FDS Assignments Course: VBRF16 – Simulation of Fires in Enclosures, Lund University
Supervisor: Linn Svegrup & Jonathan Wahlqvist Author: Anders Lynnér
April 8, 2014
[I]
Abstract This report is made in the intention of describing and presenting results of different individual assignments
carried out within the course VBRF16 – Simulation of Fires in Enclosures given at Lund University. The
assignments were to simulate with Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS); a free burning plume, radiation between two
parallel plates and fire within a small compartment. In total there were 22 different simulations carried out, and
thereby a lot of results generated.
A great part of this report is dedicated to investigate results of the simulations, asking the frequent question:
“Why does it look like this?”. The conclusions are of a general manner, trying to answer this question and
establish things to think about when using FDS.
The conclusions derived from this report are:
The mesh of the burner and the burner specifics must be well defined in order to represent:
a. good enough deal of the turbulence structures
b. temperatures that have any correlation with reality
To do this, one has to do several simulations until grid independence is reached.
It is difficult to decide if the radiation model is sufficient, since a coarse grid may generate better results
with fewer solid angles than a fine grid with the same amount of angles. To know if it is sufficient, one has
to make sure that they have:
a. achieved grid independence
b. no scattering in their radiation patterns.
The grid sizes have an impact on the temperatures in the compartment, and thus an impact on the velocities
by the opening. A coarser grid gives a higher temperature, and wider bounds of the velocity profiles.
The radiative fraction is important to specify correctly when trying to achieve reality converging results.
It is important to compensate HRR if turning off radiation model, there will be large differences in the
results and reality otherwise.
Emissivity of the walls has in the LES application little or no effect on the temperature or velocity profiles.
[II]
Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Method ................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Description of assignments .................................................................................................................... 1
2 SUB1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Computational domain .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Fire ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Time step ............................................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Devices .................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.5 Hand calculations .................................................................................................................................. 4 2.6 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.7 Observations and discussion .................................................................................................................. 6
3 SUB2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Computational domain .......................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Other specifications ............................................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Hand calculations .................................................................................................................................. 9 3.4 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 9 3.5 Observations and discussion ................................................................................................................ 10
4 LES1-4 .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 Assignment .......................................................................................................................................... 11 4.2 Computational domain ........................................................................................................................ 11 4.3 Burner and radiation related specifications.......................................................................................... 12 4.4 Devices ................................................................................................................................................ 13 4.5 Simulation time ................................................................................................................................... 13 4.6 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 14 4.7 Experimental data - simulations results ............................................................................................... 23 4.8 Observations and discussion ................................................................................................................ 24 4.9 General discussion ............................................................................................................................... 25
5 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................... 27
6 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 28
Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................................... 29 SUB1 Script ...................................................................................................................................................... 29 SUB2 Script ...................................................................................................................................................... 29 LES1-4 Script .................................................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix B .......................................................................................................................................................... 38 Radiation ........................................................................................................................................................... 38 Velocity ............................................................................................................................................................. 50 Temperature ...................................................................................................................................................... 52
1 Introduction This report is made in the intention of describing and presenting results of different individual assignments
carried out within the course VBRF16 – Simulation of Fires in Enclosures, Lund University. The aspects of how
the results came out as they did will be the main target of the discussion inside this report. The report will start
with a presentation of the different assignments, and then a deeper study of each and every one of them.
1.1 Method The assignments included:
Hand calculations of input data for computer simulations.
Hand calculations for results to use as comparisons with computer simulations.
Computer simulations. Program used for this was the computational fluid dynamics(CFD) program,
Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), version 6.
Presentation of data results in graphs.
Presentation of results by pictures rendered in the Smokeview(SMV) program, also version 6.
1.2 Description of assignments There were three different assignments, called SUB1, SUB2, LES1-4 which required respectively three, six, and
eight simulations. In this particular report, there had to be three more simulations made within the LES1-4
assignment and two more within the SUB2 assignment. This was required for the sake of comparability between
the different simulations. So in total there were 22 simulations performed. Below there will be a presentation of
the names of each assignment and its simulations, and a description of what they included.
1.2.1 SUB1
A simulation of a free burning plume with a heat release rate of 4850 kW was simulated. The three different
simulations were made with three different grid sizes – coarse, medium and fine. These simulations received the
names:
SUB1 Coarse
SUB1 Medium
SUB1 Fine
1.2.2 SUB2
The simulation included the incident heat flux from one 2x2 meters plate to another parallel plate with the same
area. In this case the distance between the plates were 9 meters and the different simulations were made with
three different grid sizes - coarse, medium and fine, and different radiation angles – min, mid and max. This
assignment required that two extra simulations were done, both with even lower number of angles, presented last
in the following list. The eight different simulations received the names:
SUB2 Coarse MIN
SUB2 Coarse MID
SUB2 Coarse MAX
SUB2 Fine MIN
SUB2 FineMID
SUB2 Fine MAX
SUB2 Fine NEW MIN
SUB2 Coarse NEW MIN
1.2.3 LES1-4
This assignment included simulations of a fire inside an enclosure in the size of a small room. This simulation
was made as comparison of the reality, which was provided through a report of experiments carried out by
[2]
Steckler et al. (1982). Results such as temperature-height and velocity-height in an opening of the room had to
be analyzed. Two different grid sizes (coarse and fine) were used. The assignment included four different sub-
assignments within the same room. In the first there was no radiation turned on in FDS. In the second there was
radiation model turned on. In the third there was also radiation, but the heat release rate was increased by 10%.
In the fourth, there was radiation turned on but the emissivity of the walls was reduced by 50%. After the review
of the reporting sheet of these assignments, there had to be two new simulations made. This was required since
the radiative fraction used didn’t reflect the real radiative fraction of the fuel that was used in the simulations.
Also a simulation with the default value of solid angles was simulated, only for the sake of comparability of the
radiation patterns. The simulations received the names:
LES1 Coarse
LES1 Fine
LES2 Coarse
LES2 Fine
LES3 Coarse
LES3 Fine
LES4 Coarse
LES4 Fine
LES2New Coarse
LES2New Fine
LES2New Coarse MIN
[3]
4
4
11
[m]
2 SUB1 In this chapter the SUB 1 and its eight different simulations will be specified further with focus on the input dat
and the hand calculations that led to the input data. There will also be comparisons made between hand
calculated results and simulations results. The results will be thoroughly discussed in the end of the chapter.
2.1 Computational domain The computational domain was chosen as a vertical room with the base of 4x4
meters and a height of 11 meters, in order to contain the whole flame. For
visualization see Figure 1.
2.1.1 Grid size
The grid sizes were chosen in an unorthodox fashion - the cells were chosen as
non-cubical. The reason for this was the aim of having a
for the different grid sizes, along choosing good mesh cell division numbers in
the I, J and K directions from the manual (McGrattan et al., 2013, p.31), and
also along sticking to the size of the computational domain . This resulted in a
slightly deviating height from the width and depth of the cells, hence the
resulting non-cubical cells.
In order to calculate , the equation (6.1) in the FDS manual was used, along
with standard ambient properties and a HRR of 4850 kW (McGrattan et al.,
2013, p.37).
The result of the different mesh grid sizes can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Grid sizes of the meshes used in SUB1.
