4.5 Review

Testing of liquids with the cone calorimeter

Journal

FIRE SAFETY JOURNAL
Volume 126, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2021.103449

Keywords

Cone calorimeter; Liquids; Flammability; Fire testing; Heat release rate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The cone calorimeter is commonly used to measure the fire performance of solid materials exposed to radiant heating. This study aimed to review literature on testing liquids using the cone calorimeter and provide recommendations for a standardized testing protocol. The findings show the importance of proper experimental conditions and apparatus selection in conducting accurate and consistent cone calorimeter tests for liquids.
The cone calorimeter is traditionally used to measure the response of solid materials to radiant heating. Liquids are also commonly tested, but the methods employed are varied and inconsistent. There is a need to understand how the experimental conditions impact test results, and to develop formal guidance on a testing protocol for liquids. The cone calorimeter can be used to characterize the fire performance of liquids according to their propensities for ignition, boiling, and burning, as well as their combustion characteristics. A review of the literature was carried out to understand the breadth of apparatus and procedures used to date and their impacts on test results. From this, a series of recommendations were developed for adapting the test protocol for liquids. The vessel used should be circular; steel, borosilicate glass, or fused quartz; positioned on 13 mm of flat ceramic fiber insulation within a larger spillage containment pan; and have a diameter between 65 mm and 90 mm. Liquid depths of 10 mm should be used, and tests should be nominally be conducted at a heat flux of 10 kW.m(-2). This work provides the necessary technical basis for adoption of a consistent methodology for cone calorimeter testing of liquids.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available