International Journal on Architectural Science, Volume 1, Number 4, p.

181-192, 2000

ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE-BASED SMOKE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

DESIGN IN A SHOPPING MALL

K.H. Yang and J.N. Lee

Mechanical Engineering Department, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan 80424, R.O.C.

(Received 20 September 2000; Accepted 16 November 2000)

ABSTRACT

In Taiwan, the fire code is still prescriptive in nature which fails to provide effective design guide for buildings
with large spaces and atria. In this paper, the NFPA 92B has been adapted to develop a design procedure of
smoke management system in a shopping mall atrium using performance-based fire safety design method. The
objectives of this design procedure are assurance of safe evacuation and prevention of fire spread to adjacent
space. The authors implemented this design procedure to the fire safety system of a shopping mall in Taipei, and
obtained approval from authorities having jurisdiction as a successful performance-based design. This paper
demonstrated the complete design procedure as an example to fire safety engineers.

1. INTRODUCTION • Smoke Management System Design

In 1996, the new prescriptive fire code was
implemented in Taiwan [1]. On item 189, No. 7, it
stated that the smoke exhaust rate should not be
less than 120 m3min-1. And in zoned smoke control
designs, each zone should be equipped with
mechanical smoke exhaust rate for more than 1
m3min-1 per floor area. The “minimum legitimate”
smoke exhaust rate, which directly related to
building floor area, is apparently misleading,
especially when large spaces or an atrium is
encountered. Table 1 shows a calculation
comparison of the smoke generation rate between
that of Taiwan fire code and the NFPA 92B [2]. The
deviation could be up to 6 times. The deviation
lies mainly in that the prescriptive code ignored the
large air entrainment volume of an atrium when a
fire occurred, although it still serves as a feasible
guide for ordinary office buildings.
Table 1: Comparison of the smoke generation
rate between Taiwan fire code and the
NFPA 92B for a 500 m2 room (5 MW fire)
Design smoke NFPA 92B Taiwan Fire
clear height Code
3 -1
1.5 m 5.35 m s 8.33 m3s-1
2.0 m 7.13 m3s-1 8.33 m3s-1
2.5 m 8.92 m3s-1 8.33 m3s-1
5.0 m 18.52 m3s-1 8.33 m3s-1
10.0 m 47.08 m3s-1 8.33 m3s-1
In performance-based fire safety design, the
procedure includes the following sub-systems as
shown in Fig. 1.
• Design Fire Size Analysis
• Fire Detection and Suppression System Design
• Evacuation Analysis, and
• Quantitative Risk Assessment
These sub-systems were discussed in detail as
follows.
2. PERFORMANCE - BASED FIRE
SAFETY DESIGN METHOD
2.1 Design Fire Size
Design fire size analysis is the most important step
in fire hazard assessment, which directly related to
the evaluation of smoke descending rate and
adequate sizing of smoke management system.
Generally, the design fire size falls into three
categories:
a. Steady fire assumption
A fixed heat release rate was assumed in this case,
for example, 5 MW in an office building [3], and
20 MW to 30 MW in an underground railway
station, or subway systems [4], etc.
b. Unsteady fire assumptions
To simulate the fire growth period until it reaches
the steady state, normally an unsteady fire is
assumed. The most widely applied unsteady fire
assumption is the “t-squared” fire, where the heat
release rate is directly proportional to the square of
time elapsed, or in equation form:
Q = a(t − t 0 ) 2 (1)
where

181
International Journal on Architectural Science

Start
Building
Geometry

Design Fire Size

Fire Detection &

Suppression System
Design

Humane
Evacuation Smoke Management
Behavior
System Design

Quatitative
Risk Mechanical Natural Hybrid
Asessment Ventilation Ventilation Ventilation

