157 - Revising Critical Velocity with Conrad Stacey and Michael Beyer

WEBVTT

00:00:00.382 --> 00:00:01.907
Hello everybody, welcome to the Fire Science Show.

00:00:01.907 --> 00:00:07.892
Finally, a Fire Science Show episode on critical velocity in tunnels that I actually look forward to.

00:00:07.892 --> 00:00:27.550
This time I'm not going to be depressed about talking about critical velocity, which I don't really find very fond of, because we are talking about some very new interesting physics related to that, and this is brought by my guests, conrad Stacey and Michael Bayer from Stacey you Company, and thanks to my fantastic guests, this episode has it all.

00:00:27.550 --> 00:00:30.088
It could be framed as fire fundamentals.

00:00:30.088 --> 00:00:36.127
There's a ton of physics, perhaps a little bit too much physics at the beginning, but please don't let that discourage you.

00:00:36.127 --> 00:00:53.673
Even if Grascov, prong and Richardson numbers don't tell you much, you don't have to know their mathematical derivations to enjoy the beauty of someone finding a new mathematical relation that describes reality in a better way than the previous ones did.

00:00:53.673 --> 00:00:58.951
This episode could be framed as experiments that changed fire science for sure.

00:00:58.951 --> 00:01:01.043
We're talking about one such experiment.

00:01:01.043 --> 00:01:15.328
That is, the memorial tunnel, a very big undertaking in the USA which changed the way how we design tunnels worldwide and was the source of a lot of data and a lot of knowledge that we are still using up to this day.

00:01:15.328 --> 00:01:20.730
And actually revisiting it gives us even more knowledge, which is a beautiful aspect of fire science.

00:01:21.031 --> 00:01:24.343
This episode treats on a cutting edge fire science.

00:01:24.343 --> 00:01:28.525
We are discussing paper that is just being published as we speak.

00:01:28.525 --> 00:01:33.480
I hope it's already online, whether it's in its final version or not.

00:01:33.480 --> 00:01:42.596
You will find a link in the show notes that will lead you either to a pre-print or the finished paper, so you will also be able to check out what we are geeking out about.

00:01:42.596 --> 00:01:53.251
And this episode also has a little bit of political drama and the kitchen of how standards are made, which I think makes it interesting for everyone, not just tunneling experts.

00:01:53.251 --> 00:01:56.730
And if you are a tunneling expert boy, this episode is for you.

00:01:56.730 --> 00:01:58.447
I don't have to advertise it for you.

00:01:58.447 --> 00:02:03.370
So enough, with this, let's spin the intro and jump into the episode.

00:02:03.370 --> 00:02:11.699
With this, let's spin the intro and jump into the episode.

00:02:14.580 --> 00:02:16.201
Welcome to the Firesize Show.

00:02:16.201 --> 00:02:26.854
My name is Wojciech Wigrzyński and I will be your host.

00:02:26.854 --> 00:02:30.038
This podcast is brought to you in collaboration with OFR Consultants.

00:02:30.038 --> 00:02:32.878
Ofr is the UK's leading fire risk consultancy.

00:02:32.878 --> 00:02:43.812
Its globally established team has developed a reputation for preeminent fire engineering expertise, with colleagues working across the world to help protect people, property and environment.

00:02:43.812 --> 00:02:47.965
The world to help protect people, property and environment.

00:02:47.965 --> 00:02:59.633
Established in the UK in 2016 as a startup business of two highly experienced fire engineering consultants, the business has grown phenomenally in just seven years, with offices across the country in seven locations from Edinburgh to Bath, and now employing more than a hundred professionals.

00:02:59.633 --> 00:03:11.272
Colleagues are on a mission to continually explore the challenges that fireHIR creates for clients and society, applying the best research, experience and diligence for effective, tailored FHIR safety solutions.

00:03:11.272 --> 00:03:21.929
In 2024, ofr will grow its team once more and is always keen to hear from industry professionals who would like to collaborate on FHIR safety futures.

00:03:21.929 --> 00:03:25.268
This year, get in touch at ofronsultantscom.

00:03:25.788 --> 00:03:29.145
Hello everybody, I am here today with two gentlemen Conrad and Stacey.

00:03:29.145 --> 00:03:32.872
Hello Conrad, hi Wojciech and Michel Beja, hi Michel.

00:03:32.872 --> 00:03:38.251
Hi, hi everybody, both from Stacey and you and guys.

00:03:38.251 --> 00:03:38.959
Welcome to the podcast.

00:03:38.959 --> 00:03:48.931
I'm happy to find some colleagues from the underground in the fire science show and today we're going to have another podcast episode on tunnels.

00:03:48.931 --> 00:04:06.801
In most of my conversations I have tried to avoid the subject of critical velocity, but today let's make a full episode on that, because I think it's the time that Fire Science Show covers this fundamental for fire safety engineering concept, at least in the tunneling space.

00:04:06.801 --> 00:04:09.105
So you're both involved in tunnels.

00:04:09.105 --> 00:04:13.014
You have so much experience doing tunnels worldwide.

00:04:13.014 --> 00:04:15.725
Let's talk critical velocity First.

00:04:15.725 --> 00:04:21.625
Let's clear up the concept, perhaps because not all of the listeners are familiar with the worlds of tunnels.

00:04:21.625 --> 00:04:28.742
What is the concept of critical velocity and how it impacts the design of tunnel ventilation?

00:04:29.163 --> 00:04:38.427
The critical velocity is that airspeed along the tunnel that just stops smoke from back layering upstream of the fire.

00:04:38.427 --> 00:04:43.642
So as the smoke from the fire rises to the ceiling forms a buoyant layer.

00:04:43.642 --> 00:04:47.564
The buoyancy tends to want to make the smoke go both ways along the ceiling.

00:04:47.564 --> 00:04:59.120
If you have an approaching airspeed at the critical velocity, the smoke will only go one way along the ceiling and it will not proceed further upstream, further upwind than the front of the fire.

00:04:59.120 --> 00:05:03.185
That's the definition that's understood in the industry of critical velocity.

00:05:03.185 --> 00:05:29.550
The definition that's understood in the industry of critical velocity, and the reason it's significant, is, if you want to protect people on one side of a fire for example, a queue of cars that are stopped behind a fire then achieving critical velocity means that those people won't get any smoke over them, so it's almost like a value that guarantees you that upstream remains smoke-free and downstream is used for smoke transport, right?

00:05:29.939 --> 00:05:36.160
That's the idea, yes, and what goes into establishing the critical velocity?

00:05:36.160 --> 00:05:42.910
I know we were going to talk about your new developments in that, so I guess there's going to be a lot of physics in this episode.

00:05:42.910 --> 00:05:48.952
But historically, what variables were considered when you would establish the critical velocity?

00:05:49.600 --> 00:06:00.593
The primary variables are the height of the tunnel and the heat release rate, and historically the slope of the tunnel has been taken as being an important variable.

00:06:00.959 --> 00:06:14.324
But I imagine we'll get to that a little bit further down that we think it's now not important at all that's a big claim, and that's that's also one of the reasons why you're here, so we will definitely get in there.

00:06:14.324 --> 00:06:18.312
And historically, for how long this concept has been used?

00:06:18.312 --> 00:06:21.884
Can you even trace the the origins of that pretty?

00:06:21.904 --> 00:06:22.144
close.

00:06:22.144 --> 00:06:28.415
I think they they started looking into that in the early 1958.

00:06:28.415 --> 00:06:52.790
I think there was the first paper from Thomas who explained a little bit the different flow regimes, the inertia so that the momentum onto the fire and the buoyancy force, and he developed the first relation between the buoyancy force and the inertia and built up some correlations and came up with so-called Froude critical Froude number which is actually in fluid dynamics.

00:06:52.790 --> 00:07:03.228
It's a Richardson number which is the ratio of Grasov number divided by Reynolds squared and the Grasov number is a measure for the buoyancy force and the Reynolds number for the inertia.

00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:09.408
The 1958, I think Michael said the first serious attempt to look at it for fire in tunnels.

00:07:09.408 --> 00:07:16.173
But prior to that I believe there were a number of people looking at methane back layering in mining tunnels.

00:07:16.173 --> 00:07:32.288
If you want to clear methane out of a mine a mine that obviously has coal measures associated with it, which may be a coal mine then you need to achieve a velocity that stops the methane from building up, and going back upstream is part of building up.

00:07:32.288 --> 00:07:42.392
You want it to all go away and be diluted and carried out of the mine, and so the critical velocity for methane back layering was of interest to people before.

00:07:42.392 --> 00:07:46.261
I think it was seriously of interest for fires in transport tunnels.

00:07:46.742 --> 00:07:54.406
I think in general, the mining ventilation would be something perhaps precedes everything we do, because mines were always for the history of humanity.

00:07:54.406 --> 00:08:19.379
So yeah, anyway, another thing that interests me is what led to establishing because it's also like a very interesting derivation, establishing, because it's also like a very interesting derivation that the fundamentals laws of physics, the dimensionless numbers, that goes into this analysis, but it also has been confirmed or studied with the use of different experimental methods, full skill and small skill.

00:08:19.379 --> 00:08:36.269
Perhaps you can comment on the developments and confirmation that this critical velocity is there and for large fires as well as well, does exist, to the best of my knowledge, that that's perhaps one of the outcomes of the of the memorial tunnel project, but may be wrong?

00:08:36.731 --> 00:08:37.374
no, you're.

00:08:37.374 --> 00:08:38.456
You're exactly right.

00:08:38.456 --> 00:08:44.229
The memorial tunnel data are the best data for understanding critical velocity.

00:08:44.229 --> 00:08:47.394
It's the best recorded set of information.

00:08:47.940 --> 00:08:54.116
You discussed the scaling problem and the idea of doing small scale tests.

00:08:54.116 --> 00:09:02.524
Unfortunately, they're a waste of time and the reason is that there's so many different flow regimes involved in the problem.

00:09:02.524 --> 00:09:09.748
You cannot simultaneously match all of your dimensionless parameters unless you also match the dimensions.

00:09:09.748 --> 00:09:54.971
In other words, you make it full scale, which is why attempts to scale from tiny tunnels when I say tiny cross sections, like the sheet of an A4 paper you know really small tunnels and hoping that all of your physical behaviors are somehow balanced in the same way when you get to a tunnel that's 20 times as big is well, it's just hopeful, it's not scientific and the net result is that the numbers that we've seen coming out of those tests, or the numbers out of the tests, are fine for making really small tunnels, and I've got a cartoon of Gulliver on his travels representing to the king of Lilliput that he's able to design their tunnels for them, armed with a copy of NFPA 502 2020.

00:09:55.672 --> 00:10:00.671
Directly Correct, but if you want to design real scale tunnels, then that wasn't very useful.

00:10:00.671 --> 00:10:05.210
So you may learn some things from studying small-scale tunnels.

00:10:05.210 --> 00:10:27.327
You may learn some trends, but I wouldn't get too excited about relying on them for any answers that are relevant to design of full-size tunnels I've published papers criticizing or showcasing issues with small-scale research, especially that you're simply unable to keep Reynolds and Froude number Like that's number one thing for me.

00:10:27.799 --> 00:10:50.510
Like you cannot have a turbulent flow and the Froude number at the same time in the scale, because they simply scale at different rates with the geometrical size, Same with the heat transfers and stuff like that, Though I still find scale modeling a useful exercise to understand some physical phenomena, but perhaps, as you said, to have them as a source of the numbers.

00:10:50.510 --> 00:10:55.297
Simply run the test in a small scale, scale up and here's your result for the full scale.

00:10:55.297 --> 00:11:01.792
That has been an issue and you've brought up NFPA 502 from 2020.

00:11:01.792 --> 00:11:08.563
502 from 2020.

00:11:08.563 --> 00:11:17.729
I'm not sure how many of our listeners understand this little pun, but perhaps it's important that we showcase that because the things that we discussed today have significant impact over a billion dollar industry, which is the smoke control in tunnels.

00:11:18.110 --> 00:11:30.054
So in NFPA 502, some physical relations based on small scale tunnels were introduced, superseding the previous I think it was Kennedy's relations for critical velocity.

00:11:30.054 --> 00:11:39.278
The outcome of that was that the velocities that were given by the standard were significantly higher, or higher in general, than the ones that you would receive previously.

00:11:39.278 --> 00:11:43.947
That's my understanding, and the outcome of having your velocities higher means you need more fans.

00:11:43.947 --> 00:11:50.971
You need more speed in your tunnel to achieve that rate, and suddenly our tunnels started to cost a lot more.

00:11:50.971 --> 00:11:54.470
And then was it version 23?

00:11:54.470 --> 00:11:58.580
It was reverted right, so you were involved in 502.

00:11:58.580 --> 00:12:00.086
How did that process look like?

00:12:00.086 --> 00:12:01.802
I think it was very brave to revert it.

00:12:02.163 --> 00:12:26.581
While it was essential, the change in critical velocity from 2014 to 2017 for a typical road tunnel with, say, a 50 megawatt design fire, I think it was about a 40% increase and it resulted, if you do the sums with simple longitudinal ventilation using jet fans, it was something like a factor of 2.7 on the number of jet fans you would need.

00:12:27.062 --> 00:12:30.971
Now you mentioned the billion dollar industry in ventilating the tunnels.

00:12:30.971 --> 00:12:40.844
There's a significant cost in those extra fans, but the real cost is in making space or changing the shape of the tunnel to accommodate those extra fans.

00:12:40.844 --> 00:13:03.668
If you were doing a cut and cover tunnel through some boggy ground and you had to make your tunnel one and a half meters deeper in this marshland in order to accommodate roof in the ceiling space for more jet fans, or you needed to make a significant length of the tunnel deeper, then that's many billions of dollars possibly for the one tunnel, so certainly hundreds of millions.

00:13:03.668 --> 00:13:13.903
So it was a really serious economic issue and, like all designers, we were very busy designing and you think, oh it went up a bit to 2017.

00:13:13.923 --> 00:13:15.687
This is a bit more onerous.

00:13:15.687 --> 00:13:17.029
Do we really think this is real?

00:13:17.029 --> 00:13:23.211
Oh, but it probably doesn't matter if it's real or not, because the client has specified it, so we'll design to that.

00:13:23.211 --> 00:13:33.140
And then 2020 came along and it went up again, and the source of these equations was the same, but 2017 was moderated for whatever reason.

00:13:33.140 --> 00:13:43.027
And then in 2020, it was just getting a bit ridiculous to say is it really right that this new equation is correct and Kennedy was a fool?

00:13:44.028 --> 00:13:46.541
The answer, of course, is that Kennedy was not a fool.

