Skip to main content

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. .