Modify the
number or Width Modify Smoke
of Exits Extraction Rate

No No
ASET>RSET

Yes
To compile the
integrated emergency
procedure

End

Fig. 1: Flow chart of performance-based fire safety design method

Q = heat release rate or the fire size in kw
t0 = effective ignition time
t = actual time elapsed
a = fire growth rate
In NFPA 92B, four different types of t2-fire were
assumed as shown in Fig. 2. The designer has to
choose one which fits well with the project under
investigation. Sometimes a full-scale test should
be arranged to validate the assumption, such as a
wet-bench fire of a semi-conductor clear room, or
an actual carriage fire set inside a vehicle tunnel.
c. Measured fire growth
A measured fire growth curve is utilizing test data
from Cone-Calorimetry, a bench-scale test or a
full-scale test, and curve-fitted to represent the
“actual” heat release rate [5]. The curves obtained
normally presumes more accurate, but sometimes
restricted by the test assumptions. The design
engineer normally picks one of these methods as a
start to size the fire protection system.
2.2 Fire Detection and Suppression System
Design
Normally, the smoke detectors and sprinklers were
installed on the ceiling of a building. In an atrium,
the fire/smoke detection system design needs extra
considerations.
The atrium not only provides large space for smoke
storage in case of a fire, but could easily become
pre-stratified with a layer of hot air in the summer,
especially in a sky-lighted atrium. The smoke
buoyancy was counter-balanced by the hot air
causing the fire/smoke detectors unable to be
actuated. In NFPA 92B, the formation of smoke
stratification can be calculated from:
z m = 5.54Qc1/4 (∆T/dz )
−3/8
(2)
where
Zm = maximum height of smoke rise above fire
surface (m)
Qc = convective portion of the heat release rate
(kW)
∆T / dz = rate of change of ambient temperature
with respect to height (C/m)
On the other hand, when ordinary sprinkler system
was activated in an atrium, the water droplet could

182

Fig. 2: Relation of t-squared fires to some fire tests
be evaporated so quickly and becoming water mist
before hitting the fire source. An actual fire
occurred several years ago in CKS airport terminal
I showed that the water sprayed in this case is more
like a “cloud” clustered in the middle of the atrium
and became inert.
NFPA 92B suggested that the sprinkler system
should be installed with 2.4 to 7.6 m (8 to 25 ft)
height normally for escalator or “cabin” protection
in an atrium. For the large space, long-range water
cannon with infra-red detection is sometimes
utilized.
2.3 Smoke Management System Design
Smoke management can be achieved by designing
mechanical and natural venting systems. But before
that, the natural smoke filling process should be
evaluated.
a. Smoke filling process evaluation
In order to evaluate the available safety egress time
(ASET), the smoke filling of the atrium and the
smoke descending rate can be calculated by:
d (ρ (H − y )) ⋅
A = mp (3)
dt
During the natural smoke filling process, the smoke
descending rate is closely related to the fire plume
air entrainment mass flow rate, where the most
commonly applied prediction models were listed in
Table 2 [6-9]. Fig. 3 shows the fire plume air
entrainment mass flow rate under various heights
of a 5 MW fire. This figure depicts that the smoke
International Journal on Architectural Science
mass flow rate calculated by the CFAST plume
model is obviously too high, could be 92.5% higher
than that calculated by the NFPA 92B plume model
at the atrium height of 30 m.
In Fig. 4, the BRI (Building Research Institute,
Japan) [10] and NRCC (National Research Council
of Canada) [11] test data were plotted to compare
with the simulation result. It indicated the NFPA
92B has the best correlation with experimental data,
and is adapted as our calculation model afterwards
in the design example.
When the required safe egress time (RSET) is
larger than the ASET mentioned above, smoke
management system should be installed as a
remedial measure.
b. Mechanical smoke exhaust system design
The design step can be shown as:
1. Design the allowable smoke clear height.
2. Use NFPA 92B plume model or other models
to calculate the smoke (air) entrainment mass
⋅
flow rate ( m p ).
3. Size the smoke exhaust system capacity where
⋅ ⋅
m ext ≥ m p .
The smoke descending rate of an atrium can thus
be calculated by:
d (ρ (H − y )) ⋅ ⋅
A = m p − m ext (4)
dt
183
International Journal on Architectural Science

Table 2: Formula of fire plume air entrainment mass flow rate

⋅
Flame region: m p = 0.032Qc
5/3
(z − z v )
(z − z v )5 / 3 [1 + 0.026Qc 2 / 3 (z − z v )−5 / 3 ]
⋅
Heskstad 1/ 3
Plume region: m p = 0.071Qc
(NFPA 92B)
Virtual origin: z v = −1.02 D + 0.083Q 2 / 5
2/5
Flame Height: L = 0.166Qc
⋅
0.566
mp  z   z 
Flame region: = 0.011 2 / 5 
 0.00 ≤  2 / 5  < 0.08

McCaffrey Q Q  Q 
(CFAST) ⋅
0.909
mp  z   z 
Intermittent region: = 0.026 2 / 5 
 0.08 ≤  2 / 5  < 0.20

