4.2 Article

Fire calorimetry relying on the use of the fire propagation apparatus. Part I: Early learning from use in Europe

Journal

FIRE AND MATERIALS
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 131-149

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/fam.896

Keywords

fire propagation apparatus; commissioning tests; heat release rate; species yields; under-ventilation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The fire propagation apparatus (FPA) is the bench scale fire calorimeter that was recently described in its updated version in ASTM E 2058. The apparatus was originally developed in the USA by Tewarson and co-workers from the mid 1970s, under the name '50 kW lab-scale flammability apparatus', and is therefore still known in Europe as the 'Tewarson apparatus'. The paper focuses on the experience achieved so far with the first modern version of the apparatus implemented in Europe (France). Part I in this series of articles reports on the main results achieved during the commissioning period of the apparatus. In a first step, preliminary experiments were carried out in order to check and calibrate different sub-equipment of the calorimeter. The results are principally presented for the load cell system and the infrared heating system which are essential pieces of sub-equipment. In a second step, a set of fire tests using methane or acetone as fuel was carried out in order to check and calibrate the overall working of the calorimeter in well-fire conditions. The performance of the calorimeter was also checked when it operates in under-ventilated fires. Relevant testing procedures and potential technical problems are discussed. A set of recommendations are derived from the early learning obtained at the INERIS fire laboratory in order to check the consistency of the results obtained from bench-scale fire tests. These recommendations are thought to be applicable to all types of bench scale fire calorimeters. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available