search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
BSEE FIRE & SAFETY


Many enclosed car parks throughout the world employ jet fans to help clear smoke in the event of a fire with good effect, but there is more to specifying them than simply


including as many as possible.


James Allen, Senior Fire Design and CFD* Engineer at Fläkt Woods, discusses why less can mean more to stop the spread of smoke, protect escape routes, and ensure fire fighting operations are not hampered.


parks throughout the world now utilise this technology. However, current practice relies heavily on air change rate methods when designing these systems (10-12 air changes per hour for smoke venting is common practice). Although this goes some way in meeting minimum ventilation requirements, it does not comprehensively ensure that a proposed jet fan system will not cause smoke to spread or that fire fighters will be able to see a fire to put it out quickly. Whilst there is presently no UK legal requirement for smoke control measures, the British Standard BS7346 part 7, published in 2006 by the UK Smoke Control Association, sets out three design purposes – to assist fire fighters to clear smoke from a car park, to provide clear smoke free access to fire fighters to a point close to the fire, and to protect means of escape. Whilst the first pertains to air changes, the latter two specifically relate to smoke control.


J


Significantly, section 10.1.2 of BS7346 part 7 notes that smoke control should be designed so that the extract rate is calculated for the removal of the mass of mixed air and smoke impelled towards exhaust intakes. Yet, at the moment, there is no single definitive guide available to demonstrate how to calculate air and smoke flow rates when jet fans are in operation. Therefore, when considering a ventilation and smoke control system for an enclosed car park, there are a number of factors which must be considered in order to arrive at an effective solution. With this in mind, we’ve put together a selection of the key considerations required.


Identify air supply and smoke exhaust locations


Firstly, it’s important to ensure air supply and extractor points are not placed in immediate proximity to one another. This could cause short- circuiting, whereby air supplied is immediately extracted.


Provision of sufficient escape routes should also be a consideration. In many cases, smoke shafts are placed near stair cores for cost efficiency, but if this is an extract point it could compromise visibility for the individuals evacuating and fire service personnel entering. With this in mind, it must be





Provision of sufficient escape routes should also be a consideration. In many cases, smoke shafts are placed near stair cores for cost efficiency, but if this is an extract point it could compromise visibility for the individuals evacuating and fire service personnel entering. With this in mind, it must be ensured that sufficient stair cores are available without neighbouring extract points.


’ 14 BUILDING SERVICES & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER MAY 2017


et fans have been used within car park ventilation systems since the end of the 20th century, and have proved successful enough that most car


Advertising: 01622 699116 Editorial: 01354 461430


GETTING SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEMS RIGHT Finding a solution for enclosed car parking facilities


ensured that sufficient stair cores are available without neighbouring extract points.


Prepare for worst‐case fire scenarios


Understanding the worst-case fire scenarios enables the designer to better plan which fans are specified where. These are determined in part by the geometry of the space, which will have a considerable influence over the possible smoke mass flow and temperatures produced. However, there are several common scenarios to pay attention to.


One such is corner located fires. Fires in such positions tend to produce large quantities of smoke and heightened heat intensity as the corner walls absorb and radiate heat. What’s more, if a fire is in a corner, smoke can only travel away from the corner, which means fire fighters would likely have to approach against the smoke flow.


Another potential scenario is a fire at the furthest distance from an extraction point. This leads to increased smoke production, as there is more air to mix with. Equally, if a fire originates on a zone boundary, smoke has the potential to spread to multiple zones.


A further worst-case is a fire backed by a wall. This can lead to increased energy in the smoke compared to less confined areas. Air entrainment into the smoke plume can cause the plume to lean and attach itself to the wall. In these circumstances, the energy in the smoke layer often occupies a hemispherical shape, which can lead to higher smoke velocities.


Create an initial fan layout and zone strategy


A zone strategy should be created in accordance to guidelines provided by BS 7346 Part 7 and those of the fan manufacturer.


The maximum smoke control zone size is 2000sq m according to BS7346 Part 7, but, in practice zoning must be dictated by car park geometry and size. The smoke control zones should be governed by the location of air supply, and the critical air velocity required for controlling the smoke.


Where possible, best practice is to consider extract shafts portioned every 30-40m, the distance which generally constitutes a smoke control zone. This distance loosely corresponds to recommended travel distances as specified in Approved Document B, so for most car parks this should be a practical proposition.


Once the smoke control zones have been delineated, the initial fan layout can be worked out based on lateral and longitudinal fan positioning advice from the fan manufacturer. The fan type and model can also be determined at this stage, taking into account the worst-case scenarios that have been identified. For example, potential risk areas such as corners, walls and partial enclosures may need fans with higher thrust compared to less restricted areas.


To ensure that the flow of smoke and air is effectively removed, the number of jet fans and the mass flow that they


generate, plus the total maximum smoke mass flow, must be balanced with the mass flow of air and smoke extracted.


In order to determine this, a set of mass flow balancing calculations must be completed in addition to an estimation of the critical smoke velocity. Contact Fläkt Woods Ltd for a copy of its technical paper #0410 for details. The results of these calculation sets then decides the extract rate, which must be greater than the highest of either the induced smoke and air mass flow or the critical velocity.


Use modelling methods


Although there is a perception that CFD modelling is high cost, technological advances both commercial and open source plus its availability on the cloud mean that the practice is more affordable than ever. Whilst the time investment may seem daunting, the long-term benefits of using CFD modelling more than compensate for the initial setup.


Unfortunately, many projects wait until a point at which the results of the model can mean difficult adjustments to an already meticulously detailed plan, which could vastly outweigh the cost of earlier modelling.


Realistically, smoke control systems should always be CFD modelled to verify smoke control calculations, and if this is done at an early stage, it can save time and money further down the line. When designing for a larger car park, it is crucial to bear smoke control in mind from an early stage. This can reduce required ventilation rates whilst simultaneously supplying safer systems which provide increased protection for fire fighters and building contents.


www.flaktwoods.co.uk * Computational fluid dynamics


VISIT OUR WEBSITE: www.bsee.co.uk


uMake sure that air supply and extractor points are not placed in immediate proximity to one another. This could cause short‐ circuiting, whereby air supplied is immediately extracted.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40