Next Article in Journal
Effect of Bend Spacing Configuration on the Vented Explosion Characteristics of Premixed Methane/Hydrogen in Pipelines with a Large Length-to-Diameter Ratio
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Nozzle Height on the Combustion Dynamics of Jet Fires in Rotating Flow Fields
Previous Article in Special Issue
Software Supporting the Visualization of Hazardous Substance Emission Zones During a Fire at an Industrial Enterprise
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Simulation-Based Investigation of the Effectiveness of Fire Suppression Techniques for Residential Furnishing

1
Tianjin Fire Science and Technology Research Institute of MEM, Tianjin 300381, China
2
School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300350, China
3
State Key Laboratory of Chemical Engineering, Tianjin 300350, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Fire 2025, 8(8), 327; https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8080327
Submission received: 30 June 2025 / Revised: 28 July 2025 / Accepted: 11 August 2025 / Published: 15 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Industrial Fire and Urban Fire Research: 2nd Edition)

Abstract

This study proposes an equivalent furniture fire model based on standard combustible assembly and verifies its feasibility as a substitute for real furniture through full-scale experiments and numerical simulations. Experiments show that the peak heat release rate and total heat release of the standard combustible assembly are highly consistent with those of the single-seat sofa. The numerical model has been verified by experimental data. The dynamic characteristics of the heat release rate (HRR) curve are consistent with the temperature evolution process, confirming its reliability for the numerical model. The research on optimizing fire extinguishing parameters is carried out based on this numerical simulation. The results show that the response time of the horizontal sprinkler is 22 s shorter than that of the vertical sprinkler, and the fire extinguishing efficiency is improved. Reducing the sprinkler height to 3 m can accelerate activation and reduce CO2 release. A flow rate of 91.4 L/min can effectively control the fire, but when it exceeds 150 L/min, the fire extinguishing efficiency is significantly reduced. The low response time index sprinkler starts up 88 s faster than the standard type, significantly enhancing the initial fire suppression capability. This scheme provides a safe, economical, and repeatable standardized combustible assembly for fire training and offers theoretical support for the parameter design of intelligent fire extinguishing systems.

