4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Far field radiation properties of gaseous modelled wind-blown pool fires: An experimental investigation and simplified geometrical analysis

期刊

FIRE SAFETY JOURNAL
卷 112, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2020.102949

关键词

Pool fires; Cross winds; Radiation properties; Flame surface area; Triangular geometry approximation

资金

  1. Key Project of National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [51636008]
  2. NSFC-STINT Joint Project [51811530015]
  3. Newton Advanced Fellowship [RS: NA140102]
  4. Fok Ying Tong Education Foundation [151056]
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [WK2320000038, WK2320000044]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents an experimental study on the far-field radiation properties of modelled gaseous pool fires in cross winds, which have not been previously discussed in the literature. Bench scale experiments were conducted to quantify the evolution of radiation emission of pool fires using square porous burners (stainless-steel boxes filled with quartz sand) of different sizes (8, 10, 15 and 20 cm), employing propane as the fuel. The radiation heat flux as well as the radiation fraction were measured by a single-point method. For all pool fires employed, it was found that the radiation heat flux, as well as the radiation fraction, declined with increasing wind speed from similar to 0.5 m/s up to similar to 5 m/s. Based on an assumed triangular geometric approximation of flame projection area of wind-blown pool fires, a simplified correlation related to the flame surface area exposed to the radiometer was proposed to interpret the changing radiation fraction of pool fires of different sizes and heat release rates (HRR) in cross winds. The proposed function correlates the experimental data well under relative strong wind conditions (Fr > 1). This work provides new basic data revealing the radiation evolution behaviour of gaseous pool fires with respect to wind speed.

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

4.5
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