1。3。5 Test Procedures 

A four-person hose team staged outside the structure。 At the start of the test, they advanced a 60 m (200 ft) hose line through the interior stairwell and positioned at the third floor door。 The fuel package was ignited by a MFRI safety officer in full personal protective equipment。 The hose team then advanced the attack line onto the third floor and positioned 1。5 m (5。0 ft) from the fire, holding that position for 4 minutes。 After the 4 minutes, the hose-team extinguished the fire, and exited the burn building。 The interior stairwell door connecting the second and third floor was open during the tests as a result of the attack line being advanced through the doorway。8 

1。3。6 Results 

On the two days of testing, four burn evolutions occurred on the first day and three evolutions occurred on the second day。 The temperature and heat flux measurements from the first tests conducted on each day (Tests 1 and 5) were the only results analyzed because the conditions inside the structure during the first tests began at ambient conditions and were not impacted by preheating from prior burn evolutions。 

The temperatures inside the burn room during Test 1 and Test 5 are presented in Figures 7 and 8。 The temperature measurements recorded at 2。2 m (7。2 ft), 1。9 m (6。2 ft), 1。6 m (5。3 ft), 1。3 m 9(4。3 ft), 1。0 m (3。3 ft), 0。7 m (2。3 ft), 0。4 m (1。3 ft), and 0。1 m (0。3 ft) above the floor are displayed in each figure 。 Peak temperatures inside the burn room were between 650 (1202 °F) and 700 °C (1292 °F)。 The figures presenting the temperature readings show a large difference in temperature between 0。7 m (2。3 ft) and 0。4 m (1。3 ft), which indicates that the smoke layer height is somewhere between these two positions。 The heat flux (HF) measurements inside the Burn Room at 1 m and 2 m above the floor are presented in Figure 9 and 10。 The peak heat flux was 20 kW/m2 (17。6 BTU/(ft2-s) to 28 kW/m2 (24。6 BTU/(ft2-s) at 2 m and 8 kW/m2 (7。0 BTU/(ft2-s) to 10 kW/m2 (8。8 BTU/(ft2-s) at 1 m。 Suppression occurred during Test 1 at 215 seconds, whereas suppression occurred during Test 5 at 330 seconds。 The average temperature 11

measurements from Test 1 and 5 at each elevation are presented in Figure 11。 The average heat flux measurements in the Burn Room at 1 and 2 m are presented in Figure 12。 Beginning at 215 seconds, the average of the two tests is ended, given that in Test 1 suppression occurs at this point。 As such the black lines in Figures 11 and 12 are solely from Test 5。 

The thermocouples can measure the temperature in an environment with an estimated uncertainty reported to be ± 15%。 The uncertainty of the heat flux gauges is ± 8%。

Some firefighters experienced initial failures of their gear including “helmet delaminationed [sic] and, on one occasion, a visor started to bubble”。8 Because the thermocouple array and the heat flux gauge was located closer to the fire than the firefighters were, these measurements obtained during the tests would be greater than experienced by the firefighters。

Chapter 2: Overview of the CFAST Model

2。1 CFAST Overview 

CFAST is the fire model selected to simulate thermal conditions generated by training fires in this project。 The initial applications of the model are intended to replicate conditions generated by the training fires at the MFRI structural firefighting building described in the previous section。 Next, CFAST is used to assess the impact that changes in fuel packages, ventilation strategies, room sizes and sequential burn evolutions have on the thermal conditions inside the burn room。 

CFAST was developed in 1990 by the Fire Research Division of the NIST to provide researchers and engineers with an ability to model compartment fires。 CFAST can be used to determine smoke production, heat transfer, smoke movement through ventilation openings, thermal impact on targets, heat detector response, and water spray from sprinklers within a compartment fire。10