Direction
Grid sizes [m]
SUB1 Coarse SUB1 Medium SUB1 Fine
X 0,444444444 0,148148148 0,111111111
Y 0,444444444 0,148148148 0,111111111
Z 0,458333333 0,135802469 0,114583333
2.2 Fire The area of the fire had to be of different sizes, due to the different cell sizes. This resulted in a choice of
different HRRPUA in every grid. The fuel used was default – propane. Also the radiation was default, so the
radiative fraction was too (McGrattan et al., 2013). The resulting HRRPUA and burner areas are presented in
Table 2. All of them result in a HRR of 4850 kW which was asked to simulate for the assignment.
Table 2. Burner area and HRRPUA of the different cases.
SUB1 Coarse SUB1 Medium SUB1 Fine
Fire area [m2] 1,777777778 2,19478738 2,086419754
HRRPUA [kW/m2] 2728,125 2209,78125 2324,556212
2.3 Time step As the author of this report was very new to the FDS-program (a novice if you may) when he carried out the
simulations, the time step was calculated manually and specified, which FDS does automatically otherwise. The
used time steps (calculated with equation from FDS manual (McGrattan et al., 2013, p.30)) are:
SUB1Coarse - 0.216128129 s
SUB1 Medium - 0.069269045 s
SUB1 Fine - 0.054032032 s.
Figure 1. Computational domain.
[4]
2.4 Devices The devices consisted of five thermocouples. They were supposed to be placed on 100, 125, 150, 175 and 200
percent of the hand calculated flame height. See following chapter for hand calculations. The first hand
calculated flame height that was used when placing devices in the simulations was wrong, so actually the
thermocouples were instead placed on 96, 120, 144, 168 and 192 percent of the correctly calculated Heskestad
flame height.
2.5 Hand calculations The flame height was calculated with the Heskestad plume equation and the temperatures on the different
heights of interest were calculated with the Heskestad equation for centerline temperature in plumes. Also the
virtual origin was included in the calculations. These equations can be found in the book by Karlsson &
Quintiere (2000).
Since the burner areas were deviating from case to case and it was only one graph sought for in the results, there
had to be made a compromise. This was done by averaging the areas when calculating the hydraulic diameter
required for the flame height equation.
The results of the hand calculations follow in Table 3, in an order of the calculation process.
Table 3. Hand calculated results for plume temperatures.
Average burner area 2.019661637 m2
Hydraulic diameter 1.603593796 m
Heskestad flame height, L. 5.368631404 m
Virtual origin, z0. 0.838192444 m
Height of the measure points in plume
96%
120%
144%
168%
192%
5.158671843 m (also the wrongly calculated flame height)
6.448339804 m
7.738007765 m
9.027675725 m
10.31734369 m
Plume temperatures on the different measure points
96%
120%
144%
168%
192%
433.3208634 oC
281.1856138 oC
199.5296587 oC
150.1463985 oC
117.7748935 oC
[5]
2.6 Results The result of the hand calculated Heskestad temperatures and the temperature of the different heights from the
simulations is shown in Chart 1 below.
Chart 1. Resulting height-dependent temperatures of SUB1.
Results from the simulations via pictures of flame height and examples of pictures that shows turbulences and
temperature gradients in the flame is presented in Figure 2 respectively Figure 3.
Figure 2. Flame heights of the three cases.
4.5
6.5
8.5
10.5
12.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Height [m]
Temperature [C]
Centerline Temperature - Height Above Burner
Heskestad
Coarse
Moderate
Fine
Coarse Medium Fine
[6]
Figure 3. Examples of turbulences and temperature gradients of the three cases.
2.7 Observations and discussion As one can see there is a major difference between all of the results relating to the simulation SUB1 Coarse and
the other cases. The flame height of the coarse case is 3-4 meters. The others are about 5-6 meters. The SUB1
Coarse has a practically laminar flow, whilst the SUB1 Medium has more of a turbulent scheme. And the most
turbulence can be recognized in the SUB1 Fine.
Comparing the SUB1 Coarse temperature-height relation to the others in Chart 1, one can also notice a major
difference. The difference in temperature increases with the height. The higher above the flame the more
difference can be noticed between the SUB1 Coarse and the other cases. At the highest measure point, the
temperature of the SUB1 Coarse is equal to twice the other temperatures. However, in the flame region, the
temperatures are virtually the same. If one study the turbulence in Figure 2, it’s rather easy to give a reason for
this. The turbulence in the SUB1 Coarse case is of a smaller magnitude, thus concentrating the hot gases along
the centerline, resulting in higher temperatures along the measure points than in the rest of the cases.
The lack of turbulence in the SUB1 Coarse case results in a uniformly distributed temperature gradient. This is
not strange at all, since the grid is larger in the coarse case, thus resulting in an averaging of the temperature over
larger volumetric elements.
As one can see from Chart 1, the SUB1 Fine is the one that relates best to Heskestad. With that stated it would be
easy to draw the conclusion that SUB1 Fine is closest to reality. What has to be regarded is that neither
Heskestad nor the SUB1 Fine is the reality. They are only two different but fairly good estimates, and should be
regarded as such. What can be said is that SUB1 Fine has the best results if you compare to the other
simulations, because of its smaller grid size. A smaller grid size is always better, since FDS solves the Navier-
Stokes equations on a larger amount of cells on the same volume, giving a better “resolution” of the results, so to
speak.
It’s not safe to regard even the SUB1 Fine as good enough, since it might be that a simulation with an even finer
grid, could actually give a different result, and therefore a better result. This can be stated since the graphs of the
SUB1 Medium and SUB1 Fine case aren’t similar, especially not in the flame region, where the resulting
Coarse Medium Fine
[7]
temperatures of the two cases are varying with approximately 100 degrees. This is a result of the lack of
representation of the higher turbulence in the flame region (Petterson, 2002).
However, using three different burner areas and thereby three different HRRPUA may have made the different
results less comparable, hence it’s not safe to state that the medium grid is insufficient either. Also, this may be a
very big factor when looking at the coarse case, where the used HRRPUA was about 20 percent higher than in
the other cases.
Another thing contemplating to the worse resolution than expected in the coarse case may be the use of a fixed
time step. Using a fixed time step means that FDS may never adjust it to a better value – we’re stuck with the
default value. This may have resulted in a poor resolution in the time-factor, which means that the results might
have been too much averaged over time. This leads to the loss of too much of the instantaneous movements,
which are so sought for when using large eddy simulations.
Using non-cubic cells might also have negatively influenced the results. To know for sure, another simulation
with cubic sells should be carried through. The reason this being stated as a possible error source is that the
manual says that cubic cells are best (McGrattan et al., 2013, p.31).
[8]
3 SUB2 In this chapter the SUB2 assignment and its eight different simulations will be specified further with focus on the
input data. There will be comparisons made between hand calculated results and simulations results. The results
will be thoroughly discussed in the end of the chapter.
3.1 Computational domain The computational domain was specified as a horizontal corridor with open boundaries, except for the short
vertical sides. These sides, also known as “the plates” from now on, were of an area of 2x2 meters each. The
distance between the plates were specified as 9 meters, see Figure 4.
Figure 4. Computational domain (the plates are squares).
3.1.1 Grid size
The cells in the two meshes that were used were specified as cubic cells, and their dimensions follow below:
SUB2 Coarse – 0.2 meters.
SUB2 Fine – 0.1 meters.
3.2 Other specifications In this subchapter there will be a presentation of all the important specifications made in the script file.
3.2.1 Different solid angles
There were a number of different solid angles specified, in order to see the difference in results of the incident
radiation. These are presented for each of the simulations in Table 4.
Table 4. Solid angles. * - Extra simulations with the default value, made for comparability.
Simulation Number of solid angles
SUB2 Coarse MIN 400
SUB2 Coarse MID 4000
SUB2 Coarse MAX 8000
SUB2 Fine MIN 400
SUB2 FineMID 4000
SUB2 Fine MAX 8000
SUB2 Fine NEW MIN* 104
SUB2 Coarse NEW MIN* 104
3.2.2 Important scenario-specific settings
The temperature of hot plate was specified as 750 OC.
The cold plate had the default starting value of 20 OC.
The chosen output in FDS was incident heat flux.
The emissivity of the hot plate was 0.85.
[m]
[9]
Emissivity of the cold plate: 0.9 (default value, but it doesn’t matter really, since it’s incident heat flux
that’s being measured).
The convective heat transfer was turned off.
A device was placed in the middle of the cold plate, measuring incident heat flux.
The boundaries measured incident heat flux.
Simulation time was specified as 20 seconds, which was enough to reach steady state.
3.3 Hand calculations The hand calculations were an estimate of the same incident heat flux that in the simulations was represented
through a device placed on the cold plate.
The calculations were carried out through the method of a configuration factor. An equation was used, which is
presented in the book by Karlsson & Quintiere (2000), page 162.
The results of the hand calculations follow in Table 5, in an order of the calculation process.
Table 5. Hand calculated configuration factor and resulting incident heat flux.
Configuration factor, FHot plate – point. 0.01546465
Incident heat flux 0.816290273 kW/m2
3.4 Results The results in this subchapter will be presented as pictures of radiation pattern, rendered from the different
simulations and a table of the measured and calculated incident heat fluxes.
Figure 5. Patterns of the incident heat flux from the output of the different SUB2 simulations.
Table 6. Summary of the point value of the incident heat flux for the different simulations and hand calculated values.
Grid Theoretical
value [kW/m2]
NEW MIN
solid angles
[kW/m2]
MIN solid
angles
[kW/m2]
MID solid angles
[kW/m2]
MAX solid angles
[kW/m2]
Coarse 0,81629 0,692258
1,5378146 1,4714528 1,4706916
Finer 0,81629 0.47778720 1,5956477 1,3422738 1.3456397
[10]
3.5 Observations and discussion The results in Figure 2 show that the higher number of solid angles, the more realistic the results look. In the
NEW MIN case you can notice that the highest incident radiation is in the corners of the plates. This is a bad
representation of reality, since the further out from the middle of the plate, the lower the radiation should be.
This also applies for the MIN case. However, the most radiation in the MIN case is targeted in the middle, which
is a better representation. But you cannot say that it’s a good enough representation, since the radiation pattern is
scattered, and you don’t have a fine gradient decreasing with the distance from the middle.
In the MID and MAX cases the results become more representative. Here it becomes possible to state that the
results are a good enough estimate of reality, since they aren’t varying that much when the solid angles are
increased.
Another thing that makes the analyzing of the results more tricky is that; if one takes a look at the MIN cases in
Figure 5, it’s noticeable that using a coarser grid gives a better result, since the pattern looks more realistic. We
have learned that a finer grid always gives a better result, so why is that so?
It’s because the coarse grid requires less solid angles to make a good representation. This is because of the fact
that the coarse cells by the cold plate are in a higher extent (than in the fine case) “hit” by the rays that are
calculated from the cells by the hot plate, through every cell along their ways.
Looking at Table 6, one can see that the NEW MIN case has a lower incident heat flux than the theoretical value,
whilst the other cases have higher values than the theoretical value. But just as in SUB1 the theoretical value
isn’t reality, we’d have to make a full scale experiment to know for sure the correct answer. And then we can say
which result is the best. But even then we’d have to take the convection heat transfer in consideration in the
simulations and calculations.
However, the results in the MID and MAX cases are good, since they are quite insensitive to higher numbers of
solid angles. Even the coarse and fine values of the MID and MAX cases don’t vary much, less than 10 percent
from each other. However, the results might have become even better with use of an even finer grid size, and
most definitely worse with use of a coarser grid.
[11]
4 LES1-4 In this chapter the LES1-4 assignments and their ten different simulations will be specified further with focus on
the input data. There will be comparisons made between results from full scale experimental data (provided by
Steckler et al. (1982)) and simulations results. The results will be thoroughly discussed in the end of the chapter.
4.1 Assignment The assignment consisted of four different cases, simulated with two different grid sizes. The computational
domain consisted of a room with an opening, with a burner along the wall. The different cases were:
LES1 – Simulate the case without radiation model
LES2 – Simulate the case with radiation model
LES3 – Simulate the case with radiation model and 10% increased HRR
LES4 – Simulate the case with radiation model and with a reduced emissivity of the walls by 50%.
There had to be made three extra simulations, in order to achieve comparability between the results. These three
extra simulations referred to the LES2 case and therefore received the names LES2New Coarse/Fine and
LES2New Coarse MIN
As already stated, all the cases had to be simulated with two different grid sizes, the coarse grid with a well-
chosen cell size and the fine one with half the length of the coarse cells, in each dimension. Thus the coarse cases
had a number of N cells and the fine ones had a number of 8N cells.
The burner was placed in in the middle along the wall parallel to the opening. Its fuel according to Steckler et al.
(1982) was methane and the burner had a HRR of 62.9 kW.
4.2 Computational domain The two different computational domains were specified as follows:
&MESH IJK=64,44,44, XB=0.0,4.8,0.0,3.3,0.0,3.3,/ Coarse
&MESH IJK=100,80,80, XB=0.15,3.9,0.15,3.15,0.0,3.0/ Fine.
As one can see, the fine cases had a slightly smaller mesh in order to save computational time.
All boundaries except the floor of the computational domain were specified as open.
4.2.1 Grid size
Looking at the MESH-lines above and using a calculator or using way too much of one’s mental capacity, one
can see that the grid sizes for the coarse and fine cases were specified as 0.075 respectively 0.0375 meters. These
are reasonably good grid sizes, since they are within the range for , suggested by the FDS
manual (McGrattan et al., 2013, p.37).
The characteristic diameter, , was calculated with the equation from the manual (McGrattan et al., 2013, p.37).
With standard ambient properties and a fire HRR of 62.9 kW it resulted in meters.
Choosing the coarse value as resulted in
. So the fine cases had to be
4.2.2 Fire enclosure
As already mentioned the burner was placed inside a room. The dimensions of the room were in the best extent
possible reflecting the ones given in the Steckler et al. (1982) report. Hence to grid fitting the dimensions are not
exactly the same as in Steckler et al. (1982), but they are virtually the same and representing the dimensions
2.8x2.8x2.2 meters. The opening is in form of a window, with the height of 1 meter and the width of 0.75
meters.
[12]
The walls in the room were specified as lightweight concrete and fiber insulation board. This is a fair
approximation, since Steckler et al. (1982) only described the wall materials as lightweight and ceramic fiber
insulation board. The thicknesses of the two materials are specified as the thicknesses given by the experiment.
For a full presentation of the material data, walls and the computational domain see LES1-4 Script, in Appendix.
