Failing Windows #12049
-
We have a model with lots of windows. Is there a more elegant way to fail them at a certain temperature due to thermal damage than placing a HOLE, triggered via control logic by a temperature sensor, at each window? We've considered enabling BURN_AWAY for the SURF, but does not look like an option as the window must not contribute any cobustible mass to the fire. We simply need it to fail to open up a passage to the ambient domain. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 19 comments 1 reply
-
For a reaction on &MATL, there is the limitation that the sum of NU_MATL, NU_SPEC, and NU_PART must be less than or equal to 1. That is you can't make more mass than present in the solid. If it sums to less than 1 than any unaccounted for mass just disappears. You could define a MATL reaction with a reference temperautre and a narrow peak width that has no NU_XXXX values with BURN_AWAY, but with this approach the window would disappear cell-by-cell and not all at once. If you want the entire widow to be removed at once, then you would need a HOLE or OBST with a DEVC_ID or CTRL_ID for each window. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Negligible additional cost for the MATL reaction for the windows
…On Mon, Aug 14, 2023, 11:04 FireResearch-BK ***@***.***> wrote:
Well, I think a gradual opening by cell could be explained by a gradual
melting of the window.
Is there any experience with the CPU time penalty for MATL reactions
compared to, say multiple devices and holes?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#12049 (reply in thread)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADBUZ4J7ZL5YGRJ4YFST5HDXVI46TANCNFSM6AAAAAA3PPADD4>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thanks! Looks like I'll give a MATL reaction a try. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I ran a few tests and the MATL reaction seems to work. So thanks for the help, @drjfloyd! Here is a simple test case: What I'm still trying to figure out is which parameter - other than lowering material density - can be adjusted to have the glass start burning away fairly early (between 20 or 40 seconds in the simulation). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
We did many tests with BURN_AWAY of glass in the last weeks. Yesterday, I tried to reproduce the test results from this paper https://publications.iafss.org/publications/fss/6/1063/view/fss_6-1063.pdf. It is basically a heated wall that generates a heat flux between 0-10 kW/m² to a glass window. As the "cracking" cannot be directly compared to the "hole" in FDS, we assume that the resulting curve should be similar to the cracking curve, but might be shifted to larger times. The following results can be seen from this:
It is possible to simulate the glass breaking also with DEVC temperature measurements for each panel (e.g. temperature difference in glass or absolute temperature criteria), but if we have a large building and a free burn scenario, it is too complex to do this step. Do you have any other suggestions? Why was the threshold temperature removed? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
If you make |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
You can't make PYROLYSIS_RANGE too small. This uses Eq. 9.5 to get a refrence rate which is then used in 9.4 to get A and E. If you make PYROLYSIS_RANGE too small for the REFERENCE_TEMPERATURE, then you will overflow A. Check the .out file to look at the A and E that result and make sure you don't see Inifinty or #N/A there for the material. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Good point. If you set it to a few degrees C, that should be enough to get a sharp reaction curve. If you make the range large, you will essentially start the reaction at low, even ambient, temperature. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
What key physics are you trying to capture with predicting the window crack? Are you trying to get small amounts of leakage through the cracks, predict generation of a larger hole, or the window falling out? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
We are trying to find an estimation of the failure of the window as this influences the ventilation in the building (e.g. larger hole or failure of the complete window). We also collected the values where the hole is larger than 1 cell in FDS (e.g. 0.5 m x 0.5 x), but these are similar to the shown values. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I have been investigating a few approaches to modeling failure of polycarbonate windows with a mix of burn through + fallout. For fall out I have been using a device to monitor the back side temperature of the window (either max or mean depending on the case I was considering) then removing the remaining parts of the window once the device activates. An example device: &DEVC ID='WINDOW_1_T', QUANTITY='WALL TEMPERATURE', SPATIAL_STATISTIC='MEAN', XB=1.96,2.48,1.8,1.8,0.24,0.56, SETPOINT=200., INITIAL_STATE=.TRUE./ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I lowered the PYROLYSIS_RANGE to 3 °C (we get Ininifty for lower values) with various temperatures. The green curve with REFERENCE_TEMPERATURE=70 is a good approximation for most of the data points, but the glass will also break for low heat flux values. I know from previous projects that the THRESHOLD_TEMPERATURE can be used to fix this behavior for the low range. I can also remember that it was possible to set the THRESHOLD_TEMPERATURE>REFERENCE_TEMPERATURE together with a larger PYROLYSIS_RANGE to get a strong reaction if the threshold is reached. If this cut-off value is used, it might be possible to create a curve that looks similar to the dotted line. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
How about two reactions? Or equivalently, say the glass consists of two components. The first component reacts at a low temperature and creates the second component, which reacts at a higher temperature. This higher temperature should be approximately the adiabatic surface temperature when the heat flux is 5 kw/m2. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
From our understanding, you mean something such as: &MATL ID='Glass1', &MATL ID='Glass2', Glass1 is the standard glass that creates Glass2 at the same place. T_ref is 340°C from the adiabatic surface temperature at 5 kW/m². But why should the 2nd glass burn? Even if we lower the T_ref, it would be basically something like adding the times of two materials for each heat flux (or adding two of curves in the images above). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
REFERENCE_TEMPERATURE and PYROLYSIS_RANGE use an assumed HEATING_RATE to get A and E. That heating rate may not be a good assumption at the low heat fluxes. You could try playing with the HEATING_RATE input to see if you can make that curve steeper. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I did some tests with different HEATING_RATEs. Several are still running and mybe there is a good set of parameters in there. If we increase the heating_rate, the materials burn faster. If we decrease the heating rate, we get a steeper curve but also larger times for the higher heat fluxes. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Try running the cases with TGA_ANALYSIS=T and setting TGA_HEATING_RATE as needed. If you don't see differences in the virtual TGA tests, then there may be some kind of issue. If you do see differences there then it might just be that timestep sizes and actual heating rate at the larger scale is driving results. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
We were able to find values that represent the data points for the glass from the test. The problem was:
The kinetic constants are working correctly, the difference between the heating rates (0.1, 1, 5, 10) is just very small for a low PYROLYSIS_RANGE as the E-parameter dominates the behavior of the mass loss as this is exponentially used in the differential equation. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
For a reaction on &MATL, there is the limitation that the sum of NU_MATL, NU_SPEC, and NU_PART must be less than or equal to 1. That is you can't make more mass than present in the solid. If it sums to less than 1 than any unaccounted for mass just disappears. You could define a MATL reaction with a reference temperautre and a narrow peak width that has no NU_XXXX values with BURN_AWAY, but with this approach the window would disappear cell-by-cell and not all at once. If you want the entire widow to be removed at once, then you would need a HOLE or OBST with a DEVC_ID or CTRL_ID for each window.