S E CT I O N 3

A PPLI E D S CI E NCE AN D E NG I N E E R I NG : F I R E DYNAM ICS

David G. Lilley

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 involved 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 extrapolated 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.

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 applying 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 engineering analysis can assist in determining responsibility, that is, to determine where the blame lies as to why the incident occurred.
1

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 behavior. The extensive reference list provides additional information. Various aspects of safety related to fire protection are addressed in handbooks from the Society 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 previous 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 exemplify the theories and their application to real-world situations. More extensive treatment of the discussion here is given in Lilley (1998a and 1998b), with theory and calculation methodology included. The present brief contribution concentrates on the phenomena, specific problems, and graphical illustration of the sample calculations. Fire modeling plays an important role in fire protection 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 modeling, computational demands are very large, and correct 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.

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 responsibility. 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 ignition 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 gaseous 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 engineering 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 adequate, and whether design or manufacturing defects contributed. Product-liability issues are addressed, with questions of whether an item was defective and unreasonably dangerous. Safety engineers are particularly concerned with all these issues.

F I R E I NVE STIGATION
Major structural fires require investigation. The analysis of failure modes is important in determining why

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

of mass of equivalent ordinary combustibles per unit area (in kg/m2 or lbm/ft2). The arrangement of combustibles, 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 facilities. 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 attention, 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 interior finish materials is A, B, or C according to flame spread rating 025, 2675, or 76200. Smoke development and fuel-contribution ratings are also found in the test via temperature and smoke density recordings. 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 involvement 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) being the major cause of death in fires. For these reasons, any combination of finishes, combustible building materials, or contents and furnishings that could result in flashover (full-room involvement) in a few minutes represents a severe fire hazard in many types of occupancies. Protection by automatic sprinklers and fire-rated construction separations is often needed and is sometimes mandated by relevant codes. Computer fire models include the mathematical characteriza-

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 ventilation, room size, insulation rating of the walls, and so on. One can then assess whether an especially hazardous 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 potential ignition source is located within the flammable or explosive limits, these being the percentage (usually 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, respectively). Some typical values for several fuels 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. 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 igniting source. There is a wide range of fuels with different flammable limits. Higher temperatures and/or higher pressures generally increase the range over

TAB LE 1

Examples of Flammable Ranges

Fuel
Gasoline vapor Methane (natural gas) Propane Butane Hydrogen Acetylene Carbon monoxide

Lower Limit (%)

1.4 5.0 2.2 1.9 4.0 2.5 12.5

Upper Limit (%)

7.6 15.0 9.6 8.5 75.0 81.0 74.0

Section 3: Fire Prevention and Protection

which a given fuel-air mixture is capable of being ignited 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 gaseous mixtures, temperature and pressure effects, and explosions. Most gases and vapors burn with a chemical reaction that uses the oxygen readily available in the surrounding air. Gases that do not burn include nitrogen, helium, carbon dioxide, steam, and carbon tetrachloride. Some chemical reactions occur without oxygen, using, for example, chlorine or nitrous oxide that interact 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. Explosions are produced when oxygen-fuel mixtures are within flammable limits and an ignition source is present. In explosions, great volumes of gases are produced. 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 uninhibited 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 ingredients 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 extinguishing system, which functions by interrupting the chain reaction, thus breaking the tetrahedron and extinguishing 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 radicals 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

3. Fuel lean m > ms and f = ms/m < 1 4. Minimum oxygen m = mmin Here m is the multiplier of the air bracket in the chemical balance equation. Also ms is the correct or stoichiometric multiplier of the air bracket, for which there is just enough oxygen to complete the carbon and hydrogen reactions to carbon dioxide and water vapor, and there is no excess oxygen in the products. With this correct multiplier, there is enough oxygen that no carbon monoxide is in the products unless there is inadequate mixing of the fuel and oxygen. The symbol f = ms/m is the equivalence ratio, which is a nondimensional number representing the degree of fuel richness that the reactant mixture has with respect to fuel and oxygen. Focusing on 1 kg-mole of fuel (an amount of fuel equal to its molecular weight written in kg), the equations that follow apply. Hydrocarbon fuels: CxHy + m(O2 + f N2) n1CO + n2CO2 + n3H2O + n4N2 + n5O2 + n6H2 Alcohol and oxygen-containing fuels: CxHyOz + m(O2 + f N2) n1CO + n2CO2 + n3H2O + n4N2 + n5O2 + n6H2 (2) (1)