00:13:46.541 --> 00:13:54.764
He looked at the memorial tunnel data and, for the typical design value of about 50 megawatt heat release rate, his numbers were about right.

00:13:54.764 --> 00:13:59.681
And so we started looking at why was there this difference?

00:13:59.681 --> 00:14:11.046
Because we had the 2014 equation, which matched the memorial tunnel data, and we had the 2020 equation, which matched the memorial tunnel data, and yet there was a 40% difference.

00:14:11.046 --> 00:14:12.671
How could that be?

00:14:12.671 --> 00:14:18.613
And the answer was that the 2020 equation, the memorial tunnel data, was shifted.

00:14:18.613 --> 00:14:21.480
They were not the original memorial tunnel data.

00:14:21.480 --> 00:14:29.707
We perhaps cannot say that they were shifted to exactly match the equation, but they were shifted and after they were shifted, they matched the equation.

00:14:30.120 --> 00:14:35.927
And this was based on mostly this smaller scale, right Okay, memorial as a reference point.

00:14:35.927 --> 00:14:42.548
But I think that a lot of research that led to the re-establishment of those equations was based on a ton of paper.

00:14:42.548 --> 00:14:43.745
I remember that time.

00:14:43.745 --> 00:14:47.482
I am like a reviewer for tunneling and underground space technology.

00:14:47.482 --> 00:14:58.533
I remember the flood of papers on critical velocity in that time, that that that was coming in in most odd combinations, usually based on on small skydive tunnels.

00:14:58.994 --> 00:15:09.764
Now this is one simple number or one small number, and we can argue whether it's three meters per second, two and a half or 1.7 meters per second.

00:15:09.764 --> 00:15:25.913
Yet, as you said, the consequences for the real world, for engineering out there, are tremendous in all sorts of way, because it's also power supply, it's redundancy, it's backups, it its cables, like the electrical cable.

00:15:25.913 --> 00:15:35.110
People who are not designing this would not believe how much design goes in designing the electrical cables for large jet fans in the tunnels.

00:15:35.110 --> 00:15:37.044
Even this starting sequence.

00:15:37.044 --> 00:15:38.428
This is all fun stuff.

00:15:38.428 --> 00:15:51.730
Anyway, one more thing that I think is very important for our further discussion 502 also introduced the rev revisions also introduced the concept of confinement velocity as something that's not critical velocity.

00:15:51.730 --> 00:15:54.610
I also think it's very relevant to talk about that.

00:15:54.610 --> 00:16:02.850
So maybe I'll ask Michael to explain the idea of confinement velocity and how is that different from the critical velocity?

00:16:04.063 --> 00:16:18.751
When we started to look into the differences between the equation and the X-rated 2020 equation, then it ended up being one meter per second higher than it should be, or the Memorial Tunnel says that it's what's necessary.

00:16:19.059 --> 00:16:25.120
So we ended up with 4.2 meters per second for a tunnel that looks like a Memorial Tunnel, compared to three meters per second.

00:16:25.561 --> 00:16:49.812
And then there's also the other risks combined with that, because you would also overventilate your fire and that also mixes the smoke potential smoke layering in the tunnel and if there are people downstream of the fire, that wouldn't facilitate the egress or the self-rescue or the egress conditions for them, and so there's also a risk associated to having a velocity that's too high in the tunnel.

00:16:50.500 --> 00:16:59.591
And when we started that discussion, we also ended the discussion is critic velocity actually the best way to do or to manage the fire or the smoke in the tunnel?

00:16:59.591 --> 00:17:43.094
So that's why the discussion about confinement velocity came into the NFDA and that actually means that we allow a little bit of a back layering, which is in a so-called tenable zone and in a zone where you have a very nice back layering anyways, because usually when you have a back layering, it's very nice to stratify it because it's a hot smoke adjacent to the ceiling and you have usually clear air underneath and it doesn't restrict if it's confined to a specific length, it doesn't restrict your evocation and that's why we thought it's a good way to make it safer and not to over-ventilate the fire.

00:17:44.020 --> 00:17:46.150
When some back layering is available.

00:17:46.150 --> 00:17:53.992
Are we speaking about like a meter of back layering or 50 meters of back layering or like 500 meters, or this is a point of assessment?

00:17:54.319 --> 00:18:00.393
The NFP defines the fire and the velocity as allowing 30 meter of back layering 30 meter.

00:18:00.393 --> 00:18:03.749
But it depends on the fire size.

00:18:03.749 --> 00:18:14.890
So if you design a tunnel for 100 megawatts then the radiation so you can't go, you know, five meters close to a fire and it will be uncomfortable there.

00:18:14.890 --> 00:18:22.986
You have a tenable zone where you can't be anyways or where you're at risk because of the heat and the radiation of the fire.

00:18:22.986 --> 00:18:28.431
So 20 to 30 meters was more or less that base where you might be safe.

00:18:28.540 --> 00:18:38.032
And when there is a smoke layer in that zone then that can be acceptable because you would experience a lot of high heat anyways from the fire and the radiation.

00:18:38.032 --> 00:18:43.240
And so if you had 100 megawatt fires or maybe 50 meter backlaying is then acceptable.

00:18:43.240 --> 00:18:58.071
But for 50 or 30 megawatt a 30 meter backlaying is then acceptable.

00:18:58.071 --> 00:19:00.513
But for 50 or 30 megawatt 30 meter backlaying might be acceptable.

00:19:00.513 --> 00:19:15.740
The traffic situation in the tunnel if it's a bidirectional or unidirectional tunnel, they have a fixed velocity between one and three meters per second and so they control the velocity and accept the backlaying that can occur based on that velocity.

00:19:15.740 --> 00:19:21.549
And actual fire heat is radiated in the tunnel because most of the fires might be small.

00:19:21.759 --> 00:19:33.549
You know you only have a car fire, maybe for five megawatts, and one meter per second might be okay and in some circumstances you might have a 30 megawatt fire and then your back layering might be longer.

00:19:33.549 --> 00:19:51.633
But as long as it's stratified and you have good clearance under the layer, it's not a bad thing, especially when you have cars on both sides or can have cars on both sides of the tunnel for very high jet tunnels or, yeah, bi-directional tunnels and in those large fires the buoyancy is really strong.

00:19:51.759 --> 00:19:55.869
It's it's like a really it could be a really sharp interface, the back glaring.

00:19:55.869 --> 00:20:04.692
I remember in some of the grass conferences they were doing this uh, heptane benzeneene smoke tests many years ago.

00:20:04.692 --> 00:20:06.115
I think you were there as well.

00:20:06.115 --> 00:20:10.847
That was very sharp smoke later on and it was a very interesting demonstration.

00:20:10.847 --> 00:20:19.339
This concept is very profound to me because we stopped talking about one artificial value or one number of velocity.

00:20:19.339 --> 00:20:20.926
We stopped talking about engineering.

00:20:20.926 --> 00:20:22.240
We stopped considering safety.

00:20:22.240 --> 00:20:29.867
We stopped considering where you can be in in case of a fire off a tunnel to still be able to get out.

00:20:29.867 --> 00:20:31.730
We start to engineer.

00:20:31.730 --> 00:20:34.000
This is why I appreciate this, you know.

00:20:34.000 --> 00:20:49.573
For me it opens the pathways showing that there's a spectrum of outcomes, there's a spectrum of fires and not just, you know, one fixated holy grail number for which you need to cut the trench one and a half meter more because you cannot feed your jet fan there.