1. Introduction

The rapid advancement of science and technology has become a key driver of societal innovation, contributing to notable improvements in living standards and accelerating urbanization worldwide. With the continuous emergence of unexpected incidents, fire accidents are one of the most destructive disasters, causing a significant number of casualties and property losses [1,2,3,4,5]. To prevent the spread or occurrence of fires, extensive research and application have been carried out to develop effective fire extinguishing systems [6,7]. However, with the wide application of new materials, new processes, and new technologies, the types of fires are constantly increasing, and the fire scene environment is becoming increasingly complex, posing a serious threat to the safety of fire rescue personnel. Therefore, the position of fire training in emergency response systems has become increasingly prominent, and it has become a key link to enhance emergency handling capabilities and reduce fire losses [8].
Fire tests are an effective means to conduct scientific research on fire and evaluate the performance of fire protection engineering systems. The European Union countries launched the CBUF project in the 1990s. The research focused on predicting the combustion of full-sized furniture using the results of small-scale experiments. The aim was to evaluate the fire behavior of upholstered furniture using prediction methods and proposed three mathematical models for upholstered furniture fires, namely CBUF MODEL I, II, and III [9,10]. Krasny et al. [11] conducted research on the fire of cushioned seats. They used a conical calorimeter to carry out small-scale combustion experiments on the materials of cushioned seats, obtaining parameters such as the ignition time and heat release rate of the materials. By analyzing the relationship between the peak heat release rates of materials obtained from small-scale experiments and full-scale experiments, a theoretical model of the correlation between the results of small-scale experiments and full-scale experiments was established. However, the randomness, danger, and lack of repeatability of an actual combustible assembly pose considerable challenges for research on fire extinguishing equipment and fire training. Therefore, there is a need for a combustible assembly that can reproduce fires to a certain extent, with good repeatability, controllability, and safety for use in experimental research. Wood stacks have been adopted as the standard A-level fire model in a large number of combustion science tests, real fire load simulations, and fire protection product quality inspections [12]. Huang et al. [13] aimed to explore effective forest fire extinguishing agents and establish an outdoor wood stack fire extinguishing test platform to simulate fire extinguishing scenarios in an open-air environment. They compared and analyzed the performance of hydrogel agents and compressed air foam (CAF) in extinguishing fires. Michael A. et al. [14] summarized previous theories and experiments on wood stack combustion. They theoretically derived a simple energy balance model to predict the radial flame propagation rate and mass combustion rate under different driving pressures (0.45 MPa, 0.55 MPa, and 0.65 MPa). With the rapid development of the economy, the types of combustibles in buildings are becoming increasingly complex, and standard wood stacks also have significant limitations as combustion materials for fire tests. Some scholars have carried out research on the standardization of combustibles (plastic cups + cardboard boxes) used in fire tests [15,16].
Numerical simulation methods have become an important tool in the study of fire characteristics in recent years, providing a more flexible and safe way to analyze fire behavior [17,18,19,20]. Ankit et al. [21] studied the effectiveness of water mist sprinklers in extinguishing strong jets through numerical simulation. The influence of factors such as the water mist flow rate and ceiling height on the overall fire extinguishing efficiency of water mist sprinklers was analyzed emphatically using Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). To explore the fire safety of lithium batteries in new-energy vehicles in tunnels, Bai et al. [22] established a numerical model for lithium batteries in new-energy vehicles. By analyzing temperature distribution under the tunnel ceiling, smoke diffusion, and the concentration distribution of CO2 and CO, they investigated the spread of lithium battery fires in new-energy vehicles within a tunnel. Although numerical simulation provides an important auxiliary tool for fire research, the randomness, danger, and non-repeatability of actual objects pose significant difficulties for the practical verification of theoretical fire-resistant materials and fire extinguishing equipment.
The combustibles used in traditional fire training to simulate real fire scenarios often have high material costs and pollute the environment. Therefore, it is necessary to study the standardization of combustible assemblies used in fire tests to establish stable and consistent materials for repeatable fire testing. To address these issues, this research aims to develop an equivalent model using a standard combustible assembly to replace common items such as sofas in fire training. In this study, we will investigate the combustion characteristics of a standard combustible assembly and a typical combustible assembly through experimental and simulation methods. Behavioral differences between the standard and typical combustible assembly during the fire suppression process under external intervention conditions are further examined using numerical simulation. Additionally, the effects of various fire extinguishing parameters—such as sprinkler position, direction, flow rate, and response time index—on flame characteristics are analyzed.

2. Experimental Procedure and Numerical Modeling

2.1. Experimental Procedure

A full-scale fire test was conducted using a 5 MW calorimeter system, as illustrated in Figure 1. The experimental setup consisted of the calorimeter hood, a set of test combustibles (a standard combustible assembly and typical combustible assembly), ignition sources, thermocouples, data acquisition systems, and a fire suppression device. The typical combustible used for comparison was a single-seat sofa, primarily constructed from polyurethane foam and a wooden frame. The standard combustible assembly, designed for repeatable fire behavior, was constructed using corrugated cartons and polystyrene plastic cups, as shown in Figure S1. Each combustible assembly unit measured 500 × 500 × 500 mm, with five layers of 25 cups per layer separated by 4 mm thick paper partitions. The total mass of polystyrene was 3.75 kg, accounting for 55% of the combustible assembly’s total mass. The calorific value of the materials was 15 ± 1 MJ/kg for the carton and 40 ± 1 MJ/kg for the plastic cups. The density of the polystyrene was 1.05 g/cm3. Experiment simulations were conducted at an air humidity of 40%, and indoor wind speed was 0. Combustion gases (CO2, O2) were collected at a flow rate of 2.5 m3 /h using a high-power fan, and the heat release rate was calculated by the oxygen consumption method [23]. As shown in Figure S2, multiple thermocouples were arranged around the burning material, and the temperature data was recorded using a data logger. In the experiment, 0.11 L of n-heptane fuel was placed at the center of the upper surface of the burning material as the ignition source. All the recording instruments and measuring devices of the test system were simultaneously activated to carry out data collection. The fire extinguishing experiment was intervened with when the peak heat release rate of the standard combustible assembly reached two-thirds. When the heat release rate fell below 5% of the combustible assembly’s peak value and remained so for more than 30 s, data collection was stopped and the test was terminated.

2.2. Numerical Models

Pyrosim 2019 is a fire simulation software based on the fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), and it is often used in researching fire prevention and emergency response planning. To consider the risk scenarios in the fire simulation scenario more comprehensively, the Navier–Stokes equation was solved by using the explicit predictive correction format, and the turbulence was simulated by the large eddy simulation (LES) method. The conservation equations involved in this calculation included the continuity equation, momentum equation, species equation, energy equation, and the ideal gas equation of state, which are detailed in Table 1 [24].
The simulation calculation area was set to 3.0 × 3.0 × 5.1 m, as shown in Figure 2. The igniter was set on the upper surface of the burning material to simulate the ignition of the flame. The remaining parameters took the default values. Relevant scholars have conducted detailed research on the mesh division during the combustion of fire [25,26,27]. When the ratio of the characteristic flame diameter to the mesh size of the flame is within the range of 4 to 16, more accurate results can be obtained. The results show that the minimum length dimension of the fire can be expressed by the characteristic diameter D* of the fire source, as follows:
D = q ρ 0 c 0 T 0 g 2 / 5
where q is the heat release rate, and its value is the peak heat release rate of the standard combustible assembly, ρ is the air density (1.225 kg/m3), c is the specific heat (1.006 kJ/(kg·K)), T is the ambient temperature (293.15 K), and g is the acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2). In order to save computing resources, the grid near the burning material was set to 0.05 × 0.05 × 0.05 m, and the grids at the remaining positions were set to 0.15 × 0.05 × 0.15 m. The other thermophysical properties were followed exactly, as specified in Table S1.
The influence of fire extinguishing parameters on the combustion characteristics of flames was studied by using numerical simulation methods. Water was selected as the extinguishing medium due to its widespread application and effectiveness. In the simulation, droplets were assumed to be fully atomized and spherical, with uniform size and initial velocity determined by the specified pressure or mass flow rate. A hollow cone spray pattern was generated based on the nozzle orifice angle, and droplet injection into the computational domain was triggered by conditions such as local temperature. Once released, the droplets interacted with the surrounding flame through evaporation and turbulent transport, causing their velocity and distribution to change dynamically. By cooling the fuel surface and altering the chemical reaction to reduce the pyrolysis rate of the fuel and release the fuel gas from the solid, no additional inhibition parameters needed to be set.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Equivalent Combustion of Standard Combustible Assembly

Figure 3 shows a comparison of the heat release behavior during the combustion process between a single-seat sofa and standard combustible assembly, providing an important reference for understanding the fire characteristics of furniture combustibles. Figure 3a shows the variation curves of the heat release rate of the two over time. According to the data, the peak heat release rates of the single-seat sofa and standard combustible assembly are 233 kW and 232 kW, respectively. This indicates that during the most intense stage of the fire, the heat levels released by the two are comparable, suggesting that their potential threats to the environment are comparable. However, there is a significant difference in the time when the two reached their peaks. The peak of a single-seat sofa occurs in the early stage of burning, indicating that its burning spread is faster. This phenomenon can be attributed to its material properties, which have a low ignition point and a high burning intensity, leading to the rapid spread of the fire. For the standard combustible assembly, due to its relatively simple structure and more balanced combustion process, the peak occurrence time is relatively delayed. Figure 3b compares the total heat release of the two throughout the entire combustion process. Although a single-seat sofa releases heat relatively quickly in the initial stage, its total heat release is eventually similar to that of a standard combustible assembly. Meanwhile, the T-square model is used to explore the growth of the fire, and the fire growth rates of the single-seat sofa and standard combustible assembly are 0.00570 and 0.00014, respectively. There is a difference in the fire growth rate between the standard combustible assembly and single-seat sofa. The standard combustible assembly cannot fully display the burning process of sofas. However, throughout the entire combustion process, the cumulative thermal impact on the external environment and the peak heat release rate of the two are basically the same. This further indicates that single-person sofas and standard burning materials share certain similarities in the overall impact of fires, further verifying the feasibility of standard combustible assemblies as furniture substitutes in fire experiments.