See Figure 6 for an overview of the computational domain and the enclosure of the coarse cases. The difference
with the fine cases are that the representations of the walls become thinner(since the cells are smaller) and the
volume above and in front of the room is smaller, as mentioned before. Also, more devices are placed in the fine
cases, since it’s interesting to measure values in every cell along an array of cells, when measuring temperature
and velocity profiles.
4.3 Burner and radiation related specifications Since different areas of the burner and different HRRPUA are used in the different coarse and fine cases, it is
important that these are specified. They are presented in Table 7 below. The reason for choosing different burner
areas was the aim at having the fire in the absolute middle of the room in all cases. Unfortunately this may have
resulted in incomparable results; therefore the LES2New had to be simulated with the same burner area, and a
for the fuel appropriate radiative fraction. Also, a presentation of the used number of solid angles for every
simulation is specified in Table 7.
Table 7. Fuel, burner and radiation specifics in different cases.
Simulation Burner area [m2] HRRPUA [kW/m
2] Radiative
fraction
Solid angles
LES1 Coarse 0.09 698.8888889 0.35b -
LES1 Fine 0.06890625 912.8344671 0.35 -
LES2 Coarse 0.09 698.8888889 0.35 4500
LES2 Fine 0.06890625 912.8344671 0.35 3500
LES3 Coarse 0.09 768.77777779a 0.35 4500
LES3 Fine 0.06890625 1004.11791381a 0.35 3500
LES4 Coarse 0.09 698.8888889 0.35 4500
LES4 Fine 0.06890625 912.8344671 0.35 3500
LES2New Coarse 0.09 698.8888889 0.20c 4500
LES2New Fine 0.09 698.8888889 0.20 3500
LES2New Coarse MIN 0.09 698.8888889 0.20 104b
a – The case with 10% increased HRR.
b – Value is default for FDS.
c – From (SFPE, 2002).
Figure 6. LES, computational domain.
[13]
4.4 Devices Devices such as thermocouples with default properties, as well as velocity probes were used. In one of the
corners of the room, about 0.3 meters from the walls there were placed thermocouples, along an array of cells
reaching from the floor to the ceiling. In the middle of the opening, reaching from the lower to the upper bound
of the opening, combined thermocouples and velocity probes were placed. Here also in every cell of the array.
See the green dots in the “Front” image of Figure 6, for a representation of these devices.
4.5 Simulation time The time simulated was different for the coarse and fine cases. Starting out with 3600 seconds with a time shrink
factor of 10, giving steady state at approximately half time resulted in a very unnecessarily time consuming
calculation. Thus having the option to reduce the simulation time to only simulate 1800 seconds in the fine cases
was an obvious choice that was picked, also here with the time shrink factor 10.
To shorten the calculation time further a time step increment was given when specifying the radiation model.
This means that the radiation equations are solved every 10th time step instead of every 3rd step, at the cost of
in a lower resolution of the instantaneously changing radiation patterns in the results (McGrattan et al., 2013).
The coarse cases had increments of 10 and the fine had 20.
Note: The LES3 Fine simulation crashed after about 1200 simulated seconds.
[14]
4.6 Results The results of the LES1-4 will be presented in; charts of height-temperature and height-velocity profiles,
transient conditions of temperature and velocity, pictures rendered from SMV. The presented data of choice in
the different charts intend to make it easier for the reader to follow the comparisons between and discussion of
results from different simulations.
4.6.1 Transient conditions
The transient conditions for the opening, the topmost thermocouples and velocity probes can be seen in
respectively Chart 2 and Chart 3.
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Temp [C]
Time [s]
Transiency for topmost opening thermocouple (FINE MESH)
LES1LES2LES3LES4LES2New
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Temp [C]
Time [s]
Transiency for topmost opening thermocouple (COARSE MESH)
Chart 2. Fine and Coarse mesh transient temperature conditions of different cases.
[15]
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Velocity [m/s]
Time [s]
Transiency for topmost opening probe (FINE MESH) Moving Average
LES1LES2LES3LES4LES2New
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Velocity [m/s]
Time [s]
Transiency for topmost opening probe (COARSE MESH) Moving Average
Chart 3. Fine and Coarse mesh transient velocity conditions of different cases.
[16]
4.6.2 Temperature-height profiles
The temperature-height profiles of the corner and the opening will be presented below. Also for each, there will
graphs for comparisons of the profiles between the different grid sizes.
4.6.2.1 The Corner
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00
Height [m]
Temperature [C]
FINE Corner temperature profiles
LES1
LES2
LES3
LES4
LES2New
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 50 100 150 200 250
Height [m]
Temperature [C]
COARSE Corner temperature profiles
LES1
LES2
LES3
LES4
LES2New
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00
Height [m]
Temperature [C]
Comparison LES2 and LES2New grid dependence (Corner)
LES2 Coarse
LES2 Fine
LES2New Coarse
LES2New Fine
Chart 4. Coarse and fine corner temperature profiles, with grid dependence comparison.
[17]
4.6.2.2 The opening
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00
Height [m]
Temperature [C]
FINE opening temperature profiles
LES1
LES2
LES3
LES4
LES2New
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 50 100 150 200 250
Height [m]
Temperature [C]
COARSE opening temperature profiles
LES1
LES2
LES3
LES4
LES2New
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00
Height [m]
Temperature [C]
Comparison LES2 and LES2New grid dependence (opening)
LES2 Coarse
LES2 Fine
LES2New Coarse
LES2New Fine
Chart 5. Coarse and fine opening temperature profiles, with grid dependence comparison.
[18]
4.6.3 Velocity-height profiles
Since the velocities were only measured in the opening, there are only one set of velocity-height profiles, for
graphs, see Chart 6 below.
4.6.4 Smokeview rendered results
The results from SMV will be presented here. That includes radiation patterns and velocity- and temperature
patterns from slices in the middle of the room. A very tenuous part of all pictures rendered in SMV will be
presented in this chapter, the rest can be found in Appendix B. The reason for this is that most of the results are
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Height [m]
Velocity [m/s]
FINE opening velocity profiles
LES1
LES2
LES3
LES4
LES2New
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Height [m]
Velocity [m/s]
COARSE opening velocity profiles
LES1
LES2
LES3
LES4
LES2New
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Height [m]
Velocity [m/s]
Comparison LES2 and LES2New grid dependence (opening)
LES2 Coarse
LES2 Fine
LES2New Coarse
LES2New Fine
Chart 6. Coarse and fine opening velocity profiles, with grid dependence comparison.
[19]
to a great extent looking like one another, except that the colorbar scale may vary at mostly + 10 %, given the
approximately same pattern – indicating a possibility of a slight varying of the results.
4.6.4.1 Radiation
Figure 7. Radiation pattern of LES2 Fine.
Figure 8. Radiation pattern of LES2New Fine.
[20]
Figure 9. Radiation pattern of LES2New Coarse.
Figure 10. Radiation pattern of LES2New Coarse MIN.
Figure 11. Radiation pattern of LES4 Fine(reminder: emissivity of walls 50%).
[21]
4.6.4.2 Temperature
Figure 12 Temperature LES 1, coarse and fine (reminder: Radiation model off).
Figure 13. Temperature LES2New, coarse and fine(reminder: radiative fraction 0.2).
Figure 14. Temperature LES3, coarse and fine(reminder: HRR increased by 10%)
COARSE FINE
COARSE FINE
[22]
4.6.4.3 Velocity
Figure 15 Velocity LES 4, coarse and fine.