00:20:49.573 --> 00:20:50.477
That was crazy.

00:20:50.477 --> 00:20:52.722
I'm really happy we've escaped those times.

00:20:52.722 --> 00:20:59.364
Perhaps this is the time to to move into critical velocity and and revision of the concept.

00:20:59.364 --> 00:21:00.246
Let's try that.

00:21:00.707 --> 00:21:02.751
Conrad, you've mentioned the Memorial Tunnel.

00:21:02.751 --> 00:21:07.986
I know your recent research is also based on the Memorial Tunnel.

00:21:07.986 --> 00:21:14.826
You said it's the best experimental data set for studying critical velocity and back layering formation.

00:21:14.826 --> 00:21:16.190
Why is that?

00:21:16.530 --> 00:21:35.498
Why is it the best one Because they recorded everything so carefully, with so many thermocouple trees and so many time histories of velocity, and that you're able now to go back and reanalyze all of that data.

00:21:36.045 --> 00:21:48.558
So it's not just a question of the summary papers that were produced at the time, but the raw data are available and we've been back into it and reanalyzed it to see what we think the critical velocity was.

00:21:48.558 --> 00:22:06.458
Because velocity varies over time during these tests and the back layering varies over time and you look at the time instance when you think it's steady and when the smoke just starts coming forward again but it's still not changing too fast, and you say, well, that's a good time to pick where the critical velocity is.

00:22:06.458 --> 00:22:12.574
So all of those data are available for anybody to reanalyze.

00:22:12.574 --> 00:22:25.817
And there was a large number of tests, not just one or two, and a large number of couple trees so you can calibrate your CFD to the downstream temperature profiles.

00:22:25.817 --> 00:22:29.335
And, yes, as Michael says, it's got very high heat release rates.

00:22:29.335 --> 00:22:35.693
You know there are equal velocity tests with three megawatt fires and you say, well, what use are they in a road tunnel?

00:22:36.547 --> 00:22:37.853
And that was a real tunnel right.

00:22:37.853 --> 00:22:40.413
It was a full-scale, large, proper tunnel right.

00:22:40.413 --> 00:22:41.651
What was the size of it?

00:22:41.944 --> 00:22:44.673
The height of the memorial tunnel is 7.86 meters.

00:22:44.673 --> 00:22:46.368
It's about 7.9.

00:22:46.368 --> 00:22:52.257
And the height of the fuel pans they have used is 0.8 meters.

00:22:54.068 --> 00:22:56.555
And the shape was a horseshoe, and then they put the ceiling.

00:22:56.575 --> 00:23:08.597
Yeah, so it was a horseshoe shape, a TVM tunnel basically, and it had a full ceiling and they did a lot of tests with the transversal ventilation system.

00:23:08.597 --> 00:23:23.634
And then they removed the ceiling, put all the equipment and measurement stuff in the tunnel again, placed the loops they had in place, they put back and did a lot of tests with tetraends and longitudinal ventilation.

00:23:23.653 --> 00:23:27.154
Then Wow, and why did they run this project?

00:23:27.154 --> 00:23:29.913
What was the origin of the Memorial Tunnel project?

00:23:30.664 --> 00:23:57.348
Art Vendelius used to love telling the story of myself coming to chat with him and a chap who was then unknown to me at the Boston BHR as it was then the ISAF, the conference in 2000, and they were talking about the memorial tunnel tests, which were not that long before, a few years, three, four years before and I asked weren the Memorial Tunnel tests just about proving to Americans that jet fans worked?

00:23:57.348 --> 00:24:03.048
And there was, oh yes, well, that was part of it, and you know the very dry answer.

00:24:03.048 --> 00:24:22.289
And the other person who was in the conversation at this welcome drinks was Tony Caserta, who was the secretary for the Department of Transportation for the US federal government, who was responsible for funding these tests and whose department was also responsible for policies that said you probably shouldn't use jet fans in tunnels.

00:24:22.289 --> 00:24:37.849
So the glib answer, or the glib understanding that I had as to what the Memorial Tunnel tests were about at that time wasn't entirely inaccurate, in that there was essentially a prohibition on US tunnel projects that expected federal funding.

00:24:37.869 --> 00:24:46.876
There was a prohibition on using jet fans, and so showing that you could control smoke in fact using jet fans was a really useful thing to do.

00:24:46.876 --> 00:25:00.117
But they were also studying the transverse or the semi-transverse ventilation of the smoke, before they then took the ceiling down and ran with the jet fans and just understanding the heat downstream from the fire etc.

00:25:00.117 --> 00:25:00.538
Etc.

00:25:00.538 --> 00:25:01.488
So there were a few other.

00:25:01.488 --> 00:25:06.387
Obviously you get all the information you can out of it, out of a series of tests like that.

00:25:06.387 --> 00:25:15.156
But how to control smoke with longitudinal ventilation was certainly central, and showing that jet fans even worked in America was part of that.

00:25:15.826 --> 00:25:17.512
They seem to just work globally.

00:25:17.512 --> 00:25:24.414
That's good, that physics in America even though the physics in there is in feet and stones, it still works.

00:25:25.085 --> 00:25:35.704
And the good thing of those tests is actually that they had long lasting fires so they didn't use fuel pans and just filled them up and burned them out till the fuel is gone.

00:25:36.165 --> 00:25:56.765
They had actually pumps and they were constantly pumping fuel into the fire pan so that they were able to have more or less a constant heat rate over a long time, and it was up to 30 minutes per test test.

00:25:56.765 --> 00:25:56.885
Okay.

00:25:56.885 --> 00:26:01.077
And the variety of the fire size was also very good, because it started with 10 megawatts up to 100 megawatts and 100 megawatt fire over 30 minutes.

00:26:01.077 --> 00:26:47.689
It's a really good test starter actually to validate realistic design fires again, and also for and it was the whole procedure was designed to analyze critical velocity, because they had jet fans and they changed the velocity in the tumble very careful and very close to the crit velocity and when it was a bit higher and there was no backlaying, they slowly or slightly changed the air speed down until the backlaying started, and they did that during the test a couple of times just to pinpoint the actual velocity when the backlayiding occurs or when it's back to the fireside, and so you can actually, in a very narrow range, tell what the cryptic velocity was during those tests.

00:26:47.689 --> 00:26:48.451
Fantastic.

00:26:48.913 --> 00:26:50.832
Okay, let's move to your recent study.

00:26:50.832 --> 00:26:53.835
So you said you were revisiting the data from Memorial.

00:26:53.835 --> 00:26:58.753
To my best understanding, you were doing that using modern CFD methodology.

00:26:58.753 --> 00:27:04.690
So if you could comment on the software and choices like how did you approach that?

00:27:04.690 --> 00:27:07.336
Did you build like a detailed model of the tunnel?

00:27:07.336 --> 00:27:10.008
How did you model the fire, etc.

00:27:10.288 --> 00:27:17.578
Yeah, so we started with recreating the Memorial Tunnel model with all the details we have gotten.

00:27:17.578 --> 00:27:26.838
So we also got from Joe Gonzalez, who was there during the tests, some notes about loops and all the obstacles that were there.

00:27:26.838 --> 00:27:38.964
You know we measured the units and all that sort of stuff and the precise location was of all those loops and what the potential blockage was, and also we implemented all the tetrains.

