Expected size of shielded fires in sprinklered office

buildings

Lougheed, G.D.

NRCC-40106

A version of this document is published in / Une version de ce document se trouve dans :

ASHRAE Transactions, v. 103, pt. 1, 1997, pp. 395-410

www.nrc.ca/irc/ircpubs
The following paper was published in ASHRAE Transactions, Vol.
103, Pt. 1.  1997 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.

This posting is by permission of ASHRAE and is presented for

educational purposes only.

ASHRAE does not endorse or recommend commercial products or

services. This paper may not be copied and/or distributed
electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE.
Contact ASHRAE at www.ashrae.org.
PH-97-2-1(RP-838)
Expected Size of Shielded Fires
in Sprinklered Office Buildings
Gary D. Lougheed, Ph.D.
Member ASHRAE
ABSTRACT
As part of a joint research project between ASHRAE and
the National Research Council of Canada (ASHRAE Research
project RP-838), the probability of occurrence and expected
size of shielded fires in sprinklered high-rise office buildings
were investigated. Phase 1 of the project included surveys of
typical office buildings to identify shielded fire situations and
the fuel loads in the shielded areas. Based on these surveys,
medium- and full-scale fire tests were conducted. The results
of these investigations are summarized in this paper. In partic-
ular, the effect of a sprinkler system on heat release rate, com-
partment temperatures, carbon monoxide (CO) production,
and smoke generation and movement for fires in an open-plan
office scenario are discussed. An initial analysis of the impli-
cations of a sprinkler system on a zoned smoke control system
is also provided.
INTRODUCTION
The ability of sprinkler systems to control and extinguish
unshielded fires is well established. However, in recent years,
concerns have been raised regarding shielded fires that are not
rapidly extinguished by sprinklers (Klote 1990). It was
suggested that such fires could produce significant quantities of
smoke and toxic fire gases; therefore, smoke control systems, in
addition to the automatic sprinkler systems, may be useful for
life safety of building occupants.
In 1991, a joint research project was initiated between the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Condition-
ing Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE) and the National Research
Council of Canada (NRCC) to investigate the effects of sprin-
klers on the performance of a zoned smoke control system
(ASHRAE research project RP-677). The results are docu-
mented in the final report for the project (Mawhinney et al. 1992)
and are summarized in a paper by Mawhinney and Tamura
(1994). These investigations indicated that with shielded fires
Gary D. Lougheed is a senior research officer at the National Fire Laboratory, Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Coun-
cil Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
and only two operating sprinklers, the heat release rate, radiant
flux, room temperatures, and buoyancy pressures were substan-
tially reduced in a compartment. It was also noted that, although
total smoke production was reduced by the sprinklers, there were
still significant quantities of “cold” smoke produced and that this
smoke contained potentially harmful concentrations of carbon
monoxide.
The previous investigation (Mawhinney and Tamura 1994)
identified a number of areas in which additional research was
needed. In 1994, a second joint research project was initiated
between ASHRAE and NRCC (ASHRAE research project RP-
838). This current study was established to address one of the
fundamental concerns about the previous study raised by the fire
protection engineering community—namely, what are the prob-
ability of occurrence and probable size of shielded, sprinklered
fires in high-rise office buildings? The objective of the investi-
gations conducted in this second project was to provide infor-
mation that would answer those questions and thus improve
confidence in the design of smoke management systems in
buildings protected by sprinklers. In particular, in this paper, the
effect of a sprinkler system on heat release rate, compartment
temperatures, CO production, and smoke generation and move-
ment for fires in an open-plan office scenario are discussed. An
initial analysis of the implications of the sprinkler system on a
zoned smoke control system is also provided.
SHIELDED FIRE SCENARIOS
In phase 1 of the project, three tasks were completed:
• Surveys were conducted to quantify typical shielded fire
scenarios in high-rise office buildings.
• A review of North American fire loss databases was
undertaken to identify shielded fire incidents in sprin-
klered buildings.
• Recent literature on fire statistics and full-scale tests with
sprinklers and smoke management systems was
reviewed.
395
The results of the phase 1 studies are fully documented in
Lougheed and Mawhinney (1996). In the following sections,
the typical fire scenarios found in high-rise office buildings
are summarized.
Shielding by Tables and Desks
This was the shielding scenario most frequently observed in
office buildings (Lougheed and Mawhinney 1996). Typically,
the shielded fire scenario consisted of a desk or table producing
a shielded area of approximately 0.9 m2 (9.6 ft2). The fuel loads
under a table or desk ranged between 30 and 150 kg (66 and 331
lb), excluding the furnishings, with the fuel consisting primarily
of cellulosic material such as cardboard boxes, files, journals,
and reports. Varying quantities of plastic materials, such as ring
binders and packing materials (bubble wrap and foam plastic),
and textiles, including clothing and duffel bags, were also noted
in many scenarios. In addition, a chair was often partly posi-
tioned under the shielded area.
Miscellaneous Storage
In surveys of both multi-tenanted buildings and single-
occupant buildings, note was made of dedicated rooms or areas
in buildings that were used for the storage of equipment and
supplies or the storage of documents and records. The storage
areas in single-occupant buildings were frequently isolated from
the main portion of the building; for example, large storage areas
were found on basement levels with limited access by personnel.
There were also situations in which large records storage
systems were found in open-plan office areas. For multi-
tenanted buildings, storage areas were found throughout the
building. The storage areas observed during the surveys would
be classified as “miscellaneous storage” based on section 1-4.2
of NFPA 13 (NFPA 1994) and would be required to be protected
using a sprinkler system designed for an ordinary hazard (group
2) occupancy, as defined in NFPA 13.
Mercantile Occupancies
Retail and food services frequently occupy a portion of
mixed-occupancy buildings or building complexes. This
includes those situations in which mercantile occupancies,
including malls, are linked to office complexes, as well as those
cases in which the mercantile space is included in the lower
levels of the building. In both situations, the mercantile areas are
frequently combined with walkways, concourses, and atrium
spaces and therefore constitute a problem that is outside the
scope of this project. However, since mercantile occupancies are
important elements in modern building complexes, typical
shielded fire situations noted in mercantile areas were described
in the phase 1 report (Lougheed and Mawhinney 1996).
Non-Code-Conformance
The site visits identified non-code-conformance as one of
the critical issues that must be addressed in arriving at general
design criteria, not only for smoke management systems, but for
all fire protection systems for high-rise office buildings. There
396
were a number of cases observed during the site visits where the
use of the space by the occupant did not conform to codes and
standards and thus created or exacerbated the potential fire chal-
lenge to the sprinkler system. For example, it should not be
expected that a sprinkler system designed for a light hazard occu-
pancy will provide adequate protection for areas that, in fact,
pose a more severe challenge or, if the sprinkler system is
designed and installed properly, that it will provide adequate
performance if it is handicapped to the extent observed in some
of the site visits (Lougheed and Mawhinney 1996).
There were many examples of situations in which the
assumed good performance of fire safety systems was compro-
mised. That does not mean, however, that the design criteria for
fire protection systems should be adjusted to take into account all
the extremes that can occur. In developing technical data for
input into design guides, a general application of good fire
protection practice must be assumed. This includes the use of
“good housekeeping” and maintenance practices so that the
