- 149 -

AN INVESTIGATION OF LONGITUDINAL VENTILATION FOR

SHORT ROAD TUNNELS WITH HIGH FIRE HRR
OGorman S.1, Nuttall R.1, Purchase A.1
1
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Australia
ABSTRACT
Recent fire tests for tunnels have suggested high fire heat release rates (HRRs), of the order of
100 to 200 MW, may be appropriate under certain conditions. The actual design fire used for
a given tunnel will likely be determined from a quantitative risk assessment, an assessment of
the maximum HRR expected in the tunnel, or be specified in a project requirement. This
paper does not focus on the selection of a design fire HRR, but rather its implications on the
ventilation system in short tunnels.
For short road tunnels there are practical limitations to the size of a longitudinal ventilation
system, which can include space limitations, portal wind conditions and noise issues. This
paper investigates the practical limitations of jet fan longitudinal ventilation for direction of
travel smoke management schemes. It identifies that there is a maximum limit to the fire
HRR that a jet fan ventilated tunnel of a given length can achieve. Beyond this limit a
different smoke control scheme should be investigated or methods to reduce the anticipated
design fire size (e.g. risk assessment).
The paper also provides some guidance on the impact of tunnel grade, area and noise criteria
on the maximum limit. These results can be used by the designer to establish if a jet fan
based longitudinal ventilation system is appropriate for a given tunnel and fire HRR.
Keywords: ventilation design, fire HRR, incident ventilation, short tunnels
1.

INTRODUCTION

The design of a longitudinal ventilation system for short road tunnels provides unique
challenges compared to longer road tunnels. Due to the length it is likely the design of the
ventilation system will be driven primarily by emergency scenarios rather than the need to
dilute vehicle emissions.
For short tunnels the dominant impacts on the ventilation system are tunnel area, tunnel grade,
tunnel air temperature (as it affects buoyancy and jet fan de-rating), portal wind effects and
tunnel acoustic criteria. However, the size of the ventilation system that can be installed is
dependent on the length of the tunnel within the bounds of commercially available jet fan
sizes. As a result, there exists a limit based on a tunnels length and characteristics where a
longitudinal smoke control system may become impractical. These considerations can
become more critical for high fire HRRs.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of high fire HRR on the size of the
ventilation system for short tunnels and identify an indicative limit to the size of the HRR that
can be accommodated by a longitudinally ventilated tunnel of a given length. Beyond this
limit alternative smoke control or egress strategies may be required or a re-evaluation of the
design fire HRR (e.g. risk assessment). The investigation is based on simulating the
performance of a tunnel ventilation system for tunnels of various lengths, grades and fire
HRRs.

6thInternational Conference Tunnel Safety and Ventilation 2012, Graz

- 150 2.

MECHANICAL VENTILATION OF SHORT ROAD TUNNELS

2.1. Short road tunnels

The requirement to mechanically ventilate short road tunnels varies around the world. In
Australia, the New South Wales requirements are for any tunnels over 360 m in length to be
mechanically ventilated (RTA 2006, [4]). Tunnels less than 360 m require a performance
assessment. However, there are various examples within Australia of short tunnels being
mechanical ventilated ranging from 180 m to 500 m.
In Europe a review of design guidelines suggests that the requirement for mechanical
ventilation varies between countries from 250 m long to 500 m long (Fire in Tunnels 2006,
[8]). In the United States, NFPA 502 requires mechanical ventilation for tunnels greater than
1000 m in length and should be considered for tunnels greater than 240 m in length (NFPA
502, [3]).
Based on the above it is likely that tunnel lengths from 300 m and longer may require
mechanical ventilation. This paper has focussed on tunnel lengths from 300 m to 600 m.
2.2. Fire HRR and smoke management strategies
The fire HRR used for the design of a mechanical ventilation system is heavily dependent on
the expected vehicle usage. Typical fire HRRs vary from 5 MW for passenger cars, up to
30 MW for some forms of large vehicles and 100-120 MW for dangerous goods vehicles
(PIARC 1999, [6]). Some recent fire tests for tunnels have suggested fire HRRs in the order
of 200 MW may be possible under certain conditions. NFPA 502 nominates 70-200 MW for
HGVs and 200-300 MW for tankers.
The choice of a design fire HRR will likely be determined from a quantitative risk
assessment, an assessment of the maximum HRR expected in the tunnel, or be specified in a
project requirement. This paper does not focus on the selection of a design fire HRR, but
rather its implications on the ventilation system in short tunnels.
For a longitudinal ventilation system the smoke management strategy has been described in
various documents (including PIARC 1999, [6]). The fundamental goal of longitudinal
ventilation is to provide airflow in the direction of travel to prevent smoke back-layering
upstream of the fire location. This provides tenable conditions for occupants upstream of the
fire and an access path for fire service intervention.
2.3. Longitudinal ventilation issues
The momentum equation for a jet fan based longitudinal ventilation system has been
developed previously and documented various times (Armstrong et al. 1994 [1], PIARC 1995
[5]). A simplified form is reproduced in equation 1.

-(1)

Where:
PJF

Total pressure rise provided by the jet fans (Pa)

PTunnel

The sum of the pressure loss in the tunnel (e.g. hydraulic losses
including tunnel friction, vehicle drag resistance and tunnel losses
such as entry contraction losses) (Pa)

Pwind

Pressure loss from wind forces acting on the portals (Pa)

Pbuoyancy =

Buoyancy induced pressure loss due to high temperature smoke (Pa)

6thInternational Conference Tunnel Safety and Ventilation 2012, Graz

- 151 For a short tunnel, as distinct from a longer tunnel, the relative contribution of the different
pressure terms can vary significantly. In particular, the adverse portal wind pressure (Pwind)
dominates the contribution from the tunnel resistance (PTunnel) at shorter tunnel lengths.
At high grades the buoyancy force of the hot smoke is also a considerable driver of the total
tunnel thrust requirement (Reiss et al. 2001, [7]). The tunnel air temperature will be
significantly hotter in the first 500-1000 m of a fire incident and as a result the buoyancy
force for short tunnels will likely be a larger proportion of the total required thrust compared
to longer tunnels.
The pressure developed in a tunnel section by the action of a jet fan has been described in
several references (Armstrong et al. 1994, [1]) and is shown in equation 2.

-(2)

Where:
Qf

Flow rate through jet fan (m3/s)

vf

Jet fan discharge velocity (m/s)

vT

Tunnel velocity (m/s)

Jet fan installation factor (-)

Air density (kg/m3)

AT

Tunnel cross-sectional area (m2)

Downstream of a fire incident the tunnel air density and tunnel velocity vT change with
temperature. The effective result is a significant reduction in jet fan thrust downstream of a
fire incident. It is also common practice to assume that jet fans located in the vicinity of a fire
incident have failed due to the impact of the fire and cannot be relied upon to provide
additional tunnel thrust. The combined effect is that for various scenarios it can be difficult to
provide sufficient jet fan thrust in a short tunnel.
3.

METHODOLOGY

A generic tunnel was analysed to investigate the effect of HRR on the ventilation system
performance for a given tunnel length.
The performance of a generic tunnel was simulated for various tunnel lengths, tunnel grades,
tunnel areas and fire HRRs to determine the required longitudinal thrust to achieve critical
velocity. The simulations were undertaken using SES2000 and the critical velocity was
calculated using the critical velocity equation (Kennedy 1996, [2]). The results presented in
this paper are based on 144 SES simulations, although numerous iterations were required to
estimate the required thrust. A scripted approach was used to generate, run and post-process
the models.
A generic tunnel shape was assumed for a 2 and 3 lane tunnel and is shown in Figure 1.
Other simulation inputs are shown in Table 1.

6thInternational Conference Tunnel Safety and Ventilation 2012, Graz

- 152 -

Figure 1: Generic 2 and 3 lane tunnel shape

Table 1: Model Inputs
Parameter

Value

Tunnel friction factor

0.035

Tunnel area (2 lane)

66 m2

Tunnel area (3 lane)

91 m2

Tunnel grade (constant along length of tunnel)

0 to -5%

Physical limit (max) jet fan catalogue thrust

2500 N (per jet fan)

Acoustic limit jet fan catalogue thrust

1800 N (per jet fan)

Installation factor

0.85

Adverse portal wind velocity (pressure)

5 m/s (15 Pa)