Figure 16. Velocity LES2NEW, coarse and fine.
COARSE FINE
[23]
4.7 Experimental data - simulations results In order to make comparisons with experimental data, it is wise to present these. This will be done in this
chapter. The results of the experiment will be presented in the same charts as the LES2New Fine simulation
results in order to make the comparisons easier. LES2New Fine was chosen as comparison data since it has the
most correct input data in terms of burner and radiation properties, see chapter 4.3 for explanation. The used
experimental data values are those of test number 622 in Steckler et al. (1982)
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Height [m]
Temperature [C]
Comparison experimental data and LES2New Fine (opening temperature)
(Steckler et al., 1982)
LES2New Fine
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Height [m]
Temperature [C]
Comparison experimental data and LES2New Fine (Corner temperature)
(Steckler et al., 1982)
LES2New Fine
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
2
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Height [m]
Velocity [m/s]
Comparison experimental data and LES2New Fine (opening velocity)
(Steckler et al., 1982)
LES2New Fine
Chart 7. Experimental data and LES2New for all measure points
[24]
4.8 Observations and discussion The observations and discussions will reflect back on the results presented. They will be divided in different
subchapters, referring to the subchapters in the results.
4.8.1 Transient conditions
Looking at Chart 2 with transient temperatures, one can notice that the coarse cases have definitely reached
steady state, since the graphs are entirely horizontal. However, looking at the graphs for the fine cases one can
make out a slight increase in temperature over time, thus making it unsafe to regard the fine cases as if they have
entirely reached steady state. This applies especially for LES3 Fine where the simulation crashed at 1200
seconds. The reason that the rest of the fine cases haven’t entirely reached steady state is the fact that they were
only simulated half the time, 1800 instead of 3600 seconds.
In Chart 3 where velocity transiency is presented, one can notice the same tendencies as in the temperature
transience. The differences are that the graphs are more fluctuating, even though every curve has been averaged
with a moving average over 11 point values.
The values of steady state are about 180-200 oC and 1.6-1.8 m/s in the coarse cases, and 170-180
oC 1.2-1.5 m/s
in the fine cases. The only one deviating from this is the LES1 which is visibly lower in both charts.
The uncertainty about transience in the fine cases makes it thinkable that there may be an increase of values
further down the simulation time. So maybe it is inappropriate to compare these results with the results from the
coarse cases just because of the simple reason that they are most likely lower than the steady state values. The
question is how much lower the values of the fine cases are when looking at the grid independence. Another
thing that makes the fine and coarse results inappropriate to compare is the usage of different burner areas and
HRRPUA. Flames with greater areas receive different characteristic than the ones with smaller. An extreme
example is the “Thomas plume” which applies for very large fire areas, which have been found to have other
empirical relations than the traditional cylindrical plume cases (Karlsson & Quintiere, 2000).
The reason for the lower values in the LES1 is what follows when the radiation model is turned off. When the
radiation model is turned off, the HRR of the fire is being decreased with the same value as the radiative
fraction. In this case it was 0.35, which is actually a lot in this case. It is a lot because the radiative fraction
should have been around 0.2 - given the fuel was methane.
4.8.2 Temperature-height profiles
Looking at Chart 4 and Chart 5 one can see that the corner profiles have more bending in their curves than the
ones in the opening. This ought to be because of the concentration of the cold and hot gasses by the
thermocouples placed in the heights above and below the opening, in the corner.
All the LES1 cases have a curve located more to the left, indicating lower temperatures on all measure points
than in the rest of the cases, as they should, because of the turned off radiation model.
Looking at Chart 4 (the corner values) it is clearly visible that the coarse cases have generally higher
temperatures. In some extent this is also visible in Chart 5 (the opening values) although it is not as pronounced
as in chart 4. This may be to some extent because of the transience problem, but more likely the greater part of it
is because that is the way it turns out when using a coarser grid. The tendency that greater grid sizes tend to
generate results with higher temperatures is confirmed in a report by Petterson (2002). Also, looking at the
curves of the fine cases transient conditions, they are very close to steady state, which makes it unlikely that lack
of steady state in the fine results is the reason.
4.8.3 Velocity-height profiles
Chart 6 shows that the velocities inside the opening never extend below -0.95 and never exceed 1.95 m/s. There
is a clear difference between LES1 and the rest cases. LES1 has a more narrow profile, which never extends
beyond the boundaries of any other case. Its neutral plane is higher up than any other simulations, and the curve
is steeper, indicating less spread in velocity over the height. Again it is because of the turned off radiation model
– less HRR indicates lower burning rate and thus a lower production of gasses.
[25]
The coarse cases except LES1 have an irregularity around the height of the neutral plane, which the fine cases do
not have. The fine cases instead have an irregularity along the highest measure point, which is adjacent to the
soffit. This, the coarse cases do not have. An educated guess would be that these irregularities have something to
do with the way FDS handles near-wall flows. One general problem is that no shear stress of the velocity, by the
wall can be recognized, because of the nature the cells. However, this is in FDS resolved using a model called
Werner-Wengle (McGrattan et al., 2013). In this report there is no room to investigate the errors that may be
present using this model. Another simpler reason for the irregularities may be because of insufficient averaging
of the data used for the plots.
Except from the irregularities, the coarse and fine cases are very alike; both in the placement and in the shape of
the curves, see grid comparison in Chart 6.
4.8.4 Smokeview rendered results
Observations of SMV outputs will be presented and discussed below.
4.8.4.1 Radiation
The structures of the different results are almost lookalikes, except for in one case; the LES2New Coarse MIN,
where default value of solid angles were used. Here it is possible, due to the lower number of solid angles, to
distinguish a slight scattering in the pattern, which you cannot see in any other case. The reason for scattering is
explained in the discussion of SUB2.
The thing that distinguishes the cases from one another is a slight variation in the width of the colors in the
gradients, as well as the different numbers set on the boundaries of the color bars. For figures with patterns see
chapter 4.6.4.1 or Appendix B.
4.8.4.2 Temperature
In the temperature slices, the LES1 once again makes itself noticed by deviating from the other results. It has a
clear structure that resembles the stratified case. The LES2-4 and the “new” cases, have higher temperatures in
the whole compartment, which resembles the well mixed case to a greater extent. It is hard to make out
differences between the other results.
For pictures of the temperature slices, see chapter 4.8.4.2 or Appendix B.
4.8.4.3 Velocity
It is hard to notice any difference in the velocity slices. They have the same structures, though the areas of the
different colors may differs a little, indicating a small variation in velocities. LES2New cases have higher values
on its color bar bounds, indicating it may have higher gas velocities. For a velocity comparison one would have
to refer to the charts, the pictures aren’t telling much. Yet, pictures can be seen in chapter 4.6.4.3 or Appendix B.
4.8.5 Experimental data from Steckler et al. (1982)
Looking at Chart 7 one can distinguish even more bent temperature profiles in the experimental data for the
corner than in the simulation results. The opening temperature profiles on the other hand have a strikingly
similar shape. However, the temperatures are higher in the simulations than in the experimental data in both the
corner and the opening. This may be due to insufficient grid convergence, but may also be a result of bad
representation of fuel, wall material and radiation properties.
