4.7 Article

Critical velocity for preventing thermal backlayering flow in tunnel fire using longitudinal ventilation system: Effect of floor-fire separation distance

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2021.107192

关键词

Tunnel fire; Critical velocity; Smoke backlayering control; Fire location; Longitudinal ventilation system; Maximum smoke temperature rise

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the impact of fire development location on the critical velocity, proposing a new model to describe the relationship. The results indicate that as the elevation of the fire location increases, the critical velocity decreases.
To design a reliable longitudinal ventilation system in a roadway tunnel, it is crucial to know the optimum value of the forced airflow velocity which must be applied to minimize hazards to users trapped in the building during a fire. This optimal value known as the critical longitudinal ventilation velocity, is a crucial criterion for tunnel safety when designing ventilation systems. Analysis of the influence of the fire development location from the tunnel floor on the critical velocity has rarely been studied, although this situation really exists due to the difference in vehicle sizes in practice. CFD simulations were performed in this paper to study this scenario and to estimate the critical velocity for a fire developing in different locations relative to the tunnel floor. The results indicate that as the elevation of the fire location increases from the tunnel floor, the critical velocity decreases. A new model involving the separation distance of the fire location on the tunnel floor and relating the critical velocity to the fire heat release rate is proposed. Furthermore, under critical conditions of ventilation velocity, the results show that the elevation of the fire source location from the floor has a significant effect on the maximum smoke temperature rise below the tunnel ceiling.

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