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

Verification Technology of Evacuation Safety Performance-Based Design-Research and Comparison of Smoke Layer Descending Time for Route C and Route B Methods

高李新(Leeh-Sin Kao)

指導教授 ： 陳俊勳

國立交通大學/工學院/工學院產業安全與防災學程/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6842/NCTU.2012.00677

摘要

我國於民國93年1月1日正式施行建築物得採性能式設計，讓設計者不再受限於傳統條例式防火法規之限制，而能依建築物之特性，設計出更創新且有彈性之建築物。目前我國性能式建築防火案件之審查評定單位為財團法人台灣建築中心(以下簡稱台灣建築中心)，其審定係為參照內政部建築研究所出版之「建築物防火避難安全性能驗證技術手冊」為驗證基準(Route B)，或依建築消防機關認可之性能設計工具進行特定空間規劃之性能驗證評估法(Route C)，進行避難安全之驗證，其中Route B之相關參數、數據範圍及評估項目等，已詳列於技術手冊供設計者據以驗證，而Route C則是以主管機關或評定機構認可之電腦軟體進行各種情境之運算與模擬，且二者皆須賴具備專業能力資格者方得以操作或依具備專業能力資格者之指導下進行操作。
如採用Route B時，因其所須計算之相關參數、數據範圍及評估項目皆以明訂於技術手冊中，使用者僅需正確的依據設計之現況資料逐步套入手冊計算公式，即可驗證設計是否安全，而Route C則可將設計條件依不同條件輸入電腦，利用電腦模擬該等情境下之火、煙的狀態，因此雖然二者皆可求得煙層下降之時間，然Route C應可更能驗證火災所發生之各種情境，爰此，本研究將使用主管機關或評定機構認可之電腦軟體(Fire Dynamics Simulator，FDS Version 5)於相同之火場條件下比較Route B之計算結果是否能與Route C電腦模擬結果一致。
本研究比較發現，於火載量設定上兩者使用的單位並不相同，且無法換算，不過「建築物防火避難安全性能驗證技術手冊」第2.2.3節提供了T-square火源成長模式，配合表2-1火源成長模式係數配合公式即可計算火災成長階段的火載量，作為Route C模擬輸入的重要數據。
對於煙產生量的結果也不相同， Route B依照表列場所的火載量，即可計算出煙層下降時間，而Route C可藉由不同燃料特性中所輸入的煙生成量產生不同的結果，而於本研究發現在二種不同場所案例，為求得與Route B相同的結果，Route C所須輸入的煙生成量值並非為一定值，且Route B所表列場所的火載量越高，Route C所須輸入的值卻越低，此與常理所判斷的結果差異很大。
本研究也藉由同一場所中不同的天花板高度來觀察其中煙層下降時間變化的關係，經Route B計算結果發現，當天花板超過5m以上時，煙層下降時間並沒有因為天花板高度增加而有明顯的延長，而天花板高度於7m時，煙層下降時間甚至較天花板高度5m時更短，且比較Route B與Route C天花板高度5m的結果，Route C即比Route B所計算的煙層下降時間更長。

關鍵字

防火避難 ； 性能驗證 ； Route B ； Route C ； FDS ； 煙層 ； 天花板高度

並列摘要

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.

並列關鍵字

Evacuation Safety ； Performance Verification ； Route B ； Route C ； FDS ； Smoke Level ； Ceiling Hight

參考文獻

[5]邱晨瑋，高科技廠無塵室防火工程性能式設計，鼎茂圖書出版股份有限公司，台北，民國九十八年。

[4]FDS(Version 5)User’s Guide，NIST，U.S. Department of Commerce，September 6，WASHINGTON，2010。

[17]ISO 16732，Fire Engineering-Guidance on Fire Risk Assessment, Section 4.2.1, International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

[20]林木榮、黃崇綺，「性能式火災安全設計發展之介紹」，工業安全科技季刊，第二十九期，民國八十八年。

[1]陳建忠，建築物防火避難安全性能驗證技術手冊，內政部建築研究所，台北，民國九十三年。