Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract
As the use of water mist continues to gain acceptance as a practical fire suppression agent, the fire protection industry and computational fluid dynamic software designers continue to struggle with methods to model the formation,
delivery and flame interaction of water mist drops. Several efforts have been made over recent years to do just that,
with positive results and incredible progress. However, a simulation is only as meaningful as the quality of the initial assumptions and parameters used to drive the model, whether it is using a single bulk drop size statistic to characterize the entire spray field, ignoring the affect of radial position and fluid pressure, or simply a lack of practical
understanding of spray nozzle technology. It is with this in mind that the authors offer a challenge to the fire protection and the computational fluid dynamic software industries: incorporate a comprehensive water mist droplet characterization into fire suppression models.
* Corresponding author
As presented at ILASS Americas, 20th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Chicago, IL, May 2007
Introduction
As long as fire suppression and extinguishment has
protected our lives and property, we have been devising
ways to deliver the suppression agent to the fire. Ever
since the fire sprinklers were invented, the technology
and complexity of extinguishment methodology has
grown at a truly exponential rate. Today, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of ways to dispense
the extinguishing agent. The innovation and diversity of
these systems is seen to be driven by application to
solve specific fire problems.
With spray nozzles, extensive design work over
many decades has produced highly engineered devices
in innumerable types and styles. Engineered sprays
have been developed for many thousands of applications and industries, and this has also been largely
driven by specific needs. Many spray styles developed
originally for other purposes have been applied to fire
protection. Setting aside pneumatic atomization or dry
chemical extinguishment sprays, consider that hydraulic
atomizing and impingement nozzles are available in
hollow cone, full cone, spiral, flat, or even square and
oval spray patterns. The selection that is commercially
available is very broad and can create considerable confusion for engineers looking to integrate the proper
spray nozzle into an extinguishment or suppression
system. With single orifice, cluster heads, and spray
angles ranging from 0 to 360 in common use, the fire
system designer must determine which type of nozzle
works in different fire hazard applications.
With each general application and set of installation parameters, approval agencies and the Authority
Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) require only specific coverage or spray angle and flow density, which are believed
to be the most relevant parameters of spray performance in various situations.
As the applications become more specific to water
mist fire suppression, the additional factor of drop size
is taken into consideration. However, there is no current water mist fire protection standard that requires
listings to include basic drop size information such as
the Volume Median Diameter (VMD) or Sauter Mean
Diameter (SMD). Rather, water mist systems must be
listed for specific fire hazards requiring live fire performance validation, a time consuming and financially
burdensome endeavor.
The potential alternative to physical testing is to
use advanced computational analysis to design, build,
performance test, and certify a fire suppression system
before a pipe is ever laid. Computational simulation of
water mist fire suppression though is an incredibly
complex undertaking. Modeling the physics of water
droplet and flame interaction, heat absorption and
evaporation, vapor displacement, fuel combustion, and
temperature reduction are just part of what needs to be
analyzed to accurately predict the fire suppression capabilities of a water mist protection system.
One of the more important criteria, however, is
also the most overlooked and ignored. In the vast majority of simulation efforts to date, water drop size distribution statistics are simplified down to the minimal
amount of data required to convey the maximum information possible. In some cases a single parameter,
such as VMD, was the only statistic used.
Perhaps this is because drop size information can
be considered to be confusing and overly complex.
This is generally the case with fire protection when
discussing sprinkler and nozzle drop size statistics.
After all, the research focuses on system suppression
and extinguishment characteristics and not spray nozzles. But, is it proper and accurate to fully characterize
a water mist or other spray nozzle in such an abridged
manner?
Fire protection designers have recently begun to
realize that nozzles cannot be simplified down to a single number such as a representative diameter. Whether
that specification is the VMD, SMD or DV0.9, it is not
an accurate representation of the entire spray field or
spray distribution. Despite this recognition, there are
such limited standards and certification guidelines to
work from that the system designers and modelers are
basically picking whatever statistic is readily available
to them without appreciating the inherent limitations
and problems of doing so. Can parameters be used that
are sufficiently meaningful to completely and properly
characterize the spray?
Our purpose here is to show the limitations of using bulk drop size statistics, and to begin developing
guidelines and recommendations regarding water mist
drop size distribution that could be used within fire
suppression system computer modeling and design.
Affect of Radial Position and Pressure on Drop Size
In previous work by the authors [1], four nozzles
were tested at a typical operation pressure(s) for that
style nozzle. See Figs. 1-4 and Table 1.
Examining the spiral nozzle that was tested at two
operating pressures and measured at two distances from
the nozzle, one immediately sees the importance of
failing to include the radial position drop distribution.
See Table 2. Though there is minimal difference between the two operational pressures, there are dramatic
changes in the drop size as the measurement point is
increased radially on both measurement planes. Reviewing the volume flux weighted averages of all four
nozzles tested gives further examples of how the drop
statistics vary with measurement position and pressure.
Spiral Nozzle
Test Pressure
(bar)
Spray Height
(cm)
DV0.1
38.1
95.2
55.3
61
90.6
42.9
38.1
86.3
47.2
68.9
61
107.1
50.9
38.1
334.1
136.2
6.89
61
332.6
136.5
38.1
298.3
120.1
10.34
61
284.5
124.8
38.1
151.2
93.1
6.89
61
179.5
120.0
38.1
157.0
98.8
10.34
61
177.9
121.5
Table 1. Spray Nozzle Drop Size Characteristics.