The velocity profiles are not as alike as the temperature profiles. The experimental data has a wider span of
velocities over the same height. This is contradictive due to the fact that the temperatures in the room were lower
in the experiment, yet still it has higher velocities in both directions.
4.9 General discussion Topics not being fit to discuss in chapter 4.8 will be discussed in this part.
The problem with using wrong radiative fraction in all cases except the “new” ones is that less part of the fire is
producing gasses, thus the results from these simulations aren’t trustworthy enough to compare to the
[26]
experimental data. The more gasses produced the higher the velocities are and ultimately neither the
temperatures nor velocities will be comparable to experimental data. Although they are good for a discussion on
how FDS varies in results with different inputs.
Looking at LES4 results, where the emissivity was reduced, little or no variation from LES2 cases can be seen.
This is indicating that radiation from the heated walls to the gasses isn’t a big factor.
The LES3 results are generally higher in temperature and have wide velocity profiles. This is for the same reason
that the LES1 results are lower and narrower, only it is the other way around.
Using such a high amount of solid angles was not motivated. That is safe to state when looking at the results.
Even the default value of 104 angles gave almost acceptable results. Due to the longer computational time, the
use of many angles leads to compromising in other areas such as the transience.
[27]
5 Conclusion The conclusions derived from the different assignments are:
The mesh of the burner and the burner specifics must be well defined in order to represent:
a. good enough deal of the turbulence structures
b. temperatures that have any correlation with reality
To do this, one has to do several simulations until grid independence is reached.
It is difficult to decide if the radiation model is sufficient, since a coarse grid may generate better results
with fewer solid angles than a fine grid with the same amount of angles. To know if it is sufficient, one has
to make sure that they have:
a. achieved grid independence
b. no scattering in their radiation patterns.
The grid sizes have an impact on the temperatures in the compartment, and thus an impact on the velocities
by the opening. A coarser grid gives a higher temperature, and wider bounds of the velocity profiles.
The radiative fraction is important to specify correctly when trying to achieve reality converging results.
It is important to compensate HRR if turning off radiation model, there will be large differences in the
results and reality otherwise.
Emissivity of the walls has in the LES application little or no effect on the temperature or velocity profiles.
[28]
6 Bibliography Karlsson, B. & Quintiere, J.G., 2000. Enclosure Fire Dynamics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
McGrattan, K. et al., 2013. NIST Special Publication 1019 Sixth Edition- Fire Dynamics User's Guide. Manual.
Baltimore, Maryland: U.S. Department of Commerce NIST.
Petterson, N.M., 2002. Assessing the Feasibility of Reducing the Grid Resolution in FDS Field Modelling. M.E
Degree thesis. Christchurch, New Zealand: University of Canterbury School of Engineering, University of
Canterbury.
SFPE, 2002. SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering. 3rd ed. Quincy, Massachusetts: NFPA.
Steckler, K.D., Quintiere, J.G. & Rinkinen, W.J., 1982. Flow Induced by Fire in a Compartment. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards.
[29]
Appendix A Deviations in the scripts are notified with different colors.
SUB1 Script SUB 1 Anders Lynnér - Free burning fire temperature measures and comparisons (Standard Combustion model & Fuel)
HRR: 4850
&HEAD CHID='SUB1-Coarse',Title='free burning - 4850 kW Model:Default'/
SUB1-Medium
SUB1-Fine
&MESH IJK=9,9,24, XB=0.0,4.0,0.0,4.0,0.0,11.0/
SUB1-Medium:27,27,81
SUB1-Fine:36,36,96
&TIME T_END=60.0, DT=0.22/
SUB1-Medium:0.069
SUB1-Fine:0.054
&SURF ID='FIRE', HRRPUA=2728.125, COLOR='RASPBERRY'/
&OBST XB= 1.333333333,2.666666667, 1.333333333,2.666666667, 0.0, 0.0, SURF_IDS='FIRE','INERT','INERT'/
SUB1-Medium: 1.481481481,2.962962963, 1.481481481,2.962962963,
SUB1-Fine: 1.444444445,2.888888890, 1.444444445,2.888888890,
&DEVC ID='ThermoCouple 100', XYZ=2.0,2.0,5.158671843, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE'/
&DEVC ID='ThermoCouple 125', XYZ=2.0,2.0,6.448339804, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE'/
&DEVC ID='ThermoCouple 150', XYZ=2.0,2.0,7.738007765, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE'/
&DEVC ID='ThermoCouple 175', XYZ=2.0,2.0,9.027675725, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE'/
&DEVC ID='ThermoCouple 200', XYZ=2.0,2.0,10.31734369, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE'/
&VENT XB=0.0,0.0,0.0,4.0,0.0, 11.0, SURF_ID='OPEN'/
&VENT XB=0.0,4.0,0.0,0.0,0.0, 11.0, SURF_ID='OPEN'/
&VENT XB=4.0,4.0,0.0,4.0,0.0, 11.0, SURF_ID='OPEN'/
&VENT XB=0.0,4.0,4.0,4.0,0.0, 11.0, SURF_ID='OPEN'/
&VENT XB=0.0,4.0,0.0,4.0,11.0,11.0, SURF_ID='OPEN'/
&SLCF PBY=2.0, QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE'/
&TAIL/
SUB2 Script SUB 2 Anders Lynnér - Radiation Between Plates HotSurfTemp 750, Distance 9m
&HEAD CHID='SUB2-Coarse1',Title='Radiation Between Plates, 750C, 9m'/
SUB2-Coarse-NEWMIN
SUB2-Coarse-MIN
SUB2-Coarse-MAX
SUB2-Fine-NEWMIN
SUB2-Fine-MIN
SUB2-Fine-MID
SUB2-Fine-MAX
&MESH IJK=10,45,10, XB=0.0,2.0,0.0,9.0,0.0,2.0,/
Coarse:10,45,10
Fine:20,90,20
[30]
&TIME T_END=20/
&RADI NUMBER_RADIATION_ANGLES=104/ (NEWMIN)
MIN:400
MID:4000
MAX:8000
&SURF ID='HOT PLATE', TMP_FRONT=750.0, EMISSIVITY=0.85, H_FIXED=0.0, TRANSPARENCY=0.0,
COLOR='RED'/
&SURF ID='COLD PLATE', H_FIXED=0.0/
&OBST XB= 0.0,2.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,2.0, SURF_ID='HOT PLATE'/
&OBST XB= 0.0,2.0,9.0,9.0,0.0,2.0, SURF_ID='COLD PLATE', BNDF_OBST=.TRUE./
&VENT XB=0.0,2.0,0.0,9.0,0.0,0.0, SURF_ID='OPEN'/
&VENT XB=0.0,2.0,0.0,9.0,2.0,2.0, SURF_ID='OPEN'/
&VENT XB=0.0,0.0,0.0,9.0,0.0,2.0, SURF_ID='OPEN'/
&VENT XB=2.0,2.0,0.0,9.0,0.0,2.0, SURF_ID='OPEN'/
&DEVC ID='IHFLUX', QUANTITY='INCIDENT HEAT FLUX', XYZ=1.0,9.0,1.0, IOR=-2/
&BNDF QUANTITY='INCIDENT HEAT FLUX'/
&MISC BNDF_DEFAULT=.FALSE./
&TAIL/
LES1-4 Script Example script
(Marked in red = Fine Mesh, Marked in grey = Coarse Mesh, Turquise =LES2New Coarse/fine,
Black = LES2NewCoarseMIN. The rest of the deviations of the code are resembled as different colors of marking, no
rules apply.
