Polyurethane Foam Reaction properties..
2,960 views
Skip to first unread message
philio
Dec 28, 2008, 1:56:48 AM12/28/08
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Im wondering if anyone can direct me to where I can find the
combustion products of polyurethane (foam),
which I can enter for the reaction in FDS.
-
I know this is an amateur question,, but I cant find this anywhere..
I was hoping to find a breakdown per atom of the gases produced.
Thanks for any tips.
combustion products of polyurethane (foam),
which I can enter for the reaction in FDS.
-
I know this is an amateur question,, but I cant find this anywhere..
I was hoping to find a breakdown per atom of the gases produced.
Thanks for any tips.
philio
Dec 28, 2008, 1:59:18 AM12/28/08
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Also - i understand their are different type of polyurethane and
different additives.
Im just looking for a basic one as a guideline.
different additives.
Im just looking for a basic one as a guideline.
Rein
Dec 28, 2008, 9:05:51 AM12/28/08
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
This is a difficult question. Products of combustion of PUF are
strongly dependant on the burning conditions, and the current state of
the art does not allow to predict these product with accuracy.
However, a few approximate scheme have been proposed for solid and gas
products. For example, see the poster presented in the 9th IAFSS
"Improving the Modelling of Thermal Decomposition of Polyether
Polyurethane Foam" by researchers at ENSMA, LNE, and Edinburgh.
See poster here: http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/fire/posters/2008_IAFSS_Guillermo_2_poster.pdf
This preliminary work includes NCO, OH and H2CO in additoion to CO,
CO2, H2O
G.
strongly dependant on the burning conditions, and the current state of
the art does not allow to predict these product with accuracy.
However, a few approximate scheme have been proposed for solid and gas
products. For example, see the poster presented in the 9th IAFSS
"Improving the Modelling of Thermal Decomposition of Polyether
Polyurethane Foam" by researchers at ENSMA, LNE, and Edinburgh.
See poster here: http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/fire/posters/2008_IAFSS_Guillermo_2_poster.pdf
This preliminary work includes NCO, OH and H2CO in additoion to CO,
CO2, H2O
G.
Kuldeep
Dec 29, 2008, 9:10:06 AM12/29/08
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
A report from the Products Research Committee (PRC) may be helpful for
you.
“Materials Bank Compendium of Fire Property Data,” Products Research
Committee, February 1980.
This report lists the molecular weight and chemical composition of
several polyurethane foams (GM 21, GM 22 etc.) For each polyurethane
foam composition, there is also a listing of the number of carbon,
nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen atoms in the foam. This may be used as
an input for FDS model.
We are conducting a parametric study to understand the differences
between the default
gas phase reaction (propane) and the use of the gas phase
decomposition products derived from the PRC report. More details can
be obtained from a paper that we are planning to present at the 'Fire
and Materials 2009" annual conference in January 2009.
> > Thanks for any tips.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
you.
“Materials Bank Compendium of Fire Property Data,” Products Research
Committee, February 1980.
This report lists the molecular weight and chemical composition of
several polyurethane foams (GM 21, GM 22 etc.) For each polyurethane
foam composition, there is also a listing of the number of carbon,
nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen atoms in the foam. This may be used as
an input for FDS model.
We are conducting a parametric study to understand the differences
between the default
gas phase reaction (propane) and the use of the gas phase
decomposition products derived from the PRC report. More details can
be obtained from a paper that we are planning to present at the 'Fire
and Materials 2009" annual conference in January 2009.
>
> - Show quoted text -
philio
Dec 30, 2008, 12:30:11 AM12/30/08
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Thank you both.
Another question I had, that relates to polyurethane foam , and
plastics in general .. is the Change in thermal conductivity with
temperature.
In any case the conductivity should change dramatically when melting
occurs, as liquids have a totally different method of heat transfer.
I have been searching for quite a long time into what the thermal
conductivity would be at the temperatures near combustion, for
Polyurethane (foam in my case).
this graph in this link shows the the increase of thermal conductivity
with temperature - however it is limited, and intended for Buildings
Energy performance of insulation. not fire related experiments
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/1174/polyurethane-insulation-k-value-diagram.png
I find this important.. because I feel that representing Polyurethane
in my experiment with its room temperature conductivity is absurd.
And My results seem to be Accurate when i increase the conductivity
(and increase it alot).
However I have no justification for the level i have increased it to.
In the range of above ~1 K/m . Other than my assumption that a melt
will have a higher conductivity than foam. (also it makes similar HRR
and HR curve as actual experiments)
Does anyone have any insight as to the melted liquid conductivity of
urethane, plastics ...
And does anyone think my decision on setting a high conductivity
is ... acceptable?
Thanks very much for the help and comments.
Another question I had, that relates to polyurethane foam , and
plastics in general .. is the Change in thermal conductivity with
temperature.
In any case the conductivity should change dramatically when melting
occurs, as liquids have a totally different method of heat transfer.
I have been searching for quite a long time into what the thermal
conductivity would be at the temperatures near combustion, for
Polyurethane (foam in my case).
this graph in this link shows the the increase of thermal conductivity
with temperature - however it is limited, and intended for Buildings
Energy performance of insulation. not fire related experiments
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/1174/polyurethane-insulation-k-value-diagram.png
I find this important.. because I feel that representing Polyurethane
in my experiment with its room temperature conductivity is absurd.
And My results seem to be Accurate when i increase the conductivity
(and increase it alot).
However I have no justification for the level i have increased it to.
In the range of above ~1 K/m . Other than my assumption that a melt
will have a higher conductivity than foam. (also it makes similar HRR
and HR curve as actual experiments)
Does anyone have any insight as to the melted liquid conductivity of
urethane, plastics ...
And does anyone think my decision on setting a high conductivity
is ... acceptable?
Thanks very much for the help and comments.
Chris
Jan 1, 2009, 12:18:20 PM1/1/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
The work described above(http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/fire/posters/
2008_IAFSS_Guillermo_2_poster.pdf)
seems very interesting to me. Does anybody know, is there in the main
research-paper more insight into how to use it for a FDS-input file?
Or Fire-Engineering-Purposes? Then I would get a copy of the paper.
There are 2 oxygen-reaction steps and 2 pyrolysis-reaction steps, is
this actually possible to accurately build up in a FDS-File?
Cheers and all the best for 2009!
Chris
On 30 Dez. 2008, 06:30, philio <pmck...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
> Thank you both.
>
> Another question I had, that relates to polyurethane foam , and
> plastics in general .. is the Change in thermal conductivity with
> temperature.
>
> In any case the conductivity should change dramatically when melting
> occurs, as liquids have a totally different method of heat transfer.
> I have been searching for quite a long time into what the thermal
> conductivity would be at the temperatures near combustion, for
> Polyurethane (foam in my case).
>
> this graph in this link shows the the increase of thermal conductivity
> with temperature - however it is limited, and intended for Buildings
> Energy performance of insulation. not fire related experimentshttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/1174/polyurethane-in...
> > > > Thanks for any tips.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
2008_IAFSS_Guillermo_2_poster.pdf)
seems very interesting to me. Does anybody know, is there in the main
research-paper more insight into how to use it for a FDS-input file?
