowl and Louver (1990), and described further with
examples of their use in Lilley (2004).
Plume Model
per million (ppm) by volume. The concentration along
the centerline of the plume directly downwind is given
at y = z = 0 and reduces Equation 21 to
Qm
C(x, 0, 0) = ______ (22)
psyszu
Observe that for continuous ground level release the
maximum concentration occurs at the release point.
Puff Model
As with the plume model, dispersion coefficients sx,
sy , and sz are also utilized for puff release of mate-
rial, with the values given in Table 4 and figures in
Lilley (2004). Again, only ground-level release is con-
sidered for simplicity. The downstream concentrations
on the ground (z = 0) for a puff of mass release Q*m
(kg) with a wind velocity u(m/s) in the x-direction is
given by

Q *m x ut 2 + __
y2
Consider only release at ground level. This simplifies C(x,y,0,t) = ____________ exp 1_ _____ (23)
immensely the resulting equations for ground-level 2p sx sysz
3/2 2 sx sy2
concentration further downstream and sideways from This equation gives the mass concentration (kg/m3)
the source. For a plume with continuous steady state of the released material at a distance x downstream
source (at ground level) of constant mass release rate in the direction of the wind, and a crosswise distance
Qm (kg/s) and a wind velocity u(m/s) in the x-direction, y to the side (both x and y being distances in meters).
the ground concentration is given at z = 0 by The ground-level concentration along the x-axis is given
Qm y 2 at additionally imposing that y = 0 and Equation 23
C(x, y, 0) = ______ 1 __
exp _
psyszu (21) reduces to
2 sy
Q *m 2
where C represents mass concentration (kg/m3) of C(x,0,0,t) = ____________ exp 1_ _____
x ut
(24)
the released material in air. This is at the (x, y, z) loca- 2p sx sysz
3/2 2 sx
tion. Here x is in the wind-driven direction, y is side- The center of the cloud is found at coordinates
ways, and z = 0 is the vertical direction. Because the (ut, 0, 0) because, at time t, the distance x = ut. Thus,
values of the dispersion coefficients sx, sy , and sz are the concentration at the center of this moving cloud
functions of the downstream distance x, it is clear is given by
that the concentration given by Equation 21 reduces
with downstream distance x and sideways distance Q *m
C(ut, 0, 0, t) = ____________ (25)
y. This concentration can be transferred to mass con- 2p 3/2 sx sysz
centration (comparing with the density of the carry-
ing medium air being approximately 1.2 kg/m3), and
to parts per million (ppm) by mass. The concentration
B U R N I NG R ATE S
can also be transferred to volumetric concentration,
Background
via introduction of the molecular weights of the dis-
persed material and the air (molecular weight of air The burning rate is usually expressed either as a mass
being about 29 kg/kg-mole K), and hence to parts loss rate (kg/s) or as a heat release rate (kW) with the