such as cellulose (C6H10O5), are of the form CxHyOz and can be handled in the same fashion. If stoichiometric burning occurs, the equation becomes CxHyOz + (x + y/4 z/2)(O8 + f N2) n2CO2 + (3) n3H2O + n4N2 and it is clear that this amount of oxidant produces entirely CO2 and H2O in the product stream, their amounts are easily determined, and there is no CO or O2 or H2 in the products with m = ms = x + y/4 z/2 n2 = x n3 = y/2 n4 = mf n1 = n5 = n6 = 0 If fuel rich burning occurs, the equation becomes CxHyOz + m(O2 + f N2) n1CO + n2CO2 + n3H2O + n4N2 (4)

and it is deducible that there is no O2 or H2 in the products. Hence n1 = 2(ms m) n2 = 2(m mmin) n3 = y/2 n4 = mf n5 = n6 = 0 with the following formulas for stoichiometric and minimum air-bracket multipliers: ms = x + y/4 z/2 mmin = x/2 + y/4 z/2 If fuel lean burning occurs, then CxHyOz + m(O2 + f N2) n2CO2 + n3H2O + n4N2 + n5O2 (5)

Here m determines the amount of oxidant supplied relative to the amount of fuel supplied. The value of f determines the amount of nitrogen relative to the amount of oxygen in the air. The value of f = 3.76 gives the familiar combination that represents standard air, with 21 percent oxygen and 79 percent nitrogen, on a volume basis. The n1, n2, n3, n4, n5, n6 values are the molar (kg-mole) amounts of product species from the burning of 1 kg-mole of fuel. Neglecting dissociation (the partial break up at higher temperatures of CO2 to CO and O2, and the partial break up of H2O to H2 and O2), n6 = 0 for all cases considered. Hydrocarbon fuels have the form CxHy, where x and y are known for the fuel of interest. The most familiar paraffins have y = 2x + 2. Examples are methane CH4, propane C3H8, and butane C4H10. Alcohol fuels have the form CxHyOz. Examples are methanol CH3OH and ethanol C2H5OH. Other well-known fuels,

Now there is no CO or Hz in the products and the product stream amounts are n1 = 0 n2 = x n3 = y/2 n4 = mf n5 = m ms n6 = 0

Section 3: Fire Prevention and Protection

If minimum oxidant burning occurs, then CxHyOz + (x/2 + y/4 z/2)(O2 + f N2) n1CO + (6) n3H2O + n4N2 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.

MW = [n1 MWCO + etc]/nT, where 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 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. (9)

Temperature of the Combustion Products

The mean specific heat of the products CPm( J/kg K) can be calculated by taking the molar weighted average of the molar specific heats of the products. Approximating 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 where MWCO = Molecular weight of CO, etc M, as the total mass of the product per kg-mole of fuel (kg), is determined by M = [n1MWCO + etc] The specific gas constant for the product mixture R is a constant and can be calculated from the relation R = R/MW (8) where R is the universal gas constant, the value of which is 8314 J/kg-mole K MW is the mean mixture molecular weight of the products in kg/kg-mole K (7)

Flammability Limits
As introduced above, most substances have both a lower (lean) and an upper (rich) flammable (explosive) 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

TAB LE 2

Molecular Weight and Specific Heats CP at 1000K (J/kg K)

Species
CO CO2 H2O N2 O2 H2

MW
28 44 18 28 32 2

CP (J/kg K)
1185 1234 2290 1167 1090 1510

Applied Science and Engineering: Fire Dynamics

generally increase the range over which a given fuelair 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 estimate the flammability limits without experimental data. Then the approximate expressions are recommended by Crowl and Louvar (1990): LFL = 0.55 Cst UFL = 3.50 Cst (10) (11)

Source models represent the material release process. They provide useful information for determining 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 equations, 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. flow of liquids through a hole flow of liquids through a hole in a tank flow of liquids through pipes flow of vapor through holes flow of vapor through pipes flashing liquids liquid pool evaporation or boiling

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 Cst = __________ 1 + ms/0.21) (12)

and then estimates of the lower and upper flammability limits follow from Equations 10 and 11. For many fuels, the estimates are very good compared with accepted 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 example, 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.