Or Fire-Engineering-Purposes? Then I would get a copy of the paper.
There are 2 oxygen-reaction steps and 2 pyrolysis-reaction steps, is
this actually possible to accurately build up in a FDS-File?
Cheers and all the best for 2009!
Chris
On 30 Dez. 2008, 06:30, philio <pmck...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
> Thank you both.
>
> Another question I had, that relates to polyurethane foam , and
> plastics in general .. is the Change in thermal conductivity with
> temperature.
>
> In any case the conductivity should change dramatically when melting
> occurs, as liquids have a totally different method of heat transfer.
> I have been searching for quite a long time into what the thermal
> conductivity would be at the temperatures near combustion, for
> Polyurethane (foam in my case).
>
> this graph in this link shows the the increase of thermal conductivity
> with temperature - however it is limited, and intended for Buildings
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
philio
Jan 1, 2009, 2:36:57 PM1/1/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
It seems that FDS reaction properties can only be static.. they cant
fluctuate like proposed on the poster at certain temperatures.
Refering to the poster's gas/temperature charts...
could we not pick a "Best Fit" determined by the temperature range
which most combustion will take place at?
fluctuate like proposed on the poster at certain temperatures.
Refering to the poster's gas/temperature charts...
could we not pick a "Best Fit" determined by the temperature range
which most combustion will take place at?
Kevin
Jan 2, 2009, 8:29:07 AM1/2/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
I am not sure what you mean by "static". The solid phase reaction
scheme in FDS allows the user to specify the Arrhenius constants for a
multiple reaction decomposition of the solid. It does not, however,
allow for reactions involving oxygen from the gas phase. This has to
do with the gas phase combustion model, not any limitation in the
solid phase model.
> > > - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Hide quoted text -
scheme in FDS allows the user to specify the Arrhenius constants for a
multiple reaction decomposition of the solid. It does not, however,
allow for reactions involving oxygen from the gas phase. This has to
do with the gas phase combustion model, not any limitation in the
solid phase model.
philio
Jan 3, 2009, 10:49:44 PM1/3/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Yes by specifying A & E you could control this.
Problem is finding a value that actually produces a result.
I have yet to do this.
Problem is finding a value that actually produces a result.
I have yet to do this.
Kuldeep
Jan 5, 2009, 11:24:58 AM1/5/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
I was reviewing the plot of thermal conductivity as a function of
temperature
for polyurethane foam (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/
documents/1174/polyurethane-in...
).
I was wondering if you have information on what kind of polyurethane
foam was used in this study. The plot shows that the thermal
conductivity is 0.1 W/m/K at 176 C. Is there substantial melting at
this temperature. Most of the decomposition of foam usually takes
place in the 250-350 C range. Does the source of the thermal
condutivity plot indicate that melting had occured at 176 C.
Cone experiments on polyurethane foam indicate that a thin layer of
liquid polyol forms on the surface of the foam, when it is subjected
to external flux. It may not be a bad assumption to use the higher
thermal condutivity at temperatures above 176 C.
I would appreciate it if you could post a more complete reference for
the thermal conductivity plot.
Kuldeep
On Dec 30 2008, 12:30 am, philio <pmck...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
> Thank you both.
>
> Another question I had, that relates to polyurethane foam , and
> plastics in general .. is the Change in thermal conductivity with
> temperature.
>
> In any case the conductivity should change dramatically when melting
> occurs, as liquids have a totally different method of heat transfer.
> I have been searching for quite a long time into what the thermal
> conductivity would be at the temperatures near combustion, for
> Polyurethane (foam in my case).
>
> this graph in this link shows the the increase of thermal conductivity
> with temperature - however it is limited, and intended for Buildings
> Energy performance of insulation. not fire related experimentshttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/1174/polyurethane-in...
> > > > Thanks for any tips.- Hide quoted text -
temperature
for polyurethane foam (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/
documents/1174/polyurethane-in...
).
I was wondering if you have information on what kind of polyurethane
foam was used in this study. The plot shows that the thermal
conductivity is 0.1 W/m/K at 176 C. Is there substantial melting at
this temperature. Most of the decomposition of foam usually takes
place in the 250-350 C range. Does the source of the thermal
condutivity plot indicate that melting had occured at 176 C.
Cone experiments on polyurethane foam indicate that a thin layer of
liquid polyol forms on the surface of the foam, when it is subjected
to external flux. It may not be a bad assumption to use the higher
thermal condutivity at temperatures above 176 C.
I would appreciate it if you could post a more complete reference for
the thermal conductivity plot.
Kuldeep
On Dec 30 2008, 12:30 am, philio <pmck...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
> Thank you both.
>
> Another question I had, that relates to polyurethane foam , and
> plastics in general .. is the Change in thermal conductivity with
> temperature.
>
> In any case the conductivity should change dramatically when melting
> occurs, as liquids have a totally different method of heat transfer.
> I have been searching for quite a long time into what the thermal
> conductivity would be at the temperatures near combustion, for
> Polyurethane (foam in my case).
>
> this graph in this link shows the the increase of thermal conductivity
> with temperature - however it is limited, and intended for Buildings
Kuldeep
Jan 5, 2009, 11:30:19 AM1/5/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
The work described above(http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/fire/posters/
2008_IAFSS_Guillermo_2_poster.pdf) was used in the study of flame
spread on polyurethane foams. I will be discussing some of this work
at the Fire and Materials Conference 2009.
We did not use the oxidation reactions, only the thermal
decomposition
reactions were used in our analysis. The assumption was that the
oxygen was
consumed in the flame front and that not much was available for
oxidative reaction at the solid surface.
Kuldeep
Kuldeep
Jan 5, 2009, 11:33:10 AM1/5/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
We have used the GPYRO software to obtain kinetic constants
from TGA data for foam. Let me know if you have specific questions.
Kuldeep
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
from TGA data for foam. Let me know if you have specific questions.
Kuldeep
philio
Jan 5, 2009, 3:01:50 PM1/5/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Hi Kuldeep,
That link I posted earlier I dont know the sources. It was the only
thing I have found showing conductivity of puf at high temperatures
but I have no idea if its accurate.
I have looked at the poster, and it describes the reactions in great
detail. I dont yet know how to interpret this into FDS, Arrhenius
equation?
Another source you might like to see is here:
http://www.cheric.org/PDF/JIEC/IE13/IE13-7-1188.pdf
Im interested in creating this accurately, through these reactions...
That link I posted earlier I dont know the sources. It was the only
thing I have found showing conductivity of puf at high temperatures
but I have no idea if its accurate.
I have looked at the poster, and it describes the reactions in great
detail. I dont yet know how to interpret this into FDS, Arrhenius
equation?
Another source you might like to see is here:
http://www.cheric.org/PDF/JIEC/IE13/IE13-7-1188.pdf
Im interested in creating this accurately, through these reactions...
philio
Jan 5, 2009, 3:11:24 PM1/5/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
--
so far however, I have only had success with using basic polyurethane
foam parameters, in large scale (sofa burning) experiments
I have experimental research data and I get very close results in FDS
when i use these parameters.: based on grid cell 5cm cube
&REAC ID='POLYURETHANE',
FYI='NFPA Babrauskas',
C=6.30,
H=7.10,
O=2.10,
N=1.00,
SOOT_YIELD=0.1000/
&MATL ID='FOAM',
FYI='Properties completely fabricated',
SPECIFIC_HEAT=1.40,
CONDUCTIVITY=1.60,
DENSITY=30.00,
HEAT_OF_COMBUSTION=3.3500000E004,
N_REACTIONS=1,
HEAT_OF_REACTION=1.6000000E003,
NU_FUEL=1.00,
N_S=1.00,
REFERENCE_RATE=0.0900,
REFERENCE_TEMPERATURE=320.00/
But note i have Conductivity at 1.6 watts - which is not near the real
value of polyurethane foam, unless of course at this temperature the
melt produces a conductivity of 1.6
I have more information if needed,
As i said before though Id really like to do this more accurately or
more scientifically, so I appreciate any feedback.
Thanks for the help.
so far however, I have only had success with using basic polyurethane
foam parameters, in large scale (sofa burning) experiments
I have experimental research data and I get very close results in FDS
when i use these parameters.: based on grid cell 5cm cube
&REAC ID='POLYURETHANE',
FYI='NFPA Babrauskas',
C=6.30,
H=7.10,
O=2.10,
N=1.00,
SOOT_YIELD=0.1000/
&MATL ID='FOAM',
FYI='Properties completely fabricated',
SPECIFIC_HEAT=1.40,
CONDUCTIVITY=1.60,
DENSITY=30.00,
HEAT_OF_COMBUSTION=3.3500000E004,
N_REACTIONS=1,
HEAT_OF_REACTION=1.6000000E003,
NU_FUEL=1.00,
N_S=1.00,
REFERENCE_RATE=0.0900,
REFERENCE_TEMPERATURE=320.00/
But note i have Conductivity at 1.6 watts - which is not near the real
value of polyurethane foam, unless of course at this temperature the
melt produces a conductivity of 1.6
I have more information if needed,
As i said before though Id really like to do this more accurately or
more scientifically, so I appreciate any feedback.
Thanks for the help.
philio
Jan 5, 2009, 10:18:24 PM1/5/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
I would like to Revoke my problem with the conductivity, I think i
have it sorted out.
My problem, i believe the "burner" i was using was too strong, and
when the PUF ignited at low conductivity it would burn too fast.
I believe by using the high conductivity, it required more energy to
combust,
Now i have reduced the burner, and I am using much lower thermal
conductivity values,
There is still alot of things to sort out, and i would like to model
the combustion of polyurethane foam along the lines that Kuldeep has
suggested.
have it sorted out.
My problem, i believe the "burner" i was using was too strong, and
when the PUF ignited at low conductivity it would burn too fast.
I believe by using the high conductivity, it required more energy to
combust,
Now i have reduced the burner, and I am using much lower thermal
conductivity values,
There is still alot of things to sort out, and i would like to model
the combustion of polyurethane foam along the lines that Kuldeep has
suggested.
Kevin
Jan 6, 2009, 8:10:22 AM1/6/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
If you have not already done so, I suggest you do a simple calculation
of just the solid phase pyrolysis, much like in the example cases
"thermoplastic" or "charring_solid". The calculation takes a minute,
and it tests only your solid phase formulation. When you introduce a
burner and attempt to simulate flame spread, there are many more
uncertainties introduced as well. You want to make sure that your
solid phase description is OK before going on to flame spread.
of just the solid phase pyrolysis, much like in the example cases
"thermoplastic" or "charring_solid". The calculation takes a minute,
and it tests only your solid phase formulation. When you introduce a
burner and attempt to simulate flame spread, there are many more
uncertainties introduced as well. You want to make sure that your
solid phase description is OK before going on to flame spread.
philio
Jan 7, 2009, 11:34:32 PM1/7/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
I managed to get results, and produced a burning rate in the ball park
of the cone calorimeter test.
However it is burning 1.5 times faster than shown in the calorimeter.
Is the next step now to assess the variables effecting this Solid
phase test?
with the uncertain variables remaining, (conductivity, specific heat,
Heat of reaction)
Heat of reaction, seems to effect the solid phase quite a bit.
On Jan 6, 8:10 am, Kevin <mcgra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you have not already done so, I suggest you do a simple calculation
> of just the solid phase pyrolysis, much like in the example cases
> "thermoplastic" or "charring_solid". The calculation takes a minute,
> and it tests only your solid phase formulation. When you introduce a
> burner and attempt to simulate flame spread, there are many more
> uncertainties introduced as well. You want to make sure that your
> solid phase description is OK before going on to flame spread.
>
of the cone calorimeter test.
However it is burning 1.5 times faster than shown in the calorimeter.
Is the next step now to assess the variables effecting this Solid
phase test?
with the uncertain variables remaining, (conductivity, specific heat,
Heat of reaction)
Heat of reaction, seems to effect the solid phase quite a bit.
On Jan 6, 8:10 am, Kevin <mcgra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you have not already done so, I suggest you do a simple calculation
> of just the solid phase pyrolysis, much like in the example cases
> "thermoplastic" or "charring_solid". The calculation takes a minute,
> and it tests only your solid phase formulation. When you introduce a
> burner and attempt to simulate flame spread, there are many more
> uncertainties introduced as well. You want to make sure that your
> solid phase description is OK before going on to flame spread.
>
> On Jan 5, 10:18 pm,philio<pmck...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
>
> > I would like to Revoke my problem with the conductivity, I think i
> > have it sorted out.
>
> > My problem, i believe the "burner" i was using was too strong, and
> > when the PUF ignited at low conductivity it would burn too fast.
> > I believe by using the high conductivity, it required more energy to
> > combust,
>
> > Now i have reduced the burner, and I am using much lower thermal
> > conductivity values,
>
> > There is still alot of things to sort out, and i would like to model
> > the combustion of polyurethane foam along the lines that Kuldeep has
> > suggested.
>
>
> > I would like to Revoke my problem with the conductivity, I think i
> > have it sorted out.
>
> > My problem, i believe the "burner" i was using was too strong, and
> > when the PUF ignited at low conductivity it would burn too fast.
> > I believe by using the high conductivity, it required more energy to
> > combust,
>
> > Now i have reduced the burner, and I am using much lower thermal
> > conductivity values,
>
> > There is still alot of things to sort out, and i would like to model
> > the combustion of polyurethane foam along the lines that Kuldeep has
> > suggested.
>
> > > On Jan 5, 3:01 pm,philio<pmck...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > Hi Kuldeep,
> > > > That link I posted earlier I dont know the sources. It was the only
> > > > thing I have found showing conductivity of puf at high temperatures
> > > > but I have no idea if its accurate.
>
> > > > I have looked at the poster, and it describes the reactions in great
> > > > detail. I dont yet know how to interpret this into FDS, Arrhenius
> > > > equation?
> > > > Another source you might like to see is here:http://www.cheric.org/PDF/JIEC/IE13/IE13-7-1188.pdf
>
> > > > Im interested in creating this accurately, through these reactions...
>
> > > > On Jan 5, 11:33 am, Kuldeep <prasad.kuld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > We have used the GPYRO software to obtain kinetic constants
> > > > > from TGA data for foam. Let me know if you have specific questions.
>
> > > > > Kuldeep
>
>
> > > > Hi Kuldeep,
> > > > That link I posted earlier I dont know the sources. It was the only
> > > > thing I have found showing conductivity of puf at high temperatures
> > > > but I have no idea if its accurate.
>
> > > > I have looked at the poster, and it describes the reactions in great
> > > > detail. I dont yet know how to interpret this into FDS, Arrhenius
> > > > equation?
> > > > Another source you might like to see is here:http://www.cheric.org/PDF/JIEC/IE13/IE13-7-1188.pdf
>
> > > > Im interested in creating this accurately, through these reactions...
>
> > > > On Jan 5, 11:33 am, Kuldeep <prasad.kuld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > We have used the GPYRO software to obtain kinetic constants
> > > > > from TGA data for foam. Let me know if you have specific questions.
>
> > > > > Kuldeep
>
> > > > > On Jan 3, 10:49 pm,philio<pmck...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Yes by specifying A & E you could control this.
> > > > > > Problem is finding a value that actually produces a result.
> > > > > > I have yet to do this.
>
> > > > > > On Jan 2, 8:29 am, Kevin <mcgra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by "static". The solid phase reaction
> > > > > > > scheme in FDS allows the user to specify the Arrhenius constants for a
> > > > > > > multiple reaction decomposition of the solid. It does not, however,
> > > > > > > allow for reactions involving oxygen from the gas phase. This has to
> > > > > > > do with the gas phase combustion model, not any limitation in the
> > > > > > > solid phase model.
>
>
> > > > > > Yes by specifying A & E you could control this.
> > > > > > Problem is finding a value that actually produces a result.
> > > > > > I have yet to do this.
>
> > > > > > On Jan 2, 8:29 am, Kevin <mcgra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by "static". The solid phase reaction
> > > > > > > scheme in FDS allows the user to specify the Arrhenius constants for a
> > > > > > > multiple reaction decomposition of the solid. It does not, however,
> > > > > > > allow for reactions involving oxygen from the gas phase. This has to
> > > > > > > do with the gas phase combustion model, not any limitation in the
> > > > > > > solid phase model.
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 1, 2:36 pm,philio<pmck...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > It seems that FDS reaction properties can only be static.. they cant
> > > > > > > > fluctuate like proposed on the poster at certain temperatures.
>
> > > > > > > > Refering to the poster's gas/temperature charts...
> > > > > > > > could we not pick a "Best Fit" determined by the temperature range
> > > > > > > > which most combustion will take place at?
>
> > > > > > > > On Jan 1, 12:18 pm, Chris <chr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > The work described above(http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/fire/posters/
> > > > > > > > > 2008_IAFSS_Guillermo_2_poster.pdf)
> > > > > > > > > seems very interesting to me. Does anybody know, is there in the main
> > > > > > > > > research-paper more insight into how to use it for a FDS-input file?
> > > > > > > > > Or Fire-Engineering-Purposes? Then I would get a copy of the paper.
> > > > > > > > > There are 2 oxygen-reaction steps and 2 pyrolysis-reaction steps, is
> > > > > > > > > this actually possible to accurately build up in a FDS-File?
>
> > > > > > > > > Cheers and all the best for 2009!
> > > > > > > > > Chris
>
>
> > > > > > > > It seems that FDS reaction properties can only be static.. they cant
> > > > > > > > fluctuate like proposed on the poster at certain temperatures.
>
> > > > > > > > Refering to the poster's gas/temperature charts...
> > > > > > > > could we not pick a "Best Fit" determined by the temperature range
> > > > > > > > which most combustion will take place at?
>
> > > > > > > > On Jan 1, 12:18 pm, Chris <chr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > The work described above(http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/fire/posters/
> > > > > > > > > 2008_IAFSS_Guillermo_2_poster.pdf)
> > > > > > > > > seems very interesting to me. Does anybody know, is there in the main
> > > > > > > > > research-paper more insight into how to use it for a FDS-input file?
> > > > > > > > > Or Fire-Engineering-Purposes? Then I would get a copy of the paper.
> > > > > > > > > There are 2 oxygen-reaction steps and 2 pyrolysis-reaction steps, is
> > > > > > > > > this actually possible to accurately build up in a FDS-File?
>
> > > > > > > > > Cheers and all the best for 2009!
> > > > > > > > > Chris
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 28, 6:59 am,philio<pmck...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also - i understand their are different type of polyurethane and
> > > > > > > > > > > > different additives.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Im just looking for a basic one as a guideline.
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also - i understand their are different type of polyurethane and
> > > > > > > > > > > > different additives.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Im just looking for a basic one as a guideline.
>
Hostikka Simo
Jan 8, 2009, 2:44:06 AM1/8/09
to fds...@googlegroups.com
philio,
If you want to assess the effect of you inputs on the burning rate
curve, you may find usefull the following link.
http://www.sal.hut.fi/Publications/pdf-files/TMAT08.pdf
See Section 4.2 "Rules of thumb for finding the thermal parameters"
Simo
If you want to assess the effect of you inputs on the burning rate
curve, you may find usefull the following link.
http://www.sal.hut.fi/Publications/pdf-files/TMAT08.pdf
See Section 4.2 "Rules of thumb for finding the thermal parameters"
Simo
philio
Jan 9, 2009, 9:00:15 PM1/9/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Thanks alot Simo,
Very excellent paper, very interesting and learning alot from it.
On Jan 8, 2:44 am, "Hostikka Simo" <Simo.Hosti...@vtt.fi> wrote:
> philio,
>
> If you want to assess the effect of you inputs on the burning rate
> curve, you may find usefull the following link.http://www.sal.hut.fi/Publications/pdf-files/TMAT08.pdf
> > > > the combustion ofpolyurethanefoam along the lines that
> >Polyurethane(foam in my case).
> > Decomposition of PolyetherPolyurethaneFoam" by researchers
>
> read more »
Very excellent paper, very interesting and learning alot from it.
On Jan 8, 2:44 am, "Hostikka Simo" <Simo.Hosti...@vtt.fi> wrote:
> philio,
>
> If you want to assess the effect of you inputs on the burning rate
> > Kuldeep has
> > > > suggested.
>
> > > > On Jan 5, 3:11 pm,philio<pmck...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > so far however, I have only had success with using basic
> > > > >polyurethanefoam parameters, in large scale (sofa burning)
> > > > suggested.
>
> > > > On Jan 5, 3:11 pm,philio<pmck...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > so far however, I have only had success with using basic
> > > > > experiments I have experimental research data and I get
> > very close
> > > > > results in FDS when i use these parameters.: based on grid cell
> > > > > 5cm cube &REAC ID='POLYURETHANE',
> > > > > FYI='NFPA Babrauskas',
> > > > > C=6.30,
> > > > > H=7.10,
> > > > > O=2.10,
> > > > > N=1.00,
> > > > > SOOT_YIELD=0.1000/
>
> > > > > &MATL ID='FOAM',
> > > > > FYI='Properties completely fabricated',
> > > > > SPECIFIC_HEAT=1.40,
> > > > > CONDUCTIVITY=1.60,
> > > > > DENSITY=30.00,
> > > > > HEAT_OF_COMBUSTION=3.3500000E004,
> > > > > N_REACTIONS=1,
> > > > > HEAT_OF_REACTION=1.6000000E003,
> > > > > NU_FUEL=1.00,
> > > > > N_S=1.00,
> > > > > REFERENCE_RATE=0.0900,
> > > > > REFERENCE_TEMPERATURE=320.00/
>
> > > > > But note i have Conductivity at 1.6 watts - which is
> > not near the
> > > > > real value ofpolyurethanefoam, unless of course at this
> > very close
> > > > > results in FDS when i use these parameters.: based on grid cell
> > > > > 5cm cube &REAC ID='POLYURETHANE',
> > > > > FYI='NFPA Babrauskas',
> > > > > C=6.30,
> > > > > H=7.10,
> > > > > O=2.10,
> > > > > N=1.00,
> > > > > SOOT_YIELD=0.1000/
>
> > > > > &MATL ID='FOAM',
> > > > > FYI='Properties completely fabricated',
> > > > > SPECIFIC_HEAT=1.40,
> > > > > CONDUCTIVITY=1.60,
> > > > > DENSITY=30.00,
> > > > > HEAT_OF_COMBUSTION=3.3500000E004,
> > > > > N_REACTIONS=1,
> > > > > HEAT_OF_REACTION=1.6000000E003,
> > > > > NU_FUEL=1.00,
> > > > > N_S=1.00,
> > > > > REFERENCE_RATE=0.0900,
> > > > > REFERENCE_TEMPERATURE=320.00/
>
> > > > > But note i have Conductivity at 1.6 watts - which is
> > not near the
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > this graph in this link shows the the increase of
> > > > > > > > > > > > thermal conductivity with temperature -
> > however it
> > > > > > > > > > > > is limited, and intended for Buildings
> > Energy performance of insulation. not fire related
> > experimentshttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/11
> > 74/polyurethane-in...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I find this important.. because I feel that
> > > > > > > > > > > > representingPolyurethanein my
> > > > > > > > > > > > this graph in this link shows the the increase of
> > > > > > > > > > > > thermal conductivity with temperature -
> > however it
> > > > > > > > > > > > is limited, and intended for Buildings
> > Energy performance of insulation. not fire related
> > experimentshttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/11
> > 74/polyurethane-in...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I find this important.. because I feel that
> > at ENSMA, LNE, and Edinburgh.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > See poster
>
> > here:http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/fire/posters/2008_IAF
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SS_Guillermo_2_poster.pdf
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This
>
> ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > See poster
>
> > here:http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/fire/posters/2008_IAF
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SS_Guillermo_2_poster.pdf
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This
>
>
> read more »
lucasbv
Jan 10, 2009, 4:07:46 AM1/10/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Philio,
As Rein said, the polyurethane foam gaseous products are dependent of
the combustion conditions and the particular experiment that you are
performing. We are preparing a conference for “Fire and Materials
2009” in which further results of PUF gaseous products will be
presented.
For polyurethane foam, kinetic of decomposition, gaseous products and
HRR change strongly with the type of foam considered (fire-retarded,
non-fire-retarded, density, rigid, flexible, fillers, etc). This is
probably one of main problems for engineering and risk assessment:
results are difficult to extrapolate.
Thermal conductivity. Polyurethane is classified as thermosetting
material. While heating up polyurethane does not melt, it thermally
decomposes. The viscous liquid remaining in the holder is not
polyurethane is a by-product. In fact, poster referenced by Rein
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/fire/posters/2008_IAFSS_Guillermo_2_poster.pdf
and results that we will present in “Fire and Materials 2009”, show
that in air, the first gas released (by non-fire-retarded foam) is
isocyanate. Isocyanate is one of the chemicals used to manufacture
polyurethane foam. Thus, while specifying a thermal conductivity, the
solid temperature range has to be well defined.
A and Ea. Again, Arrhenius parameters depend of the decomposition
mechanism of foam. Various methods have been classically used for
calculating these parameters. For having an idea of these methods, you
can read Vyazovkin. International Journal of Chemical Kinetics, Vol.
28, 95 – 101 (1996). We are using a different method defined by Rein
et al. (Combustion and Flame 146 (2006) 95-108). This method requires
a genetic algorithms tool.
As you can see, the decomposition kinetics of foams studied in the
paper of Chung et al. and in the poster that you cited above are not
the same; however both are flexible polyurethane foams. If you want to
calculate pyrolysis you have to spend some time analyzing FDS input
data. The input data code that you cited above considers single stage
decomposition for solid PUF. You have to analyze is a single reaction
mechanism provide accurate results for your needs.
Lucas
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > see the poster presented in the 9th IAFSS- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
As Rein said, the polyurethane foam gaseous products are dependent of
the combustion conditions and the particular experiment that you are
performing. We are preparing a conference for “Fire and Materials
2009” in which further results of PUF gaseous products will be
presented.
For polyurethane foam, kinetic of decomposition, gaseous products and
HRR change strongly with the type of foam considered (fire-retarded,
non-fire-retarded, density, rigid, flexible, fillers, etc). This is
probably one of main problems for engineering and risk assessment:
results are difficult to extrapolate.
Thermal conductivity. Polyurethane is classified as thermosetting
material. While heating up polyurethane does not melt, it thermally
decomposes. The viscous liquid remaining in the holder is not
polyurethane is a by-product. In fact, poster referenced by Rein
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/fire/posters/2008_IAFSS_Guillermo_2_poster.pdf
and results that we will present in “Fire and Materials 2009”, show
that in air, the first gas released (by non-fire-retarded foam) is
isocyanate. Isocyanate is one of the chemicals used to manufacture
polyurethane foam. Thus, while specifying a thermal conductivity, the
solid temperature range has to be well defined.
A and Ea. Again, Arrhenius parameters depend of the decomposition
mechanism of foam. Various methods have been classically used for
calculating these parameters. For having an idea of these methods, you
can read Vyazovkin. International Journal of Chemical Kinetics, Vol.
28, 95 – 101 (1996). We are using a different method defined by Rein
et al. (Combustion and Flame 146 (2006) 95-108). This method requires
a genetic algorithms tool.
As you can see, the decomposition kinetics of foams studied in the
paper of Chung et al. and in the poster that you cited above are not
the same; however both are flexible polyurethane foams. If you want to
calculate pyrolysis you have to spend some time analyzing FDS input
data. The input data code that you cited above considers single stage
decomposition for solid PUF. You have to analyze is a single reaction
mechanism provide accurate results for your needs.
Lucas
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
philio
Jan 10, 2009, 4:09:00 AM1/10/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Absorption Coeffecient and Porus flexible Foam.
I read that absorption coeffiecent changes the radiation that
penetrates and is absorbed into a material.
And I thought this might apply to my PU Foam study. If u take sum
flexible PUF it allows light to flow throw it to a depth of maybe 1 cm
or so.
Ive been trying to find out though.. if there is a guideline to find a
value for this.
Does this even apply?
> ...
>
> read more »
I read that absorption coeffiecent changes the radiation that
penetrates and is absorbed into a material.
And I thought this might apply to my PU Foam study. If u take sum
flexible PUF it allows light to flow throw it to a depth of maybe 1 cm
or so.
Ive been trying to find out though.. if there is a guideline to find a
value for this.
Does this even apply?
>
> read more »
philio
Jan 12, 2009, 8:39:34 PM1/12/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Kuldeep, are you familiar with this paper?
genetic algorithms of polyurethane foam pyrolysis
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3264&context=postprints
I read u are working on a 7 step reaction - this one is a 5 step
similar to the poster you linked.
Im attempting to model this now, but im a bit confused as to the
chemical composition of POLYOL
does anyone have general Stoichimetric coefficients for it?
> > > > > > Another question I had, that relates topolyurethanefoam , and
genetic algorithms of polyurethane foam pyrolysis
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3264&context=postprints
I read u are working on a 7 step reaction - this one is a 5 step
similar to the poster you linked.
Im attempting to model this now, but im a bit confused as to the
chemical composition of POLYOL
does anyone have general Stoichimetric coefficients for it?
> > > > > > plastics in general .. is the Change in thermal conductivity with
> > > > > > temperature.
>
> > > > > > In any case the conductivity should change dramatically when melting
> > > > > > occurs, as liquids have a totally different method of heat transfer.
> > > > > > I have been searching for quite a long time into what the thermal
> > > > > > conductivity would be at the temperatures near combustion, for
> > > > > >Polyurethane(foam in my case).
> > > > > > temperature.
>
> > > > > > In any case the conductivity should change dramatically when melting
> > > > > > occurs, as liquids have a totally different method of heat transfer.
> > > > > > I have been searching for quite a long time into what the thermal
> > > > > > conductivity would be at the temperatures near combustion, for
>
> > > > > > this graph in this link shows the the increase of thermal conductivity
> > > > > > with temperature - however it is limited, and intended for Buildings
> > > > > > Energy performance of insulation. not fire related experimentshttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/1174/polyurethane-in...
>
> > > > > > I find this important.. because I feel that representingPolyurethane
> > > > > > in my experiment with its room temperature conductivity is absurd.
> > > > > > And My results seem to be Accurate when i increase the conductivity
> > > > > > (and increase it alot).
>
> > > > > > However I have no justification for the level i have increased it to.
> > > > > > In the range of above ~1 K/m . Other than my assumption that a melt
> > > > > > will have a higher conductivity than foam. (also it makes similar HRR
> > > > > > and HR curve as actual experiments)
>
> > > > > > Does anyone have any insight as to the melted liquid conductivity of
> > > > > > urethane, plastics ...
> > > > > > And does anyone think my decision on setting a high conductivity
> > > > > > is ... acceptable?
>
> > > > > > Thanks very much for the help and comments.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 28, 9:05 am, Rein <rei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > This is a difficult question. Products of combustion of PUF are
> > > > > > > strongly dependant on the burning conditions, and the current state of
> > > > > > > the art does not allow to predict these product with accuracy.
>
> > > > > > > However, a few approximate scheme have been proposed for solid and gas
> > > > > > > products. For example, see the poster presented in the 9th IAFSS
> > > > > > > "Improving the Modelling of Thermal Decomposition of Polyether
> > > > > > >PolyurethaneFoam" by researchers at ENSMA, LNE, and Edinburgh.
> > > > > > this graph in this link shows the the increase of thermal conductivity
> > > > > > with temperature - however it is limited, and intended for Buildings
> > > > > > Energy performance of insulation. not fire related experimentshttp://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/1174/polyurethane-in...
>
> > > > > > I find this important.. because I feel that representingPolyurethane
> > > > > > in my experiment with its room temperature conductivity is absurd.
> > > > > > And My results seem to be Accurate when i increase the conductivity
> > > > > > (and increase it alot).
>
> > > > > > However I have no justification for the level i have increased it to.
> > > > > > In the range of above ~1 K/m . Other than my assumption that a melt
> > > > > > will have a higher conductivity than foam. (also it makes similar HRR
> > > > > > and HR curve as actual experiments)
>
> > > > > > Does anyone have any insight as to the melted liquid conductivity of
> > > > > > urethane, plastics ...
> > > > > > And does anyone think my decision on setting a high conductivity
> > > > > > is ... acceptable?
>
> > > > > > Thanks very much for the help and comments.
>
> > > > > > On Dec 28, 9:05 am, Rein <rei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > This is a difficult question. Products of combustion of PUF are
> > > > > > > strongly dependant on the burning conditions, and the current state of
> > > > > > > the art does not allow to predict these product with accuracy.
>
> > > > > > > However, a few approximate scheme have been proposed for solid and gas
> > > > > > > products. For example, see the poster presented in the 9th IAFSS
> > > > > > > "Improving the Modelling of Thermal Decomposition of Polyether
philio
Jan 13, 2009, 1:18:48 AM1/13/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
In addition to the post above..
Kuldeep did you experiment with polyurethane foam burning horizontal
aswell as vertical?
Im finding that my fds experiment parameters just cant agree with
experimental data (even at this stage, I think its a fundamental
issue) due to the polyol melting and running off in real
scenarios..
I can simulate one or the other but not both with the same parameters.
Is this an issue that might be solved by using two different material
settings .. one for vertical one for horizontal.
On Jan 12, 8:39 pm, philio <pmck...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
> Kuldeep, are you familiar with this paper?
> genetic algorithms ofpolyurethanefoam pyrolysis
>
> http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3264&contex...
Kuldeep did you experiment with polyurethane foam burning horizontal
aswell as vertical?
Im finding that my fds experiment parameters just cant agree with
experimental data (even at this stage, I think its a fundamental
issue) due to the polyol melting and running off in real
scenarios..
I can simulate one or the other but not both with the same parameters.
Is this an issue that might be solved by using two different material
settings .. one for vertical one for horizontal.
On Jan 12, 8:39 pm, philio <pmck...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
> Kuldeep, are you familiar with this paper?
> genetic algorithms ofpolyurethanefoam pyrolysis
>
Kuldeep
Jan 13, 2009, 9:42:20 AM1/13/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Hello Philio,
You have raised several good points.
1) Regarding the absorption coefficient for polyurethane foam, we
have
not made any measurements so far and I have not come across any data
on polyurethane foams. The optics group at NIST has the capability to
measure emissivity, reflectivity and absorption coefficients as a
function
of frequency. I will try and get these measurements done in the near
future.
I believe that the absorption coefficient is critical for accurately
predicting
flame spread on foam slabs. We have done a parametric study and found
that flame spread
rate is quite sensitive to the value of the absorption coefficient.
2)There have been experiments performed at NIST on horizontal and
vertical foam slabs. I agree
that in the case of vertical slabs, the polyol will flow or drip and
could potentially form a liquid pool fire.
We have not done any FDS modeling of vertical foam slabs, but this is
part of our future plans.
I believe that FDS has the capability to model the vertical
configuration as well, but this
remains to be verified.
3) We have not done any work with the 5 step or the 7 step mechanism.
These mechanisms include
oxidative decomposition of foam. We have only focussed on the thermal
decomposition reactions
using a two step approach. The assumption here is that for the flame
spread experiments, oxygen
will be consumed in the flame front and that not enough will penetrate
to the solid surface for
oxidative decomposition. This clearly is not true if you are
interested in smoldering combustion.
4) There are several textbooks on cellular polymers and polyurethane
foams that will give you the
chemical composition of polyol.
Hope this is helpful
Kuldeep
You have raised several good points.
1) Regarding the absorption coefficient for polyurethane foam, we
have
not made any measurements so far and I have not come across any data
on polyurethane foams. The optics group at NIST has the capability to
measure emissivity, reflectivity and absorption coefficients as a
function
of frequency. I will try and get these measurements done in the near
future.
I believe that the absorption coefficient is critical for accurately
predicting
flame spread on foam slabs. We have done a parametric study and found
that flame spread
rate is quite sensitive to the value of the absorption coefficient.
2)There have been experiments performed at NIST on horizontal and
vertical foam slabs. I agree
that in the case of vertical slabs, the polyol will flow or drip and
could potentially form a liquid pool fire.
We have not done any FDS modeling of vertical foam slabs, but this is
part of our future plans.
I believe that FDS has the capability to model the vertical
configuration as well, but this
remains to be verified.
3) We have not done any work with the 5 step or the 7 step mechanism.
These mechanisms include
oxidative decomposition of foam. We have only focussed on the thermal
decomposition reactions
using a two step approach. The assumption here is that for the flame
spread experiments, oxygen
will be consumed in the flame front and that not enough will penetrate
to the solid surface for
oxidative decomposition. This clearly is not true if you are
interested in smoldering combustion.
4) There are several textbooks on cellular polymers and polyurethane
foams that will give you the
chemical composition of polyol.
Hope this is helpful
Kuldeep
philio
Jan 17, 2009, 4:16:02 PM1/17/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
I am attempting to write a two step reaction for the pyrolysis of PUF.
PPUF --> Polyol + NCO
Polyol --> Char + H2O + CH4+ OH+ H2CO
1) Determining the reaction residue amounts in fds,
I believe this could be derived by the ppm as seen in the poster (and
other sources)
2) Determining the heat of reaction
We have general ideas for PUF as a whole, but how can we define Heat
of Reaction when its now split into different reactions,
3) Determining heat of combustion
As with 2), how can we define it for each reaction
the poster shows that the reactions occur at different temperatures.
Thus could calorimeter with low heat flux indicate one reaction, the
higher heat flux indicating both reactions?
http://groups.google.com/group/fds-smv/web/PUFconecal.JPG
notice the declination of the HRR at low heat flux, possibly
indicating enough energy for 1st reaction, not enough for second
reaction?
On Jan 13, 9:42 am, Kuldeep <prasad.kuld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Philio,
>
> You have raised several good points.
>
> 1) Regarding the absorption coefficient forpolyurethanefoam, we
> > Kuldeep did you experiment withpolyurethanefoam burning horizontal
PPUF --> Polyol + NCO
Polyol --> Char + H2O + CH4+ OH+ H2CO
1) Determining the reaction residue amounts in fds,
I believe this could be derived by the ppm as seen in the poster (and
other sources)
2) Determining the heat of reaction
We have general ideas for PUF as a whole, but how can we define Heat
of Reaction when its now split into different reactions,
3) Determining heat of combustion
As with 2), how can we define it for each reaction
the poster shows that the reactions occur at different temperatures.
Thus could calorimeter with low heat flux indicate one reaction, the
higher heat flux indicating both reactions?
http://groups.google.com/group/fds-smv/web/PUFconecal.JPG
notice the declination of the HRR at low heat flux, possibly
indicating enough energy for 1st reaction, not enough for second
reaction?
On Jan 13, 9:42 am, Kuldeep <prasad.kuld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Philio,
>
> You have raised several good points.
>
> have
> not made any measurements so far and I have not come across any data
> onpolyurethanefoams. The optics group at NIST has the capability to
> not made any measurements so far and I have not come across any data
philio
Jan 17, 2009, 4:18:38 PM1/17/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
FYI='Properties completely fabricated',
&MATL ID='FOAM',
SPECIFIC_HEAT=1.10,
CONDUCTIVITY=0.0400,
DENSITY=32.00,
EMISSIVITY=1.00,
HEAT_OF_COMBUSTION=???,
N_REACTIONS=1,
HEAT_OF_REACTION=???,
NU_FUEL=0.80,???
NU_RESIDUE=0.2000,???
RESIDUE='POLYOL',
N_S=1.42,
A=1.9950000E011,
E=1.4800000E005/
&MATL ID='POLYOL',
FYI='Properties completely fabricated',
SPECIFIC_HEAT=1.10,
CONDUCTIVITY=0.0800,
DENSITY=342.00,
HEAT_OF_COMBUSTION=???,
N_REACTIONS=1,
HEAT_OF_REACTION=???,
NU_FUEL=0.3000,???
N_S=0.88,
A=1.5800000E008,
E=1.2400000E005/
>
> read more »
Kuldeep
Jan 18, 2009, 6:26:38 AM1/18/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
One way to determine the heat of reaction is to perform a DSC test
on foam. Our DSC results show two peaks, and you could integrate
under
each peak to obtain the Heat of Reaction for the two steps.
Similarly you could run a micro combustion calorimeter test to obtain
the heat of combustion for the two steps.
A better option would be to run these tests on polyol which is
readily available (for example Voranol). We have not done this as yet,
but
this process could be used to obtain the heat of reaction and
combustion for
the second step. The values for the first step can be obtained by
subtraction.
Another option could be to extract some polyol (residue) after the
foam has
melted and perform tests on the residue. The residue should consist of
polyol
along with some char. It would be interesting to see how these tests
compare
with each other.
We would like to perform these tests ( but our labs are currently
closed due
to safety reasons). Please let me know if you can perform these tests
and how
the results turn out.
Kuldeep
> > > > > > > > > > - Zitierten Text anzeigen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
on foam. Our DSC results show two peaks, and you could integrate
under
each peak to obtain the Heat of Reaction for the two steps.
Similarly you could run a micro combustion calorimeter test to obtain
the heat of combustion for the two steps.
A better option would be to run these tests on polyol which is
readily available (for example Voranol). We have not done this as yet,
but
this process could be used to obtain the heat of reaction and
combustion for
the second step. The values for the first step can be obtained by
subtraction.
Another option could be to extract some polyol (residue) after the
foam has
melted and perform tests on the residue. The residue should consist of
polyol
along with some char. It would be interesting to see how these tests
compare
with each other.
We would like to perform these tests ( but our labs are currently
closed due
to safety reasons). Please let me know if you can perform these tests
and how
the results turn out.
Kuldeep
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
philio
Jan 19, 2009, 6:11:00 AM1/19/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Thanks fir the answers again Kuldeep,
I think for now I will opt to determine the heat of reaction from the
DSC results..
I don't have any access yet to a lab, but I may try to convince
someone to do this in the future, possibly this summer if I can
manage.
I have began to set up a basic FDS 2 step reaction...
