*3.4. Actual Experiment*

To investigate the feasibility of the smoke control field test method, the equipment was moved to a construction site to conduct tests on a total of 20 doors (test numbers: A to T). The test time is from summer (average 29 ◦C) to winter (average 15 ◦C) in Taiwan, to test whether the equipment still has the ability to measure in the face of temperature, air pressure, and humidity changes. During the testing process, the site environment varied for each test, including room doors in first-floor residences, room doors in long-term care facilities, room doors in nursing facilities, escape doors in tunnels, and safety ladder doors on the fortieth floor. The test doors consisted of wood, plastic, aluminum, and iron, respectively. In each test, the plastic sheeting can be fixed to the door only by tape to form the test chamber. The tape used in the smoke control field test was made of aluminum foil (thickness 0.12 mm, width 14 cm, tensile strength 1020 N/100 mm, elongation at break 10%, and adhesion 51 N/100 mm). The entire test process can be completed by two testing personnel within 30 min. The results of each test were converted into the actual volume leakage of the test body under standard conditions (Figure 6), which can be found to possess specific pattern properties at 10 Pa and 25 Pa. As an example, for the test result of test number A, the actual volume leakage under a pressure difference of 25 Pa was converted into 13.73 m3/h under standard conditions, which can be calculated by Equation (1). The theoretical volume leakage value under 10 Pa pressure difference was 5.64 m3/h, which was only 0.19 m3/h away from the field test result of 5.83 m3/h. With a discrepancy of less than 1 m3/h between the theoretical volume leakage value derived from Bernoulli's equation [26] and the volume leakage value measured by the field test, the test data of this study have been proved to be reliable. Under a pressure difference of 25 Pa, the results of the D, H, O, and Q tests were 30.04 m3/h, 39.68 m3/h, 28.73 m3/h, and 37.42 m3/h. The test results were all larger than 25 m3/h and not in compliance with the standard. It was noted that the reason for the failure could be attributed to the inability to adequately fill the airtight strips due to oversized door seams. In the C, I, and P tests, the gap between

the door and the floor was 1, 2, and 1.9 cm. Although the air supply system was operated at full power, the door was installed with an automatic descending airtight strip that failed to adhere closely to the ground, resulting in an excessive volume of leakage from the test chamber that prevented the pressure in the test chamber from rising. Other doors that passed the test (A, B, E, F, G, J, K, L, M, N, R, S, and T) were observed to have airtight strips set up in accordance with regulations and installed in appropriate positions. The test results further corresponded to the fact that while the doors could pass the CNS 15038 [3] test standard in the laboratory, the doors installed in the field may not necessarily achieve the same performance as in the laboratory. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the actual smoke control performance of the doors in the field through field tests to help maintain the safety of personnel during evacuation scenarios. airtight strips due to oversized door seams. In the C, I, and P tests, the gap between the door and the floor was 1, 2, and 1.9 cm. Although the air supply system was operated at full power, the door was installed with an automatic descending airtight strip that failed to adhere closely to the ground, resulting in an excessive volume of leakage from the test chamber that prevented the pressure in the test chamber from rising. Other doors that passed the test (A, B, E, F, G, J, K, L, M, N, R, S, and T) were observed to have airtight strips set up in accordance with regulations and installed in appropriate positions. The test results further corresponded to the fact that while the doors could pass the CNS 15038 [3] test standard in the laboratory, the doors installed in the field may not necessarily achieve the same performance as in the laboratory. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the actual smoke control performance of the doors in the field through field tests to help maintain the safety of personnel during evacuation scenarios.

leakage of the test body under standard conditions (Figure 6), which can be found to possess specific pattern properties at 10 Pa and 25 Pa. As an example, for the test result of test number A, the actual volume leakage under a pressure difference of 25 Pa was converted into 13.73 m3/h under standard conditions, which can be calculated by Equation (1). The theoretical volume leakage value under 10 Pa pressure difference was 5.64 m3/h, which was only 0.19 m3/h away from the field test result of 5.83 m3/h. With a discrepancy of less than 1 m3/h between the theoretical volume leakage value derived from Bernoulli's equation [26] and the volume leakage value measured by the field test, the test data of this study have been proved to be reliable. Under a pressure difference of 25 Pa, the results of the D, H, O, and Q tests were 30.04 m3/h, 39.68 m3/h, 28.73 m3/h, and 37.42 m3/h. The test results were all larger than 25 m3/h and not in compliance with the standard. It was noted that the reason for the failure could be attributed to the inability to adequately fill the

*Fire* **2022**, *5*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 14