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 material 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 compressible, 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 determined via introduction of the flow passage crosssectional 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, dP ___ r where P = the pressure (N/m2 = Pa or lbf/ft2) r = the fluid density (kg/m3 or lbm/ft3) g V2 + ____ + __ z + F = 0 gc 2agc (13)

E VOLUTION
The Basics

OF

F LAM MAB LE M ATE R IAL

The release of flammable material falls within the science of chemical process safety, health and loss prevention, topics addressed in SFPE (2002), NFPA (Cote 2003), Lees (1980), Crowl and Louvar (1990) and AIChE (1990). These and other authors discuss the many principles, guidelines, and calculations that are necessary for safe design and operation, and analysis of failures, including fires and explosions, vessel overpressure protection, hazards identification and risk assessment, source models, and dispersion modeling. 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.

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 constant and the first term in Equation 13 is replaced by P/P.

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 function 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

Because no altitude change occurs, only the pressure and kinetic energy (by virtue of the square of the velocity) terms remain. There is a trade-off between pressure energy and velocity produced. That is, high pressure and zero velocity inside the container, with the resulting 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 multiplying 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 equation for the velocity (m/s or ft/s) of fluid exiting the leak is V = C0 2gc Pg _____ r (14)

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 V = C0 gc Pg 2 ____ + ghL r (16)

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 = rV = AC0 A 2rgc Pg (15)

where hL (m or ft) is the liquid surface height above the leak. The instantaneous 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 Qm = rV = rAC0 A gc Pg 2 ____ + ghL r (17)

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

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 mechanical 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 emerging, 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 Qm = C0 AP _____ ____ __ 0 RgT0 g 1 P0
2/g

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 numbers greater than 30,000 (and not choked), a constant discharge coefficient C0 of 0.61 is indicated. However, for choked flows, the discharge coefficient increases 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
The Basics

OF

R E LEAS E D M ATE R IAL

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 airborne material is carried away by the wind in a characteristic 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 substance with air. A wide variety of parameters affect atmospheric dispersion of toxic materials: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. wind speed atmospheric stability ground conditions, buildings, water, trees height of the release above ground level momentum and buoyancy of the initial material released

P __ P0

(g+1)/g

(19)

where P is the absolute pressure of the external surroundings, 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 upstream 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 downstream absolute pressure), the flow becomes sonic at the hole. Then the flow rate only depends on the upstream, driving, absolute pressure (P0) and the mass flow rate (in kg/s or lbm/s), which is given by (Qm)choked = C0 AP0 ggc M 2 _____ _____ RgT0 g + 1
(g+1)/(g1)

(20)

Two types of vapor cloud dispersion models are commonly used: the plume and puff models, collectively known as the Pasquill-Gifford model, using dispersion 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 describes 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 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 within the flammability limits at a nearby ignition source, in the case of fuel release. Useful references include AIChE (1990), ASME (1973), Crowl and Louvar (1990), Lees (1980), Hanna and Drivas (1987), and Lilley (1996). Sprays of liquid droplets and particles may be handled via computation of particle trajectories, including air resistance and wind effects, as outlined by Chow (1979) and Lilley (2008). In both plume and puff models, it is common to utilize the dispersion coefficients, sx, sy , and sz. These represent the standard deviations of the concentration in the downwind, crosswind, and vertical

TAB LE 3

Atmospheric Stability Classes for Use with the Pasquill-Gifford Dispersion Model
Day Radiation Intensity Night Cloud Cover Wind Speed (m/s) Strong Medium Slight Cloudy Calm and Clear
<2 23 35 56 >6 A AB B C C AB B BC CD D B C C D D E D D D F E D D

Stability classes for puff model are A and B, unstable; C and D, neutral; E and F, stable.

