Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Extinction criteria in fire.f90 #916

Closed
gforney opened this issue Jun 24, 2015 · 9 comments
Closed

Extinction criteria in fire.f90 #916

gforney opened this issue Jun 24, 2015 · 9 comments

Comments

@gforney
Copy link
Contributor

gforney commented Jun 24, 2015

Please complete the following lines...

Application Version: 5.4.2
SVN Revision Number: 4962 and newest
Compile Date:
Operating System: Linux

Describe details of the issue below:

Attached file of fire_part.f90 is a part of fire.f90 
for evaluating empirical extinction criteria.
I think “TMPA” of rightmost term in equations of 
Y_O2_CORR = and Y_F_CORR =, might be replaced by 
(20._EB + 273.15_EB).

I understand three lines after “! Evaluate empirical 
extinction criteria” are meaning Figure 3.2 in 
Tech. Ref. Guide, and Oxygen Volume Fraction is 
15% (X_O2_LL) at 20゚C. 
TMPA is 20゚C by default, but TMPA is replaced by TMPA 
on MISC line of input file. 

So if TMPA was set other than 20゚C at MISC line, 
I think equations of Y_O2_CORR = and Y_F_CORR = 
in fire.f90 does not represent Figure 3.2 exactly.

However I might be misunderstanding, 
if so I would like to apologize.

Thank you.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by nishiki@mech.kagoshima-u.ac.jp on 2009-11-20 09:09:57


- _Attachment: [fire_part.f90](https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-attachments/fds-smv/issue-942/comment-0/fire_part.f90)_
@gforney
Copy link
Contributor Author

gforney commented Jun 24, 2015

I would like to correct the number of figure:
Figure 3.4 in FDS Tec Ref. Guide of Revision: 4908.

Figure 3.4: Oxygen-temperature phase space showing 
where combustion is allowed and not allowed to take place.

Sorry, I was looking old Tec Ref. Guide.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by nishiki@mech.kagoshima-u.ac.jp on 2009-11-20 09:43:44

@gforney
Copy link
Contributor Author

gforney commented Jun 24, 2015

Thanks, I'll take a look at it.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mcgratta on 2009-11-20 13:10:05

@gforney
Copy link
Contributor Author

gforney commented Jun 24, 2015

Kevin,

Since Jukka seems to be having some good results with the enthalpy calc using actual
gas species, do we want to switch the extinction model in combustion_mf to the one
in
combustion_mf2?  The tech guide figure could be regenerated using the new approach.

Jason

Original issue reported on code.google.com by drjfloyd on 2009-11-21 14:51:22

@gforney
Copy link
Contributor Author

gforney commented Jun 24, 2015

Would this require a minor release, 5.5?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mcgratta on 2009-11-21 16:35:05

@gforney
Copy link
Contributor Author

gforney commented Jun 24, 2015

In combustion_mf2, the evaluation of whether combustion can occur in a cell or not 
is based on the gas composition of the cell itself, not the nearest neighbors. In 
combustion_mf, the cell and six nearest neighbors are included by default in this 
evaluation. The parameter SUPPRESSION_SEARCH=T by default. I have little experience

on setting SUPPRESSION_SEARCH=F since pretty soon after this option became 
available, I became aware of combustion_mf2, and I've basically worked with that, 
but with a limited range of cases compared to the diversity of the validation suite.

Also, much of what I've done is outside the current validation suite anyway. To me,

it would seem a good idea to run the validation set if Jason's proposal is 
considered.

Jukka

Original issue reported on code.google.com by jukka.vaari@vtt.fi on 2009-11-22 16:31:05

@gforney
Copy link
Contributor Author

gforney commented Jun 24, 2015

yes this would be a minor release if it were done.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by drjfloyd on 2009-11-23 16:27:42

@gforney
Copy link
Contributor Author

gforney commented Jun 24, 2015

I changed the critical flame temperature expression to use 20 C rather than the 
ambient temperature. We might eventually replace this routine, but it is easy enough

to make the fix. Thanks.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mcgratta on 2009-11-24 20:21:44

@gforney
Copy link
Contributor Author

gforney commented Jun 24, 2015

Thanks, Kevin.
I am interested in extinction criteria now,
and I wanted to modify fig3.4 by myself.
Anyway, new approach by combustion_mf2 is absorbing me too.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by nishiki@mech.kagoshima-u.ac.jp on 2009-11-25 07:54:08

@gforney
Copy link
Contributor Author

gforney commented Jun 24, 2015

I am going to close this Issue.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mcgratta on 2010-04-20 13:38:43

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant