Cardington Data
CARDINGTON DATA
Inputs were created in accordance with the rec-ommendations of the Eurocode. When calculating qt,d, the area of the ventilation opening was not included in the calculation of the total surface area;
however, the area of the openings was included in calculations of the total surface area of the enclo-sure. Predictions less than 20°C were assumed to indicate that the decay period had completed and the temperature in the compartment was ambient.
The results of the comparisons of predictions using the Eurocode to the Cardington data are presented in Figures B.5 through B.13.
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
0 10 20 30 40 50
A/AoHo1/2 (m–1/2)
. mf
/AoHo1/2 (kg/s – m5/2)
121 221 211 441 Eurocode
FIGURE B.4.Comparison of CIB Burning Rate Data to Predictions Made Using the Eurocode Method
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Time (h)
Temperature (°C)
Measured Eurocode Buchanan Franssen
FIGURE B.5. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Eurocode, Buchanan, and Franssen Methods to Data from Cardington Test #1
Time (h)
Temperature (°C)
Measured Eurocode Buchanan Franssen
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
FIGURE B.6. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Eurocode, Buchanan, and Franssen Methods to Data from Cardington Test #2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (h)
Temperature (°C)
Measured Eurocode Buchanan Franssen
FIGURE B.7. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Eurocode, Buchanan, and Franssen Methods to Data from Cardington Test #3
Measured Eurocode Buchanan Franssen
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time (h)
Temperature (°C)
FIGURE B.8. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Eurocode, Buchanan, and Franssen Methods to Data from Cardington Test #4
Measured Eurocode Buchanan Franssen
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time (h)
Temperature (°C)
FIGURE B.9. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Eurocode, Buchanan, and Franssen Methods to Data from Cardington Test #5
Measured Eurocode Buchanan Franssen
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (h)
Temperature (°C)
FIGURE B.10. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Eurocode, Buchanan, and Franssen Methods to Data from Cardington Test #6
Measured Eurocode Buchanan Franssen
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Time (h)
Temperature (°C)
FIGURE B.11. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Eurocode, Buchanan, and Franssen Methods to Data from Cardington Test #7
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time (h)
Temperature (°C)
Measured Eurocode &
Franssen Buchanan
FIGURE B.12. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Eurocode, Buchanan, and Franssen Methods to Data from Cardington Test #8
Lie
Since it was not possible to determine the dura-tion of burning for each data point in the CIB data in a straightforward manner, to compare predictions using Lie’s method to the CIB data average temper-ature predictions were made for a fire of 2 hours’
duration with opening factors F =
ranging from 0.02 to 1. Because the density of the
enclosures used in the CIB tests was assumed to be 1100 kg/m3, the C factor used in Lie’s method would equal 1. A comparison of Lie’s predictions and the CIB data can be found in Figure B.14.
Lie gives (kg/s). This is
com-pared to the CIB burning rate data in Figure B.15.
Comparisons of predictions using Lie’s method to the Cardington data can be found in Figures B.16 through B.24.
Time (h)
Temperature (°C)
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2
Measured Eurocode Buchanan Franssen
0
FIGURE B.13. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Eurocode, Buchanan, and Franssen Methods to Data from Cardington Test #9
A/AoHo1/2 (m–1/2) 0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 10 20 30 40 50
Temperature (°C)
CIB Data Lie
FIGURE B.14.Comparison of CIB Temperature Data to Predictions Made Using Lie’s Method
A/AoHo1/2 (m–1/2) 0
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
0 10 20 30 40 50
121 221 211 441 Lie Lie * 1.8 Lie / 1.8
. m f
/AoHo1/2 (kg/s – m5/2)
FIGURE B.15. Comparison of CIB Burning Rate Data to Predictions Made Using Lie’s Method
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Time (h)
Temperature (°C)
Measured Lie
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
FIGURE B.16. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Lie’s Method to Data from Cardington Test #1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Time (h)
Temperature (°C)
Measured Lie
FIGURE B.17. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Lie’s Method to Data from Cardington Test #2
Measured Lie
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time (h)
Temperature (°C)
FIGURE B.18. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Lie’s Method to Data from Cardington Test #3
Measured Lie
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time (h)
Temperature (°C)
FIGURE B.19. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Lie’s Method to Data from Cardington Test #4
Measured Lie
Temperature (°C)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time (h)
FIGURE B.20. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Lie’s Method to Data from Cardington Test #5
Measured Lie
Temperature (°C)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (h)
FIGURE B.21. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Lie’s Method to Data from Cardington Test #6
Measured Lie
Temperature (°C)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time (h)
FIGURE B.22. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Lie’s Method to Data from Cardington Test #7
Measured Lie
Temperature (°C)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time (h)
FIGURE B.23. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Lie’s Method to Data from Cardington Test #8
TANAKA
For Tanaka’s methods, it was not possible to determine the duration of burning for each point in the CIB data in a straightforward manner. To com-pare predictions using Tanaka’s method and his refined method to the CIB data, average tempera-ture predictions were made for a fire of 2 hours’
duration with ranging from 1 to 50 m–1/2. For = 1 m–1/2, Tanaka’s refined method
produced rapidly declining temperatures, and any temperature below 600°C was neglected. The result of this comparison can be seen in Figure B.25.
Both Tanaka’s method and Tanaka’s refined method predict the mass loss rate as . This is compared with the CIB data in Figure B.26.
Comparisons of predictions using Tanaka’s method, both the simple and refined versions, to the Cardington data can be found in Figures B.27 through B.35.
Measured Lie
Temperature (°C)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (h)
FIGURE B.24. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Lie’s Method to Data from Cardington Test #9
A/AoHo1/2 (m–1/2)
Temperature (°C)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0 10 20 30 40 50
CIB Data Tanaka Refined Tanaka
FIGURE B.25.Comparison of CIB Temperature Data to Predictions Made Using Tanaka’s Methods
A/AoHo1/2 (m–1/2) 0
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
0 10 20 30 40 50
121 221 211 441 Tanaka Tanaka * 1.6 Tanaka / 1.9
. m f
/AoHo1/2 (kg/s – m5/2)
FIGURE B.26. Comparison of CIB Burning Rate Data to Predictions Made Using Tanaka’s Methods
Temperature (°C)
0
Measured Tanaka Refined Tanaka
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (h)
FIGURE B.27. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Tanaka’s Methods to Data from Cardington Test #1
Temperature (°C)
Measured Tanaka Refined Tanaka
Time (h) 500
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
FIGURE B.28. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Tanaka’s Methods to Data from Cardington Test #2
Temperature (°C)
Measured Tanaka Refined Tanaka
Time (h) 0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
FIGURE B.29. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Tanaka’s Methods to Data from Cardington Test #3
Temperature (°C)
Measured Tanaka Refined Tanaka
Time (h) 0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0 1 2 3 4
FIGURE B.30. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Tanaka’s Methods to Data from Cardington Test #4
Temperature (°C)
Measured Tanaka Refined Tanaka
Time (h) 0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
FIGURE B.31. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Tanaka’s Methods to Data from Cardington Test #5
Temperature (°C)
Measured Tanaka Refined Tanaka
Time (h) 0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FIGURE B.32. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Tanaka’s Methods to Data from Cardington Test #6
Temperature (°C)
Measured Tanaka Refined Tanaka
Time (h) 0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
FIGURE B.33. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Tanaka’s Methods to Data from Cardington Test #7
Temperature (°C)
Measured Tanaka Refined Tanaka
Time (h) 0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
FIGURE B.34. Comparison of Predictions Made Using Tanaka’s Methods to Data from Cardington Test #8
MAGNUSSON AND THELANDERSSON