4.5 Article

Experimental study at reduced-scale of fire spread between electrical cabinets located opposite each other

期刊

FIRE SAFETY JOURNAL
卷 122, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2021.103319

关键词

Clear PMMA; Electrical cabinets; Fire spread; Heat flux; Ignition; Overhead electric cable tray; Tempered glass; Transmittance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability of a fire in an electrical cabinet to spread to neighboring cabinets in nuclear power plant settings is a major concern for fire safety. Tests have shown that the materials used for front panels in opposite enclosures play a significant role in determining fire spread conditions. Factors such as separation distance, target type, and overhead electric cable trays also influence fire spread conditions.
The ability of an electrical cabinet fire to spread to neighbouring cabinets is a major concern for fire safety in nuclear power plants. Twelve intermediate-scale fire tests were performed to determine the fire spread conditions (FSCs) from a burning enclosure (BE) to an opposite enclosure (OE) equipped with either a non-combustible (glazed or metallic) or a combustible (poly(methyl methacrylate), PMMA) front panel. The effects on the FSCs of the separation distance (SD) between the enclosures, the target type (electrical component) contained in the OE and overhead electric cable trays were also investigated. Fire spread to the OE equipped with a glazed panel when the total transmitted heat flux led to the spontaneous ignition of the target. This outcome was not obtained for the metallic panel. For the PMMA panel, fire spread when flames coming from the BE reached the flammable gas mixture produced by the panel. For both glazed and PMMA panels, the FSCs were obtained for higher SDs when overhead electric cable trays were used. The tests also revealed that the faster and more powerful PMMA panel fire was not obtained for the minimum SD studied. Finally, total transmittances of the glazed and PMMA panels were assessed.

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

4.5
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