3.2. Model Verification

This study evaluated the behavioral consistency of the standard combustible assembly during combustion and fire extinguishing processes using numerical simulation. Fire suppression is triggered once the fire developed to a predetermined threshold. Figure 4 presents the experiment and simulation comparison results of the heat release rate and temperature evolution over time. As shown in Figure 4a, the peak values of the two are 122 kW and 119 kW, respectively, with an error within 5%. The behaviors of the combustion and fire extinguishing processes are similar. Figure 4b shows the temperature comparison between the simulation and the experiment, which are 35 °C and 42 °C, respectively. However, there is a significant difference in the time to reach the peak between the experiment and the simulation. The main reason is that the burning material is ignited at a fixed temperature in the simulation, ignoring the progressive nature of the actual ignition stage, resulting in an earlier combustion process in the simulation. The simulation of the overall combustion and fire extinguishing behavior is consistent with the experiment, so the simulation model is effective.

3.3. Fire Extinguishing Effectiveness

The initial stage of a fire is a crucial period for controlling the disaster. A sprinkler can effectively prevent the escalation of the fire through rapid response and precise water spraying. Two simulations are conducted, respectively (without water and with a flow rate of 100 L/min of water). As shown in Figure 5, a comparison of the combustion temperature and heat release rate of the two simulations is presented. When the temperature of the sprinkler reaches a certain value, it is triggered to spray water automatically. The results show that the peak heat release rate with a sprinkler decreases by 190 kW compared to that without the sprinkler, and the peak temperature decreases by 199 °C. When a sprinkler is used to extinguish a fire, the ambient temperature will drop significantly and quickly return to room temperature. The heat release rate also decreases rapidly after the sprinkler responds, with a relatively low peak. Without external intervention, the temperature will continue to rise. After the combustion is completed, the temperature will decrease slowly. The heat release rate will keep increasing and the combustion will last for a period of time. After the combustion is complete, it will start to decline.

3.4. Fire Extinguishing Direction

The direction of the sprinkler can be set to any position between the vertical and horizontal directions. As shown in Figure 6, two fire extinguishing simulations in different directions are conducted, respectively. The sprinkler direction is vertical with a height of 3 m and a sprinkler flow rate of 100 L/min in Figure 6a. The sprinkler is horizontal with a height of 3 m, and the horizontal distance from the center of the burning object is 1.46 m. The vertical sprinkler can directly provide sufficient water flow on the surface of the burning material beneath them, while the horizontal sprinkler may offer a larger coverage area and a wider distribution of water flow; however, the water supply per unit area is reduced.
Figure 7 shows the influence of the sprinklers in different directions on the rate of heat release and the temperature of the standard combustible assembly. The horizontal sprinkler triggers 22 s faster than the vertical one and can extinguish fires quickly. It has a lower heat release rate and temperature. The main reason is that the design of the horizontal sprinkler enables the water flow to spread horizontally in a fan or parabolic shape, which can more evenly cover the planar area where the fire source is located, effectively blocking the lateral spread of flames and high-temperature gases. When a fire burns, high-temperature gas will naturally rise to form a “smoke layer”, and the root of the flame is usually located on the surface of the fire source. The water flow from the horizontal sprinkler directly acts on the horizontal plane where the fire source is located, which can rapidly cool the fuel surface and suppress the release of volatile gases, thereby blocking the combustion chain reaction. The water flow of the vertical sprinkler is affected by the high-temperature gas and cannot quickly wet the surface of the object. In addition, if the root of the fire source is not completely extinguished, it is prone to reignition due to the residual high temperature.

