correlations for inclined flame spread
Post on 18-Jul-2016
15 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Xinyan Huang
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Imperial College London, x.huang12@imperial.ac.uk
Michael Gollner
Department of Fire Protection Engineering
University of Maryland, mgollner@umd.edu11th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science
9-14 Feb. 2014, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
1. Introduction and Previous Work
2. Description of Flame
3. Flame Length and Mass-loss Rate
4. Flame Thickness and Tilt Angle
5. Conclusions
211th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science
9-14 Feb. 2014, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
1. Introduction and Previous Work
2. Description of Flame
3. Flame Length and Mass-loss Rate
4. Flame Thickness and Tilt Angle
5. Conclusions
311th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science
9-14 Feb. 2014, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
4[1] Gollner et al., Proc. Combust. Inst., 34 (2) (2013) 2531-2538
PMMA: 20×10×1.27 cm
3 camera (top, side, and
back)
Load cell: 15 Hz, ±0.5 g
o K-type TCs × 7
o Thin-skin heat flux
sensor × 19
o Ignition: 1 cm wick
soaked with fuel
ignites for 1 min
5
6
-60 -45 -30 0 30 45 600
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
Angle of Inclination,
Spre
ad R
ate,
Vp (
cm/s
)
Vp (This study, w=10cm)
Pizzo (model)
Pizzo (exp, w=20cm)
Drydale and Macmillian (w=6cm)
Xie and DesJardin (model)
[1] Gollner et al., Proc. Combust. Inst., 34 (2) (2013) 2531-2538[2] Y. Pizzo, J.L. Consalvi, B. Porterie, Comb. Flame. 156 (2009) 1856-1859.[3] D. Drysdale, A. Macmillan. Fire Safety J. 18, no. 3 (1992): 245-254.
[4] W. Xie, P. Desjardin, Comb. Flame. 156 (2009) 522-530.[5] H. Ohtani, K. Ohta, Y. Uehara, Fire Mat. 18 (1991) 323-193.[6] de Ris, J, L. Orloff. Proc. Comb. Inst. 15 (1975) 175-182.
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 800
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
Angle of Inclination,
Spre
ad R
ate
(cm
/s)
Vp (This Study, w=10cm)
Pizzo (Model)
Pizzo (Exp, w=20cm)
Drydale and Macmillian (w=6cm)
Xie and DesJardin (Model)
May 15, 2012 6
Flame Spread Steady Burning
-60 -45 -30 0 30 45 602
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Gas Burner, 65 cm [5]
PMMA, Steady Burning
PMMA, Spreading
Angle of Inclination, θAngle of Inclination, θ
Spre
ad R
ate,
Vp
(c
m/s
)
Mas
s-lo
ss R
ate
(g/m
2s)
Spread rate peaks nears vertical wall fire
Burning rate increases with inclination (𝜃)
1. Introduction and Previous Work
2. Description of Flame
3. Flame Length and Mass-loss Rate
4. Flame Thickness and Tilt Angle
5. Conclusions
711th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science
9-14 Feb. 2014, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
8[1] Gollner et al., Proc. Combust. Inst., 34 (2) (2013) 2531-2538
1. Flame height (𝑥𝑓): 𝑥𝑓 ~ 𝑥𝑝~ 𝑡, 𝑥𝑓~ 𝑚′
2. Flame thickness (𝐻 = 𝑦𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥)
3. Tilt angle (𝜙): degree of lift off
9
For this small-scale test (𝑥𝑝<20 cm), the spread
rate (𝑉𝑝) was previously found to be constant [1].
Two measurements of 𝑥𝑓 from front-view and
side-view overlap well.