Q Q  Q 
⋅
1.895
mp  z   z 
Plume region: = 0.124 2 / 5 
 0.20 ≤  2 / 5 

Q Q  Q 
( ) P(z − z )
⋅
Flame region: m p = 0.096 ρ ∞ gρ fl / ρ ∞
1/ 2 3/ 2
Thomas et al. v

( ) (z − z )
⋅
Plume region: m p = 0.153 gρ 0 Q / c p T∞
1/ 3 5/3
v
1/ 2
Virtual origin: z v = 1.5 A f

( )
⋅
Q1 / 3 (z − z v )
1/ 3
Plume region: m p = 0.21 gρ ∞ / c p T∞
2 5/3

Zukoski et al. Virtual origin:

With floor: z v = −0.50 D + 0.33L
Without floor: z v = −0.80 D + 0.33L
Flame Height :
2/3
Q D* < 1.0 : L / D = 3.30Q D*
2/5
Q D* ≥ 1.0 : L / D = 3.30Q D*
[
where Q D* = Q / ρ ∞ c p T∞ ( gD) 1 / 2 D 2 ]

700
Zukoski Plume model
Rate (kgs-1)

650
NFPA 92B Plume model
600
McCaffrey Plume model
rate (kg/s)

550
500
flowFlow

450
400
Mass

350
mass

300
Entrainment

250
entrainment

200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Clear Height (m)
Fig. 3: Fire plume air entrainment mass flow rate under various heights of a 5 MW fire

184
 International Journal on Architectural Science

28
NFPA Plume model
26
24
Zukoski Plume model
22
NRCC data
Smoke Clear Height (m) 20 BRI data
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Time (sec)
Fig. 4: Comparison of the predictions of smoke-layer position with the experimental data

30 Visual in BRI test

Judged by Temperature Measurements in BRI test
NFPA 92B Plume Model in BRI Test
25 Judged by Temperature Measurements in this study
Visual in this study
Smoke Clear Height(m)

Video in this study

20
NFPA 92B Plume Model in this study

15

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Time(sec)
Fig. 5: Comparison of the predictions of smoke-layer position with experimental data for
the case with mechanical ventilation of 6 m3s-1

Fig. 5 shows the validation of this model by a experimental work, and the calculation model has
full-scale experiment performed by BRI (Building thus been adapted for our design projects
Research Institute, Japan) [10] with mechanical afterwards.
smoke exhaust rate of 6.0 m3s-1. At the early 80 s,
c. Natural ventilation system design
the predicted smoke clear height is lower than that
measured since the time lag is not counted The smoke management system can be optimized,
effectively. Otherwise, the correlation is good. if natural and mechanical smoke exhaust were
The authors conducted a full-scale experiment of combined into a hybrid system, where exhaust fans
an atrium fire in another research project. The can be downsized significantly.
actual smoke layer positions were recorded visually
with a video-camera and further identified with The natural smoke vent introduces a turbulent air
thermocouple measurements. The correlation is moving process due to high buoyancy and thus
quite satisfactory between the simulation and heavily depends on smoke layer temperature and

185
International Journal on Architectural Science

thickness. In our designs, natural smoke exhaust d. Hybrid smoke management system design
rate was calculated using Morgan’s experimental
When the natural smoke vent demands excessive
equation [12], or:
space or the mechanical smoke exhaust rate
⋅ becomes too huge, a combination of the two can be
m n  Ts + ( Av C v / Ai C i ) Ts T∞ 
1/ 2
2 2
designed to become a hybrid smoke management
Av C v =   (5) system. It allows more flexibility to the designer
ρ ∞  2 gD B ∆Ts T∞  and provides an important option for system
optimization.
where
The smoke descending rate of a hybrid system can
Av = measured throat area of ventilators (m2) be calculated as:
Ai = total area of all inlets (m2)
Ci = entry coefficient for all inlets (typically d (ρ (H − y )) ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
about 0.6) A = m p − m ext − m n (6)
Cv = coefficient of discharge (usually between 0.5 dt
and 0.7)
DB = depth of smoke beneath ventilator (m) 2.4 Evacuation Analysis
g = acceleration of gravity (ms-2) In evaluating RSET, the humane intervention and
⋅
mn = mass flow rate of smoke to be extracted response of each time step during evacuation has to
be considered. Normally, the RSET can be
(kgs-1) represented as:
Ts = absolute temperature of smoke layer (K)
T∞ = absolute temperature of ambient air (K) RSET = t d + t a + t o + t i + t t (7)
∆Ts = temperature rise of smoke layer above
ambient (C) where
ρ ∞ = density (ms-2)
RSET = the required egress time needed to a safety
place (s)
The calculation procedure can be summarized as in
td = time of fire being detected after ignition (s)
Fig. 6.
ta = time when alarm was actuated after
detection (s)
Start
È to = evacuees’ response time to an alarm (s)
Assume allowable smoke ti = time elapsed before evacuation actually takes
clear height place (s)
È tt = actual evacuation time needed for the whole
Calculate smoke generation rate crowd leading to a safety place (s)
using designed fire size
È The actual evacuation time tt can be evaluated
Calculate smoke layer temperature by mainly by two calculation models. One is the
Q Steady State-Steady Flow (SSSF) model.
Ts = T∞ +
 ⋅