3.5. Fire Extinguishing Location

In fire extinguishing systems, the installation height of the sprinkler heads is one of the key parameters determining its fire extinguishing efficiency. The difference in height will directly affect the coverage range of water flow, the particle size distribution of water droplets, and the interaction efficiency with fire sources. These factors constitute the dynamic balance of the fire extinguishing effect. The influence of sprinkler heights of 3 m, 4 m, and 5 m on fire extinguishing is studied. As shown in Figure 8, it is the variation in temperature and CO2 release at different heights. The closer to the burning object, the faster the temperature rises. The sprinkler can be triggered in a short time, resulting in a lower temperature field and less CO2 release. When the sprinkler is installed too high, the water flow needs to go through a longer descent path, which may also cause a deviation in the location of the fire source. However, it is impractical to place the sprinkler too close to the burning material, as it would reduce the vertical space available for the water flow, cause the water flow to spread prematurely, result in insufficient water flow density per unit area, and make it difficult to form an effective cooling layer.

3.6. Sprinkler Flux

The sprinkler flow rate is a key factor affecting fire suppression performance, as it determines the volume and coverage area of water mist, thereby influencing both the cooling efficiency and flame knockdown capability. To evaluate its impact, five flow rates—20 L/min, 60 L/min, 91.4 L/min, 150 L/min, and 200 L/min—were tested. As shown in Figure 9, at the lowest flow rate of 20 L/min, the ambient temperature continuously rises during combustion and reaches a high peak, indicating that the suppression capacity is insufficient to halt flame propagation. With increasing flow rates, the peak temperatures decrease, and the fire is extinguished earlier. Notably, the condition with a flow rate of 91.4 L/min shows the most effective suppression, where temperature drops sharply and remains consistently low after intervention. This optimal performance is closely related to the material properties of the standard combustible assembly, which consists of stacked cardboard and plastic cups. These materials are characterized by low flame spread potential and slow growth rate, making them sensitive to moderate cooling and surface wetting. A flow rate of 91.4 L/min provides sufficient thermal disruption and surface cooling, enabling timely suppression without excessive water accumulation. In contrast, increasing the flow to 150 or 200 L/min does not further reduce the steady-state temperature. This suggests a nonlinear relationship between the flow rate and suppression efficiency, where excessive flow may introduce water wastage or mist dispersion effects without a corresponding improvement in fire control. These findings indicate that for ultra-slow fires like the standard combustible assembly, a moderate flow rate is optimal, balancing effectiveness and resource utilization. It is determined that 91.4 L/min is the ideal rate in this study, providing a valuable design reference for fire extinguishing systems in low-growth fire scenarios.

3.7. Sprinkler Response Time Index

The response time index (RTI) will affect the response time of the automatic fire extinguishing sprinkler, thereby influencing the fire extinguishing effect. In this study, we considered the response time index ranges of three different types of sprinklers and set them to 30, 70, and 200 (m·s)0.5, respectively. As shown in Figure 10, under these three different response time indices, the times required for the sprinkler to reach the trigger temperature are 694, 728, and 782 s, respectively. The startup time of the sprinkler with a response time index of 30 (m·s)0.5 is 34 s faster than that of the sprinkler with a response index of 70 (m·s)0.5 and 88 s faster than that of the sprinkler with a response index of 200 (m·s)0.5. This indicates that the small RTI leads to a faster start time for the sprinkler, enabling a more rapid release of water flow for fire extinguishing operations. Figure 11 also shows the variation in the temperature around the standard combustible assembly under different response indices. A small RTI value leads to an earlier extinguishing of the burning material and a relatively lower peak ambient temperature. This means that the fire can be effectively controlled in the early stage, thereby achieving a better fire-fighting effect. In practical applications, the use of a sprinkler with low RTI values not only enables more accurate positioning but also allows the sprinkler to burst and spray water earlier, achieving the purpose of suppressing the fire. This provides a more sufficient rescue time for subsequent fire rescue operations and helps to improve the overall rescue efficiency and safety.

4. Conclusions

This study confirmed that the standard combustible assembly composed of corrugated cartons and polystyrene plastic cups can effectively replace traditional furniture. Although there are certain differences in their fire growth rates, their peak heat release rates and total heat release are consistent, and the combustion process is repeatable and controllable, providing a safe and economical standardized solution for fire training. The numerical model has been strictly verified in terms of the dynamic evolution of the heat release rate and temperature distribution. The key parameters of fire extinguishing optimized through this model show that the response time index of the horizontal sprinkler is shortened by 22 s compared with the vertical sprinkler, and the fire extinguishing efficiency is significantly improved. Reducing the sprinkler height to 3 m can accelerate activation and reduce the CO2 release by 34%. Increasing the flow rate to 91.4 L/min can achieve effective fire control, but when it exceeds 150 L/min, the resource benefits sharply decrease. The response time index (RTI = 30 (m·s)0.5) starts up 88 s faster than the standard type (RTI = 200 (m·s)0.5), significantly enhancing the initial fire suppression capability. This achievement not only lays the foundation for the standardization of combustibles in fire training but also provides a theoretical basis and engineering guidance for the precise parameter design of intelligent fire extinguishing systems.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/fire8080327/s1, Figure S1: Diagram of standard and typical combustible assembly; Figure S2: Thermocouple layout diagram: standard combustible assembly and single seat sofa; Table S1: Combustion parameters and thermophysical properties.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.S., Q.H., Q.T. and G.Z.; Methodology, W.S. and Q.H.; Investigation, Q.H. and Q.T.; Writing—original draft, Q.H.; Writing—review & editing, G.Z.; Supervision, G.Z.; Funding acquisition, G.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Science and Technology Plan Project of Tianjin (22JCZDJC00870) and Central Research Institutes of Basic Research and Public Service Special Operations (2024SJ09).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Di Cristina, G.; Falkenstein-Smith, R.; Kim, I.; Wessies, S.; Bundy, M.; Zammarano, M. Towards fire safe and flame-retardant-free upholstered furniture. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2024, 40, 105399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pitts, W.M.; Werrel, M.; Fernandez, M.; Long, M.A.; Eisenberg, E.A.; Filliben, J.; Runyon, C.D. Effects of upholstery materials on the burning behavior of real-scale residential upholstered furniture mock-ups. Fire Mater. 2020, 45, 127–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hofmann, A.; Klippel, A.; Gnutzmann, T.; Kaudelka, S.; Rabe, F. Influence of modern plastic furniture on the fire development in fires in homes: Large-scale fire tests in living rooms. Fire Mater. 2020, 45, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Weng, L.; Zhang, X. Fully bio-based fire-safety composite from cotton/viscose wastes and alginate fiber as furniture materials. Waste Manag. 2023, 168, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Lane, J.A.; Hull, T.R. Variation of flammability and smoke toxicity of upholstered furniture composites with fire retardant treatment. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2024, 202, 140–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hua, J.; Kumar, K.; Khoo, B.C.; Xue, H. A numerical study of the interaction of water spray with a fire plume. Fire Saf. J. 2002, 37, 631–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kim, S.C.; Ryou, H.S. An experimental and numerical study on fire suppression using a water mist in an enclosure. Build. Environ. 2003, 38, 1309–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Domgue, K.L.I.; Paes, D.; Feng, Z.; Mander, S.; Datoussaid, S.; Descamps, T.; Rahouti, A.; Lovreglio, R. Video see-through augmented reality fire safety training: A comparison with virtual reality and video training. Saf. Sci. 2025, 184, 106714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ezinwa, J.U.; Robson, L.D.; Obach, M.R.; Torvi, D.A.; Weckman, E.J. Evaluating models for predicting full-scale fire behaviour of polyurethane foam using cone calorimeter data. Fire Technol. 2011, 50, 693–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sundström, B. Combustion behavior of upholstered furniture. Important findings, practical use, and implications. Fire Mater. 2020, 45, 97–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Krasny, J.F.; Babrauskas, V. Burning behavior of upholstered furniture mockups. J. Fire Sci. 1984, 2, 205–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Liu, C.; Zhu, G.; Yan, B.; Hou, G.; An, C. Analysis of combustion characteristics of wood stack and absolute ethanol in fire extinguishing experiment. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2023, 52, 103608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Huang, C.; Dai, Z.; Jiang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Zhong, M. Wood stack fire tests to evaluate the influence of extinguishing medium and driving pressure on fire extinguishing efficacy of forest trees. Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 2024, 49, 102464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Delichatsios, M.A. Fire growth rates in wood cribs. Combust. Flame 1976, 27, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Agarwal, G.; Gupta, A.; Chaos, M.; Meredith, K.V.; Wang, Y. Experimental investigation and inverse modeling of the flammability behavior of cartoned plastic commodity. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2017, 36, 3177–3184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Overholt, K.J.; Gollner, M.J.; Perricone, J.; Rangwala, A.S.; Williams, F.A. Warehouse commodity classification from fundamental principles. Part II: Flame heights and flame spread. Fire Saf. J. 2011, 46, 317–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Karunaratne, T.L.W.; Chow, C.L. Fire spread along vertical greenery systems from window ejected flame: A study based on a fire dynamic simulator model. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 62, 105359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yan, X.; Gernay, T. Numerical modeling of localized fire exposures on structures using FDS-FEM and simple models. Eng. Struct. 2021, 246, 112997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ahmed, M.M.; Trouvé, A. Large eddy simulation of the unstable flame structure and gas-to-liquid thermal feedback in a medium-scale methanol pool fire. Combust. Flame 2021, 225, 237–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Parhizi, M.; Jain, A.; Kilaz, G.; Ostanek, J.K. Accelerating the numerical solution of thermal runaway in Li-ion batteries. J. Power Sources 2022, 538, 231531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dasgotra, A.; Rangarajan, G.; Tauseef, S.M. CFD-based study and analysis on the effectiveness of water mist in interacting pool fire suppression. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 152, 614–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bai, Z.P.; Yu, Y.Y.; Zhang, J.Y.; Hu, H.M.; Xing, M.Y.; Yao, H.W. Study on fire characteristics of lithium battery of new energy vehicles in a tunnel. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2024, 186, 728–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhu, J.; Cheng, Y.P.; Han, S.S.; Chow, W.K. A feasible heat release rate estimation approach for fire hazard assessment in green design. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 79, 107907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mishra, D.; Tummala, R.; Brigmon, T.; Jain, A. Simulations-based investigation of the effectiveness of fire suppression techniques for safe, large-scale storage of Li-ion batteries. J. Energy Storage 2024, 84, 110870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bolina, F.L.; Fachinelli, E.G.; Pachla, E.C.; Centeno, F.R. A critical analysis of the influence of architecture on the temperature field of RC structures subjected to fire using CFD and FEA models. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2024, 247, 123086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vinay; Raja, S.; Tauseef, S.M.; Varadharajan, S. Investigating the impact of oxygen concentration on fire dynamics using numerical simulation with FDS. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2023, 178, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Moradi Hanifi, S.; Laal, F.; Ghashghaei, M.; Ahmadi, O.; Mandali, H. Providing a model to evaluate the spread of fire in a chemical warehouse using numerical simulation and Bayesian network. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2024, 183, 124–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of combustion characteristics test: (a) actual combustion device; (b) illustration of combustion experiment.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of combustion characteristics test: (a) actual combustion device; (b) illustration of combustion experiment.
