4.5 Article

Prediction of properties and modeling fire behavior of polyethylene using cone calorimeter

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2015.11.009

关键词

Cone calorimeter; Modeling; Polyethylene; Heat release rate; Thermal inertia; Critical heat flux

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [CBET-1336254, CBET-1336162]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fire behavior of pure polyethylene has been investigated by performing flammability analysis using a standard cone calorimeter. Specifications of polyethylene samples were 100 +/- 1 mm long, 100 +/- 1 mm wide and 5 mm thick, with mass of 25.0 +/- 0.1 g. Sample surface area exposed to the external heat flux was limited to 94 mm in length, 94 mm in width due to use of edge lip sample holder frame. The values of external heat flux used were ranging from 40 to 55 kW m(-2) with an incremental step of 5 kW m(-2). Three sets of experiments were performed for each value of external heat flux. The results obtained were recorded and fitted to a set of mathematical equations to determine the thermal inertia, critical heat flux and the peak heat release rate. Study shows that thermal inertia value obtained from experimental data was 0.86142 kJ(2) m(-4) K-2 s(-1) and from well-known correlations was 0.83 kJ(2) m(-4) K-2 s(-1) with a difference of 3.49%. The factors to relate the observed critical heat flux with the actual critical heat flux were determined as 0.77 and 0.64. The peak heat release rate for each test was determined using the model equation based on oxygen depletion index and concentrations of gaseous species such as oxygen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and water. The values observed experimentally and the ones calculated had a standard deviation of +/- 4.56%. Thus, this work serves as basis for transformation of qualitative understanding of polyethylene fire behavior into systematic quantification, which can be generalized for other polymers and their composites. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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