68.9
DV0.9
D32
134.7
146.3
127.1
172.3
601.5
594.1
545.5
495.5
206.5
234.1
211.6
228.3
90.5
79.6
78.4
90.2
286.5
296.1
256.5
255.3
168.2
177.4
170.1
179.8
A = d 2
V=
d 3
Case
A
B
C
DV0.10
DV0.90
DV0.50
(m)
(m)
(m)
100.0
58.0
145.9
100.0
69.6
133.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
Table 3. Drop size statistics.
RSF
0.88
0.64
0
(1)
(2)
RSF =
DV 0.9 DV 0.1
DV 0.5
N = N0 +
A
w
( DS DSc ) 2
)
w
N0
DSc
w
A
(4)
Case A
DS DSc
(3)
2(
DS > DSc
Case B
DS DSc
0
0
0
20.9
20.9
69.9
30
100
30
9200
30800
13100
Table 4. Parameters for (4).
DS > DSc
0
69.9
61.4
26900
DS
t1
(5)
+ yo
Case
A
B
C
DV0.50
(m)
100.0
100.0
100.0
Drop
DV0.10
DV0.90
VTot
ATot
RSF
Count
(cm3)
(cm2)
(m)
(m)
58.0
145.9
0.88
5.93 x 106
1.0
669.7
69.6
133.6
0.64
2.74 x 106
1.0
622.6
100.0
100.0
0
1.91 x 106
1.0
600.0
Table 5. Surface area and momentum results for all cases.
v
P
(gcm/s)
550.6
554.7
554.6
Momentum ( P ) is a factor that will allow us to determine how far a spray will penetrate into a given environment. The greater the sprays momentum, the farther the spray plume will reach. This can be used as a
determining factor in selecting which type of nozzle to
use for a specific application. For instance, if the goal
is to provide a mist that will evaporate within a compartment for oxygen displacement, the choice of a high
momentum spray would not be the right choice. A high
momentum spray will have either a large drop size
(works against evaporation), a high velocity (may cause
drop to impinge on a surface) or both. In this case, a
spray with small drops and low velocities might be the
best choice.
Case A, B and C all generate very similar total
momentums. Since all have been normalized so that
the total mass is the same, and the same velocity profile
is used in all cases, this is to be expected. Though case
A shows particle momentum values larger than case B
for the small and large particle sizes, case B would
more likely penetrate further. This is because you can
see that where the largest momentum values are located
within the drop size distribution, case B has maximum
values that are on the order of 150% greater than case
A, see Figure 8. Case C would be an extreme of the
penetration demonstrated by case B since all of the
momentum is deposited in the drops that are similar in
size to where the other two cases show their maximum
momentum values.
K=
Q
P
(6)
Derived from the Bernoulli and Continuity equations, the nozzle discharge coefficient is a functional
and robust tool, but it has inherent limitations on its use
and only yields correct results in steady, incompressible, frictionless, and streamline flow. [5]
In order to properly characterize nozzles for use in
fire protection systems, one needs a K-factor that is
constant over the entire flow range. Unfortunately,
many types of real commercial nozzles tend to exhibit
unusual flow behavior when closely scrutinized.
Though most hydraulic nozzles and nearly all sprinklers
follow a normal hydraulic curve, highly engineered
sprays, as opposed to standard deflection type sprinklers, often contain complex internal and external geometries used to form the distinctive spray patterns.
See Figure 9.
Q
Pn
Q = K Pn
K=
(7)
(8)
Nomenclature
A
surface area
V
volume
D
diameter
Km
nominal discharge coefficient, metric
Q
fluid flow rate
Pv
fluid pressure
P
momentum
N
total drop size count for each class
N0
initial drop size count for each class
w
half peak width of Gaussian
Subscripts
c
center
0
initial
Tot total
Superscripts
n
fluid pressure exponent
References
Tanner, G.A. and Knasiak, K.F., Spray Characterization of Typical Fire Suppression Nozzles, Third International Water Mist Conference, Madrid, Spain, September 2003.
1. NFPA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, National Fire Protection Association, Northbrook, IL,
2002
2. UL Standard 2167, Water Mist Nozzles for Fire
Protection Service, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.,
Northbrook, IL, 2002
3. Approval Standard for Water Mist Systems, Class
Number 5560, Factory Mutual Research Corp.,
Norwood, MA, 2005
4. Fox, R.W., and McDonald, A.T., Introduction to
Fluid Mechanics, 4th Ed., New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1992
5. NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection
Systems, National Fire Protection Association,
Northbrook, IL, 2006
6. Jayaweera, T.M. and Yu, H.Z., Physical Scaling of
Water Mist Fire Suppression, Sixth International
Water Mist Conference, Budapest, Hungary, October 2006.
Husted, B.P., Holmstedt, G., Hertzberg, T., The Physics Behind Water Mist Systems, Fourth International
Water Mist Conference, Rome, Italy, October 2004.
WP018