 c p m p + h( A + PR ( H − y ) ) Conventionally, the SSSF model is used in
 
considering the evacuation process being similar to
È
Calculate smoke layer density by
a hydraulic flow [13]. The total egress time needed
is the larger of the walking time needed from the
ρ s = 353 / Ts
farthest exit or the time needed to pass through
È exits. Or,
Calculate the pressure difference at floor level by
⋅
∆p = m p / 2 ρ ∞ (αAD ) T1 = max (t11,t12) (8)
2 2

È
Required area of natural vent where
opening
⋅ T1 = egress time (s)
AN = m p / α 2 ρ {− ∆p + (ρ ∞ − ρ )g (H N − y )} t11 = walking time needed to the farthest exit (s)
È
End d
t11 = (9)
v
Fig. 6: The calculation procedure of natural
smoke vent systems where

186

d = traveling distance from the most remote point
(m)
v = unimpeded walking velocity (ms-1)
t12 = time needed to pass through exits (s)
N center or the evacuees’ response could be so
t12 = (10)
n×b
where
N = effective evacuee number (-), persons
n = evacuation flow rate (persons/m-s)
B = effective exit width (m)
However, in certain occasions, the SSSF model
over-simplified the evacuation phenomenon,
especially in a huge crowd where bottleneck is very
likely to form and the dynamic egress model
should be used instead.
The dynamic egress analysis, in simulating
individuals to evacuate on a computer screen,
considers more profoundly the crowd movement
diversity, stairs and exists availability and human
behavior.
A number of computer evacuation models have
been developed in an attempt to predict the egress
process. Most of these are based on network-node
approaches, such as EVACNET+, EXITT, EXIT89.
On the other hand, the models which use spatial
analysis techniques to define the movement of
crowds and to track the trajectory of all individuals
as they make their way out of the enclosure have
become very popular recently. These models
include SIMULEX, EXDOUS, EGRESS, STEPS.
The computer model ‘SIMULEX’ is designed to
simulate the egress movement of thousands of
individual people in large, geometrically complex,
multi-story building spaces. Thompson and
Marchant [14] carried out a lot of tests to evaluate
the maximum sustainable exit flow rate through
different passageways indicated that SIMULEX
simulation results could correlate well to the data
obtained from real-life observations. The authors
[15] also performed several validations of the
SIMULEX application to geometrically complex
building designs (such as underground rail stations,
shopping malls, etc.) with successful results.
Therefore, the SIMULEX program was utilized for
design analysis in this study.
2.5 Quantitative Risk Assessment
The performance-based fire safety design is
normally relied on the what-ifs, or the worst-case
scenario which is probabilistic in nature.
During the whole emergency procedure, each step
takes some time to complete and the time needed is
dependent on the technical specification in each
International Journal on Architectural Science
subsystem designed. The smoke management
system should maintain at least the whole time
period to provide a smoke-free escape route.
However, the fire and smoke detectors, the
annunciation, and the human reaction in the control
different and heavily dependent on the occurring
fire sizes, fire location and even unknown reasons.
For example, the beam-type smoke detection
system may be specified to activate in 60 s when a
fire occurs, but it could only take 30 s to react
properly if the fire occurred right underneath, or
vice versa. The human factor also plays a similar
role in identifying a fire and calling the control
center, or in directing the evacuee during the egress
process.
To consider the uncertainties and probabilities in
each time step, the Monte Carlo method was
adapted in this study. Each time step was assigned
a normal distribution curve with the maximum
occurrence probability assigned according to its
engineering specifications. Therefore, in simulation
process, the beam detectors not only responded in
60 s as they are specified by the designers, but
could also react in 50 s, 40 s and 30 s, etc. only in
reducing probabilities.
The objectives of Quantitative Risk Assessment
(QRA) using Monte Carlo simulation are to
calculate the combined impact of the model’s