The maximum available (or installed) thrust for a generic tunnel configuration was based on
applying best practice for the design of a jet fan based longitudinal ventilation system. This
included a separation equivalent to 10 hydraulic diameters between jet fan banks, the loss of
one bank of fans in a fire and commonly used installation factors for fan location relative to
tunnel ceilings and walls. The maximum jet fan thrust was estimated from manufacturer data
assuming no-special high thrust fans (i.e. catalogue available jet fans only).
The size of jet fans that can be installed at a given tunnel location is primarily dependent on
the size of the tunnel and the projects acoustic criteria (if any). For a project with no acoustic
criteria, a maximum jet fan thrust of 2500 N was assumed. For projects with an acoustic
criteria (e.g. 85 dBA at 1.5 m above the walking surface for emergency scenarios) a
maximum jet fan thrust of 1800 N was assumed. The selection of 1800 N thrust was based on
simple acoustic analysis and verified by recent commissioning experience on a 3 lane 450 m
longitudinally ventilated tunnel.
Direction of traffic /
smoke control

Direction
of egress

Figure 2: Jet fan installation and fire scenario

6thInternational Conference Tunnel Safety and Ventilation 2012, Graz

- 153 -

It should be noted that this investigation used idealised inputs and best practice installations.
It is possible that more jet fans could be installed at a given location, the separation between
jet fans relaxed or larger jet fans installed. This would need to be considered on a project
specific basis and appropriate analysis undertaken.
4.

RESULTS

The results of this investigation are shown in Figure 3. The results are plotted separately for
the different fire HRRs of 30 MW, 50 MW and 100 MW, and for two different tunnel areas.
The graphs are normalised by the maximum available jet fan thrust that can be achieved for a
given tunnel length with an acoustic criteria (left axis) and without an acoustic criteria (right
axis). If a data point sits above the horizontal criteria line (i.e. greater than unity for a given
criteria) then the available thrust is sufficient for the given tunnel length, grade and fire HRR.
Conversely, if the data point sits below the horizontal criteria line (i.e. less than unity for a
given criteria) then the available thrust is insufficient. If a data point sits between the acoustic
criteria and physical limit lines then a jet fan based longitudinal ventilation system will only
be suitable if there is no acoustic criteria set.
Panels A and B of figure 3 show that, for the tunnel studied, critical velocity can be achieved
for a 30 MW fire for the majority of grades and tunnel lengths. However, for the 300 m long,
two lane tunnel at high grades (4-5%), there is insufficient thrust to achieve critical velocity
for the case with an acoustic limit.
For a 50 MW fire, Panel C shows that, for the two lane tunnel studied, there was insufficient
available thrust for a 300 m long tunnel at grades of 3-5%. The inclusion of an acoustic limit
made it difficult at 2% grade. Panel D shows that for the 3 lane case there is sufficient
available thrust for all cases unless an acoustic limit is applied. In the case of an acoustic
limit for a 300m long tunnel and 3-5% there is insufficient available thrust.
For a 100 MW fire, Panel E shows insufficient available thrust in a two lane tunnel at high
grades for all tunnel lengths. For lengths of 400-600 m the results show that critical velocity
can be achieved at low (0-1%) grades; however, introducing an acoustic limit results in
achieving critical velocity at low grade (0-1%) for tunnels of 500-600 m in length. For the 3
lane tunnel (Panel F) the outcome is improved slightly due to the additional jet fan per bank.
However, there is still insufficient thrust for a 300 m tunnel at all grades, albeit 0 and 1%
grades can be ventilated without acoustic criteria.

6thInternational Conference Tunnel Safety and Ventilation 2012, Graz

- 154 -

0
350

400

450
500
Tunnel Length (m)

550

2
1
1

0
300

600

0
300

(A) 30 MW design fire, 2 lane tunnel (CSA = 66 m2)

2
1
1

0
300

350

400

450
500
Tunnel Length (m)

550

Available Thrust (1800 N / fan) / Required Thrust

2
1
1

0
300

350

400

450
500
Tunnel Length (m)

550

600

(E) 100 MW design fire, 2 lane tunnel (CSA = 66 m2)

Available Thrust (1800 N / fan)/ Required Thrust

400

450
500
Tunnel Length (m)

550

600

Available Thrust (2500 N / fan)/ Required Thrust

Available Thrust (1800 N / fan)/ Required Thrust

350

(D) 50 MW design fire, 3 lane tunnel (CSA = 91 m2)

600

(C) 50 MW design fire, 2 lane tunnel (CSA = 66 m2)

550

300

450
500
Tunnel Length (m)

600

400

350

(B) 30 MW design fire, 3 lane tunnel (CSA = 91 m2)