Fire 08 00327 g001
Figure 2. Numerical calculation model of standard combustible assembly.
Figure 2. Numerical calculation model of standard combustible assembly.
Fire 08 00327 g002
Figure 3. Comparison of combustion characteristics between single-seat sofa and standard combustible assembly: (a) heat release rate; (b) total heat release.
Figure 3. Comparison of combustion characteristics between single-seat sofa and standard combustible assembly: (a) heat release rate; (b) total heat release.
Fire 08 00327 g003
Figure 4. Comparison of standard combustible assembly experiment and simulation: (a) heat release rate; (b) temperature.
Figure 4. Comparison of standard combustible assembly experiment and simulation: (a) heat release rate; (b) temperature.
Fire 08 00327 g004
Figure 5. Comparison of fire extinguishing simulation with and without sprinkler: (a) heat release rate; (b) temperature.
Figure 5. Comparison of fire extinguishing simulation with and without sprinkler: (a) heat release rate; (b) temperature.
Fire 08 00327 g005
Figure 6. Fire extinguishing simulation with different sprinkler directions: (a) vertical; (b) horizontal.
Figure 6. Fire extinguishing simulation with different sprinkler directions: (a) vertical; (b) horizontal.
Fire 08 00327 g006
Figure 7. Fire extinguishing simulation comparison with different sprinkler directions: (a) heat release rate; (b) temperature.
Figure 7. Fire extinguishing simulation comparison with different sprinkler directions: (a) heat release rate; (b) temperature.
Fire 08 00327 g007
Figure 8. Simulation comparison of fire extinguishing with sprinkler of different heights: (a) CO2 release; (b) temperature.
Figure 8. Simulation comparison of fire extinguishing with sprinkler of different heights: (a) CO2 release; (b) temperature.
Fire 08 00327 g008
Figure 9. Comparison of simulated fire extinguishing temperatures with different flow rates.
Figure 9. Comparison of simulated fire extinguishing temperatures with different flow rates.
Fire 08 00327 g009
Figure 10. Temperatures at the sprinkler position with different response time indices: (a) 30 (m·s)0.5; (b) 70 (m·s)0.5; (c) 200 (m·s)0.5.
Figure 10. Temperatures at the sprinkler position with different response time indices: (a) 30 (m·s)0.5; (b) 70 (m·s)0.5; (c) 200 (m·s)0.5.
Fire 08 00327 g010
Figure 11. Comparison of fire extinguishing simulations with different response time indices.
Figure 11. Comparison of fire extinguishing simulations with different response time indices.
Fire 08 00327 g011
Table 1. Governing equations for fire simulation.
Table 1. Governing equations for fire simulation.
Governing Equations
Continuity equation
ρ t + ( ρ u ) = 0
Momentum equation
( ρ u ) t + ( u ) ρ u = p + ρ g + f + τ
Energy equation
( ρ h ) t + ρ u h = D p D t + q q r
Species equation
ρ Y α t + ρ Y α u = ρ D α Y α + m ˙ α
Equation of state of an ideal gas
p = ρ R T W
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Song, W.; He, Q.; Tan, Q.; Zhu, G. Simulation-Based Investigation of the Effectiveness of Fire Suppression Techniques for Residential Furnishing. Fire 2025, 8, 327. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8080327

AMA Style

Song W, He Q, Tan Q, Zhu G. Simulation-Based Investigation of the Effectiveness of Fire Suppression Techniques for Residential Furnishing. Fire. 2025; 8(8):327. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8080327

Chicago/Turabian Style

Song, Wenqi, Qing He, Qingyu Tan, and Guorui Zhu. 2025. "Simulation-Based Investigation of the Effectiveness of Fire Suppression Techniques for Residential Furnishing" Fire 8, no. 8: 327. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8080327

APA Style

Song, W., He, Q., Tan, Q., & Zhu, G. (2025). Simulation-Based Investigation of the Effectiveness of Fire Suppression Techniques for Residential Furnishing. Fire, 8(8), 327. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8080327

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop