臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

隧道屬於特殊的密閉空間，在過去的幾十年中發生多起隧道火災事故，並引起公眾的廣泛關注，所以衍伸發展出各種消防之緊急通風排煙系統來應對隧道火災所產生之熱能和煙層…等危害，例如: 縱流式通風排煙系統、半橫流式通風排煙系統、複合型點排式通風排煙系統。先前已有許多學者針對縱流式與複合型點排式通風排煙系統進行不同通風排煙模式下對隧道火災之影響；但半橫流通風排煙模式甚少，故本研究探討不同火源距離風門位置與不同開口數量對於半橫流通風排煙模式於隧道火災中排煙效益影響。本實驗參考蘇花公路南澳和平段中仁隧道為建模之依據，並將隧道排煙數量分成「單孔」、「三孔」的不同模式，並以不同風門位置與面積，於不同熱釋放率下對排煙效應影響，使用FDS 、pyrosim、smokeview之電腦模擬軟體，透過試誤法試驗出能將濃煙侷限於火源與風門間的最小單位面積排煙質量流率，並測量上、下游風速、回流長度、風門速度，且於本試驗條件下模擬結果顯示能源效率。模擬結果顯示於「單孔」模式中，一般通風排煙模式下，當火源越接近排煙風門時最小單位面積排煙質量流率則越小；而在接近隧道口模式下，因「隧道口效應」之影響，當開啟之風門越接近隧道口時，所需最小單位面積排煙質量流率則越大，排煙風機耗能較多。於「三孔」模式中在相同風門間距的條件下，因「風門面積效應」與「風門間距效應」影響，顯示當開啟之風門面積越大、開啟之風門與風門間距越遠，所需最小單位面積排煙質量流率越低。從「單孔」與「三孔」之通風排煙模式得知，在相同開啟總風門面積的條件下，單孔模式所需最小單位面積排煙質量流率大於三孔模式，因單孔模式所需能量較大。

Several modes of tunnel ventilation and smoke control have been developed in tunnel fires because of dozens of fire incidents in the last decades. The commonly seen ventilation modes include longitudinal ventilation, semi-transverse and point-extraction. This study focused on the semi-transverse tunnel ventilation design, and investigated the effect of distance between vents, and the distance between the fire and vent, vent area and vent number. Based on the practical design of Su-Hua road tunnel, the vent number (one and three), vent area (1.8 and 5.4 m²), distance between the fire and the vent (20, 120 and 220 m) were studied. The HRR of fire was 10, 20 and 40 MW. The parameters measured were upstream critical velocity, downstream confinement velocity and the exhaust mass rate.
FDS, Pyrosim and Smokeview were used to simulate the fire and smoke behaviors in the tunnels. The results show that the minimum exhaust mass rate was low when the fire occurred near the vent in the “one-vent” mode. Additionally, the minimum exhaust mass rate increased when the fire was near the tunnel portal because it is difficult to exhaust air from outside. Further, the minimum exhaust mass rate decreased when the vent and the distance between the vents increased in the “three-vent” mode. Moreover, the “three-vent” mode was more energy efficient than the “one-vent” mode.

