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 generation pipeline is validated against the U.S. NRC NUREG-1934 (EPRI 1023259), Appendix A — Main Control Room (MCR) reference scenario: 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 build, and the two are compared input-by-input and output-by-output over the full 3600 s simulation.

Reference case

A 702 kW electrical cabinet fire (NUREG/CR-6850 t² profile, XPE/Neoprene fuel, CO yield 0.082, soot yield 0.175, radiative fraction 0.53) in the nominally sealed MCR, with two return vents (6.71 m³/s each) and six supply vents (2.24 m³/s each) stepping from normal flow to full smoke-purge flow at t = 120 s, and wall/floor leakage ratios of 0.0002 / 0.0001. Simulation duration 3600 s.

Input deck comparison

Every input group of the FRI3D-generated deck was compared field-by-field against the NRC model: simulation controls, ambient conditions, compartment geometry and leakage, thermal properties (ceiling/wall/floor materials), wall vents, mechanical ventilation (flow rates, elevations, filter and dropoff settings, flow-fraction ramps), and the fire specification (chemistry, heat of combustion, HRR curve, yields). All fields match, with two understood differences:

  • Compartment footprint. The MCR is not rectangular, so both models flatten it to an equivalent box: NRC conserved room volume and surface area (27.1 × 13.8 × 5.2 m), while FRI3D conserves volume (24.04 × 15.83 × 5.08 m). Same volume, slightly different footprint.
  • Vent sill/soffit round-off at the millimeter level from vent positioning in the FRI3D 3D model; vent dimensions are identical.

Results

Matched-time comparison over the 3600 s run (FRI3D-generated deck vs NRC baseline):

t (s)HRR (kW) FRI3D / NRCUpper layer temp (°C) FRI3D / NRCLayer height (m) FRI3D / NRCUpper layer O₂ (%) FRI3D / NRC
300122.9 / 122.926.5 / 25.94.91 / 4.9119.86 / 19.93
600489.1 / 489.141.4 / 40.64.90 / 4.9018.30 / 18.39
900702.0 / 702.051.4 / 51.14.90 / 4.9017.39 / 17.39
1200702.0 / 702.052.8 / 52.84.90 / 4.9017.39 / 17.39
1800332.5 / 332.541.4 / 41.94.91 / 4.9118.73 / 18.69
36000.0 / 0.025.0 / 25.14.94 / 4.9420.30 / 20.19

Peak / extreme values over the full run:

QuantityFRI3DNRCDifference
Peak upper layer temperature52.8 °C52.8 °C+0.1 %
Minimum layer height4.90 m4.90 m−0.1 %
Peak compartment pressure38.0 Pa37.0 Pa+2.7 %
Peak HRR702 kW702 kW0 %
Minimum upper layer O₂17.39 %17.39 %0 %
Peak upper layer CO₂1.805 %1.805 %0 %
Peak upper layer optical density13.28 /m13.27 /m+0.1 %

FRI3D generated CFAST deck vs NRC CFAST baseline — smoke purge

Across the transient, the maximum instantaneous relative differences on the primary quantities are 4 % (upper layer temperature), 2.3 % (layer height), and 6 % (compartment pressure), attributable to the volume-equivalent footprint difference described above; larger relative excursions appear only on quantities near zero magnitude, where relative measures are not meaningful.

Conclusion

The FRI3D-generated CFAST deck reproduces the NRC NUREG-1934 MCR baseline to within a few percent on all layer, pressure, and species quantities, with peak values matching essentially exactly. The only systematic modeling difference — the volume-equivalent compartment footprint — is documented and its effect is bounded by the percentages 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. .