4.5 Article

Modelling carbon monoxide transport and hazard from smouldering for building fire safety design analysis

期刊

FIRE SAFETY JOURNAL
卷 140, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.firesaf.2023.103895

关键词

Smouldering fire; Toxic smoke; Fire performance; Simulation; Safe egress time

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the transport and hazards of carbon monoxide (CO) from smouldering fire for building performance-based design practices. The results show that the smouldering fire scenarios and their CO hazards should be considered in the design of building fire safety. The simulations also reveal that smouldering fires can be more dangerous with lower atrium height and that ceiling ventilation is effective in extracting CO emissions.
Smouldering produces massive toxic smoke and carbon monoxide (CO) that is responsible for the majority of fire deaths, but current building fire safety design rarely considers smouldering hazards. This work investigates the transport and hazards of CO from smouldering fire for the building performance-based design practice. The numerical model is firstly validated by reproducing two flat-scale fire experiments, revealing the characteristic surface temperature and CO yield of smouldering sources. The smouldering fire scenario is then designed in an atrium to review the evolution of CO concentration and its associated Available Safe Egress Time (ASET). Results show that a smouldering fire of the same burning rate as a flaming fire not only can provide a similar ASET, but also present a greater threat to occupants and rescue teams by forming a cold layer of lethal CO on the ground. Hence, the smouldering fire scenarios and their CO hazards should be considered in the performance-based design of building fire safety. Simulations also reveal that the smouldering fire can be more dangerous as the atrium height decreases, and ceiling ventilation is particularly effective in extracting CO emissions from smouldering fires.

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