摘要 1
Abstract II
誌謝 III
目錄 IV
表目錄 VIII
圖目錄 IX
符號表 XIV
第一章、緒論 1
1.1 研究動機與目的 1
1.2 研究方法與步驟 4
1.3 研究流程 4
第二章、文獻回顧 6
2.1隧道火災之特性 6
2.2. 隧道通風排煙模式 7
2.2.1縱流式通風排煙系統(Longitudinal ventilation) 8
2.2.2橫流式與半橫流式通風排煙系統(Transverse or Semi-transverse ventilation) 9
2.2.3複合型點排式通風排煙系統(Point extraction and longitudinal ventilation) 11
2.3臨界風速與回流長度之隧道火災試驗 13
2.3.1理論分析 14
2.3.2縮小尺寸試驗 16
2.3.3全尺寸實驗 27
2.3.4小結: 33
2.4電腦數值模擬軟體 34
2.4.1區域模式(Zone Model) 34
2.4.2場模式(Field Model) 35
2.4.3區域模式(Zone Model)、場模式(Field Model)比較 35
第三章、電腦模擬設計與方法 37
3.1選用軟體 37
3.2模擬情境 40
3.3隧道模型說明 41
3.3.1隧道內環境溫度及邊界條件之初始設定 42
3.3.2風門面積與火源設定 44
3.3.3測點設置位置 47
3.4網格尺寸分析 49
第四章、單孔式半橫流通風排煙模式 54
4.1單孔通風排煙模式(Ⅰ) 54
4.1.1上游臨界風速 58
4.1.2下游侷限風速 60
4.1.3最小單位面積排煙質量流率 62
4.2單孔通風排煙模式(Ⅱ): 隧道口效應 64
4.2.1回流長度 67
4.2.2上游臨界風速 69
4.2.3下游侷限風速 71
4.2.4最小單位面積排煙質量流率 74
4.3隧道口效應分析 76
4.4小結 80
第五章、三孔式半橫流通風排煙模式 82
5.1三孔通風排煙模式(Ⅰ) 82
5.1.1排煙風門內風速 85
5.1.2上游臨界風速 88
5.1.3下游侷限風速 89
5.1.4最小單位面積排煙質量流率 90
5.2三孔通風排煙模式(Ⅱ) 91
5.2.1排煙風門內風速 92
5.2.2上游臨界風速 94
5.2.3下游侷限風速 95
5.2.4最小單位面積排煙質量流率 96
5.3三孔通風排煙模式(Ⅲ) 97
5.3.3排煙風門內風速 98
5.3.1上游臨界風速 100
5.3.2下游侷限風速 101
5.3.4最小單位面積排煙質量流率 102
5.4討論 103
5.4.1風門面積效應分析 103
5.4.2風門間距效應分析 106
5.4.3風門數量效應分析 110
5.5小結 113
第六章、結論 115
參考文獻: 117

1.邱豪磊，林啟基，蘇花公路改善工程兩隧道間氣流干擾及煙控策略分析。第十一届海峡两岸隧道与地下工程学术与技术研讨会论文集，2012。
2.川端信義，縦流換気トンネルにおける火災時の前方排煙について，2020。
3. 나종찬, 편리하지만 대형재난 위험 안은 무서운? 터널과 소방의 대비， 소방방재신문사119，https://www.fpn119.co.kr/141837。
4.Eng, T., PyroSim user manual. The RJA Group Inc, Chicago, USA, 2020.
5.台灣中興工程顧問股份有限公司，台9線蘇花公路南澳和平段段機電工程細部設計圖，2018。
6.台灣中興工程顧問股份有限公司，台9線蘇花公路南澳和平段段機電工程補充施工說明書，2018。
7.McGrattan, K., Hostikka, S., McDermott, R., Floyd, J., Weinschenk, C., and Overholt, K., Fire dynamics simulator user’s guide. NIST Special Publication, 2020.
8.Chen, L., Zhu, W., Cai, X., Pan, L., and Liao, G., Experimental study of water mist fire suppression in tunnels under longitudinal ventilation. Building and Environment, 2009. 44(3) : p. 446-455.
9.Xk, X., Kq, K., Ts, L., Hd, T., Gx, L., and Kkr, Y., Study on flame expansion phenomenon in pool fire extinguished by water mist. Procedia Engineering, 2011: p. 550-559.

