Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison Between Actual and Simulated Smoke for Smoke Detection Certification in Aircraft Cargo Compartments Using the CFD Method

  • Published:
Fire Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Simulated smoke has been widely used in place of actual fire smoke during flight tests in the certification process for aircraft cargo compartment smoke detection systems. Previous research has identified several differences between actual and simulated smoke. However, few studies have determined the quantitative effects of these differences on the transport and detection properties of actual and simulated smoke. The current work compared actual and simulated smoke using a computational fluid dynamics method with numerical models for the two types of smoke developed in the Fire Dynamics Simulator of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and validated through experimental data. The transport and detection properties of actual and simulated smoke were then evaluated quantitatively in detail. The two types of smoke were compared under two conditions: (1) at the same smoke-generating quantity and (2) at the same smoke release rate. Result showed that during the early stage of smoke occurrence, the numerical values of light transmission at different monitoring points in simulated smoke are 10% to 20% lower than those in actual fire smoke. Simulated smoke from the smoke generator is easier to detect than actual fire smoke. Therefore, the equivalence between simulated smoke and actual fire smoke should be focused on in the airworthiness verification of aircraft cargo smoke detection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blake D (2000) Aircraft cargo compartment smoke detector alarm incidents on unregistered aircraft, 1974–1999. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  2. Federal Aviation Administration (2014) Airworthiness standards: transport category airplanes Part 25.858, GPO’s Federal Digital System

  3. Advisory Circular. AC 25-9A (1994) Smoke detection, penetration, evacuation tests and related flight manual emergency procedures. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  4. Suo-Anttila J, Gill W, Gritzo LA, Blake D (2005) An evaluation of actual and simulated smoke properties. Fire Mater 29(2):91–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Suo-Anttila J, Gill W, Gritzo L (2003) Comparison of actual and simulated smoke for the certification of smoke detectors in aircraft cargo compartments. DOT/FAA/AR-03/34, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC

  6. Blake D, Suo-Anttila J (2008) Aircraft cargo compartment fire detection and smoke transport modeling. Fire Saf J 43(8):576–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Oztekin ES (2014) Heat and mass transfer due to a small-fire in an aircraft cargo compartment. Int J Heat Mass Transf 73(1):562–573

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Lu KH, Mao SH, Wang J, Lu S (2017) Numerical simulation of the ventilation effect on fire characteristics and detections in an aircraft cargo compartment. Appl Therm Eng 124(1):1441–1446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Oztekin ES, Blake D, Lyon RE (2013) Fire induced flow behavior in a ventilated aircraft cargo compartment. In: 13th international conference and exhibition on fire and materials 2013, San Francisco, CA, United states, Interscience Communications Ltd, January 28–30.

  10. Suo-Anttila J, Gill W, Gallegos C, Nelsen J (2003) Computational fluid dynamics code for smoke transport during an aircraft cargo compartment fire: transport solver, graphical user interface, and preliminary baseline validation. DOT/FAA/AR-03/49, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC

  11. Blake D (2006) Development of a standardized fire source for aircraft cargo compartment fire detection systems. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  12. Suo-Anttila J, Gill W, Gallegos C, Nelsen J (2007) Cargo compartment smoke transport computational fluid dynamics code validation. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wang J, Pan YY, Lu S, Lu K, Chen WS (2017) CO concentration decay profile and ceiling jet entrainment in aircraft cargo compartment fires at reduced pressures. Appl Therm Eng 110(1):772–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang J, Lu S, Guan Y, Lo SM, Zhang HP (2015) Experiment investigation on the influence of low pressure on ceiling temperature profile in aircraft cargo compartment fires. Appl Therm Eng 89 (1):526–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang J, Lu S, Hu Y, Zhang HP, Lo SM (2015) Early stage of elevated fires in an aircraft cargo compartment: a full scale experimental investigation. Fire Technol 51(1):1129–1147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Behle K (2006) Determination of smoke quantities to be used for smoke detection performance ground and flight tests. In: 25th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences 2006, Hamburg, Germany, Curran Associates Inc. September 3–8

  17. Krull W, Willms I, Zakrzewski RR, Sadok M, Shirer J, Zeliff B (2006) Design and test methods for a video-based cargo fire verification system for commercial aircraft. Fire Saf J 1(4):290–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Krull W, Willms I, Zakrzewski RR, Sadok M, Shirer J, Zeliff B (2005) A video-based cargo fire verification system for commercial aircraft: design and test methods. In: 8th international symposium on fire safety science, Beijing, China, September 18–23. Interscience Communications Ltd

  19. McGrattan KB, McDermott R, Hostikka S, Floyd JE (October 2010) Dynamics Simulator (Version 5), User’s Guide, NIST Special Publication 1019-5, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland

  20. Mulholland GW, Croarkin C (2000) Specific extiction coefficient of flame generated smoke. Fire Mater 24(1):227–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Krishnan SS, Lin KC, Faeth GM (2001) Extinction and scattering properties of soot emitted from buoyant turbulent diffusion flames. J Heat Transf 123(1):331

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Airworthiness, Civil Aviation University of China, Jinbei Road 2898, Dongli District, Tianjin, 30030, China

    Xiyuan Chen, Ziyan Shao & Jianzhong Yang

Authors
  1. Xiyuan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ziyan Shao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jianzhong Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiyuan Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, X., Shao, Z. & Yang, J. Comparison Between Actual and Simulated Smoke for Smoke Detection Certification in Aircraft Cargo Compartments Using the CFD Method. Fire Technol 56, 469–488 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00887-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00887-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation