当前位置: X-MOL 学术Fire Technol. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Evaluation of Empirical Evidence Against Zone Models for Smoke Detector Activation Prediction
Fire Technology ( IF 2.3 ) Pub Date : 2020-11-28 , DOI: 10.1007/s10694-020-01061-2
Thomas Cleary , Gabriel Taylor

A series of experiments were conducted in a large room to generate data to assess the accuracy of computer fire model predictions of detector activation time. A comparison between experimental measurements and zone model predictions of the detector activation in the Consolidated Fire and Smoke Transport model (CFAST) version 7.4.3 were made. The experimental room was 11.0 m by 7.3 m by 3.7 m high with a single opening 2.44 m high and 1.83 m wide centered in a short wall. Two ceiling configurations were examined, a flat ceiling and a flat ceiling with two 0.30 m wide and 0.30 m deep solid beams. The fire source was a gaseous fuel burner fed with different mixtures of propane and propene that produced soot yields ranging from 0.010 gsoot/gfuel to 0.072 gsoot/gfuel and a fuel flow ramp time that ranged from 30 s to 1800 s. The heat release rate profile reached a nominal maximum value of 30 kW. The activations of two different models of photoelectric smoke detectors and a single ionization smoke detector, each with a range of alarm set points and installed at various locations on the ceiling, were recorded. Predictions of the various smoke detector activation times were made in CFAST with the temperature approximation method, and a fixed smoke detector concentration method for photoelectric detector activations. Predictions with the smoke detection method were better than the temperature approximation method over the range of fire scenarios examined. Predictions of smooth ceiling experiments were generally better than the beamed ceiling experiments.

中文翻译:

针对烟雾探测器激活预测的区域模型的经验证据评估

在一个大房间内进行了一系列实验以生成数据,以评估计算机火灾模型对探测器激活时间的预测的准确性。对联合火与烟传输模型 (CFAST) 7.4.3 版中探测器激活的实验测量和区域模型预测进行了比较。实验室高 11.0 m x 7.3 m x 3.7 m,单开口高 2.44 m,宽 1.83 m,以短墙为中心。研究了两种天花板配置,一种是平顶,另一种是带有两个 0.30 m 宽和 0.30 m 深实心梁的平顶。火源是气态燃料燃烧器,供给丙烷和丙烯的不同混合物,产生的烟灰产率范围为 0.010 gsoot/gfuel 至 0.072 gsoot/gfuel,燃料流斜坡时间范围为 30 s 至 1800 s。热释放率曲线达到了 30 kW 的标称最大值。记录了两种不同型号的光电烟雾探测器和单个电离烟雾探测器的激活情况,每个型号都有一系列警报设置点并安装在天花板的不同位置。在 CFAST 中使用温度近似方法和用于光电探测器激活的固定烟雾探测器浓度方法对各种烟雾探测器激活时间进行了预测。在检查的火灾场景范围内,使用烟雾检测方法的预测优于温度近似方法。平滑天花板实验的预测通常优于横梁天花板实验。记录了两种不同型号的光电烟雾探测器和单个电离烟雾探测器的激活情况,每个型号都有一系列警报设置点并安装在天花板的不同位置。在 CFAST 中使用温度近似方法和用于光电探测器激活的固定烟雾探测器浓度方法对各种烟雾探测器激活时间进行了预测。在检查的火灾场景范围内,使用烟雾检测方法的预测优于温度近似方法。平滑天花板实验的预测通常优于横梁天花板实验。记录了两种不同型号的光电烟雾探测器和单个电离烟雾探测器的激活情况,每个型号都有一系列警报设置点并安装在天花板的不同位置。在 CFAST 中使用温度近似方法和用于光电探测器激活的固定烟雾探测器浓度方法对各种烟雾探测器激活时间进行了预测。在检查的火灾场景范围内,使用烟雾检测方法的预测优于温度近似方法。平滑天花板实验的预测通常优于横梁天花板实验。在 CFAST 中使用温度近似方法和用于光电探测器激活的固定烟雾探测器浓度方法对各种烟雾探测器激活时间进行了预测。在检查的火灾场景范围内,使用烟雾检测方法的预测优于温度近似方法。平滑天花板实验的预测通常优于横梁天花板实验。在 CFAST 中使用温度近似方法和用于光电探测器激活的固定烟雾探测器浓度方法对各种烟雾探测器激活时间进行了预测。在检查的火灾场景范围内,使用烟雾检测方法的预测优于温度近似方法。平滑天花板实验的预测通常优于横梁天花板实验。
更新日期:2020-11-28
down
wechat
bug