10.Beard, A., Problems with using models for fire safety. In the handbook of tunnel fire safety. Thomas Telford Publishing, 2005: p. 299-320.
11.Ingason, H., Li, Y. Z., and Lönnermark, A. Tunnel fire dynamics. Springer, 2014.
12.李民政，台9線蘇花公路山區路段改善計畫之推動與特色，中興工程，2014: p. 71-78。
13.Thomas, P. H., The movement of buoyant fluid against a stream and the venting of underground fires. Fire Safety Science, 1958.
14.Thomas, P. H., The movement of smoke in horizontal passages against an air flow. Fire Safety Science, 1968.
15.Danziger, N., Longtitudinal ventilation analysis for the glenwood canyon tunnels. in Proc. of the 4th Int. Symp. Aerodynamics and Ventilation of Vehicle Tunnels, 1982.
16.Kennedy, W. D., Critical velocity: past, present and future. in One Day Seminar Smoke and Critical Velocity in Tunnels, 1996.
17.Lee, C.K., Chaiken, R.F., and Singer, J.M., Interaction between duct fires and ventilation flow: an experimental study. Combustion Science Technology, 1979. 20(1-2): p. 59-72.
18.Li, Y.Z., Ingason, H., Discussions on critical velocity and critical Froude number for smoke control in tunnels with longitudinal ventilation. Fire Safety Journal, 2018. 99: p. 22-26.
19.Li, Y.Z., Lei,B. and Ingason, H., Study of critical velocity and backlayering length in longitudinally ventilated tunnel fires. Fire Safety Journal, 2010. 45(6-8): p. 361-370.
20.Oka, Y., and Atkinson, G. T., Control of smoke flow in tunnel fires. Fire Safety Journal, 1995. 25(4): p. 305-322.
21.Wu, Y. B. M. Z., and Bakar, M. A., Control of smoke flow in tunnel fires using longitudinal ventilation systems–a study of the critical velocity. Fire Safety Journal, 2000. 35(4): p. 363-390.
22.Chen, L. F., Hu, L. H., Tang, W., and Yi, L., Studies on buoyancy driven two-directional smoke flow layering length with combination of point extraction and longitudinal ventilation in tunnel fires. Fire Safety Journal, 2013. 59: p. 94-101.
23.Chen, L. F., Hu, L. H., Zhang, X. L., Zhang, X. Z., Zhang, X. C., and Yang, L. Z., Thermal buoyant smoke backlayering flow length in a longitudinal ventilated tunnel with ceiling extraction at difference distance from heat source. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2015. 78: p. 129-135.
24.Li, Y. Z., Lei, B., and Ingason, H., The maximum temperature of buoyancy driven smoke flow beneath the ceiling in tunnel fires. Fire Safety Journal, 2011. 46(4): p. 204-210.
25.Kennedy, W.D., and Hernandez, F.D., The memorial tunnel fire ventilation test program: Test Plan and Test Operations. ASHRAE Transactions, 1997. 103: p. 583.
26.Brinckerhoff, B. P., Memorial tunnel fire ventilation test program phase IV report. Massachusetts Highway Department, 1999.
27.Brinckerhoff, B. P., Solvent reference manual. Innovative Research, Inc, 2000.
28.Kile, G. W., and Gonzalez, J. A., The memorial tunnel fire ventilation test program: the longitudinal and natural tests. Ashrae Transactions, 1997. 103: p. 701.
29.Ingason, H., and Lönnermark, A., Heat release rates from heavy goods vehicle trailer fires in tunnels. Fire Safety Journal, 2005. 40(7): p. 646-668.
30.Ingason, H., Heat release rate measurements in tunnel fires. Proceedings of the International Conference on Fires in Tunnels, 1994.
31.Grant, G. B., and Drysdale, D., Estimating heat release rates from large scale tunnel fires. Fire Safety Science, 1997. 5: p. 1213-1224.
32.Steinert, C., Smoke and heat production in tunnel fires. The international conference on fires in tunnels, 1994. SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute Borås, Sweden.
33.Hu, L. H., Huo, R., and Chow, W. K., Studies on buoyancy driven backlayering flow in tunnel fires. Experimental Thermal Fluid Science, 2008. 32(8): p. 1468-1483.
34.Brooks, W.N., Predicting the position of the smoke layer interface height using NFPA 92B calculation methods and a CFD fire model. Journal ASHRAE Transactions, 1999. 105: p. 414.
35.Chow, W. K., and Meng, L., Analysis of key equations in a two-layer zone model and application with symbolic mathematics in fire safety engineering. Journal of Fire Sciences, 2004. 22(2): p. 97-124.
36.Chow, W.K., and Li, J., Simulation on natural smoke filling in atrium with a balcony spill plume. Journal of Fire Sciences, 2001. 19(4): p. 258-283.
37.Binbin, W., Comparative research on FLUENT and FDS's numerical simulation of smoke spread in subway platform fire. Procedia Engineering, 2011. 26: p. 1065-1075.
38.Forney, G.P., and McGrattan, K.B., User's guide for smokeview version4: a tool for visualizing fire dynamics simulation data, 2020: US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
39.簡賢文，蔡匡忠，許文勝，沈子勝，李伊平，何三平，雪山隧道南下26K交通事故火燒車事件火災境況分析及避難救援策略，2015。
40.Project safety test – Report on fire tests directorate-General for public works and water management, Civil Engineering Division, Utrecht, The Netherlands, August 2002.
41.李伊平，公路隧道火災煙控CFD模擬之研究。桃園創新技術學院，2013。
42.Baum, H.R., and McCaffrey, B., Fire induced flow field-theory and experiment. Fire Safety Science, 1989. 2: p. 129-148.