4.7 Article

Thermal radiation modelling of pool fire with consideration on the nonuniform temperature in flame volume

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THERMAL SCIENCES
卷 138, 期 -, 页码 12-23

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2018.12.033

关键词

Pool fire; Radiant heat flux; Thermal radiation hazard; Semi-empirical radiation model; Model validation; Sensitivity analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51506082, 51876088]
  2. National Key RAMP
  3. D Program of China [2016YFC0800100]
  4. Talent Project of Nanjing Tech University
  5. Open Project of Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Hazardous Chemicals Safety and Control

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The accidental leakages of combustible fuel during storage and transportation cause the pool fires which impose hazardous heat on the nearby occupants and facilities mainly by thermal radiation. This paper presents a new semi-empirical radiation model, namely, the multi-layer cylindrical flame model to predict the radiant heat flux field of pool fires. As the centerline temperature of pool fire varies significantly with vertical height, a formula is proposed to characterize the vertical profile of flame surface emissive power with which the new model can predict the radiant heat flux. The reasonable layer number (the number of small cylinders used for model prediction) can be determined using sensitivity analysis. Comparisons with the experimental data of methanol, heptane, toluene and propane pool fires of different pool diameters indicate that the new radiation model can give a good prediction on the thermal radiation in both horizontal and vertical directions, in spite of fuel type and pool diameter. In comparison with the point source model and three typically single cylindrical flame models, the new radiation model seems to give encouraging results relative to the validity of model system. Sensitivity analysis is also conducted to rank the importance of model parameters.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据