various uncertainties when a building caught fire,
in order to determine a probability distribution of
the total egress time. It is adapted as a power tool
to evaluate the effectiveness of the designed
emergency procedures.
3. DESIGN CASE STUDY
The authors have recently completed a
performance-based fire safety design project
following the procedure developed in this paper
and is discussed here for demonstration purpose.
This project is designed for a modern shopping
mall, which is twelve floors above ground for retail
shops and seven floors underground for small
delicatessen restaurants and car parks. Fig. 7 shows
the profile of the CP shopping mall, where Table 3
listed the dimension of the two atria under study.
Table 3: Geometry of the two atria
Atrium I Atrium II
Length 69.5 m 12 m
Width 15 m 12 m
Height 73.6 m 31.2 m
The atrium under consideration is 69.5 m in height,
which is well over the 8 m (25 ft) limit as
187
International Journal on Architectural Science
recommended in NFPA 92B for sprinkler system
installation at the top. So that, in this case, the
atrium did not install a sprinkler fire suppression
system. On the other hand, the sprinkler system
was indeed installed on each retail floor based on
the local Fire Safety Code. So that, the design fire
size of 5 MW, fast-t2 fire growth curve was
specified in calculation to be conservative.
Redundant beam detectors have been adapted for
quick response and for eliminating false alarms.
The smoke-and-heat hybrid type detectors were
installed as another redundancy. Human
identification of a fire was considered a must
before the automatic emergency procedure was
launched.
The smoke management system design needs
further discussion.
In order to simulate the smoke descending rate of
Atrium I, both zone model and 3D CFD model
consisting of 50,000 grid cells were used. The
simulation result shown in Fig. 8 indicated that the
natural smoke filling process takes about 800 s to
complete. Fig. 9 shows the intermediate stages of
temperature and velocity distributions where
ceiling jet creates a large eddy and turbulence
causing the smoke to descend quickly. To control
the smoke in an acceptable clear height, it is
proposed to isolate the 10th to 12th (10F~12F)
floor atrium connecting space with fire-proof
wire-meshed glass block so that the atrium space
can be served as a smoke storage space. The
Fire-proof
partition
Atrium II
Fig. 7: Profile of the CP shopping mall
188
designed smoke clear height is thus 55.2 m above
the ground, or at the bottom of the 10th floor.
In NFPA 101 Life Safety Code [16], 4 to 6 ACH
(Air Change Rate per hour) was recommended as
an effective smoke exhaust rate of a large space.
However, the correspondingly large exhaust rate, or
128 m3s-1 in this case, can only keep the clear
height at 19.1 m but not the 55.2 m needed in such
a tall atrium. The tremendous atrium height results
in a huge smoke generation rate and should not be
taken care of by mechanical smoke exhaust system
only. Proposals were made to either adapt partial
natural vent system and/or intersect the atrium in
half in the middle where two smoke zones were
created so that feasible mechanical smoke exhaust
system can be installed maintaining tenable
conditions within 480 s and holding smoke level
there steadily.
Fig. 10 shows the successful simulation result of
Atrium II in the spherical building following these
design concepts. This atrium is divided into two
smoke zones by fire-proof partition, so that atrium
II in the spherical building with 31.2 m height is
easier to tackle with. When 100 m3s-1 mechanical
exhaust system was designed, the smoke position
was held at the 7th floor (7F) at around 74 s, and
further descending to the 6th floor (6F) at 200 s,
and held there steadily. This is considered a tenable
condition. To sum up, the smoke management
system of this project has been designed through
this procedure to maintain the tenable condition.
Atrium I
 International Journal on Architectural Science

Smoke Natural Filling

80
Mechanical Exhaust (710 cms)
75
Mechanical Exhaust (128 cms (6ACH))
70
65 CFD Simulation (Smoke Natural Filling)
60
Smoke Clear Height (m)

55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Time (sec)
Fig. 8: Predicted smoke-layer positions in Atrium I

