Wp030 Computational Study Effects of Dropsize Distribution in Fire Suppression

7/24/2019 Wp030 Computational Study Effects of Dropsize Distribution in Fire Suppression

1/10

Computational Study of Effects of Drop Size Distribution in Fire Suppression Systems

G. Tanner*, W. Kalata, K. Brown, and R. J. Schick

Spray Analysis and Research ServicesSpraying Systems Co.

Spray Analysis and Research Services

North Ave. and Schmale Rd.

P.O. Box 7900

Wheaton, IL 60187 USA

Abstract

As the use of water mist continues to gain acceptance as a practical fire suppression agent, the fire protection indus-try continues using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to model the formation, delivery and flame interaction of

water mist drops. With positive results and incredible progress, several efforts have been made over recent years toimprove the fire suppression modeling techniques. However, a simulation is only as meaningful as the quality of the

initial assumptions and parameters used to drive the suppression model. With this in mind, the authors incorporate a

comprehensive water mist droplet characterization with realistic geometrical and parametric configuration into CFD

fire suppression model.

In this study, spray simulations in fire suppression scenario were conducted using ANSYS FLUENT CFD package.

The main focus for the CFD study was to assess the fire suppression sensitivity to realistic drop size distribution inhydraulic atomizer nozzles. Performed analysis consisted of three different types of hydraulic atomizer nozzles

with identical flow capacity conditions under the same geometrical and heat release rate environment. With theswirl type atomizer where Volumetric Median Diameter (VMD) was the smallest, the evaporation rate was the high-

est and therefore the suppression process was the most efficient.


2/10

Introduction

As long as fire suppression and extinguishment has protected our lives and property, we have been devisingways to deliver the suppression agent to the fire. Ever since the fire sprinklers were invented, the technology and

complexity of extinguishment methodology has grown at a truly exponential rate. Today, there are literally hun-

dreds, if not thousands of ways to dispense the extinguishing agent. The innovation and diversity of these systems isseen to be driven by application to solve specific fire problems.

With spray nozzles, extensive design work over many decades has produced highly engineered devices in in-

numerable types and styles. Engineered sprays have been developed for many thousands of applications and indus-tries, and this has also been largely driven by specific needs. Many spray styles developed originally for other pur-

poses have been applied to fire protection. Setting aside pneumatic atomization or dry chemical extinguishment

sprays, consider that hydraulic atomizing and impingement nozzles are available in hollow cone, full cone, spiral,flat, or even square and oval spray patterns. The selection that is commercially available is very broad and can

create considerable confusion for engineers looking to integrate the proper spray nozzle into an extinguishment or

suppression system. With single orifice, cluster heads, and spray angles ranging from 0to 360in common use, the

fire system designer must determine which type of nozzle works in different fire hazard applications.With each general application and set of installation parameters, approval agencies and the Authority Having

Jurisdiction (AHJ) require only specific coverage or spray angle and flow density, which are believed to be the most

relevant parameters of spray performance in various situations.As the applications become more specific to water mist fire suppression, the additional factor of drop size is

taken into consideration. However, there is no current water mist fire protection standard that requires listings toinclude basic drop size information such as the Volume Median Diameter (VMD) or Sauter Mean Diameter (SMD).

Rather, water mist systems must be listed for specific fire hazards requiring live fire performance validation, a timeconsuming and financially burdensome endeavor.

The potential alternative to physical testing is to use advanced computational analysis to design, build, perfor-

mance test, and certify a fire suppression system before a pipe is ever laid. Computational simulation of water mist

fire suppression though is an incredibly complex undertaking. Modeling the physics of water droplet and flame inte-raction, heat absorption and evaporation, vapor displacement, fuel combustion, and temperature reduction are just

part of what needs to be analyzed to accurately predict the fire suppression capabilities of a water mist protection

system.One of the more important criteria, however, was also the most overlooked and ignored. In the past, in majority

of simulation efforts, water drop size distribution statistics were simplified down to the minimal amount of data re-

quired to convey the maximum information possible. In some cases a single parameter, such as VMD, was the only

statistic used.

Perhaps this is because drop size information can be considered to be confusing and overly complex. This isgenerally the case with fire protection when discussing sprinkler and nozzle drop size statistics. After all, the re-

search focuses on system suppression and extinguishment characteristics and not spray nozzles. But, is it proper and

accurate to fully characterize a water mist or other spray nozzle in such an abridged manner?