00:27:38.964 --> 00:28:07.417
So all the details that are available in the report we implemented in the models and then we started first exploring the fire based on the volumetric heat source, because that was when we started, it was more or less the agreed best practice in simulating fire with Fluent or with CFD other than FDS, and then we realized that it actually the answer depends on how you define the volume.

00:28:07.417 --> 00:28:19.474
If you define the volume exactly in that area where the fire pan was, but just you can change the height of that volume and depending on the height change, the result changed.

00:28:19.924 --> 00:28:48.010
Also, we couldn't get a good agreement on the temperature, the distribution up and down from the fire, and so we started to look a little bit into the details of combustion and did a little bit of research of what could be available or a good, reliable combustion model that is not too computationally expensive but still accurate enough to get the holistic behavior of the fire and to actually release the heat.

00:28:48.010 --> 00:29:01.161
In the model, the verdimere, most fuel is mixed with the air and gets burned, which is also a function of the temperature, a function of how much is combusted, what is the species there and how much oxygen you have.

00:29:01.161 --> 00:29:14.523
So that was actually really important to have the heat released in the tunnel where the combustion is happening, to get an accurate temperature distribution downstream of the fire and also to predict the smoke backlighting downstream of the fire and also to predict the smoke back layering.

00:29:14.523 --> 00:29:15.444
Yeah.

00:29:15.444 --> 00:29:26.990
And so we looked at different combustion models and there was one that is not too computational expensive, which is the eddy dissipation combustion model EDC, yeah, yeah, correct, and it was very robust.

00:29:27.625 --> 00:29:37.395
And, as you always have to, you're not after the data of a fire where some fluctuations and temperature increase happens local to the fire.

00:29:37.395 --> 00:29:47.480
You are more after a time average or holistic temperature field to get the steady state backfiring predicted accurately.

00:29:47.480 --> 00:29:57.711
And that's why Rand's turbulence model was really good in finding good answers compared to the memorial tunnel in a more average sense.

00:29:57.711 --> 00:30:15.951
But it always depends what you're after if you're using safety, because if you want to know what the maximum lane temperature is, then maybe that approach is not the best, but if you want to know what the smoke is doing in a steady state sense, then that was a really good model to use.

00:30:16.665 --> 00:30:25.194
Were you using that around as a steady state or you were having transient simulation following the development of events at the memorial?

00:30:25.644 --> 00:30:37.155
Yeah, during the research we used a transient model and also RANS and we compared the transient with RANS and we found that there were no differences If you look in the, say, five-minute time average.

00:30:37.244 --> 00:30:45.496
Because we averaged the test data the velocity, the heat risk rate and all the important parameters were stable for a specific time.

00:30:45.496 --> 00:30:55.278
So we averaged all those measured parameters over that time and then we did a steady-state simulation to see if we can confirm with that.

00:30:55.278 --> 00:31:17.184
Because the problem is that if your heat risk rate changes and your velocity changes and also your temperature downstream changes depending on what was the heat risk rate at that time and the travel distance and speed at that time, so it's really hard to compare time.

00:31:17.184 --> 00:31:33.172
So you it's really hard to compare and that's why I was after a period where everything was pretty constant, so that I can make sure that down to the fire, the temperature profile is well established and can be compared to the simulation we're after, because the aim is to analyze critical velocity in in a steady state sense.

00:31:33.172 --> 00:31:41.752
So we want to know what the critical velocity is for a 50 MW fire that lasts, say, half an hour or an hour or whatever the design parameters are.

00:31:42.546 --> 00:31:45.108
And the software is Ansys Fluent, right, yeah, we use Ansys.

00:31:45.169 --> 00:31:45.711
Fluent for that.

00:31:46.025 --> 00:31:47.731
Good, good Fellow Ansys users.

00:31:47.731 --> 00:31:49.612
It's also our software of choice.

00:31:49.612 --> 00:31:53.954
Now let's move to the formulations of your conclusions.

00:31:53.954 --> 00:31:56.173
So you've spoiled it a little bit.

00:31:56.173 --> 00:32:01.292
You said that slope used to be an important factor, but you believe it is not.

00:32:01.292 --> 00:32:14.865
I also always put the slopes into my critical ventilation calculations and I know the impact it creates on the number of jet fans I have to put, which disturbs my clients.

00:32:14.865 --> 00:32:15.826
So please tell me what's up with slope.

00:32:15.826 --> 00:32:17.387
It creates the number of jet ones I have to put, which disturbs my clients.

00:32:17.387 --> 00:32:18.348
So please tell me what's up with slope.

00:32:18.348 --> 00:32:22.711
Why do you think it's not as an important factor as we attributed it before?

00:32:22.711 --> 00:32:24.313
I have a feeling it's a longer story.

00:32:24.952 --> 00:32:25.894
It is a long story.

00:32:25.894 --> 00:32:31.317
I'll start, but the details of the flow are probably Michael's to tell.

00:32:31.317 --> 00:32:48.776
In short, if you are blowing smoke downhill from a major fire, the back layering that wants to proceed uphill at, say, a 4% grade, is very much more energetic than if the ceiling of the tunnel was flat.

00:32:48.776 --> 00:32:57.988
And that energy of the back layer, with a roughly similar flow coming onto it, enhances the mixing to the point where the back layer self-defeats.

00:32:57.988 --> 00:33:02.757
And I'm not sure that that's a full and erudite explanation.

00:33:02.757 --> 00:33:10.666
But it seems that the answer is somewhere there in the more energetic mixing generated by the adverse gradient.

00:33:10.666 --> 00:33:30.010
And while it's still certainly true that you need more ventilation power to achieve a certain velocity because you've got the buoyancy head of the smoke blowing downhill, the velocity that you need to achieve is actually not very different at all and may in fact be less when you've got a downgrade length of tunnel.

00:33:31.212 --> 00:33:33.898
I always consider this as a battle of two wedges.

00:33:33.898 --> 00:33:40.134
Like you have two triangles that touch each other and the answer is the momentum transfer between those wedges.

00:33:40.173 --> 00:33:44.090
Yeah, michael, add to that yeah, if you look at the local plume dynamics.

00:33:44.090 --> 00:33:57.606
So if you had a flat tunnel, you have the fire and the fire is inducing some momentum towards the ceiling and the gravity sector onto that flame and plume is the maximum when it's a flat tunnel.

00:33:57.606 --> 00:34:18.992
You get the maximum speed hitting the tunnel when it's flat and as soon as you incline it the gravity vector onto that fire plume is decreasing so that the resulting pressure on the ceiling, which is then relevant for creating back layering or at least spreading a smoke in both ways decreases with the tunnel slope.

00:34:18.992 --> 00:34:26.155
And that is one indication why it's decreasing or why it's about maximum when the tunnel is flat.

00:34:26.155 --> 00:34:40.416
And then of course you have different, as Conrad said, you also have a different mixing behavior because your flames also changes, because they deflect a bit more when when you're inclining the tunnel, and so you have also mixing effects.

00:34:40.416 --> 00:34:49.293
But in the cfd what we found is that the pressure on the ceiling, because of the plume hitting the ceiling, decreases when you increase the tunnel slope.

00:34:49.634 --> 00:35:06.032
It doesn't matter which way okay, good, in your paper, which I will link link in the show notes, one that triggered our conversation are also other aspects that you bring up, like the orientation of the fire source, the width of the fire source.

