4.5 Article

Effect of drying on the ignitability and combustibility of Pinus Halepensis needles

期刊

FIRE SAFETY JOURNAL
卷 127, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2021.103505

关键词

Combustion; Drying; Fuel moisture content; Ignition; Pinus halepensis needles; Volatile organic compounds

资金

  1. CEREN-Valabre
  2. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [691161]
  3. Direction Generale de la Recherche Sscientifique et du Developpement Technologique [W1030400]
  4. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [691161] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study explores the flammability and combustibility of partially dried Pinus Halepensis needles using four drying methods. It is found that microwave drying reduces ignition time fluctuations significantly, but slightly decreases residence time compared to infrared radiation and climatic chamber drying techniques.
The flammability and the combustibility of partially dried Pinus Halepensis needles are studied using four drying methods: natural drying, a microwave oven, an infrared radiation dryer, and a climatic chamber. The partial drying techniques are used to vary the moisture content of the fuel. These techniques contribute differently to the fluctuations of ignition and residence times of the fuel. Ignition time fluctuations appear much more reduced for the microwave technique compared to the other methods, due to the very short drying time of the microwave oven. Beyond the fluctuations, ignition time depends exponentially on the moisture content for all methods. Similar values of the characteristic moisture content deduced from the exponential trend are obtained within statistical errors, except for natural drying where the fuels change from their life to dead character. The mi-crowave oven drying technique appears aggressive since it reduces slightly the residence time compared to infrared radiations and climatic chamber drying techniques.

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