more extreme situations illustrated in the site reports provided in
the phase 1 report will not occur (Lougheed and Mawhinney
1996). Therefore, all the full-scale fire tests conducted as part of
the investigations discussed in this paper conformed to the rele-
vant standards in force at the time of the tests.
Fire Scenarios Used for Full-Scale Tests
Shielding of fuel loads by tables and desks represented the
most common challenge observed during the site visits for a light
hazard sprinkler system in an office building. As such, the
primary series of full-scale tests was designed to investigate this
shielding scenario. An open-plan office furniture arrangement
was used to investigate the impact of various parameters, includ-
ing fuel loading in the shielded areas, location of the test scenario
relative to the sprinklers, and location of the ignition source. The
results of this series of tests are the basis for the discussions in
this paper.
In addition to the open-plan office tests, limited tests were
conducted with two other shielded fire scenarios:
• Document Storage. A single test was conducted with a
document storage system similar to that observed in sev-
eral site visits. The storage scenario used for the tests con-
sisted of documents stored on back-to-back metal shelving
units. The storage area was protected using an ordinary
hazard (group 2) sprinkler system. The sprinklers were
able to control and eventually extinguish the fire. The heat
release rate, CO, and smoke production were limited by
the sprinklers (Lougheed and Carpenter 1996).
• Single-Office Scenario. Two tests were conducted with a
full-scale single-office arrangement. A single sprinkler
was used to protect the space. The sprinkler density was
approximately double the design density for a light hazard
occupancy. The sprinkler limited the heat release rate pro-
duced in this test to 250 kW or less. High CO and smoke
levels were measured inside the compartment. However,
limited smoke and CO were measured outside the com-
partment (Lougheed and Carpenter 1996).
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
 In both these latter cases, the scenario as tested would
produce less of a challenge for a smoke control system in a sprin-
klered building than the open-plan office tests. It should,
however, be noted that the tests conducted on document storage
systems and single offices were limited and care should be taken
in extrapolating the results to other scenarios. For document stor-
age, this would include the use of nonmetal shelving units,
compact storage systems, and archival storage in boxes
(Lougheed and Carpenter 1996).
EXPERIMENT DESCRIPTION
Test Facility
The test facility used for the previous investigations on
shielded fires (Mawhinney et al. 1992; Mawhinney and Tamura
1994) was modified and expanded for the full-scale tests. The
expanded test facility, shown in Figure 1, had an overall floor
area of approximately 94 m2 (1,012 ft2). The only obstruction
Figure 1 Sketch of test facility.
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
was a structural column located near the center of the test area.
This column consisted of a steel section protected by rock fiber
insulation and 6 mm (¼ in.) thick concrete board. The column
had a square cross section of 455 mm by 455 mm (1.5 ft by 1.5
ft). This column, and two columns located adjacent to the east
and west walls of the test facility, supported a structural steel
beam used to support the concrete slab ceiling of the test facility.
A suspended ceiling system, giving a clear height of
approximately 2.74 m (9 ft), was installed throughout the test
facility. The concrete floor of the test facility was sloped toward
the east wall to allow water to drain into a central trench for
disposal. The ceiling height was 2.74 m (9 ft) at the west wall of
the test facility and 2.8 m (9.1 ft) at the highest point in the south-
east corner. The ceiling system was constructed using 0.6 m by
1.2 m (2 ft by 4 ft) waterproof gypsum board panels mounted on
steel tracks.
Concrete board (6 mm [¼ in.] thick) was used to line the test
facility and the upper 1.2 m (4 ft) of the exhaust hood canopy
Dimensions are in meters unless otherwise indicated.
397
extension to the facility. The lower portion of the extension was
designed to be left open to provide ventilation air for the fire.
However, an initial test with sprinklers indicated that, with the
cooling and mixing produced by the sprinkler spray, the
combustion products were distributed over the height of the test
space and could have escaped through the opening and not been
collected by the hood system (Figure 1). As a result, the openings
in the east wall and the northeast and southeast corners were
covered by polyethylene sheeting, leaving only the ventilation
openings on the north and south sides of the facility as shown in
Figure 1. These openings were approximately 1.43 m (4.7 ft)
high and provided a total ventilation area of 15.2 m2 (164 ft2).
The air inflow through these openings produced by the fan used
for the products of the combustion system was sufficient to mini-
mize the loss of combustion by-products through them.
Sprinkler System
With the expanded test facility, a four-sprinkler, light-
hazard occupancy system could be installed using the maxi-
mum spacing from the walls (2.3 m [7.5 ft]) and between sprin-
klers (4.6 m [15 ft]) allowed by NFPA 13 (NFPA 1994). The
locations of the four sprinklers in the test facility are shown in
Figure 1. This sprinkler arrangement gave the maximum
protected area per sprinkler (20.9 m2 [225 ft2]) allowed by
NFPA 13. By using the maximum sprinkler spacing and cover-
age areas allowed by the installation standard, the shielding of
Figure 2 Test room layout and instrumentation.
398
the fire by room contents was maximized, resulting in conser-
vative test conditions.
Standard response 74°C (165°F) pendant sprinklers with a
13-mm (½-in.) orifice were used for all tests. Water flow rates
were calculated on the basis that the water spray density should
meet the requirements of a light hazard sprinkler system. A
design density of 4.1 L/min·m2 was determined in consultation
with the ASHRAE project monitoring subcommittee prior to the
tests. Using this design density, the calculated water flow rate per
sprinkler was 86 L/min.
Full-Scale Open-Plan Fire Test Scenarios
Seven full-scale fire tests were conducted using a “typical”
open-plan office furniture arrangement. The test scenario was
representative of that found in a standard 3 m by 3 m (10 ft by 10
ft) open-plan office including 1.2 m (4 ft) high office partitions,
a desk, a second desk or table used as a computer workstation, a
table, bookshelves above the desk, two or three office chairs, and
two four-drawer filing cabinets. A typical test arrangement is
shown in Figure 2. Commercial-grade carpet was used to cover
the concrete floor in the 3 m by 3 m (10 ft by 10 ft) test area.
Boxes containing paper stock were used as the fuel load under
each table and desk in the primary test area.
Typical furniture (desks, bookshelves, and filing cabinets)
was also included in the adjacent office areas, as shown in Figure
2. This furniture served two purposes:
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
• additional shielding from the sprinkler spray for the fire
load, including by the office partitions used as the bound-
ary for the primary fire test area; and
• as a target for potential office-to-office fire spread.
There is a wide variation in materials used for office furni-
ture, including solid wood (desks and tables), mixed materials
(e.g., steel-framed desks with wood tops and drawers), and solid
metal. For the tests conducted in this project, furniture with
mixed materials was selected in the 3 m by 3 m (10 ft by 10 ft)
fire area as being reasonably representative of the mix. This
included the following:
1. A single- or double-pedestal desk with steel frame and wood
top and drawers (the total weight of the combustible mate-
rials was approximately 57 kg [126 lb] for a single-pedestal
desk and 82 kg [181 lb] for a double-pedestal desk).
2. A table with a wood top (37 kg [81.5 lb] combustible mate-
rial) or a single-pedestal desk (57 kg [126 lb]) with a wood
top and drawers used as a computer workstation.
3. A table with a metal frame and a wood top (37 kg [81.5 lb]
combustible material).
4. Two or three upholstered pedestal chairs with metal base
(9.5 kg [21 lb] combustible material in each chair).
5. Two four-drawer metal filing cabinets.
6. Fabric-covered office partition (1.2 m by 1.5 m [4 ft by 5 ft])
with fiber insulation, a wood frame, and a heavy metal mesh
structural element (the textile covering and insulation were
fire retarded and were difficult to burn in tests without
sprinklers).
7. A computer including monitor and keyboard (the computers