Fire protection designers have begun to realize that nozzles cannot be simplified down to a single number such

as a representative diameter. Whether that specification is the VMD, SMD or DV0.9, it is not an accurate representa-tion of the entire spray field or spray distribution. Despite this recognition, there are such limited standards and cer-

tification guidelines to work from that the system designers and modelers are basically picking whatever statistic isreadily available to them without appreciating the inherent limitations and problems of doing so. Can parameters be

used that are sufficiently meaningful to completely and properly characterize the spray?

Studies have been conducted in recent years incorporating more comprehensive particle size characterization

within numerical simulations. [1]. Many studies however are not adapting the simulations to account for the varia-


3/10

Hydraulic Atomizers

In previous work by the authors [2,3], several hydraulic atomizer nozzles were tested at a typical operationpressure(s) for each style nozzle. See Figs. 1-3 and Table 1. For the purposes of this initial study, the liquid flow

rates were normalized between each nozzle to make the spray characteristics the main variables on which suppres-

sive and evaporative conditions would depend on.Swirl type atomizer. See Figure 1. This atomizer features an internal core through which the liquid flow is di-

rected with some tangential velocity component. The liquid is then forced through an exit orifice in a hollow cone

pattern.

Figure 1. Swirl type atomizer.

Full cone nozzle. See Figure 2. The full cone nozzle features an internal swirl element commonly known as a

vane that imparts radial velocity and counter-swirl to form a full cone pattern.

Figure 2. Full cone nozzle.

Spiral nozzle. See Figure 3. The spiral nozzle is essentially a deflector type nozzle that creates a crude full

cone spray pattern in a tightly controlled spray angle, and usually features the largest possible flow rate for a givenpipe connection size.

Figure 3. Spiral nozzle.

Computational Methods

CFD simulations were performed with ANSYS FLUENT version 12.1. The CFD model was loosely repro-duced according to the experiments reported by LeFort et al. [4]. The computational domain shown in Figure 4 was

set up as square surface in cylindrical coordinates with rotation axis going through the spray injection point on top

and the middle of the fire pool on the bottom (2D axisymmetric domain). The spray injection is 2 m directly abovethe center of the fire pool surface. The fire pool surface with 0.265 m radius was setup to emit heat flux which

equaled to 951 9 kW/m2 as specified by LeForet et al [4] Ceiling and floor were setup as Wall (non slip and adia


4/10

Figure 4. Axisymmetric setup for the CFD model.

UnitsSwirl Type

Atomizer

Full Cone

Nozzle

Spiral

Nozzle

Flow Rate m3/s 1.367 x 10-4 1.367 x 10-4 1.367 x 10-4

Velocity m/s 36 28 33

Spray Angle deg. 78 68 120

Dmin (DV0.01) m 29 44 50

Dmean (DV0.50) m 96 334 151

Dmax (DV0.99) m 165 823 249

n* -- 3.5 2.1 3.8

* Rosin-Rammler distribution uniformity constant

Table 1. Drop size injection parameters.

When multiple transient cases for spray cooling were considered, the 2D axisymmetric assumption allowedfaster solution convergence with relative small number of elements and simplified computational grid generation.

Computational grid (mesh) was created within GAMBIT 2.4. The mesh was built with quadrilateral (box) elements

with "Paving" option to employ gradual size function between spray affected regions (inner part of interior), wall

boundaries, outer boundary, and an outer part of interior. The mesh in all simulated case was the same and it con-

sisted of 66,555 cells.Throughout all simulations the following models were included: k-Realizable Turbulence Model with Full

Buoyancy Effects, coupled Discrete Phase Model (DPM) for LaGrangian tracking of water droplets, and SpeciesTransport Model to include mixing of air and water vapor due to evaporation. Since spray cooling of heated gas was

the focus of this study, radiation model was omitted.

Spray injections were all based on three spray characteristics derived from spray nozzles described by Tanner et

al. [2,3] (also see Figures 1-3). The CFD injection characteristics are highlighted in Table 1 above. To keep the

comparison consistent, the flow rate for all three spray nozzle cases was the same.Initially, the process to define injections was programmed in MATLAB where FLUENT journal files were writ-

t Th fil d t d fi i f d i j ti Th i d t th di ti f


5/10

mum, mean and maximum diameters (Dmin, Dmeanand Dmax respectively) which were based on Rosin-Rammler de-

rived DV0.01, DV0.5, and DV0.99 respectively.Ceiling, floor and Pressure Outlet boundaries had Escape DPM-BC's. The droplets that made a contact with

such boundary vanished in the computational domain without any further effect to the momentum and energy. The

fire pool had a Wall-Jet DPM-BC. In this BC, droplets impinge onto the wall and depending on their momentum,form a small liquid film or reflect. This DPM-BC is appropriate for high-temperature walls [5,6].

