English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This work uses three methods: hand calculations, a zone model code (CFAST), and a computational fluid dynamics code (FDS), to examine two fire tests from the HDR facility, a decommissioned reactor containment building in Germany. The two tests, T51.23 and T52.14, used different fuels, propane gas and a hydrocarbon solvent, and occurred in two quite different locations, low in the containment and just below the containment operating deck, respectively. The two tests pose different challenges for analysis. The T51.23 test contains a simple fuel, propane gas premixed with air, but a fairly complex geometry for the fire compartment with restricted ventilation. The T52.14 test uses a more complex fuel, a hydrocarbon solvent that burned in an underventilated manner, with a somewhat simpler geometry for the fire compartment. However, the T52.14 test contained a large atria-like space in close proximity to the fire room which poses an additional challenge. Together these two tests examine the suitability of computational methods for calculating fires in structures containing multiple levels with complex compartment interconnections.

Comparison of CFAST and FDS for fire simulation with the HDR T51 and T52 tests