Two common correlations
𝑥𝑓 = 𝐴𝑥𝑝
𝑛
𝑘𝑥𝑝 + 𝑏
Front-view
camera
Side-view
camera
[1] Gollner et al., Proc. Combust. Inst., 34 (2) (2013) 2531-2538
Pyrolysis
front (𝑥𝑝)
10
Parabolic fit (𝑥𝑓~𝑥𝑝2) is
better if the spread
time >500 𝑠
Linear fit is good for
t < 500 𝑠
11
Slope 𝒌: 𝑥𝑓 = 𝑘𝑥𝑝 + 𝑏
Exponent 𝒏: 𝑥𝑓 = 𝐴𝑥𝑝𝑛
Burning rate 𝒎′
Steady & Spread
In linear fit, 𝑥𝑓 = 𝑘𝑥𝑝 + 𝑏 (𝑡 < 500 s), slope 𝑘 continuously increases with
inclination angle (𝜃), same trend as the burning rate ( 𝑚′).
For power-law fit, 𝑥𝑓 = 𝐴𝑥𝑝𝑛
𝜃 = 0° (vertical wall fire), 𝑛 = 0.86 agree with 𝑛 = 0.78 and 0.8 in literatures.
Generally, 𝑛 = 0.85 is a good approximation ⇒ 𝒙𝒇~ 𝑽𝒑𝒕𝟎.𝟖𝟓
~𝒕𝟎.𝟖𝟓
(early-stage, small-scale fires, 𝑡 < 500 s)
1. Introduction and Previous Work
2. Description of Flame
3. Flame Length and Mass-loss Rate
4. Flame Thickness and Tilt Angle
5. Conclusions
1211th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science
9-14 Feb. 2014, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
13[7] Delichatsios, M. A. Combust. Sci. & Tech., 39(1-6):195–214, 1984.
[8] Gollner et al., Combustion and Flame, 158(7):1404 – 1412, 2011.
Mass-loss (burning) rate ( 𝒎′) and heat-release rate (HRR, 𝑸′)
𝑄′ = ∆𝐻𝑐 𝑚′ = ∆𝐻𝑐 𝑚′′ 𝑥𝑝
𝑥𝑓 = 𝐹(𝑥𝑝)
Delichatsios’ scaling analysis [7]
𝑚′ = 𝑓𝑥𝑓𝛼𝜌𝑎𝑢𝑔 (𝑢𝑔: characteristic gas velocity)
where 𝑓 is F/A stoich. ratio; 𝛼 is entrainment coefficient; and 𝜌𝑎 is air density.
Turbulent mixing controlled plume: 𝒖𝒈~ 𝒙𝒇𝒈
𝒙𝒇~ 𝑚′/ 𝛼𝜌𝑎𝑓 𝑔 2/3~ 𝒎′ 𝟐/𝟑~ 𝑄′ 2/3(𝑝 = 2/3)
Laminar diffusion controlled plume: 𝒖𝒈~𝑫/𝒂 with 𝑎 = 𝑚′/(𝑓𝜌𝑓)
𝑥𝑓𝑔[8]
𝒙𝒇~ 𝑚′ 4/3/ 𝜌𝑓𝜌𝑎𝑓2𝐷 𝑔
2/3~ 𝒎′ 𝟒/𝟑~ 𝑄′ 4/3
(𝑝 = 4/3)
In vertical wall fire, 𝑝 ≈ 1 for cardboard [8], and 𝑝 = 1~1.25 for PMMA and gas
burner. However, the theoretical limiting values of 𝑝 = 2/3 and 𝑝 = 4/3 have
never been found before.
𝒙𝒇~ 𝑸′ 𝒑~ 𝒎′ 𝒑
14
For 𝜃 > 30°, 𝑝 < 1 and approach limiting value of 2/3.
Boundary-layer separation (turbulence) is clear.
𝑄′ > 20 kW/m suggests that turbulent mixing dominates the flame behavior.
Turbulent
15
For vertical wall fire (𝜃 = 0° ), 𝑝 ≈ 1 and 𝑄′ ≈ 20 kW/m agrees with literature.
