4.6 Article

Sustainable Smoke Extraction System for Atrium: A Numerical Study

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13137406

关键词

numerical simulation; smoke extraction system; atrium; natural vent; mechanical ventilation

资金

  1. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for the Theme-Based Research Scheme Project Safety, Reliability, and Disruption Management of High Speed Rail and Metro Systems [T32-101/15-R]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that static smoke extraction is suitable for large fires in atria design, while dynamic smoke extraction is best for small fires. By conducting simulations and comparing with experiments using CFD-FDS software, a sustainable hybrid design combining the advantages of static and dynamic systems is proposed.
Smoke extraction systems, either static with natural ventilation, or dynamic with mechanical ventilation are required to keep smoke layer at high levels in many tall atria. It is observed that a design fire with high heat release rate (HRR) is commonly used for designing natural vents, but a low HRR is used for mechanical ventilation system. This will not produce a sustainable environment. There are no internationally agreed on design guides to determine the HRR in the design fire for different extraction systems and scenarios. This issue will be studied using a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)-based software, the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) version 6.7.1. Simulations on natural smoke filling, static and dynamic smoke extractions were carried out in a big example atrium. CFD-FDS predictions were compared with previous full-scale burning tests. Results confirmed that static smoke extraction is a good option for big fires, and a dynamic system is best for small fires. A sustainable new hybrid design combining the advantages of static and dynamic systems is proposed, which could result in a lower smoke temperature and higher smoke layer interface height, indicating a better extraction design.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据