4.7 Article

Flame extension lengths beneath an inclined ceiling induced by rectangular-source fires

期刊

COMBUSTION AND FLAME
卷 176, 期 -, 页码 349-357

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2016.11.004

关键词

Inclined ceiling; Flame extension length; Rectangular-source fire; Heat release rate

资金

  1. National Natural Foundation of China (NSFC) [51506032]
  2. Key Project of NSFC [51636008]
  3. Excellent Young Scientist Fund of NSFC [51422606]
  4. Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences, Chinese Academy of Science (CAS) [QYZDB-SSW-JSCO29]
  5. Fok Ying Tong Education Foundation [151056]
  6. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [WK2320000035]
  7. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2014A030310190]
  8. Opening Fund of State Key Laboratory of Fire Science (SKLFS) [HZ2015-KF08]
  9. Newton Advanced Fellowship [NSFC: 51561130158, RS: NA140102]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The flame extension length beneath an inclined ceiling has not been studied in the past, and therefore no data or analysis is reported in the literature. Experiments were carried out in this work to measure both of the flame extension lengths in the upward and the downward directions beneath an inclined ceiling of different angles induced by rectangular fire sources with various heat release rates and source-ceiling heights. Results showed that the flame extension length was larger in the upward direction than that in the downward direction, which was physically explained as attributed to the non-symmetrical distribution of un-bunt fuel in the two directions after impingement. A new global equation was proposed to correlate the flame extension lengths in both directions by using modified non-dimensional heat release rates accounting for this non-symmetry. This work provided supplementary results over previous knowledge and correlations about flame extension beneath a flat ceiling. (C) 2016 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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