Skip to main content
Version: 1.2

CFAST Validation (NUREG 1934 Appendix A)

CFAST Validation (NUREG 1934 Appendix A)

FRI3D generates CFAST input decks from the same 3D plant model used for FDS generation — compartments, natural and mechanical vents, leakage, thermal boundaries, and fire sources. The pipeline is validated against the U.S. NRC NUREG-1934 (EPRI 1023259), Appendix A — Main Control Room (MCR): the published NRC CFAST model is run unmodified as the baseline, the FRI3D-generated deck for the same room is run with the same CFAST 7.7.3 build, and the two are compared input-by-input and output-by-output over the full 3600 s transient.

Reference case

A 702 kW electrical cabinet fire in a nominally sealed MCR, ventilated by six supply and two return fans that step from 20 % to full smoke-purge flow at t = 120 s.

InputNRCFRI3D generated
Compartment27.07 × 13.73 × 5.20 m23.76 × 15.65 × 5.20 m
Floor area / volume371.73 m² / 1933 m³371.73 m² / 1933 m³
Ceiling & floorconcrete, k 1.6, ρ 2400, c 0.75, 0.5 midentical
Wallsgypsum, k 0.17, ρ 960, c 1.1, 0.016 midentical
Emissivity0.90.9
Supply fans6 × 2.233 m³/s, 0.36 m², at 3.0 midentical
Return fans2 × 6.70 m³/s, 0.36 m², at 4.9 midentical
Fan cutoffs200 / 300 Paidentical
Purge schedulet = 0, 119.9, 120 s → F = 0.2, 0.2, 1.0identical
Leakagedoor crack, explicit wall vent 0.9 × 0.013 m = 0.0117 m²LEAK_AREA_RATIO 2.855 × 10⁻⁵ over 409.8 m² = 0.0117 m²
Fire702 kW t² growth (NUREG/CR-6850), peak 720 s, decay to 0 at 2340 sidentical
FuelXPE/Neoprene, HoC 10 300 kJ/kg, χ_rad 0.53, area 0.12 m²identical
Soot yield0.1750.175
Fire base elevation1.20 m1.20 m
CO yield0.0820.100

Two differences are known and understood:

  • Compartment footprint. The MCR is L-shaped, so both models flatten it to an equivalent rectangle — NRC per NUREG-1934 Formula A-3, FRI3D from the real three-part footprint. The rectangles differ; floor area and volume are the same to five significant figures.
  • CO yield (0.100 vs 0.082) affects the CO species trace only, with no thermal effect.

Results

Matched-time comparison over 3600 s, FRI3D generated deck / NRC baseline:

t (s)HRR (kW)Upper layer temp (°C)Layer height (m)Pressure (Pa)Upper layer O₂ (%)
300121.9 / 122.826.0 / 26.04.91 / 4.9144.5 / 44.919.94 / 19.93
600487.5 / 489.140.8 / 40.74.90 / 4.90222.5 / 222.618.41 / 18.39
900702.0 / 702.051.4 / 51.34.90 / 4.90227.1 / 227.117.41 / 17.39
1200702.0 / 702.053.1 / 53.04.90 / 4.90227.6 / 227.617.41 / 17.39
1800332.5 / 332.542.1 / 42.04.91 / 4.91221.8 / 221.718.70 / 18.69
23400.0 / 0.027.9 / 27.94.92 / 4.9259.6 / 59.720.19 / 20.20
30000.0 / 0.026.7 / 26.74.93 / 4.9317.7 / 18.020.19 / 20.19
36000.0 / 0.025.2 / 25.24.94 / 4.949.1 / 9.420.19 / 20.19

Peak and extreme values over the full run:

QuantityFRI3DNRCDifference
Peak HRR702 kW @ 720 s702 kW @ 720 s0.00 %
Peak upper layer temperature53.1 °C @ 1205 s53.0 °C @ 1200 s+0.31 %
Peak compartment pressure227.6 Pa @ 1200 s227.6 Pa @ 1200 s+0.01 %
Minimum layer height4.90 m @ 1150 s4.90 m @ 1170 s0.00 %
Minimum upper layer O₂17.41 % @ 941 s17.39 % @ 945 s+0.08 %
Peak upper layer optical density13.29 /m @ 864 s13.29 /m @ 855 s−0.05 %
Peak upper layer CO₂1.771 % @ 1093 s1.805 % @ 1140 s−1.91 %

FRI3D generated CFAST deck vs NRC CFAST baseline — NUREG-1934 Appendix A, Main Control Room

Largest instantaneous deviation on each quantity, across the entire 3600 s transient — not peak-to-peak, but the worst disagreement at any matched instant:

QuantityMax deviationWhen
Heat release rate1.8 kW540 s
Upper layer temperature0.16 °C1245 s
Layer height0.03 m120 s
Compartment pressure1.5 Pa405 s
Upper layer O₂0.61 pt15 s
Upper layer optical density0.05 /m45 s

The two species residuals are confined to the ignition transient, before the upper layer is established: after t = 120 s the worst O₂ deviation falls to 0.07 pt and optical density to 0.03 /m.

Conclusion

The FRI3D-generated CFAST deck reproduces the NRC NUREG-1934 MCR baseline to better than 0.4 % on every peak quantity, with heat release rate and minimum layer height matching exactly. Across the whole 3600 s transient the layer temperature never diverges by more than 0.16 °C, the layer interface by more than 0.03 m, and compartment pressure by more than 1.5 Pa on a 228 Pa peak. The only systematic modeling difference — the volume-equivalent compartment footprint — preserves floor area and volume exactly, and its effect is bounded by the figures above.

Reference

  • NUREG-1934 / EPRI 1023259, Nuclear Power Plant Fire Modeling Analysis Guidelines, Appendix A: Main Control Room.
  • NUREG-1824 / EPRI 1011999, Verification and Validation of Selected Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications (CFAST volume).

Reach out

If you need help after reading this doc, email us [email protected] for an answer.