In this paper we report the experimental study on the flow of smoke and air in the model anteroom in the case of upper smoke outlet and lower air inlet openings, and the comparison of this result with the field experiment of similar openings. Finally the disagreement between the model and the field experiments reported in part 1 are discussed.
The model and the apparatus used in this experiment are almost the same as in part 1, except some improvements and additions to temperature and smoke optical density measurements.
Condition of similarity assumed between model and prototype in this case is the same as part 1, that the ratios of supply air and in flow smoke volumes to anteroom volume are equal.
The scale of model is one tenth of the prototype, so that the flow
l/s for the model corresponds to m
3/s for the prototype.
In this experiment following results are obtained.
(1) Flow characteristics of smoke and air in the anteroom, under constant smoke optical density and inflow smoke volume, change continuously with supply air volume.
The classification of flow characteristics to types in A, B, C, D and E given in part 1 is also valid in this case, but some supplements and corrections are made on the method and on the details.
(2) The limits of supply air volume keeping up to two layer flow of types A, B and C are almost the same as in part 1, however, the limits of type B which has perfectly transparent lower layer, are much wider than part 1 at lower supply smoke volume.
(3) The relations between mean boundary height and air smoke ratio in types A, B and C show good agreement.
The mean boundary height is larger about one seventh of the ceiling height than part 1.
The mean boundary height determined by observation agrees fairly with height estimated from temperature profile,and very well with height estimated from optical density profile.
For designing smoke tower, the recommended values to the limits of supply air volume to anteroom are from 0. 6 to 5. 2 m
3/s and air smoke ratio larger than 2.
(4) Good agreement is shown between mean boundary heights in the model and the field experiments with similar openings.
(5) According to conclusions (2) and (3), position of smoke outlet openings is better at upper part of the wall than fully opened from ceiling to floor as in part 1.
(6) Characteristics of temperature profile for types O, A, B, C, D and E do not differ markedly so that the classification of types by temperature profile is very difficult, however, distinct classification is possible by optical smoke density profile.
(7) Reexamination on part 1 showed that, in the absence of subwall under the ceiling, both flow types of field and model experiment are the same and types E and no direct connection of smoke from emergency opening to smoke outlet are observed.
View full abstract