LES 62,9 kW Full window location C
&HEAD CHID='LES1_Coarse' TITLE='ComparisonStecklerC,62.9kW,FullWindow’/ 1_Fine, 2_Coarse, 2_Fine.. etc
&TIME T_END=3600.0, TIME_SHRINK_FACTOR=10.0/ -Cp of MATL reduced by factor 10-
1800
&MESH IJK=64,44,44, XB=0.0,4.8,0.0,3.3,0.0,3.3,/
&MESH IJK=100,80,80, XB=0.15,3.9,0.15,3.15,0.0,3.0/
&OBST XB=0.15,3.15,0.15,3.15,0.0,0.075, COLOR='BLUE', TRANSPARENCY=0.15, SURF_ID='InsulatedLWWall-' /GOLV
&OBST XB=0.15,3.15,0.15,3.15,2.25,2.325,COLOR='BLUE', TRANSPARENCY=0.15, SURF_ID='InsulatedLWWall+' /TAK
&OBST XB=0.15,0.225,0.15,3.15,0.075,2.25, COLOR='BLUE',TRANSPARENCY=0.15, SURF_ID='InsulatedLWWall-'
/vägg mittemot öppning &OBST XB=0.225,3.075,0.15,0.225,0.075,2.25,COLOR='BLUE', TRANSPARENCY=0.15, SURF_ID='InsulatedLWWall+'
/vägg till vänster om öppning facing öppning
&OBST XB=0.225,3.075,3.075,3.15,0.075,2.25,COLOR='BLUE', TRANSPARENCY=0.15, SURF_ID='InsulatedLWWall-' /vägg till höger --||--
&OBST XB=3.075,3.15,0.15,3.15,0.075,2.25,COLOR='BLUE',TRANSPARENCY=0.15, SURF_ID='InsulatedLWWall+'
/Dörrvägg &HOLE XB=2.5,3.5,1.275,2.025,0.375,1.725/
&OBST XB=0.1875,3.1125,0.1875,3.1125,0.0,0.0375, COLOR='BLUE', TRANSPARENCY=0.15, SURF_ID='InsulatedLWWall-' /GOLV
&OBST XB=0.1875,3.1125,0.1875,3.1125,2.2125,2.25,COLOR='BLUE', TRANSPARENCY=0.15, SURF_ID='InsulatedLWWall+'
/TAK &OBST XB=0.1875,0.225,0.1875,3.1125,0.0375,2.2125, COLOR='BLUE',TRANSPARENCY=0.15, SURF_ID='InsulatedLWWall-'
/vägg mittemot öppning
&OBST XB=0.225,3.075,0.1875,0.225,0.0375,2.2125,COLOR='BLUE', TRANSPARENCY=0.15, SURF_ID='InsulatedLWWall+' /vägg till vänster om öppning facing öppning
[31]
&OBST XB=0.225,3.075,3.075,3.1125,0.0375,2.2125,COLOR='BLUE', TRANSPARENCY=0.15, SURF_ID='InsulatedLWWall-'
/vägg till höger --||--
&OBST XB=3.075,3.1125,0.1875,3.1125,0.0375,2.2125,COLOR='BLUE',TRANSPARENCY=0.15, SURF_ID='InsulatedLWWall+' /Dörrvägg
&HOLE XB=2.5,3.5,1.275,2.025,0.375,1.725/
&VENT MB='XMAX', SURF_ID='OPEN'/
&VENT MB='XMIN', SURF_ID='OPEN'/
&VENT MB='YMAX', SURF_ID='OPEN'/ &VENT MB='YMIN', SURF_ID='OPEN'/
&VENT MB='ZMAX', SURF_ID='OPEN'/
=============================
=====Corner Devices=====
============================= &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 1 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.1125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 2 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.1875 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 3 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.2625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 4 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.3375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 5 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.4125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 6 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.4875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 7 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.5625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 8 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.6375 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 9 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.7125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 10 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.7875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 11 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.8625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 12 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.9375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 13 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.0125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 14 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.0875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 15 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.1625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 16 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.2375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 17 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.3125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 18 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.3875 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 19 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.4625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 20 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.5375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 21 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.6125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 22 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.6875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 23 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.7625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 24 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.8375 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 25 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.9125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 26 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.9875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 27 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 2.0625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 28 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 2.1375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 29 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 2.2125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
========================
=====Window Devices=====
[32]
========================
==VELO==
&DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 1 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65, 0.4125 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 2 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
0.4875 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 3 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
0.5625 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 4 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65, 0.6375 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 5 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
0.7125 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 6 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
0.7875 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 7 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65, 0.8625 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 8 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
0.9375 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 9 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
1.0125 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 10 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65, 1.0875 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 11 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
1.1625 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 12 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
1.2375 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 13 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65, 1.3125 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 14 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
1.3875 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 15 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
1.4625 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 16 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65, 1.5375 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 17 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
1.6125 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window,Uvelo 18 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
1.6875 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
==THERM== &DEVC ID='WindowTC 1 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
0.4125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='WindowTC 2 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
0.4875 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='WindowTC 3 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65, 0.5625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='WindowTC 4 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
0.6375 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='WindowTC 5 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
0.7125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='WindowTC 6 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65, 0.7875 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='WindowTC 7 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
0.8625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='WindowTC 8 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
0.9375 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='WindowTC 9 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65, 1.0125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='WindowTC 10 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
1.0875 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='WindowTC 11 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
1.1625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='WindowTC 12 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65, 1.2375 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='WindowTC 13 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
1.3125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='WindowTC 14 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
1.3875 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='WindowTC 15 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65, 1.4625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='WindowTC 16 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
1.5375 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='WindowTC 17 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65,
1.6125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='WindowTC 18 ', XYZ= 3.1125, 1.65, 1.6875 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
=======================
[33]
====Corner Devices=====
=======================
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 1 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.05625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 2 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.09375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 3 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.13125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 4 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.16875 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 5 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.20625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 6 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.24375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 7 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.28125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 8 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.31875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 9 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.35625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 10 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.39375 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 11 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.43125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 12 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.46875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 13 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.50625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 14 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.54375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 15 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.58125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 16 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.61875 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 17 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.65625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 18 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.69375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 19 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.73125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 20 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.76875 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 21 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.80625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 22 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.84375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 23 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.88125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 24 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.91875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 25 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.95625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 26 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 0.99375 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 27 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.03125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 28 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.06875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 29 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.10625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 30 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.14375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 31 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.18125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 32 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.21875 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 33 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.25625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 34 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.29375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 35 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.33125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 36 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.36875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 37 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.40625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
[34]