Usually, 𝑄′ = 20 kW/m is the critical value from laminar to turbulent transition.
Almost a boundary-layer plume, but the flame tip starts to separate.
Transition
16
For underside flame (𝜃 < 0° ), 𝑝 ≈ 4/3, 𝑄′ < 20 kW/m, and no boundary-layer
separation is observed, suggesting molecular diffusion is dominant.
The underside burning can delay the transition to a turbulent flame.
Laminar
17
First time to experimentally verify the two theoretical limiting values (𝑝 = 4/3 & 2/3).
In small-scale laboratory tests, flame behavior may be appreciably modified towards
laminar or turbulent, simply by inclining the fuel surface downwards or upwards.
1. Introduction and Previous Work
2. Description of Flame
3. Flame Length and Mass-loss Rate
4. Flame Thickness and Tilt Angle
5. Conclusions
1811th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science
9-14 Feb. 2014, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
19
Flame thickness (𝐻) is defined as the maximum flame standoff distance (𝑦𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥)
𝐻 increases during spread and approaches constant after spread stops.
Flame thickness increases with inclination (𝜃), suggesting the radiation heat flux
to the burning region (𝑥 < 𝑥𝑝) and the burning rate ( 𝒎′) increases with 𝜽.
Flame lift off increases with the flame thickness, decreasing the convective heat
flux to unburned region (𝑥 > 𝑥𝑝), and spread rate
⇒ lift-off is inversely proportional to 𝑽𝒑.
20
10 continuous side-view photos are averaged, averaging flame fluctuations.
Flame tilt angle is defined by a line dividing the image into two regions with the
same total luminance → useful to estimate radiation heat flux and view angle
At θ ≤ 0°, tilt angle (𝜙) decreases with time ⇒ a negligible flame separation
At θ = 30°, tilt angle (𝜙) is a constant ⇒ flame starts to separate
At θ > 30°, tilt angle (𝜙) increases with time ⇒ a strong flame separation
Tilt angle (𝜙) in
respect to the
fuel surface
21
Tilt angle (𝜙) can be fitted as 𝜙 = 1.57𝑒0.045𝜃, and reaches the maximum
value of 90° at pool fire (𝜃= 90°).
Follows the trend of 1/𝑉𝑝
⇒ Flame separation decreases the heat flux to the unburnt fuel, therefore
reducing the flame spread rate.
1/𝑉𝑝
𝜙 = 1.57𝑒0.045𝜃
1. Introduction and Previous Work
2. Description of Flame
3. Flame Length and Mass-loss Rate
4. Flame Thickness and Tilt Angle
5. Conclusions
2211th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science
9-14 Feb. 2014, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
23
For early-stage, small-scale PMMA fires, flame length is proportional
to pyrolysis length at all inclinations, and increases as 𝒙𝒇~𝒕𝟎.𝟖𝟓.
Underside flame spread (𝜃 < 0°) is found to be turbulence-
suppressed and diffusion-controlled: 𝒙𝒇~ 𝒎′ 𝟒/𝟑.
Topside flame spread (𝜃 > 0°) satisfies the turbulent-mixing
correlation: 𝒙𝒇~ 𝒎′ 𝟐/𝟑.
Flame thickness increases with inclination, supporting the trends of
flame spread rate and burning rate.
Flame tilt angle increases with inclination, being inversely
proportional to flame-spread rate 𝑉𝑝.
11th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science
9-14 Feb. 2014, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Valuable comments from Forman Williams and Ali Rangwala
during the first stage of this work.
Assistance from Charles Marcacci, Jeanette Cobian, and Ulrich
Niemann with laboratory experiments.
2411th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science
9-14 Feb. 2014, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Xinyan Huang
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Imperial College London, x.huang12@imperial.ac.uk
Michael Gollner
Department of Fire Protection Engineering
University of Maryland, mgollner@umd.edu11th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science
9-14 Feb. 2014, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
top related