00:35:06.032 --> 00:35:08.811
I found that to be quite interesting.

00:35:08.811 --> 00:35:15.978
So perhaps you can introduce us to factors that we perhaps have not recognized before or not recognized enough.

00:35:15.978 --> 00:35:22.478
That truly impacts the formulation of back layering and, as a consequence, the critical velocity itself.

00:35:22.824 --> 00:35:28.056
Well, I think the biggest thing, Michael, is the focus on the intensity of the fire.

00:35:28.418 --> 00:35:38.706
Yeah, I mean, there's a little bit of a story behind, because when we thought of issues with the small scale tunnels, we looked into the details and said, okay, what is actually the reason for that?

00:35:38.706 --> 00:35:42.485
And one of them was, of course, of the scaling rules they have used.

00:35:42.485 --> 00:35:57.755
So we are relying on the Froude number, and that is a little bit of a confusion, because Thomas used the critical Froude number, which is a rigid number and includes the density change on the temperature, and the Froude number used for scaling is actually a different Froude number.

00:35:57.755 --> 00:36:05.130
It's the Froude number also used for fluid dynamics and it doesn't actually include the temperature other than the density change.

00:36:05.826 --> 00:36:13.675
It's used for free surface waves and for particle suspension and various other things where temperature is not an issue.

00:36:14.164 --> 00:36:21.436
It's a ratio of the inertia force to the gravity force and it's only for isothermal fluid flow.

00:36:21.436 --> 00:36:34.630
And when you look at the Navier-Stokes equation, as soon as you have buoyancy forces, that Froude number in the body force gets replaced by the Richardson's number, which is the cross of divided by Reynolds squared.

00:36:34.630 --> 00:36:50.693
And that's when you talk about the mixed convection or in general, when you talk about convection or forced mixed or natural convection, and if those numbers are very similar the Grashof number and the Reynolds squared number then you have a mixed convection problem.

00:36:50.693 --> 00:37:07.650
So to come back to the scaling, so the Froude number used for scaling is actually not the number that is representative for buoyancy forces, and that's the main problem, which means actually that your fire or your temperature field in the small scale tunnel is not scaled.

00:37:07.650 --> 00:37:12.346
So it has to be exactly the same as in the real tunnel and that doesn't happen.

00:37:12.586 --> 00:37:13.289
Okay, in that way.

00:37:13.289 --> 00:37:14.588
Okay, now I got it.

00:37:14.628 --> 00:37:28.257
Yeah, yeah and the second problem was that the fire size, because they used, or most of them used, small burner, or especially that one that is um the um the the problematic one.

00:37:28.838 --> 00:37:33.108
Yeah, lee lay and ingerson 2010 is the problematic paper.

00:37:33.610 --> 00:37:36.557
Okay, yeah and and they use the fixed burner size.

00:37:36.557 --> 00:37:46.094
But all the other researchers use the fixed burner size and increase the heat risk rate on that fixed area, which automatically increases the fire intensity.

00:37:46.804 --> 00:38:47.215
And when you compare that to the Memorial Tunnel, then there's a problem, because in the Memorial Tunnel they have increased the heat risk rate by increasing the area and extending the fire pan in longitudinal direction to get more heat into the tunnel or more heat risk rate With a high intensity, which means the heat risk rate per square meter was constant in the memorial tunnel tests but it was not, or is not, in the small skill tests, or most of them yeah, I remember we had similar discussions in the european commission for uh designing standards for car box, like how do we define the fires, whether we like to have a constant heat release rate by unit area and scale up the area, or we want to have the same area and scale up the intensity, and uh, that was a very interesting conversation that took like six or seven years and I'm not sure if we even reached an agreement in the end, which one we like, but it certainly was enlightening.

00:38:47.235 --> 00:38:55.277
So here you would say that the intensity actually is the impactful thing when you start to formulate the critical velocity and back layering.

00:38:55.277 --> 00:38:56.099
Why?

00:38:56.139 --> 00:38:56.478
is that?

00:38:56.478 --> 00:39:03.440
Primarily because it determines the temperatures that you're going to get in the first part of the plume.

00:39:03.440 --> 00:39:11.621
Okay, because it's a buoyancy driven phenomenon and obviously that means temperature is a critical parameter.

00:39:11.621 --> 00:39:21.916
And if you have a low intensity fire you don't get a very high temperature rise in your plume, you don't get a big density deficit, so you don't get the drivers of back layering.

00:39:22.585 --> 00:39:40.730
And the analogy which I used some time ago to useful effect is you could make a 50 megawatt fire by soaking a ship's mooring rope in oil or in petrol and stretching it along a tunnel far enough oil or in petrol and stretching it along a tunnel far enough.

00:39:40.751 --> 00:39:43.621
And clearly it's only the first bit of that burning mooring rope that's going to affect any back layering from it.

00:39:43.641 --> 00:39:49.775
So it's the intensity at the front of the fire that really matters in terms of generating back layering.

00:39:50.297 --> 00:40:25.909
So if you've got a 25 meter long truck that's all burning, the first 12.5 meters are going to pretty much determine the backlayering that happens, because that determines the intensity, the density deficit that's hitting the ceiling, and the second 12.5 meters is just getting washed downstream by the flow that's already established to control the backlayering from the 12 and a half meters, so you might have doubled the fire size to a 25 meter long truck, but you haven't affected the intensity at the front of the fire, which is what really matters.

00:40:26.711 --> 00:40:35.733
And so that leads us to the second part of our modeling, second third, which is the influence of the length of the fire.

00:40:35.733 --> 00:40:49.193
And there's a decaying influence of the length of the fire downstream, and we had no particular wisdom as to what that decay rate was, other than looking at useful data.

00:40:49.193 --> 00:41:10.445
And again, the memorial tunnel data because they had fire pans of varying lengths gave us a good handle on that, and so we simply synthesized a decay curve that seemed to be of the appropriate form and that went into our formula, and then that got calibrated empirically along with the other parameters.

00:41:10.445 --> 00:41:15.257
But there was some calibration we could do on that decay curve independently.

00:41:16.085 --> 00:41:31.974
Yeah, and I just wanted to add that the indication of that thinking was also because of the memorial tunnel results and what was observed there, because for lower heat-per-haze rate between 10 and 20 megawatts, the crit velocity was about 3 meters per second.

00:41:31.974 --> 00:41:37.034
For 50 megawatts it was 3 meters per second and for 100 megawatts it was also 3 meters per second.

00:41:37.034 --> 00:41:41.485
For 50 megawatts it was 3 meters per second and for 100 megawatts it was also 3 meters per second.

00:41:41.485 --> 00:41:50.394
And all the models always tried to calculate critical velocity based on the total heat release rate or on the convective heat release rate.

00:41:50.394 --> 00:41:57.280
And so that's why most of the models were under-predicting critical velocity for low heat release rates and over-predicting for high heat release rates, because it increased the value when the hit-risk rate was increased.

00:41:57.280 --> 00:42:14.273
But it wasn't observed during the Memorial Tunnel tests and we were thinking about the differences between Memorial Tunnel and the small-scale tests and what could be the parameter or the reason for that, and one of them is the high-intensity, as Conrad discussed.

00:42:14.686 --> 00:42:21.425
And the way how they did add those additional megawatts in the memorial was adding pan after pan, after pan after pan.

00:42:21.425 --> 00:42:25.304
So it was increasing the length of the fire source, right?