used for all except one test were of recent vintage and had
steel cases).
Details regarding the dimensions and location of the furniture
and other fuel loads for each full-scale open-plan office test
are provided in the report for phase 2 of the project (Lougheed
and Carpenter 1996).
Instrumentation for Open-Plan Office Fire Tests
Instrumentation for the full-scale open-plan fire tests
included the following:
• Seven thermocouple trees were located in the test facility
as shown in Figure 2. The thermocouples on each tree
were located 0.15, 0.61, 1.22, and 1.83 m (0.5, 2, 4, and
6 ft) below the ceiling. Metal shields (approximately 400
mm by 400 mm [1.3 ft by 1.3 ft]) were placed above each
thermocouple to shield it from direct water spray from
the sprinkler.
• Thermocouples were located adjacent to the fusible ele-
ment of each of the four sprinklers (Figure 1).
• Pressure taps to measure the differential pressure
between the test facility and the burn hall were located at
three heights on the west wall of the test facility (Figure
2). The pressure taps were located 0.15, 1.22, and 2.29 m
(0.5, 4, and 7.5 ft) below the ceiling.
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
• Gas inlets for acquiring gas samples to determine CO and
carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations were located at
three points in the test facility (Figure 2). The inlets were
0.15 and 1.2 m (0.5 and 4 ft) below the ceiling.
• Thermocouples were placed under each table and desk
located in the central fire area. The thermocouples were
located 50 mm (2 in.) below the desk or table top.
Products of Combustion Collector and Calorimeter
There was a 2.4 m by 4 m (7.8 ft by 13.1 ft) opening in the
ceiling in the southwest corner of the test facility connecting to
a hood/duct system for a products-of-combustion calorimeter
(Figure 1). The bottom edge of the hood was flush with the
underside of the ceiling. The hood was connected through a 1.2-
m3 (42.3-ft3) plenum to a 13 m (42.6 ft) long, 0.56 m (1.8 ft)
diameter horizontal duct. A two-speed fan with a capacity of 3
to 4 m3/s (106 to 141 ft3/s) was connected to the downstream end
of the duct. A thermocouple and a pitot-static velocity probe
were installed in the center of the exhaust duct, approximately 9
m (29.5 ft) from the center of the plenum. A pitot tube traverse
test was conducted and a flow shape factor of 0.91 determined.
An infrared smoke meter was located in the duct approxi-
mately 0.2 m (0.6 ft) downstream from the thermocouple loca-
tion. Provisions were made to continuously monitor CO, CO2,
and O2 concentrations at the centerline of the duct, 9.3 m (30.5
ft) from the center of the plenum. The duct measurements were
used to determine the heat release rate using the oxygen deple-
tion method (Huggett 1980).
Test Procedure
All tests were conducted using the same procedure.
1. The data-acquisition system was started at time zero and
recorded ambient conditions for two minutes prior to igni-
tion of a propane T-burner used as the ignition source. All
plots provided in this paper include data taken during the
two-minute pretest period.
2. At two minutes, the propane burner was ignited. The burner
design and heat release rate (approximately 25 kW) were
based on the ignition source used for standard tests for
furniture (ASTM 1994).
3. At five minutes, the propane burner was shut off.
4. The sprinklers were allowed to activate normally and the
water flow rate was adjusted manually to provide the
required flow rate.
5. All tests were continued until the temperatures measured in
the shielded areas indicated minimal fire remained in these
locations.
MEDIUM-SCALE FIRE TEST RESULTS
A series of 23 medium-scale fire tests was conducted with
a horizontal shielded area representative of a typical table or desk
(0.9 m2 [9.6 ft2]). The medium-scale tests were conducted with
selected portions of the fuel packages used for the full-scale fire
399
tests. The term “medium-scale” is used to differentiate these tests 600 kW. This was consistent with tests conducted by
from typical small bench-scale fire tests used for hazard assess- Madrzykowski and Vettori (1992a, 1992b). The subse-
ment. The results of these tests are documented in the phase 2 quent decrease in heat release rate with sprinklers oper-
report for the project (Lougheed and Carpenter 1996) and are ating also was consistent with the results measured in the
summarized as follows. tests conducted by Madrzykowski and Vettori.
• Fuel packages with paper stock stored in cardboard boxes • For tests with office furniture and a paper stock fuel load in
for use as fuel loads in areas shielded by desks and tables the shielded area, CO was produced throughout the test,
were developed. The basic fuel package used for the tests with the initial CO production attributed to the furniture.
was a cardboard box filled with cellulosic material. The
boxes were standard document storage units that were
FULL-SCALE OPEN-PLAN OFFICE
365 mm by 500 mm by 305 mm (1.9 ft by 1.64 ft by 1.0
FIRE TEST RESULTS
ft) high. They included a separate lid and had a hand
opening in each end. Each box was filled to approxi- Seven full-scale fire tests (tests 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, and
mately 50% capacity with loose paper in manila folders 31) were conducted using an open-plan office scenario. The
and bound material (reports, journals, and magazines). same general furniture arrangement shown in Figure 2 was used
The total weight per box was 9.5 kg (21 lb) including the for each test. This furniture arrangement was representative of a
box. Typical fuel loads were produced by using 4, 8, and general fuel package in a standard 3 m by 3 m (10 ft by 10 ft)
12 boxes in the shielded area. These fuel packages pro- open-plan office. It included three pieces of furniture that could
vided consistent peak heat release rates of approximately provide shielded areas (a desk, a second desk or table used as a
150, 275, and 400 kW, respectively. An initial high heat workstation, and a table).
release rate was produced followed by a decay to a steady Three main parameters were investigated using the open-
plateau phase with a lower heat release rate. plan office tests:
• The sprinklers were able to reduce the heat release rate
produced by the paper stock fuel loads in a shielded area. • Fuel load in shielded area. The fuel package under the
However, they were unable to completely extinguish the table(s) and desk(s) included a chair, a paper stock fire
fires in the shielded areas. Steady heat release rates of up load similar to those tested in the medium-scale tests, and
to 100 kW were measured with the heavier fuel loads a computer. The paper stock fuel load was varied to
under sprinklered conditions. include tests with light, medium, and heavy paper stock
• The paper stock fuel packages produced minimal CO fuel packages in selected areas. The heavier paper stock
during the initial stages of the fire. However, in later fuel packages were used under the table at the back of the
stages, once the paper stock became the predominant space. The fuel packages under the main desk and the
fuel, there was a rapid increase in the CO production. The workstation were limited to light to medium loads (two to
sprinklers did not decrease the CO production even eight boxes of paper stock). The total fuel packages in the
though there was a decrease in the heat release rate. shielded areas in the seven tests can be categorized as
• Tests with small quantities of plastic materials (packing light, medium, or heavy as summarized in Table 1.
materials) in the fuel packages resulted in a small • Location of test scenario relative to sprinklers. Four
increase in the heat release rate measured in tests with test arrangements were studied: (a) centered at the west
sprinklers. However, there was no increase in CO or wall between the southwest and northwest sprinklers, (b)
smoke production. with the table in the main office area centered under the
• Medium-scale tests with office furniture (chair, desk, and northwest sprinkler, (c) at the center of the four sprin-
office dividers) indicated peak heat release rates of 500 to klers, and (d) in the northwest corner of the test facility.
TABLE 1 Test Conditions for Full-Scale Open Plan Office Tests
First Sprinkler Heat Release Rate Number of
Fire Load in Test Ignition Activation First Sprinkler Sprinklers
Test Shielded Area Location Location Fire Extent (s) (kW) Activated
23 light A A table, work station 108 N/A 2
25 light A A table, work station, desk 220 500 1
26 light B A table, work station, desk 106 240 4
28 heavy C B table, work station, desk 140 240 4
29 medium D B table, work station, desk 134 180 1
30 heavy A B table, work station, desk 122 460 2
31 medium C B table, work station 162 N/A 4

