4.5 Article

Design Fire Methodology for Vehicle Spaces Onboard Ships

期刊

FIRE TECHNOLOGY
卷 59, 期 4, 页码 1725-1759

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10694-023-01403-w

关键词

Ship safety; Ro-Ro spaces; Design fires; Fire simulation; CFD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this paper is to establish assessment procedures for the fire safety of Ro-Ro ship cargo spaces using suitable design fires. Representative heat release rates for common types of passenger cars and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) are determined based on data from fire experiments involving vehicles. The methodology involves extending an existing mathematical scheme for generating parametric heat release rate curves to handle vehicle fire scenarios. A case study is conducted to demonstrate the methodology, focusing on investigating fire propagation on the vehicle deck of a Ro-Ro ship using the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) code.
The purpose of this paper is to contribute towards establishing procedures of assessment of the fire safety of Ro-Ro ship cargo spaces, by employing suitable design fires. Data collected from fire experiments involving vehicles are utilized in order to deduce representative heat release rates for common types of passenger cars and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). An existing mathematical scheme for generating parametric heat release rate curves is extended for handling vehicle fire scenarios. The methodology is demonstrated through a case study. In particular, the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) code is used for investigating fire propagation on the vehicle deck of a Ro-Ro ship, initiated from a single HGV. On this deck are assumed to be transported a combination of cars and HGVs. The evolution of the fire is assessed assuming different ventilation conditions. The circumstances for spreading to adjacent vehicles are examined. Human survivability and the time that the deck remains accessible are evaluated by considering the International Maritime Organization (IMO) life safety performance criteria.

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