00:42:25.304 --> 00:42:26.168
You can't?

00:42:26.190 --> 00:42:29.164
increase the fire because it's a physical parameter.

00:42:29.164 --> 00:42:47.251
You can't have a five, say, a fire intensity of five megawatts per square meter because you can't get that feed into that area, because the fuel has a specific combustion value and based on that, that's the intensity you get out and the return.

00:42:47.251 --> 00:42:52.713
Fire, for example, has a different intensity than a diesel fire or a gasoline fire.

00:42:52.713 --> 00:43:08.451
And we found that the fuel oil they used in the moral tunnel is already on the upper limit of a fire intensity because I mean, if you look at all fire, it's it's a very intense fire already and how about the width of the fire?

00:43:09.012 --> 00:43:10.373
how is that impactful?

00:43:10.954 --> 00:43:12.016
in a couple of ways.

00:43:12.016 --> 00:43:23.974
The first impact, I guess, is that it determines the shape of the plume and how much of the air that's coming down the tunnel interacts with the plume.

00:43:23.974 --> 00:43:38.436
In most of the prior models the temperature that was put into the model is the average mixed downstream temperature, which then embodies the total heat release rate rather than just the intensity of the front bit.

00:43:38.436 --> 00:43:56.405
So when we looked at dividing the heat released amongst the air that was likely to interact with the plume, with the rest of the air going around the plume, you get a different answer for the temperature rise, and that was one of the problems that people had with all of the prior models.

00:43:56.405 --> 00:44:03.525
There was lots of discussion about aspect ratio corrections, correcting for wider tunnels, because the answer's not quite right.

00:44:04.106 --> 00:44:39.878
Well, if you take a very wide tunnel and you pretend that the temperature fully mixed by the time the temperature has fully mixed, well, downstream of the fire in a very wide tunnel, that temperature is clearly irrelevant to the back layering, and so we could see that and we took as our temperature rise a temperature argued from an idealized shape of the plume and taking that frontal area of the plume as representing the air that went through the plume to give us our temperature rise with the rest of the air going around it.

00:44:39.918 --> 00:44:46.311
So that's the genesis of the effective temperature, or the effective plume temperature rise.

00:44:46.311 --> 00:44:47.695
That's in our model.

00:44:47.695 --> 00:45:00.552
The other part of the fire is what we please to call the curtain effect, which is, if you make a fire completely across the tunnel, there is no ability for the air to bypass the plume.

00:45:00.552 --> 00:45:14.751
All of the air is pushing on the fire plume in the same way or a similar way, and so the whole thing leans over and the wider the fire is beyond some optimum or worst case value.

00:45:14.751 --> 00:45:22.510
As the fire width approaches a significant fraction of the tunnel width, the critical velocity goes down.

00:45:22.510 --> 00:45:28.672
Because of this curtain effect, there's no ability for the free flow to bypass the plume.

00:45:29.514 --> 00:45:36.170
Basically, the incoming air becomes more and more efficient because it just mixes with more and more of the back layering.

00:45:36.572 --> 00:45:43.793
Well, it's just the physical inability for the plume to rise in between the stream of air.

00:45:43.793 --> 00:45:44.815
There is no in between.

00:45:44.815 --> 00:46:08.197
If you have curtains and you pull them shut across an open window and the breeze is blowing in the window, the curtains will all pull back enough distance for the air to go underneath the curtain and into the room, whereas as soon as you create a tiny gap in the curtain, they can hang vertically for a modest breeze coming in through that gap and so making the fire wider.

00:46:08.197 --> 00:46:14.956
For the same, fire intensity didn't actually increase the velocity required to stop back layering.

00:46:14.956 --> 00:46:16.150
It actually decreased it.

00:46:16.686 --> 00:46:17.969
That's a really like.

00:46:17.969 --> 00:46:21.487
This is a challenging observation, but it kind of makes sense.

00:46:21.527 --> 00:46:41.632
If you put it like that, it's quite easy to think about this very narrow fire, because when you have a very narrow fire there's a lot of space because the plume, you can see the plume is an obstacle and the air, the approaching air, is trying to not actually hit the obstacle, it's trying to go around easier.

00:46:41.632 --> 00:46:56.784
There's a lot of space towards the left and the right of the fire and the air says I go around that, opening up a space, a vacuum, or kind of a vacuum for the plume and the smoke to propagate upstream, kind of a vacuum for the plume and the smoke to propagate upstream.

00:46:56.784 --> 00:47:08.313
That's why you need much more air speed to push that back, compared to a very wide fire where all of the approaching air is actually hitting the full plume.

00:47:09.135 --> 00:47:09.657
Fantastic.

00:47:09.657 --> 00:47:13.396
So, as we're approaching the end of our time, I would love to.

00:47:13.396 --> 00:47:35.795
Basically, the outcome is you have proposed a revision of the critical velocity model based on your observation, on the careful investigation of the memorial tunnel and a parametric cfd study that followed again, there's a massive paper out there that's linked in the shown us, if anyone wants to get into the details of this, of this derivation.

00:47:35.795 --> 00:47:37.778
You proposed a model.

00:47:37.778 --> 00:47:46.347
What is the from practical point of view, not not explaining physics like, what's the practical take for an engineer from this new model?

00:47:46.347 --> 00:47:49.293
How does it differentiate from the existing model?

00:47:49.293 --> 00:47:57.172
If you could figure out like one important change in the lives of engineers with this, besides being closer to the truth, hopefully.

00:47:57.713 --> 00:48:00.817
Well, that is the fundamental benefit.

00:48:00.817 --> 00:48:03.599
As engineers, we're getting close to the truth.

00:48:03.599 --> 00:48:09.213
And this model is closer to the truth than all the previous equations have been.

00:48:09.213 --> 00:48:30.117
It's closer to the truth than the Kennedy equations that were up to 2014, primarily because of the recognition of intensity, and it allowed the formula to lose the heat release rate to the one-third power relation that had always dominated everything.

00:48:30.117 --> 00:48:44.347
And it's closer to the truth than the more recent equations because it doesn't involve any fudging of data, and it's just closer to the truth for the range of heat release rates and tunnel sizes that people are interested in designing for.

00:48:44.347 --> 00:48:47.675
And why do we think it's close to the truth?

00:48:47.675 --> 00:48:56.693
We think it's close to the truth because it matches not only the memorial tunnel data very well, but it also works in Lilliput.

00:48:56.693 --> 00:49:07.204
The really small scale data are also matched, not by scaling rules, but by putting in the real dimensions of those small test tunnels.

00:49:07.284 --> 00:49:15.235
Ah, considering small scale ones as full scale ones, but just little ones, correct, yeah, you just compare the measured values with the equation Nice, nice, nice.

00:49:15.644 --> 00:49:29.014
And that was the aim to validate it with small-scale data as well, because then it's the only indication that you get the proportion right, because everything is proportional to something.

00:49:29.014 --> 00:49:38.773
So you can't have an absolute number, saying after 10 meters it doesn't matter anymore if the fire is longer or not, you need it proportional to some other parameters.

00:49:38.773 --> 00:49:40.429
And it's the same with the width.

00:49:40.429 --> 00:49:46.824
You can't say two meters is enough, it depends on the tunnel area itself.

00:49:46.824 --> 00:49:56.478
So all of those parameters have dependencies and, as we have established that, you can use it for very small tunnels, it is valid.

