4.7 Article

Influence of Density on Foam Collapse under Burning

Journal

POLYMERS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym13010013

Keywords

polyurethane foam; fire behaviour; collapse

Funding

  1. Service de Cooperation et d'Action Culturelle (SCAC) de l'Ambassade de France au Burkina Faso, Dossier [952051A]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The fire behavior of flexible polyurethane foams was studied using a cone calorimeter, showing different heat release rate curves for thin and thick foams, as well as a constant collapse rate for all thicknesses. The recession rate of the front was calculated, with values remaining relatively constant due to low heat conductivity preventing heat transfer, and the collapse being controlled by cell walls' rigidity.
The fire behaviour of flexible polyurethane foams was studied using a cone calorimeter, with a special emphasis on the collapse step. Only one peak of heat release rate, ranging from 200 to 450 kW/m(2), is observed for thin foams, depending on the foam density and the heat flux. On the contrary, heat release rate (HRR) curves exhibit two peaks for 10 cm-thick foams, the second one corresponding to the pool fire formed after foam collapse. In all cases, the collapse occurs at a constant rate through the whole thickness. The rate of the recession of the front was calculated using digital and infrared cameras. Interestingly, its value is relatively constant whatever the heat flux (especially between 25 and 35 kW/m(2)), probably because of the very low heat conductivity preventing heat transfer through the thickness. The rate increases for the lightest foam but the fraction of burnt polymer during collapse is constant. Therefore, the pool fire is more intense for the densest foam. A simple macroscopic model taking into account only the heat transfer into the foam leads to much lower front recession rates, evidencing that the collapse is piloted by the cell walls' rigidity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available