4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Radiation-driven flame spread over thermally thick fuels in quiescent microgravity environments

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMBUSTION INSTITUTE
Volume 29, Issue -, Pages 2587-2594

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1540-7489(02)80315-7

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Microgravity experiments on flame spread over thermally thick fuels were conducted using foam fuels to obtain low density and low thermal conductivity and thus large spread rate (S-f) compared to dense fuels such as polymethylmethaerylate. This scheme enabled meaningful results to be obtained even in 2.2 s drop tower experiments. It was found that, in contrast to conventional understanding, steady spread can occur over thick fuels in quiescent microgravity environments, especially when a radiatively active diluent gas such as CO2 is employed. This is proposed to be due to radiative transfer from the flame to the fuel surface that can lead to steady spread even when conductive heat transfer from the flame to the fuel bed is negligible. Radiative effects are more significant under microgravity conditions because the flame thickness is larger and thus the volume of radiating combustion products is larger at microgravity. The effects of oxygen concentration and pressure are shown and the transition from thermally thick to thermally thin behavior with decreasing bed thickness is demonstrated. A simple semiquantitative model of radiation-driven flame spread rates is consistent with experimental observations. Radiative flux measurements confirm the proposed effects of diluent type and gravity level. These results are particularly noteworthy considering that the International Space Station employs CO2 fire extinguishers; our results suggest that helium may be a better inerting agent on both mass and mole bases at microgravity even though CO2 is much better on a mole basis at earth gravity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available