Fig. 9: Predicted air flow pattern and temperature distribution in Atrium I

30 Smoke Natural Filling

Mechanical Exhaust(100 cms)
25 CFD Simulation
Smoke Clear Height (m)

20

15

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time (sec)

Fig. 10: Predicted smoke-layer positions in Atrium II

189
International Journal on Architectural Science

In order to evaluate the required safe egress time,
or RSET, dynamic egress analysis using
SIMMULEX [17] has been performed and
compared with the SSSF model. Based on the
local fire code, any exit should be located in less
than 30 m from any spot of the building interior.
Based on a full-scale experiment performed by the
authors [18], and compared with SFPE data [13],
the evacuation walking velocity and flow rate was
selected. Based on the SSSF model, a fixed
constant of 1.3 persons/s-m was assumed as the
exit flow rate as shown in Table 4. It is interesting
to simulate this flow rate using a dynamic model,
so that a more accurate result could be obtained,
while maintaining the simplicity of the SSSF model
as shown in case 2 of Table 4. Or, a thorough
dynamic egress analysis was performed to calculate
the total evacuation time as shown in case 3 of
Table 4.
Comparison of Table 4 results in the fact that in a
crowded shopping mall accommodating more than
2000 people, the SSSF model sometimes
over-simplifies in calculating the evacuation time
needed by over 50%, and the dynamic egress
simulation model should be used instead. Fig. 11
emphasized this point further, that the flow rate
constant actually decided the slope of the
evacuation line in the SSSF model. However, the
dynamic model depicted that this curve is hardly a
straight line at all, and the deviation between the
two models becomes obvious. The total evacuation
time calculated, or tt in equation (7) is 257 s. As
listed in Table 5, the RSET in this case is 377 s.

Table 4: Total evacuation time predicted by SSSF model and dynamic model
Parameter Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Occupancy 0.5 person/m2 SSSF model SSSF model Dynamic

density (1.3 persons/s-m) (SIMULEX simulated simulation
flow rate)
Total floor area 4585.87 m2 t1 t2 t1 t2
Total evacuees 2012 29.8 2012 29.8 2012
1.3 1.3 × 14 1.3 0.57 × 14 256.4 s

No. of exits 8 = 22.92 s = 110.5 s = 22.92 s = 252.1 s

Total width of 14.0 m 110.5 s 252.1 s 256.4 s
exits

Simulex Simulation
1.3 person/s-m
2500 0.57 person/s-m

2000
Evacuees
Accumulatedevacuees

1500
accumulated

1000

500

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Travel time (sec)

Fig. 11: Comparison of the evacuation curve predicted by dynamic model with the
SSSF model on the 11th floor of Atrium I

190
 International Journal on Architectural Science

Fig. 12: Simulation result of Quantitative Risk Analysis using Monte Carlo simulation in Atrium I

Table 5: Mean RSET on the 11th floor in the effective fire safety engineering design
Atrium I methodology can be achieved.
Average time
Fire and/or smoke detection 60 s NOMENCLATURE
Identification of fire location 20 s
Alarm and announcement 30 s Symbols
Egress route selection 10 s A area of building floor (m2)
Egress in process 257 s a fire growth rate
RSET 377 s AD door way area (m2)
Af area of fire source (m2)
When one remembered that the smoke Ai total area of all inlets (m2)
management system in this project has been AN smoke vent area (m2)
designed to maintain the smoke-free escape route, Av measured throat area of ventilators (m2)
or tenable condition, for more than 12 mins AW area (m2)
(ASET), the safety factor of smoke management b effective exit width (m)
and egress design in this project is approximately 2. Ci entry coefficient for all inlets (typically about
Quantitative risk assessment has been performed 0.6)
which validated the effectiveness of the whole cp specific heat of air (kJkg-1K-1)
emergency procedure as shown in Fig. 12. That is, Cv coefficient of discharge (usually between 0.5
the most probable time needed for the emergency and 0.7)
process to complete is 375 s, or 525 s in the worst D fire diameter (m)
case. On the other hand, the tenable condition can d travel distance from most remote point (m)
be maintained by smoke management systems for DB depth of smoke beneath ventilator (m)
12 mins (720 s), which warranted the effectiveness g acceleration of gravity (ms-2)
of the complete emergency procedure. H height of building (m)
h total heat transfer coefficient (kwm-2k-1)
HN height of smoke vent (m)
4. CONCLUSIONS L mean flame height (m)
N effective evacuee number (-), persons
The performance-based design procedure as n evacuation flow rate (persons/m-s)
developed in this study consists of the integration P fire perimeter (m)
of a smoke detection and management system with PR perimeter length of the room (m)
the egress planning to maintain a smoke-free Q total heat release rate (kw)
tenable escape route. The effectiveness of the N effective evacuee number (-)
complete emergency procedure has been analyzed Qc convective portion of the heat release rate
with quantitative risk assessment and demonstrated (Btus-1)
in a modern shopping mall design successfully. T temperature (K)
To this end, a more flexible, safer, and cost- t time (s)