Initially, steady state simulations were performe (Figure 5 below) to assess the 2D axisymmetric simulation

with natural convection. Heating (no spray) and cooling (spray active) periods were computed.In transient simulations, non-spray case (heating period) was computed for 30 seconds with iterative time ad-

vancement while the time step (dt) was 0.01 seconds. The three cases had spray periods each 15 seconds long and

reheat periods each 5 seconds long (see Figures 7-9). They were performed with the same time advancement asnon-spray case. The droplets were injected with the same time step as the main run simulations (dt=0.01 s). In the

transient simulations, especially in heating up period, formation and rise of air classical thermals [7] were observed.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Our purpose here has been to utilize computational fluid dynamics to assess the fire suppression sensitivity torealistic drop size distributions. Three different hydraulic atomizer nozzles were used with identical supply pressure

and flow capacity conditions to examine the heat absorption capabilities and evaporation rates.

Via comparison, Figures 7-9 shown that the swirl type atomizer with the smallest VMD provided the highest

evaporation rate and the most efficient heat absorption. Though the full cone and spiral nozzles have much greaterdrop sizes and those particles show the ability to penetrate the high heat zone, the smaller particle sizes generated by

the swirl type atomizer greatly reduce the overall heat, providing a better overall level of fire suppression.

Further work will be conducted to broaden the scope of these fire suppression simulations. This study was li-

mited to axisymmetric simulation of a surface heat release rate environment. Additional studies are expected to in-

corporate combustion simulations in a 2D and further progress into 3D environment with multiple injection points.The authors urge caution when including particle size distributions in fire suppression modeling. It is important

to consider the different types of spray nozzles that can be used in various fire suppression applications and the criti-

cal variations in spray field properties that affect the results for a system in application. In addition, probing deeperwith differences within the spray field such as velocity, momentum, radial distance, fluid pressure, and nozzle dis-

charge coefficient may provide some insight when systems or models do not perform as expected.

References

1. Blanchard, E., Boulet, P., Desanghere, S., Cesmat, E., Numerical Simulation of Radiation Propagation Through

Water Mist,Ninth International Water Mist Conference, London, United Kingdom, September 2009

2. Tanner, G.A. and Knasiak, K.F., Spray Characterization of Typical Fire Suppression Nozzles, Third Interna-

tional Water Mist Conference, Madrid, Spain, September 20033. Tanner, G.A. and Knasiak, K.F., Water Mist Simplification Effects on Fire Suppression Modeling: A Challenge

to the Industry, ILASS-Americas, 20th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Chicago,

May 20074. LeFort, G., Marshall, A.W. and Pabon, M., Evaluation of Surfactant Enhanced Water Mist Performance, Fire

Technology, Volume 45, Number 3, 2009

5. ANSYS FLUENT 12.0 - User's Guide, ANSYS, Inc., Northbrook, IL, 2009

6. ANSYS FLUENT 12.0 - Theory Guide, ANSYS, Inc., Northbrook, IL, 20097. Bejan, A., Convection Heat Transfer, 2nd Ed., New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1995


6/10

6

Figure 5. Summary of steady state simulations.


7/10

7

Figure 6. Initial heating period (no spray). Top row shows temperature contours in whole domain. Middle row shows temporal temperature contours at centeraxis and at the fire pool edge. Bottom row shows temporal temperature traces at various heights for center axis and the fire pool edge.


8/10

8

Figure 7. Cooling and reheating periods for swirl type nozzle. Top row shows temperature contours in whole domain. Middle row shows temporal temperature

contours at center axis and at the fire pool edge. Bottom row shows temporal temperature traces at various heights for center axis and the fire pool edge.


9/10

9

Figure 8. Cooling and reheating periods for full cone type nozzle. Top row shows temperature contours in whole domain. Middle row shows temporal tempera-

ture contours at center axis and at the fire pool edge. Bottom row shows temporal temperature traces at various heights for center axis and the fire pool edge.


10/10

10

Figure 9. Cooling and reheating periods for spiral type nozzle. Top row shows temperature contours in whole domain. Middle row shows temporal temperature

contours at center axis and at the fire pool edge. Bottom row shows temporal temperature traces at various heights for center axis and the fire pool edge.

Documents

Wp030 Computational Study Effects of Dropsize Distribution in Fire Suppression