00:49:56.478 --> 00:49:57.612
You can use it for real small tunnels, it is valid.

00:49:57.612 --> 00:49:59.025
You can use it for real tunnels, it's valid.

00:49:59.025 --> 00:50:02.434
And that's maybe the benefit of it.

00:50:02.434 --> 00:50:09.891
It's more universal equations and should represent more accurately the situation in real tunnels.

00:50:10.784 --> 00:50:18.215
As a connoisseur of mathematical models and tunnel safety enthusiast, I'll tell you what I like about it the most.

00:50:18.215 --> 00:50:38.688
So the consequence that I like the most is that when you drop the heat release rate relation, when you actually recognize the fact, it's the intensity and that's the first part of the fire at which the mixing with incoming air happens, that that's the important part, etc.

00:50:38.688 --> 00:50:39.168
Etc.

00:50:39.168 --> 00:50:41.356
Which led to establishment of your model.

00:50:41.356 --> 00:50:44.706
Now, if I look at your plots, they're pretty flat.

00:50:44.706 --> 00:50:54.652
You know they, they reach, you know there's there's a very high spike when you go from small fires to to large fires, but then it to some extent flens out.

00:50:55.472 --> 00:51:03.474
And then I go into a tunnel and I'm a designer, I know that there's a concept of consistent level of crudeness.

00:51:03.474 --> 00:51:17.440
I do all my fancy calculations, but the number I put into my calculations the 50 megawatt fire, the 100 megawatt fires, this is a guess, this is a design fire that we to some, some extent have agreed upon.

00:51:17.440 --> 00:51:24.755
Whether in my tunnel is gonna be 1725 or 133 megawatts fire, I have no clue.

00:51:24.755 --> 00:51:37.621
But what your model shows to me is that if I design for this 50 or 100 megawatt fire and that fire becomes a different one 150 or 70 or 35,.

00:51:37.621 --> 00:51:41.496
The differences in critical velocities are not that big.

00:51:41.496 --> 00:51:45.576
They're like 0.2, 0.3 meters per second.

00:51:45.925 --> 00:51:55.336
Yes, you're correct, the heat release rate makes very little difference to the critical velocity beyond some minimum where it's growing from tiny.

00:51:55.336 --> 00:52:06.117
But you must still design your ventilation to cope with the buoyancy and the additional velocity from the expanded gas, et cetera, et cetera.

00:52:06.117 --> 00:52:10.295
The heat release rate affects those things very strongly.

00:52:10.295 --> 00:52:15.452
So they affect the achievement of critical velocity, but they don't affect the critical velocity much.

00:52:15.452 --> 00:52:23.393
And then to control that heat release rate you can do as we do in Australia and put in a fixed fire suppression system.

00:52:23.393 --> 00:52:25.130
Oh yeah, I would recommend that.

00:52:25.130 --> 00:52:27.532
And then you've got it covered.

00:52:28.365 --> 00:52:29.530
I like where this is going.

00:52:29.530 --> 00:52:30.894
Let's restart the discussion.

00:52:32.786 --> 00:52:37.777
I just wanted to add with that what you just said with the 50, 100 and 200 megawatt.

00:52:37.777 --> 00:52:49.114
It also more or less represents the real situation, because you don't have a fire a 200 megawatt fire in a square meter you usually have a real tunnel and a real accident.

00:52:49.114 --> 00:53:03.030
A 200 megawatt fire means an involvement of several cars or some substantial fuel spill or whatever, and you always have to extend in a longer direction because it's restricted in the width.

00:53:03.030 --> 00:53:10.324
So if you have such a fire, then you also have a huge area and that's what is recognized by our equations.

00:53:11.030 --> 00:53:12.545
Fantastic Gentlemen.

00:53:12.545 --> 00:53:23.213
Thank you so much for coming to the Fire Science Show and sharing your interesting insight into the world of critical velocity, and I wish you a lot of success with your model.

00:53:23.213 --> 00:53:24.869
We're going to test it out.

00:53:24.869 --> 00:53:28.952
I'll tell you how it went on the next project, so let's stay in touch.

00:53:29.965 --> 00:53:44.094
Three of our colleagues on the NFPA working group have been doing exactly that, and they started before the final submission of our paper, and so they were able to give some very helpful pointers to what we hadn't explained clearly in the paper.

00:53:44.094 --> 00:53:46.050
So, yeah, that's going really well.

00:53:46.050 --> 00:53:46.952
Thank you guys.

00:53:46.952 --> 00:53:47.815
Thanks Wojciech.

00:53:48.304 --> 00:53:51.851
Thanks for the invitation and you've been a great part of your show.

00:53:52.753 --> 00:53:53.275
And that's it.

00:53:53.275 --> 00:54:10.130
You cannot believe what joy it was for me to record this episode as someone dealing with tunnels, to find people that understand your language and understand what you're doing and are doing way more impressive things than you and you can talk about them and geek out.

00:54:10.130 --> 00:54:12.215
That is just fantastic feeling.

00:54:12.215 --> 00:54:20.112
I hope it was not too tough on you if you're not a tunneling expert and it was not too tough on you if you are a tunneling expert.

00:54:20.112 --> 00:54:23.865
There was a lot of physics in this episode, but there's a good reason for it.

00:54:23.865 --> 00:54:43.996
Michael and Conrad propose a new physical model for establishment of the critical velocity in tunnels and they give very sound in my opinion, very sound explanation behind the physical phenomena that justify what they say, and the model seems to match small scale data, large scale data.

00:54:43.996 --> 00:54:50.456
I have not tested it yet on any of our data, but we definitely will with my student yakub.

00:54:50.456 --> 00:54:54.608
So we are looking forward to implementing this in the future.

00:54:54.608 --> 00:55:01.992
And if you wonder what the impact would be of what we have discussed today, boy, the standards will be rewritten.

00:55:01.992 --> 00:55:04.217
The books will be rewritten.

00:55:04.217 --> 00:55:07.536
That's the impact that research like this carries with it.

00:55:07.536 --> 00:55:12.088
I hope the paper is published by the moment we release the episode.

00:55:12.088 --> 00:55:18.782
I know when we were recording it was getting the final touches, so I'm sure that it went well.

00:55:18.782 --> 00:55:22.614
I just hope that the timelines have matched well.

00:55:22.614 --> 00:55:24.159
We'll see on the release date.

00:55:24.159 --> 00:55:34.771
Anyway, in the podcast show notes you will have an access to a paper, either in a pre-print or in its final form, and I highly recommend that you check it out.

00:55:34.771 --> 00:55:38.402
So that would be it for today's episode.

00:55:38.983 --> 00:55:41.192
I'm still hyped about the discussion.

00:55:41.192 --> 00:55:46.568
We've spent like 20 minutes after the podcast talking with Michael and Conrad about tunnels.

00:55:46.568 --> 00:55:59.865
It was really, really a lot of fun and, yeah, I'm hyped, I'm enthusiastic and for the next week I'm preparing another hopefully fantastic episode for you to enjoy.

00:55:59.865 --> 00:56:04.036
So I hope you will be there with me and for today, that would be it.

00:56:04.036 --> 00:56:05.304
Thank you for being here with me.

00:56:05.304 --> 00:56:06.146
Cheers, bye.

00:56:06.146 --> 00:56:19.882
This was the Fire Science Show.

00:56:19.882 --> 00:56:22.240
Thank you for listening and see you soon.