191
International Journal on Architectural Science

t0 effective ignition time (s) 7. P.H. Thomas et al., Investigations into the flow of
T1 egress time (s) hot gas in roof venting, Fire Research Technical
t11 walking time needed to the farthest exit (s) Paper No. 7, Department of Scientific and
t12 time needed to pass through exits (s) Industrial Research and fire Offices Committee,
Joint Fire Research Organization, London (1963).
v unimpeded walking velocity (ms-1)
y smoke layer position (m) 8. B.M. Cetegen, E.E. Zukoski and T. Kubota,
Z height above fuel surface (m) “Entrainment in the near and far field of fire
Zm maximum height of smoke rise above fire plumes”, Combustion Science and Technology, Vol.
surface (m) 39, pp. 305-331 (1984).
α opening flow coefficient 9. B.J. McCaffrey, “Momentum implications for
∆T / dz rate of change of ambient temperature buoyant diffusion flames”, Combustion and Flame,
with respect to height (C/m) No. 52 (1983).
ρ density (ms-2) 10. T. Tanaka and T. Yamana, “Smoke control in large
Q *
D [
Q / ρ ∞ c p T∞ ( gD) 1/ 2 2
D (-)] scale spaces”, (Part 2: Smoke control in large scale
spaces), Fire Science and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 1,
⋅ pp. 41-54 (1985).
mext extraction rate of mechanical exhaust system
11. G.D. Lougheed, Personal communication, National
(kgs-1)
⋅
Research Council of Canada, 20 March (1991).
mn mass flow rate of smoke to be extracted 12. H.P. Morgan and J.P. Gardner, Design principles
(kgs-1) for smoke ventilation in enclosed shopping centers,
⋅ Building Research Establishment Report No. 186
m p plume mass flow rate (kgs-1) (1990).
∆p pressure difference at the level of the floor 13. H.E. Nelson and H.A. MacLennan, Emergency
(pa) movement, The SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection
∆Ts temperature rise of smoke layer above Engineering, Society of Fire Protection
Engineering (1995).
ambient (C)
14. P.A. Thompson and E.W. Marchant, “Testing and
Subscripts application of the computer model ‘SIMULEX’ ”,
Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 149-166 (1995).
fl flames 15. K.H. Yang and S.K. Lee, “Smoke management and
0 centerline egress design analysis of an underground railway
∞ ambient station”, To be appeared in The Journal of Applied
s smoke layer Fire Science (2000).
16. NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, National Fire
Protection Association (1995).
REFERENCES
17. P.A. Thompson and E.W. Marchant, “A computer
1. Fire Safety Code, Ministry of Interior, Republic of model for the evacuation of large building
China (1999) - In Chinese. populations”, Fire Safety Journal, Vol. 24, pp.
131-148 (1995).
2. NFPA 92B, Guide for smoke management systems
in malls, atria, and large areas, National Fire 18. K.H. Yang and T.C. Yeh et al., “An experimental
Protection Association (1995). investigation on smoke management in Taipei
Rapid Transit Systems”, International Conference
3. H.P. Morgan, Smoke control methods in enclosed of Mass Transit Management, Kuala Lumpur,
shopping complexes of one or more storys: A Malaysia (1997).
design summary, Building Research Establishment
Report (1979).
4. P.I.A.R.C., Technical Committee on Road Tunnels
Report, Permanent International Association of
Road Congresses Report No. 5, XVIIIth World
Road Congress, Brussels, 13-19 September (1987).
5. V. Babrauskas, Burning rates, The SFPE Handbook
of Fire Protection Engineering, Society of Fire
Protection Engineering (1995).
6. G. Heskestad, “Fire plume air entrainment
according to two competing assumptions”, 21th
Symposium on Combustion, The Combustion
Institute, pp. 111-120 (1986).

192