避難安全性能驗證技術-高度性能設計法(Route C)與簡單性能設計法(Route B)之煙層下降時間比較研究

Abstract

Based on August January 1, 2004, the purpose of building the mining design by performance, designers are no longer limited to traditional regulation-fire regulations limit, but in building characteristics, design a more innovative and flexible building. At present examination of evaluation unit our country performance type structural fire precaution case (hereafter refers to as TAIWAN ARCHITECTURE & BUILDING CENTER) as Architecture and Building Research Institute of Ministry of Interior, its examination is to refer to the Ministry of Interior to construct the research institute to publish it “the building fire protection to seek asylum the safety performance proof technique handbook” for the confirmation datum (Route B), or carries on performance of confirmation appraisal law the specific spatial plan of performance design tool according to the construction fire prevention institution approval (Route C), carries on seeks asylum confirmation of the security, Route B related parameter, data area and appraisal project and so on, has listed in detail in the technical manual according to confirms for the designer, but Route C is by the Controlling organization or the evaluation organization approvalThe computer software carries on operation and the simulation each kind of situation, and the two must depend have the specialized ability qualifications side to be able to operate or according to have the specialized ability qualifications under the instruction to carry on the operation. If uses Route B, because its must the computation the related parameter, the data arrange and the appraisal items all by the technical manual, the user only needs present situation of material gradually invagination handbook formula the correct basis design, then confirms designs whether safely, but Route C may the design conditions according to the dissimilar condition input computer, simulate using the computer this and so on under the situations the fire, the smoke condition, although therefore the two all may obtain time of the smoke level drop, however Route C should be possible to be able to confirm the fire to have each kind of situation, whence this, this research will use the controlling organization or evaluates the organization approval. The computer software (Fire Dynamics Simulator, FDS Version 5) confirms of computed result the Route B under the same scene condition whether can be consistent with the computer analogue result, strengthens uses reliability of the Route B. This study compared the load settings in the fire is not the same on both units, and can not be translated. However, the verification guildeline provides a fire growth curve to the fire growth coefficient with the formula to calculate the fire load of the fire growth phase, the Route C analog input data. This is not the same for the results of the soot-yield. Route B, in according with fire lord table list to calculate declineing time of smoke layer. Route C, can produce different results by different fuel properties entered the smoke generated. This study found that two kinds of different case model, the smoke generated value is not obtained the same results with the Route B, to be entered for a certain value. Then The higher the amount of the Route B fire load table listed place, Route C to be input value more lower. This common sense judgment results vary widely. This study also observed by the different ceiling heights in the same model which changes the relationship. Route B, the results found that when the ceiling is more than 5 meters or above, is not due to ceiling height increases significantly prolonged. The ceiling within 7 meters in height, the smoke layer declineing time is even shorter than 5 meters. Route C simulation results compare the Route B, which produce differences in ceiling height of 5 meters.