4.7 Article

Thermal performance of a mine refuge chamber with human body heat sources under ventilation

期刊

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
卷 162, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.114243

关键词

Underground; Mine refuge chamber; Air temperature prediction; Ventilation; Heat transfer coefficient; Human body heat sources

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51678488]
  2. Excellent Doctoral Thesis Cultivation Project of Southwest Jiaotong University [D-YB201703]
  3. Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigated the dynamic coupling heat transfer characteristics of rock and air in a Mine Refuge Chamber (MRC) under ventilation. In the current work, a comprehensive fifty-person MRC model combining human-body heat sources and ventilation is established, the proposed model is validated against available experimental data with deviation less than 4%. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis is performed to investigate the influence of several control parameters such as heating rate, ventilation and wall area in a MRC through using numerical simulation. Results indicated that: (i) the heat transfer process in a MRC will reach a stage of air temperature slow increase (ATSI) in less than 0.5 h. The air temperature rises linearly with the square root of time during the ATSI stage; (ii) for a MRC built in a sandstone seam with an initial rock temperature of less than 27 degrees C, the average air temperature will not exceed 35 degrees C in 96 h when the ventilation volume rate is 0.3 m(3)/min per person; (iii) the rate of temperature rise in MRC is proportional to the rate of heat generation, but it is inversely proportional to the thermal conductivity, density and thermal capacity of the rock, as well as the ventilation volume rate and the wall area; (iv) an empirical correlation for the MRC average air temperature is developed while the supply air temperature equals to the initial rock temperature.

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