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 38 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.44375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 39 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.48125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 40 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.51875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 41 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.55625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 42 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.59375 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 43 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.63125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 44 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.66875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 45 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.70625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 46 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.74375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 47 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.78125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 48 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.81875 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 49 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.85625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 50 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.89375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 51 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.93125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 52 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 1.96875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 53 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 2.00625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 54 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 2.04375 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 55 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 2.08125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='CornerTemp 56 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 2.11875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 57 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 2.15625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='CornerTemp 58 ', XYZ= 2.775,2.775, 2.19375 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
================== ==WINDOW DEVICES==
==================
==Velocity==
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 1 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.39375 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 2 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
0.43125 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 3 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
0.46875 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 4 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.50625 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 5 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
0.54375 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 6 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
0.58125 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 7 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.61875 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 8 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
0.65625 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 9 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
0.69375 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 10 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.73125 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 11 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
0.76875 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 12 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
0.80625 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 13 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.84375 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
[35]
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 14 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
0.88125 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 15 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.91875 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 16 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
0.95625 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 17 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
0.99375 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 18 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.03125 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 19 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
1.06875 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 20 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
1.10625 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 21 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.14375 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 22 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
1.18125 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 23 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
1.21875 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 24 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.25625 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 25 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
1.29375 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 26 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
1.33125 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 27 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.36875 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 28 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
1.40625 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 29 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
1.44375 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 30 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.48125 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 31 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
1.51875 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 32 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
1.55625 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 33 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.59375 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 34 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.63125 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 35 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
1.66875 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/ &DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 36 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
1.70625 , QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
==Therm==
&DEVC ID='Window U-Temp1 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.39375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='Window U-Temp2 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.43125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 3 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.46875 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp4 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.50625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='Window U- Temp5 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.54375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp6 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.58125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U-Velo 7 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65,
0.61875 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='Window U- Temp8 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.65625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp9 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.69375 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp10 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.73125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='Window U- Temp11 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.76875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 12 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.80625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
[36]
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 13 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.84375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 14 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.88125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 15 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.91875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 16 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.95625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 17 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 0.99375 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 18 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.03125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 19 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.06875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 20 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.10625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 21 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.14375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 22 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.18125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 23 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.21875 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 24 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.25625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 25 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.29375
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 26 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.33125 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 27 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.36875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 28 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.40625
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 29 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.44375 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 30 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.48125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 31 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.51875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 32 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.55625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 33 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.59375 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 34 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.63125
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/ &DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 35 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.66875
, QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
&DEVC ID='Window U- Temp 36 ', XYZ= 3.09375,1.65, 1.70625 , QUANTITY='THERMOCOUPLE'/
============ ====FIRE====
============
&REAC FUEL='METHANE' ID = 'METHANE'
SOOT_YIELD=0.01
IDEAL=.TRUE./ &SURF ID='BURNER', HRRPUA=698.8888889, COLOR='RASPBERRY' /
HRRPUA=912.8344671
HRRPUA=768.77777779 (LES3_Coarse) HRRPUA=1004.11791381 (LES3_Fine)
HRRPUA=698.8888889 (LES 2New, Coarse & Fine)
&OBST XB= 0.225,0.525,1.5,1.8, 0.075, 0.075, SURF_IDS='BURNER','INERT','INERT' / 0.1725,0.435,1.5375,1.8, 0.0375, 0.0375
0.225,0.525,1.5,1.8, 0.075, 0.075 (LES2New Coarse)
0.1725,0.4725,1.5375,1.8375, 0.0375, 0.0375 (LES2New Fine)
=============
==Materials==
============= &MATL ID='LWConcrete'
CONDUCTIVITY=0.15
DENSITY=500.0 SPECIFIC_HEAT=0.1/
[Properties from: Tab 6.1 Enclosure Fire Dynamics, Karlsson & Quintiere]
[37]
&MATL ID='CFIB'
CONDUCTIVITY=0.041 DENSITY=229.0
SPECIFIC_HEAT=2.09/
(CFIB=CeramicFiberInsulationBoard) [Properties from Fiber Insulation Board:Tab 6.1 Enclosure Fire Dynamics, Karlsson & Quintiere]
====================
=Boundary Condition= ====================
&SURF ID='InsulatedLWWall+'
MATL_ID='CFIB','LWConcrete' BACKING='EXPOSED'
COLOR='GRAY'
THICKNESS=0.05,0.15/ EMISSIVITY=0.5
EMISSIVITY_BACK=0.5/ (LES4)
&SURF ID='InsulatedLWWall-'
MATL_ID='LWConcrete','CFIB'
BACKING='EXPOSED' COLOR='GRAY'
THICKNESS=0.15,0.05/
EMISSIVITY=0.5 EMISSIVITY_BACK=0.5/ (LES4)
&BNDF QUANTITY='RADIOMETER'/
=============
====SLICES=== =============
&SLCF PBY=1.65 ,QUANTITY='U-VELOCITY'/
&SLCF PBY=1.65 ,QUANTITY='TEMPERATURE'/
===============
=Radiation OFF= ===============
&RADI RADIATION=.FALSE./ -HRR is now reduced to 40,8850000065 kW- (LES1)
RADI NUMBER_RADIATION_ANGLES=4500.0, TIME_STEP_INCREMENT=20/ -Fewer updates- (LES2,LES3,LES4)
3500 10
RADI NUMBER_RADIATION_ANGLES=4500.0, TIME_STEP_INCREMENT=20, RADIATIVE_FRACTION=0.2/ -Fewer updates-
104.0 10 (LES2New Coarse & Fine)
&TAIL/
[38]
Appendix B This appendix consists of SMV rendered output of radiation, velocity slices and temperature slices.
Radiation
Figure B. 1. Coarse LES2 Floor.
Figure B. 2. Coarse LES2 Walls.
[39]
Figure B. 3. Coarse LES3 Floor.
Figure B. 4. Coarse LES3 Walls.
[40]
Figure B. 5. Coarse LES4 Floor.
Figure B. 6. Coarse LES4 Walls.
[41]
Figure B. 7. Fine LES2 Floor.
Figure B. 8. Fine LES2 Walls.
[42]
Figure B. 9. Fine LES3 Floor.
Figure B. 10. Fine LES3 Walls.
[43]
Figure B. 11. Fine LES4 Floor.
Figure B. 12. Fine LES4 Walls.
[44]
Figure B. 13. Fine LES2New Floor.
Figure B. 14. Fine LES2New walls.
[45]
Figure B. 15. Coarse LES2New floor
Figure B. 16. Coarse LES2New Walls.
[46]
Figure B. 17. LES2New Coarse Ceiling
Figure B. 18. LES2New Fine Ceiling
[47]
Figure B. 19. LES 2 Ceiling Coarse
Figure B. 20. LES2 Ceiling Fine
[48]
Figure B. 21. Coarse LES3 Ceiling
Figure B. 22. Fine LES3 Ceiling
[49]
Figure B. 23. Coarse LES4 Ceiling
Figure B. 24. Fine LES4 Ceiling
[50]
Velocity
Figure B. 25. Velocity LES1, N and N grid cells.
Figure B. 26. Velocity LES 4, N and 8N grid cells.
Figure B. 27. Velocity LES 2, N and 8N grid cells.
Coarse Fine
Coarse Fine
Coarse Fine
[51]
Figure B. 28. Velocity LES 3, N and 8N grid cells.
Figure B. 29. Velocity LES 4, N and 8N grid cells.
Coarse Fine
Coarse Fine
[52]
Figure B. 30.. Velocity LES2NEW, N and 8N grid cells.
Temperature
Figure B. 31. Temperature LES 1, N and 8N grid cells.
Figure 17 Temperature LES 2, N and 8N grid cells.
Coarse Fine
[53]
Figure B. 32. Temperature LES 3, N and 8N grid cells.
Figure B. 33. Temperature LES 4, N and 8N grid cells.
Figure B. 34. Temperature LES2New, N and 8N grid cells.
Coarse Fine
Coarse Fine