(Adapted from well-known sources, see Lilley 2004)

TAB LE 4

Equations and Data for Pasquill-Gifford Dispersion Coefficients

Equations for Continuous Plumes Stability Class
A: Unstable B: Unstable C: Neutral D: Neutral E: Stable F: Stable

sy from fitted equation (m)

sy = 0.493x 0.88 sy = 0.337x 0.88 sy = 0.195x 0.90 sy = 0.128x 0.90 sy = 0.091x 0.91 sy = 0.067x 0.90

Stability Class
A: Unstable

x (m)
100300 3003000

sy from fitted equation (m)

sz = 0.087x 1.10 log10 sz = 1.67 + 0.902 log10 x + 0.181(log10 x)2 sz = 0.135x 0.95
4

B: Unstable

100500 5002 10 100105 100500 50010

5

log10 sz = 1.25 + 1.09 log10 x + 0.0018(log10 x)2 sz = 0.112x 0.91 sz = 0.093x 0.85 log10 sz = 1.22 + 1.08 log10 x 0.06(log10 x)2 sz = 0.082x 0.82 log10 sz = 1.19 + 1.04 log10 x 0.070(log10 x)2 sz = 0.057x 0.80 log10 sz = 1.91 + 1.37 log10 x 0.119(log10 x)2

C: Neutral D: Neutral

E: Stable

100500 500105

F: Stable

100500 50010
4

Equations for Puff Releases Stability Class

A and B: Unstable C and D: Neutral E and F: Stable

sy from fitted equation (m)

sy = 0.14x 0.92 sy = 0.06x
0.92

sz from fitted equation (m)

sz = 0.53x 0.73 sz = 0.15x 0.70 sz = 0.05x 0.61

sy = 0.02x 0.89

(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 atmospheric conditions are classified according to six different stability classes shown in Table 3. The stability classes depend on wind speed and quantity of sunlight. 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 PasquillGifford dispersion coefficients (sx = sy for horizontal dispersion and sz for vertical dispersion) for a continuous source are given in Table 4, showing fitted curves simplified from data in Lees (1980) and Crowl and Louver (1990), and described further with examples of their use in Lilley (2004).

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 material, with the values given in Table 4 and figures in Lilley (2004). Again, only ground-level release is considered 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
2 Q *m y2 _ x ut C(x,y,0,t) = ____________ exp 1 _____ + __ (23) 2 3/2 s s s sy sx 2 2p x y z

Plume Model
Consider only release at ground level. This simplifies immensely the resulting equations for ground-level concentration further downstream and sideways from the source. For a plume with continuous steady state source (at ground level) of constant mass release rate Qm (kg/s) and a wind velocity u(m/s) in the x-direction, the ground concentration is given at z = 0 by Qm 1 y C(x, y, 0) = ______ exp _ __ psyszu 2 sy
2

(21)

This equation gives the mass concentration (kg/m3) of the released material at a distance x downstream in the direction of the wind, and a crosswise distance y to the side (both x and y being distances in meters). The ground-level concentration along the x-axis is given at additionally imposing that y = 0 and Equation 23 reduces to Q *m _ x ut C(x,0,0,t) = ____________ exp 1 _____ 3/2 s s s sx 2 2p x y z
2

where C represents mass concentration (kg/m3) of the released material in air. This is at the (x, y, z) location. Here x is in the wind-driven direction, y is sideways, and z = 0 is the vertical direction. Because the values of the dispersion coefficients sx, sy , and sz are functions of the downstream distance x, it is clear that the concentration given by Equation 21 reduces with downstream distance x and sideways distance y. This concentration can be transferred to mass concentration (comparing with the density of the carrying medium air being approximately 1.2 kg/m3), and to parts per million (ppm) by mass. The concentration can also be transferred to volumetric concentration, via introduction of the molecular weights of the dispersed material and the air (molecular weight of air being about 29 kg/kg-mole K), and hence to parts

(24)

The center of the cloud is found at coordinates (ut, 0, 0) because, at time t, the distance x = ut. Thus, the concentration at the center of this moving cloud is given by Q *m C(ut, 0, 0, t) = ____________ 2p 3/2 sx sysz (25)

B U R N I NG R ATE S
Background
The burning rate is usually expressed either as a mass loss rate (kg/s) or as a heat release rate (kW) with the