Available Thrust (2500 N / fan) / Required Thrust

Available Thrust (1800 N / fan) / Required Thrust

Available Thrust (2500 N / fan) / Required Thrust

3
2

Available Thrust (2500 N / fan) / Required Thrust

3
2

2
1
1

0
300

350

400

450
500
Tunnel Length (m)

550

Available Thrust (2500 N / fan)/ Required Thrust

3
2

3
Available Thrust (1800 N / fan) / Required Thrust

Available Thrust (2500 N / fan) / Required Thrust

Available Thrust (1800 N / fan) / Required Thrust

600

(F) 100 MW design fire, 3 lane tunnel (CSA = 91 m2)

Key:
Grade = 0%

Grade = 1%

Grade = 2%

Grade = 3%

Grade = 4%

Grade = 5%

Acoustic Limit

Physical Limit

Notes:
1. Acoustic limit jet fans (1800 N) based on achieving 85 dBA at 1.5 m above the walking surface. Refer to left y axis for acoustic
limit analysis.
2. Physical limit jet fans (2500 N) based on maximum catalogue fan for the nominal tunnel. Refer to right y axis for physical limit
analysis.
3. Best practice jet fans installations at separations of 10 tunnel hydraulic diameters. The first jet fan is at 50 m within the inlet portal.
4. Fire located at 50 m within the inlet portal. First jet fan bank assumed to be destroyed by fire. Downstream fans are temperature derated.
5. If the ratio of required thrust to available thrust is greater than unity (for a given y axis) then longitudinal ventilation is suitable.

Figure 3: Investigation results

6thInternational Conference Tunnel Safety and Ventilation 2012, Graz

- 155 5.

CONCLUSION

Short tunnels provide a unique challenge for smoke management by longitudinal ventilation
systems. This is especially the case for tunnels with high fire HRRs. A generic tunnel has
been investigated and the required thrust to achieve critical velocity has been simulated for
various fire HRRs, tunnel grades, tunnel areas and tunnel lengths. The required thrust has
been compared against the maximum available thrust for a given tunnel length with a
longitudinal ventilation system designed with best practice parameters. The results of this
investigation indicate that:

For short tunnel lengths there is a practical limit to the fire HRR that can be
accommodated by a jet fan based longitudinal ventilation system.

The HRR limit for a jet fan based longitudinal ventilation system for a given tunnel
length varies significantly based on tunnel grade and cross sectional area (Likely
driven by the increase in space for additional jet fans in a larger cross section)

The addition of an acoustic limit reduces the available thrust (i.e. lower noise
generally equates to lower thrust per fan) and further limits the HRR that can be
accommodated.

The ventilation system for a given tunnel should be designed on a case by case basis.
However, this paper indicates there is a limit to the HRR that can be longitudinally ventilated.
Beyond this limit, alternative smoke management strategies (e.g. Saccardo nozzles), egress
strategies (e.g. longitudinal egress passages and / or closer exit door spacing) may need to be
adopted or a re-assessment of the design fire HRR.
6.

REFERENCES

[1]

Armstrong J., Bennett, E.C., Matthews, R.D. (1994); Three-dimensional Flows in a

Circular Section Tunnel due to Jet Fans; in proceedings of the 8th International
Symposium on Aerodynamics and Ventilation of Vehicle Tunnels, Mechanical
Engineering Publications, London, pp 743-756.

[2]

Kennedy W.D. (1996); Critical Velocity-Past, Present and Future; in Proceedings of the
Seminar on Smoke and Critical Velocity in Tunnels, London, England.

[3]

NFPA: 502 (2008) Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited access
Highways

[4]

Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) (2006) NSW: Road tunnel design guide, Fire Safety
Design, RTA Pub. 06.357A

[5]

World Road Association (PIARC) (1995): Vehicle Emissions Air Demand Environment
Longitudinal Ventilation (05.02.B)

[6]

World Road Association (PIARC) (1999): Fire and Smoke Control in Road Tunnels
(05.05.B)

[7]

Riess I., Bettelini M.,Brandt R. (2001); Smoke Extraction in Tunnels with Considerable
Slope; in proceedings of 4th International Conference Safety in Road and Rail Tunnels,
Madrid.

[8]

Fire in Tunnels, European Thematic Network (2006); Technical Report Part 2, Fire Safe
Design Road Tunnels

6thInternational Conference Tunnel Safety and Ventilation 2012, Graz