400 ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia

 The locations of the test arrangements used for the tests
are summarized in Table 1.
• Location of ignition source. All seven tests were con-
ducted using a propane T-burner as an ignition source.
Two different ignition scenarios were used in the full-
scale tests. In scenario A, the propane burner was placed
near the center of the paper stock fuel load located under
the table at the back of the test arrangement. The burner
was located approximately 25 mm (1 in.) from the face of
the boxes and approximately 50 mm (2 in.) above the
floor. With this scenario, the initial fire involved a single
shielded area and could subsequently spread to the two
other areas, depending on the effectiveness of the sprin-
kler system. In scenario B, the propane burner ignition
source was used to ignite two boxes containing paper
stock in the northwest corner of the test arrangement
between the table and the table/desk used as the worksta-
tion. With this scenario, the initial fire spread simulta-
neously into two shielded areas before sprinkler
activation. The fire could subsequently spread to the third
area, depending on the effectiveness of the sprinkler in
controlling fire spread. The location of the ignition
source for each test is summarized in Table 1.
The other parameters that impacted on the test results were the
extent of fire spread during the tests and the number of sprin-
klers activated. The number of sprinklers activated and the
shielded areas involved in the fire in each test are noted in
Table 1.
The results of the full-scale open-plan office tests are docu-
mented in the report for phase 2 of the project (Lougheed and
Carpenter 1996). In this paper, the discussion is limited to the
general trends for those parameters that can have an impact on
the design of a smoke control system for a high-rise office build-
ing. This includes the sprinkler activation time and the extent of
fire spread, compartment temperatures, heat release rate, CO
production rate, smoke generation, and smoke movement.
Sprinkler Activation
The time and approximate heat release rate at which the first
sprinklers activated are shown in Table 1. The sprinkler activa-
tion times noted in the table are relative to the ignition time,
which was two minutes after the start of the test.
The activation time for the first sprinkler depended on the
location of the test scenario and ranged from 106 to 220 seconds.
The heat release rate at activation of the first sprinkler was
between 200 and 500 kW. In several tests, the first sprinkler acti-
vated was able to localize the fire to the shielded areas but was
unable to stop fire growth and spread in the shielded area. With
the continued increase in heat release rate, further sprinklers
were activated, with up to four sprinklers operating in some tests
(Table 1).
In all tests, the fire did not spread beyond the boundary of
the 3 m by 3 m (9.8 ft by 9.8 ft) office area, even though the
temperatures in the shielded areas reached up to 800°C
(1472°F). It should be noted, however, that the materials used in
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
the office dividers were heavily fire resistant (textile covering
and fiber insulation). It required considerable time (more than 10
minutes) to penetrate the barriers under nonsprinklered condi-
tions with direct fire exposure. It may be possible that, with other
office dividers, the fire could spread through the barriers to the
shielded areas in adjacent offices. However, the fire scenarios
used for the open-plan office tests were arranged such that the
fire could propagate to at least two, and in some cases three,
shielded areas. As such, the results of these tests are representa-
tive of situations in which the sprinkler system is placed under a
severe challenge. The probability is considered low, even with
lower fire-resistant office dividers, that the fire would involve
more than three shielded areas. This assumption is consistent
with the results of a post-fire analysis conducted in the U.K.
(Morgan and Hansell 1985). Those studies indicated that an
office fire in a sprinklered building was typically limited to an
area of 16 m2 (172 ft2) or less.
Heat Release Rate
The heat release rates for the seven full-scale open-plan
office tests are shown in Figure 3. Some of the trends are as
follows:
• For the tests such as test 26 using ignition scenario A with
the primary ignition limited to the table, the sprinkler was
able to limit the initial heat release rate to approximately
500 kW. However, as the fire spread to the two other
shielded areas (the desk and the workstation), there was a
secondary peak in the heat release rate at approximately
10 to 12 minutes into the test. If both secondary shielded
areas were involved in the fire, this secondary heat
release rate was slightly higher (approximately 600 kW)
than that produced by the first area involved in the fire.
• For the tests such as test 30 using ignition scenario B with
the propane burner located in the corner between the
table and the workstation, there was a rapid increase in
the initial heat release rate as the two areas became
involved in the fire. The location of the test arrangement
in the center of the sprinkler array also tended to mini-
mize the effectiveness of the first sprinkler activated and
allowed rapid initial fire growth. With this arrangement,
the fire in the shielded areas was shielded not only by the
table and the desks but also by the office dividers.
• For test 30, a peak heat release rate of 800 kW was mea-
sured. This test also included a computer with a plastic
case under the main desk. This resulted in continued
higher heat release rates at the end of the test. The test
was discontinued at 30 minutes due to excessive water in
the test facility.
• Only one sprinkler activated in test 25 and the sprinkler
flow rate was set at approximately double that required to
provide the design density. However, even with the high
flow rate, there was continued fire growth, with a peak
heat release rate of approximately 900 kW. The video
records and temperature profiles in the shielded areas
indicated that the main fire source was located in the
401
 workstation area that was on the side of the test arrange-
ment with the active sprinkler. As such, the fire was
shielded from the sprinkler spray not only by the desk but
also by the office divider, minimizing the sprinkler spray
able to reach the fire zone.
• The lowest heat release rates were measured in test 29.
In this case the test arrangement was located in the
northwest corner of the test facility. The protection was
provided solely by the northwest sprinkler. However,
this sprinkler was located within the perimeter of the
test arrangement and the sprinkler spray had good
access to the fire under the table and the workstation.
The highest heat release rate was measured later in the
test when the fire propagated to the main desk area clos-
est to the sprinkler.
• During the initial fire growth phase, the fire did involve
fuel placed on the desk and table surfaces. Once the sprin-
klers activated, the fires in the full-scale tests were limited
to the fuel packages under the shielded areas. As such, the
heat release rates measured in the full-scale tests can be
considered a superposition of the heat release rates pro-
vided by fires in two or more shielded fuel packages.
The heat release rates measured in the full-scale tests are
consistent with those obtained in the medium-scale tests. The
medium-scale tests indicated a peak heat release rate in the range
of 300 to 600 kW for each shielded area, depending on the time
of activation and effectiveness of the sprinkler(s). The medium-
scale tests also indicated a decay in the heat release rate to 50 to
100 kW for a shielded area at 15 to 20 minutes after ignition.
Figure 3 Heat release rates.
402
Three heat release rate models are proposed in the litera-
ture for sprinklered office fires. In the following, the results of
the full-scale open-plan office tests are compared to each of
those models.
1. U.K. Design Fire (Hansell and Morgan 1994). In the
U.K., steady-state fires for use in the design of smoke control
systems have been developed. These fires were based on a
review of fire incidents in the U.K. A steady-state fire is
assumed, as it is considered to provide a conservative basis for
the design of a smoke control system. For an office building, the
design fire is assumed to be 6 MW for a nonsprinklered building
and 1 MW for a sprinklered building (Morgan and Hansell
1985). The area of the fire is assumed to be 16 m2 (172 ft2) and
47 m2 (506 ft2) for the sprinklered and nonsprinklered cases,
respectively. A comparison with the full-scale test results shown
in Figure 3 indicates that, in the initial phase, the U.K. design fire
provides a conservative estimate (10% to 20% higher) of the
initial peak heat release rate. However, at the later stages, there
is a continuous decrease in the measured heat release rate, with
the result that the steady-state design curve becomes increas-
ingly conservative.
2. NFPA 92B (NFPA 1995). In NFPA 92B, it is suggested
for atrium applications that, for sprinklered buildings, an
increasing heat release rate should be assumed for a fire until the
sprinklers are activated. Subsequently, the heat release rate is
assumed to be constant. For the present tests, the first sprinkler
activated for heat release rates in the range of 200 to 500 kW,
depending on the location of the ignition source relative to the
sprinkler. This is assuming that a steady-state heat release rate in
this range would not provide a conservative estimate of the heat
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
release rates measured in the full-scale tests. In particular, the
NFPA procedure would not take into account the continued fire
growth after first sprinkler activation and the potential for the fire
spreading to secondary shielded areas. It should be noted,
however, that the NFPA 92B design fire for sprinklered appli-
cations was developed for atrium applications and not necessar-
ily for office areas.
3. NIST Office Tests (Madrzykowski and Vettori 1992a,
1992b). Based on a series of office fire tests, Madrzykowski and
Vettori developed an estimate for the heat release rate from a
sprinklered office scenario. An empirically based sprinkler fire
suppression algorithm was developed in which it was assumed
that, subsequent to sprinkler activation, the heat release rate
would decrease exponentially. This estimate for the heat release
rate provided a conservative estimate for all the tests conducted
by Madrzykowski and Vettori except the secretarial scenario,
which included a paper stock fuel package under a desk. This
model, in its present form, would not provide a conservative esti-
mate of the heat release rates measured in the full-scale open-
plan office tests. As with the NFPA 92B model, this model does
not take into account the continued fire growth after first sprin-
kler activation and the potential for the fire spreading to second-
ary shielded areas. Also, as discussed by Madrzykowski and
Vettori, the sprinkler fire suppression algorithm they developed
did not take into account fuel loads stored under desks and tables.
Design Fire for Sprinklered Office Buildings
The Madrzykowski and Vettori model, along with the U.K.
design fire, provide a basis for developing a general design fire
for smoke control applications in a sprinklered office building as
follows:
• For t < 240 seconds after ignition, a steady-state fire with
a heat release rate of 1,000 kW could be assumed. Alter-
natively, a t-squared fire could be assumed for the initial
fire growth. The growth constant for a fast fire scenario
(α = 0.04689 giving a growth time to 1,000 kW of 150
seconds [NFPA 1995]) provides a conservative estimate
of the fire growth measured in the full-scale tests.
• For t > 240 seconds after ignition, the peak heat release
rate of 1,000 kW is decreased using an exponential decay
equation similar to that used by Madrzykowski and Vet-
tori (1992a, 1992b). In order to take into account the fire
in the shielded areas at later times, a smaller decay con-
stant of 0.00155 could be used compared with the 0.0023
used by Madrzykowski and Vettori.
The heat release rate based on the above relations is shown in
Figure 3 with the heat release rates measured in the full-scale
tests. The estimated heat release rate uses the t-squared
approximation for the initial phase of the fire. The starting
time for the simulated heat release rate is taken as 2 minutes,
40 seconds, on the time scale used for the plots. This takes into
account the ignition time, which was at 2 minutes for all tests,
and the approximate 40-second delay in the heat release rate
measurements as a result of transit time in the duct and gas
analysis system. The composite heat release rate curve pro-
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
vides a conservative estimate of the heat release rate measured
in the full-scale open-plan office tests.
This suggested heat release rate for a design fire was based
on a series of full-scale tests that included factors that would
potentially increase the challenge for the sprinkler system. These
included:
• an initial fire involving two shielded areas,
• a secondary fire involving two shielded areas,
• medium to heavy fuel loads in the shielded areas under
the tables and desks,
• operation of the sprinkler system at the design density,
• use of a sprinkler system with the maximum allowable
spacing between sprinklers and coverage areas allowed
by standards, and
• use of fire scenarios in which the spray from the initial
sprinkler activated was shielded by both horizontal
(desk/table) and vertical (office partitions) obstructions.
Based on the above factors, it is suggested that the composite
heat release rate for a sprinklered office fire shown in Figure 3
would provide a conservative basis for the design of smoke
control systems in an office building in areas protected by a
sprinkler system designed for a light hazard occupancy. It is
less conservative than the steady-state heat output commonly
used in the U.K. (Hansell and Morgan 1994). It is, however,
more conservative than the heat release rates based on the tests
conducted by Madrzykowski and Vettori (1992a, 1992b) or on
present NFPA (1995) requirements.
Temperature and Pressure
Accepted practice for the design of zoned smoke control
systems in sprinklered buildings requires that a pressure differ-
ence of at least 12.5 Pa be maintained across a smoke barrier
separating the fire zone from a protected zone (NFPA 1993;
Klote and Milke 1992). For sprinklered buildings, the minimum
pressure difference is independent of ceiling height. For compar-
ison, a minimum required pressure difference of 25 Pa is
suggested for an unsprinklered building with a ceiling height of
2.74 m (9 ft). The unsprinklered case is calculated using the
following equation assuming a gas temperature of 925°C
(1697°F) adjacent to the smoke barrier:
∆P = Ks ( 1 ⁄ T o – 1 ⁄ T f )H (1)
where
∆P = pressure difference across the smoke barrier (Pa),
Ks = coefficient (3460),
To = ambient or reference temperature (K),
Tf = temperature of fire gas at smoke barrier (K), and
H = ceiling height (m).
The ceiling temperatures measured 150 mm (6 in.) below the
ceiling of the test facility at the thermocouple tree locations
shown in Figure 2 are given in Figure 4 for a typical test (test
30). The highest temperature (up to 325°C [617°F]) was mea-
sured at the ceiling in the immediate area of the fire for a dura-
403
Figure 4 Temperatures 150 mm below ceiling—Test 30.
tion of less than one minute. At this temperature, the pressure
at or shortly after initial sprinkler activation would exceed the
12.5 Pa minimum pressure difference recommended in NFPA
92A (NFPA 1993). However, the time during which the pres-
sure exceeded 12.5 Pa (temperature increase > 200°C
[392°F]) was only approximately 60 seconds. After this initial
high-temperature spike, the temperature increase at the ceiling
was less than 200°C (392°F) and, in many cases, less than
100°C (212°F) even in the immediate fire area. These results
indicate that the 12.5 Pa minimum design pressure suggested
by NFPA 92A (NFPA 1993) would be adequate for zone
smoke control applications in sprinklered office buildings. In
fact, in most cases, a lower pressure (approximately 7 Pa)
would still exceed the pressure produced by the fire gases.
The temperature/pressure results measured in the full-
scale tests are consistent with those obtained by Mawhinney
and Tamura (1994) in the tests conducted in a single compart-
ment under steady-state conditions. They measured pressure
differences of 4 to 6 Pa in the tests in a compartment with the
sprinkler system providing the design density for a light hazard
occupancy.
It is accepted practice to only pressurize adjacent floor
zones and to rely on mechanical exhaust from the fire zone and
leakage from the pressurized floors into a stairshaft to develop a
pressure differential between the stairshaft and the fire floor.
Tests conducted in a 10-story tower facility (Mawhinney and
Tamura 1994) indicated that a zoned smoke control system with
a pressure difference of 12.5 Pa was able to prevent smoke
spread into a stairshaft or between floors from a shielded fire as
long as the door to the fire floor was closed. However, when the
404
door to the stairshaft was opened, the stairshaft was rapidly
contaminated with smoke, even at the low buoyancy pressures
produced by the sprinklered fires.
In addition to the temperatures measured in the test facility,
the temperatures were also measured in the duct in tests with and
without the exhaust operating. Peak temperatures were up to
125°C (257°F) at, or shortly after, sprinkler activation. Full-scale
tests with a propane burner system indicated that heat release
rates of more than 1,000 kW would be required to sustain
temperatures in excess of 100°C (212°F) in the duct with the
sprinkler system operating (Lougheed and Carpenter 1996).
CO Concentrations
Incapacitation by CO depends upon the dose accumulated
over a period until carboxyhemoglobin concentrations exceed
incapacitation levels (Purser 1995). The intake of CO is a func-
tion of a number of factors, including the level of activity of the
subject. Estimates for tenability for incapacitation by CO
provided by Purser (1995) are: 6,000 to 8,000 ppm (0.6% to
0.8%) for 5-minute exposures and 1,400 to 1,700 ppm (0.14% to
0.17%) for 30-minute exposures.
The CO concentrations measured at the ceiling at the north-
west corner and southeast/center of the room are shown in
Figures 5 and 6, respectively. The CO levels measured in these
tests were in the range that could produce incapacitation with
extended exposure. They were, however, by a factor of two to
three lower than the peak levels measured by Mawhinney and
Tamura (1994). There are a number of factors that can affect the
CO levels, including the heat release rate from the fire, the type
of fuel, the volume of the test space, and the ventilation rate.
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
Figure 5 CO concentrations—NW top corner of room—open-plan office tests.
Figure 6 CO concentrations—top center of room—open-plan office tests.
Further analysis is required to fully assess the differences
between the two results.
In the current tests, the CO levels remained relatively
constant over an extended period (20 to 30 minutes) even though
the heat release rate was decreasing. The CO2 levels, measured
at the same locations in the test facility as the CO measurements,
indicated that there was a higher concentration of the fire gases
in the upper corners of the test facility. However, the general
trend showed a decreasing concentration consistent with the
decrease in heat release rate (Lougheed and Carpenter 1996). As
such, the steady-state CO results indicate that, although there
was a reduction in the heat release rate with decreasing fire load
in the shielded area and from the effects of the sprinklers, the
smoldering fire in the paper stock in the shielded areas, which
was the primary source of CO, was not affected by the sprinklers.
These observations are consistent with the results obtained
in the medium-scale tests with paper stock fuel loads. In the
medium-scale tests, it was noted that there was an increase in CO
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
production as the primary fuel load changed from the cardboard
boxes to the paper stock contents. As with the full-scale tests, the
rate of CO production did not decrease even though there was a
decrease in the heat release rate with the sprinklers activated
(Lougheed and Carpenter 1996).
The CO results obtained from the full- and medium-scale
tests do not indicate an increase in CO production in an office fire
with sprinklers. In fact, taking into consideration recent studies
that indicate that, for furniture (Sundström 1995), the rate of CO
production is related to the heat release rate, a considerably
higher rate of CO production would be expected for an uncon-
trolled office fire without sprinklers.
Further analysis of the full-scale test results is required
before a CO production rate based on the suggested design fire
can be determined. However, initial estimates can be determined
using the CO concentrations measured in the exhaust duct
(Figure 7). For the tests with the fan operating, CO concentra-
tions were 0.05% to 0.15% in the duct. Assuming an air density
405
Figure 7 CO concentrations—exhaust duct—open-plan office tests.
of 1 kg/m3 (a temperature of approximately 350 K) and a flow
rate of 3 m3/s in the exhaust duct, the CO measurements indicate
approximately 0.1 to 0.5 g/s of CO were produced in the full-
scale tests. The initial CO production rate is consistent with the
results of furniture calorimeter tests on office chairs conducted
by Sundström (1995). Office chairs with peak heat release rates
of 486 kW and 829 kW produced peak CO rates of 0.33 and 0.46
g/s, respectively.
Smoke Production and Movement
The smoke obscuration for an open-plan office test
measured in the northwest and southeast corners of the test facil-
ity is shown in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. The smoke obscu-
ration measured in the exhaust duct is shown in Figure 10.
Various tenability limits for smoke obscuration have been
proposed as follows:
• Jin (1981) suggested tenability limits of 0.06 OD/m and
Figure 8 Smoke obscuration—nw corner of test room—open-plan office tests.
406
0.2 OD/m, respectively, for subjects not familiar and
familiar with an escape route.
• Rasbash (1975) suggested a 10-m (33-ft) visibility limit,
which is equivalent to 0.08 OD/m.
• Babrauskas (1979) suggested a tenability limit of 0.5
OD/m.
• Wakamatsu (1968) suggested a tenability limit of 0.043
OD/m, which was assumed to be 1:100 of the optical den-
sity in the fire region.
The smoke obscuration measured in the full-scale open-plan
office tests indicated the smoke levels in the test facility were
in the range of 1 to 10 OD/m. These levels were higher than
the generally accepted tenability limits (0.045 to 0.5 OD/m)
suggested above.
There is limited information available regarding the maxi-
mum level of smoke likely to be found in fires. Tamura (1994)
suggests, based on a review of existing data, that 4 to 10 OD/m
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
Figure 9 Smoke obscuration—SE corner of test room—open-plan office tests.

Figure 10 Smoke obscuration—exhaust duct—open-plan office tests.

could be considered as the limiting level for adverse fire condi-
tions. As such, the smoke levels measured in the test facility are
comparable to those noted in the literature for tests without sprin-
klers. Taking into consideration the lack of mobility of cold
smoke, this result is not unexpected and, as with the CO gener-
ation, does not indicate that smoke production is comparable to
that of the unsprinklered fires.
In test 31, there was smoke flow through the exhaust duct
even though the fan was not operating. The volumetric flow rate
is shown in Figure 11. The duct was connected to the outside of
the main test building, with the initial airflow produced by the
temperature difference between the test facility and outside
ambient conditions. The volumetric flow measurements indicate
a peak flow rate of up 0.25 m3/s (8.82 ft3/s) through the duct.
Since the duct had a cross-sectional area of 0.25 m2 (2.7 ft2),
these results indicate a maximum smoke flow rate of approxi-
mately 1 m3/s (35.3 ft3/s) per square meter (square foot) of leak-
age area across a smoke barrier. For approximately 10 minutes
after first sprinkler activation, the smoke obscuration and CO
concentration measured in the duct were in the range of 1 to 2
OD/m and 0.2% to 0.25%, respectively (Figures 7 and 10).
These results are consistent with those obtained by
Mawhinney and Tamura (1994). They noted that, in the tests
conducted in the tower facility, the use of a zoned smoke control
system confined the smoke to the fire floor when the door to the
stairshaft was closed. For these tests, a mechanical system was
used to exhaust the fire floor at a rate of 4.8 to 5.1 air changes per
hour (ACH). However, for tests without smoke control, smoke
did spread to floors above the fire floor through leakage open-
ings. Also, the stairshaft became smoke-logged within minutes
after opening the door, with complete loss of visibility and
temperatures of more than 65°C (149°F).
For the tests with the smoke control system, the mechanical
exhaust of the fire floor was not sufficient to prevent the spread
of smoke into the stairshaft when the door on the fire floor was
opened. The flow of smoke into the stairshaft could be stopped
by providing a minimal flow of air into the stairshaft by either

ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia 407

Figure 11 Volume flow rate in duct—Test 31 (fan not running).
opening one of the doors on a pressurized floor or by opening the
door to the building exterior at the bottom of the shaft.
The potential impact of the smoke flow through leakage
areas will depend on smoke movement and dilution in the build-
ing outside the fire zone. Without computer modeling, it is diffi-
cult to assess the extent of the smoke hazard in a multistory office
building. Computer studies similar to those conducted by Waka-
matsu (1968) and McGuire et al. (1970) for nonsprinklered
buildings are required. The full-scale open-plan office tests can
be used to determine the conditions (heat release rate, tempera-
ture, pressure, CO production rate, and smoke generation) for a
design fire for use with a multizone model, such as CONTAM
(Walton 1993), to investigate the extent of the hazard in a sprin-
klered office building.
SUMMARY
Zoned smoke control systems are used to limit smoke flow
through cracks in floors and partitions and through nonpressur-
ized shafts that threatens life and damages property at locations
remote from the fire (NFPA 1993; Klote and Milke 1992). In
addition, measures to limit fire size (mass burning rate) can be
used to increase the reliability and viability of such systems
(NFPA 1993). Methods to limit fire size include fuel control,
compartmentation, and automatic sprinklers. In this paper, the
effects of a sprinkler system on heat release rate, compartment
temperatures and pressures, CO production, and smoke genera-
tion and movement were summarized based on the results of a
series of full-scale open-plan office fire tests.
Seven full-scale open-plan office tests were conducted
using a “typical” 3 m by 3 m (10 ft by 10 ft) open-plan office
408
furniture arrangement. The results of these tests, including the
impact on zoned smoke control systems, are summarized as
follows.
1. Fire Spread. The sprinklers were able to control the fire
within the limits of the 3 m by 3 m (10 ft by 10 ft) office area.
However, the fire was able to spread to secondary shielded areas
in the same office while the sprinklers were operating. After the
first sprinkler was activated, the fire was localized in the areas
shielded by the desks and tables.
2. Heat Release Rate. Peak heat release rates of up to 800
to 900 kW were measured for tests that initially involved two
shielded areas (desk/table). The heat release subsequently
decayed exponentially, with heat release rates of 100 to 200 kW
measured 25 to 30 minutes after ignition. The heat release rates
measured in the open-plan office tests were consistent with those
measured in a series of medium-scale tests and with the office
tests conducted by Madrzykowski and Vettori (1992a, 1992b).
Based on the heat release rates measured in the open-plan office
fire tests, a heat release rate for a design fire for use in sprinklered
office buildings was developed. This design fire is consistent
with the suppression algorithm developed by Madrzykowski
and Vettori (1992a, 1992b) and the steady-state heat release rate
used in the U.K. (Hansell and Morgan 1994) (see Figure 12). The
proposed design fire, in principle, assumes an initial fire involv-
ing two shielded areas subsequently spreading to two secondary
shielded areas and thus could be considered a conservative chal-
lenge for a light hazard sprinkler system in an office building.
The proposed heat release rate curve, determined on this basis,
is less conservative than the U.K. steady-state design fire but
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
Figure 12 Heat release rate for design fires.
more conservative than the suppression algorithm developed by
Madrzykowski and Vettori.
3. Temperature and Pressure. The highest temperatures
in the test compartment were measured at or shortly after the
activation of the first sprinkler. The highest temperatures
measured at the ceiling in the immediate fire zone were up to
325°C (617°F). Such temperatures could result in pressures
slightly higher than the 12.5 Pa generally required by standards
for smoke control systems in office buildings. However, the
duration for temperatures in excess of 200°C (392°F) was
limited to less than 60 seconds. As such, the 12.5 Pa minimum
design pressure suggested by NFPA 92A (NFPA 1993) should
be adequate for zoned smoke control system design. In most
cases, a minimum design pressure of 7 Pa would be sufficient.
4. CO Concentrations. The CO levels (0.1% to 0.5%)
measured in the test facility were generally higher than the long-
term tenability limits. The CO concentrations remained rela-
tively constant throughout the test, with the CO produced in the
latter stages of the test attributed to fires in the paper stock in the
shielded areas. The initial CO production rate was consistent
with peak rates measured in furniture calorimeter tests for office
chairs (Sundström 1995).
5. Smoke Levels and Smoke Movement. Smoke levels in
excess of the normally accepted tenability limits were measured
throughout the test facility shortly after the first sprinkler acti-
vated. With the exhaust fan operating, lower smoke obscuration
was measured in the exhaust duct than in the test facility. It was
suggested that the smoke entering the duct was diluted by fresh
air entering the test room through the ventilation openings.
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia
Higher smoke levels were measured in the duct in test 31 when
the fan was not operated. Also in this test, there was smoke flow
through the duct during the test. These results indicate that the
operation of a sprinkler system is not sufficient to completely
stop smoke flow through leakage areas in a smoke barrier.
However, the potential impact of such smoke flow will depend
on the smoke movement and dilution in the building outside of
the fire zone. Computer studies similar to those conducted by
Wakamatsu (1968) and McGuire et al. (1970) would be required
to determine the extent of the hazard of the smoke in a multistory
office building.
6. Opposed Airflow. The airflow through the ventilation
openings produced by the exhaust fan was sufficient to keep the
smoke produced by the sprinklered fires from leaking through
the openings. However, this may be due, in part, to the effect of
the exhaust system on temperatures at lower levels (Lougheed
and Carpenter 1996). Based on temperatures measured in test 31
and the equation for opposed airflow in NFPA 92B (NFPA
1995), airflow velocities of 0.5 to 1.0 m/s (1.64 to 3.28 ft/s) may
be required to keep the smoke from entering adjacent areas. The
results are consistent with the recommendation by Mawhinney
and Tamura (1994) that small airflows between the area to be
protected and the fire zone were helpful in preventing the spread
of smoke.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was carried out as a joint research project
supported by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., and the National
409
Research Council of Canada. Appreciation is extended to J.R.
Mawhinney for his help in conducting the studies in phase 1 of
the project and in setting up the sprinkler system for the full-scale
tests. Appreciation is also extended to D.W. Carpenter, M.
Wright, M. Ryan, R. Onno, P. Richardson, and P. Leroux, who
were instrumental in setting up the test facility, conducting the
tests, and plotting the data.
REFERENCES
ASTM. 1994. Test method for fire testing of real scale
upholstered furniture items. E 1537. Philadelphia:
American Society for Testing and Materials.
Babrauskas, V. 1979. Technical note 1103. Gaithersburg,
Md.: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Hansell, G.O., and H.P. Morgan. 1994. Design approaches
for smoke control in atrium buildings. BR 258. Bore-
hamwood, U.K.: Building Research Establishment.
Huggett, C. 1980. Estimation of heat release by means of
oxygen consumption measurements. Fire and Materials
4: 61.
Jin, T. 1981. Studies of emotional instability in smoke from
fire. Journal of Fire and Flammability 12: 130-142.
Klote, J.H. 1990. Fire experiments of zoned smoke control at
the Plaza Hotel in Washington, DC. NISTIR 90-4253.
Gaithersburg, Md.: National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
Klote, J.H., and J.A. Milke. 1992. Design of smoke manage-
ment systems. Atlanta: American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Lougheed, G.D., and D.W. Carpenter. 1996. Probability of
occurrence and expected size of shielded fires in sprin-
klered buildings—ASHRAE RP-838—Phase 2, Full-
scale fire tests. Report A4201.10. Ottawa, Ont.:
National Research Council Canada.
Lougheed, G.D., and J.R. Mawhinney. 1996. Probability of
occurrence and expected size of shielded fires in sprin-
klered buildings—ASHRAE RP-838—Phase 1. Report
A4201.5. Ottawa, Ont.: National Research Council Can-
ada.
Madrzykowski, D., and R. Vettori. 1992a. A sprinkler fire
suppression algorithm for the GSA engineering fire
assessment system. NISTIR 4833. Gaithersburg, Md.:
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
410
Madrzykowski, D., and R. Vettori. 1992b. A sprinkler fire
suppression algorithm. J. of Fire Prot. Engr. 4: 151-164.
Mawhinney, J.R., and G.T. Tamura. 1994. The effect of
automatic sprinkler protection on smoke control sys-
tems. ASHRAE Transactions 100(1): 494-513.
Mawhinney, J.R., D.W. Carpenter, R.A. MacDonald, and
G.T. Tamura. 1992. Experiments involving shielded,
sprinklered fires in a building equipped with a zoned
smoke control system. Report CR-6470.7. Ottawa, Ont.:
National Research Council Canada.
McGuire, J.H., G.T. Tamura, and A.G. Wilson. 1970. Fac-
tors in controlling smoke in high buildings. In ASHRAE
Symposium Bulletin SF-70-2, Fire Hazards in Build-
ings, pp. 8-13. Atlanta: American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Morgan, H.P., and G.O. Hansell. 1985. Fire sizes and sprin-
kler effectiveness in offices—Implications for smoke
control design. Fire Safety Journal 8: 187-198.
NFPA. 1993. NFPA 92A, Recommended practice for smoke-
control systems. Quincy, Mass.: National Fire Protec-
tion Association.
NFPA. 1994. NFPA 13, Standard for the installation of
sprinkler systems. Quincy, Mass.: National Fire Protec-
tion Association.
NFPA. 1995. NFPA 92B, Guide for smoke management sys-
tems in malls, atria, and large areas. Quincy, Mass.:
National Fire Protection Association.
Purser, D. 1995. Toxicity assessment of combustion prod-
ucts, The SFPE handbook of fire protection engineer-
ing. Quincy, Mass.: National Fire Protection
Association.
Rasbash, D.J. 1975. Sensitivity criteria for detectors used to
protect life. Fire International 5: 30.
Sundström, B. 1995. Fire safety of upholstered furniture—
Final report on the CBUF research programme. London:
Interscience Communications Limited.
Tamura, G.T. 1994. Smoke movement and control in high-
rise office buildings. Quincy, Mass.: National Fire Pro-
tection Association.
Wakamatsu, T. 1968. Calculation of smoke movement in
buildings. Research Paper Number 34. Tokyo: Building
Research Institute.
Walton, G. 1993. CONTAM93: User manual. NISTIR 5385.
Gaithersburg, Md.: National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
ASHRAE Transactions: Symposia