Simply I have two reactions
1FOAM requiring a ref-temp to pyrolyze Foam resulting in residue
Polyol
2POLYOL Then Polyol pyrolyze and releasing fuel at a higher ref
temperature.
Anyone run into a problem specifying residue as combustible with using
reference temperature and burnaway?
&MATL ID='FOAM',
SPECIFIC_HEAT=2.00,
CONDUCTIVITY=0.0400,
DENSITY=33.00,
EMISSIVITY=1.00,
N_REACTIONS=1,
HEAT_OF_REACTION=250.00,
NU_RESIDUE=1.00,
RESIDUE='POLYOL',
N_S=1.00,
REFERENCE_RATE=0.1000,
REFERENCE_TEMPERATURE=312.00/
&MATL ID='POLYOL',
SPECIFIC_HEAT=2.00,
CONDUCTIVITY=0.0400,
DENSITY=433.00,
EMISSIVITY=1.00,
HEAT_OF_COMBUSTION=2.7500000E004,
N_REACTIONS=1,
HEAT_OF_REACTION=400.00,
NU_FUEL=1.00,
N_S=1.00,
REFERENCE_RATE=0.1000,
REFERENCE_TEMPERATURE=352.00/
The material disappears.
Anyone know why this could be happening?
> ...
>
> read more »
I think for now I will opt to determine the heat of reaction from the
DSC results..
I don't have any access yet to a lab, but I may try to convince
someone to do this in the future, possibly this summer if I can
manage.
I have began to set up a basic FDS 2 step reaction...
Simply I have two reactions
1FOAM requiring a ref-temp to pyrolyze Foam resulting in residue
Polyol
2POLYOL Then Polyol pyrolyze and releasing fuel at a higher ref
temperature.
Anyone run into a problem specifying residue as combustible with using
reference temperature and burnaway?
&MATL ID='FOAM',
SPECIFIC_HEAT=2.00,
CONDUCTIVITY=0.0400,
DENSITY=33.00,
EMISSIVITY=1.00,
N_REACTIONS=1,
HEAT_OF_REACTION=250.00,
NU_RESIDUE=1.00,
RESIDUE='POLYOL',
N_S=1.00,
REFERENCE_RATE=0.1000,
REFERENCE_TEMPERATURE=312.00/
&MATL ID='POLYOL',
SPECIFIC_HEAT=2.00,
CONDUCTIVITY=0.0400,
DENSITY=433.00,
EMISSIVITY=1.00,
HEAT_OF_COMBUSTION=2.7500000E004,
N_REACTIONS=1,
HEAT_OF_REACTION=400.00,
NU_FUEL=1.00,
N_S=1.00,
REFERENCE_RATE=0.1000,
REFERENCE_TEMPERATURE=352.00/
The material disappears.
Anyone know why this could be happening?
>
> read more »
Chris
Jan 19, 2009, 8:25:13 AM1/19/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
How did you determine Heat_of_Reaction and the Reference_Temp? Just a
guess? I would take care.
If you are working with BURN_AWAY=.TRUE. it is just normal that the
material disappears or what do you mean exactly? You left the step of
formation of char away. Why?
All the best.
Chris
> > > > > > > > > > > > this graph in this link shows the the increase of thermal conductivity- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »
guess? I would take care.
If you are working with BURN_AWAY=.TRUE. it is just normal that the
material disappears or what do you mean exactly? You left the step of
formation of char away. Why?
All the best.
Chris
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »
Kevin
Jan 19, 2009, 9:42:54 AM1/19/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Burning will stop when you have used up all the fuel. Even if you do
not specify BURN_AWAY=.TRUE., FDS will still calculate how much fuel
is available using the DENSITY and THICKNESS.
> > > > > > > > > > > > this graph in this link shows the the increase of thermal conductivity- Hide quoted text -
not specify BURN_AWAY=.TRUE., FDS will still calculate how much fuel
is available using the DENSITY and THICKNESS.
philio
Jan 19, 2009, 3:14:29 PM1/19/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
I am aware that burnaway will exhaust the fuel and remove it (I have
used this feature quite a bit)
I ran it with burnaway off.. the same thing (the material doesn't
disappear. But I still get NaN errors.)
This happens when the material starts to increase in HRR,
I am thinking it is due to the two step reaction with the residue
having a heat of combustion...
I realized now by the burn rate . something causes it to explode
exponentially.
Time HRR RAD_LOSS CONV_LOSS COND_LOSS BURN_RATE
6.845541 22.312779 7.790380 16.546412 2.192365 0.000493
7.206221 22.070142 7.712595 15.690194 2.099123 0.000478
7.566902 21.355056 7.454386 NaN NaN 0.000471
7.943659 NaN NaN NaN
NaN 15.727724
8.343058 NaN NaN NaN
NaN 0.000423
and this happens for all my two step reactions where residue becomes
fuel.
Chris -(Heat of reaction and reference temperature are just an
assumption I used based off of TGA temperatures & mass loss, they are
something I plan to replace with actual data later)
thanks for the responses
> ...
>
> read more »
used this feature quite a bit)
I ran it with burnaway off.. the same thing (the material doesn't
disappear. But I still get NaN errors.)
This happens when the material starts to increase in HRR,
I am thinking it is due to the two step reaction with the residue
having a heat of combustion...
I realized now by the burn rate . something causes it to explode
exponentially.
Time HRR RAD_LOSS CONV_LOSS COND_LOSS BURN_RATE
6.845541 22.312779 7.790380 16.546412 2.192365 0.000493
7.206221 22.070142 7.712595 15.690194 2.099123 0.000478
7.566902 21.355056 7.454386 NaN NaN 0.000471
7.943659 NaN NaN NaN
NaN 15.727724
8.343058 NaN NaN NaN
NaN 0.000423
and this happens for all my two step reactions where residue becomes
fuel.
Chris -(Heat of reaction and reference temperature are just an
assumption I used based off of TGA temperatures & mass loss, they are
something I plan to replace with actual data later)
thanks for the responses
>
> read more »
Kevin
Jan 19, 2009, 3:22:59 PM1/19/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
You should submit the case to the Issue Tracker. It might be a bug.
> > > > > > > > > > > do with the gas phase combustion model, not any- Hide quoted text -
philio
Jan 19, 2009, 3:42:12 PM1/19/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
False alarm, I was using the 5.1 version of FDS, and now with 5.2.5 it
appears to be running quite well.
Sorry for that!
> ...
>
> read more »
appears to be running quite well.
Sorry for that!
>
> read more »
philio
Jan 22, 2009, 6:24:50 AM1/22/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
REAC lines only allow one reaction.. Ive read quite a bit into this.
and the manual mentions the most common reaction,
But in a case where combustibles of a material are derived from two
different pyrolysis reactions... which should it be...
they are quite different.
I guess the common fuel is Polyurethane, but its secondary fuel is
polyol.
Kuldeep,
Ive come up with an idea for modeling vertical and horizontal PUF.
For vertical, if we allow burnaway - the sawtooth decay gives it
increased area imitating what it may be like for dripping polyol
In addition, the horizontal slab having no burnaway simulates a
burning pool.
Obviously thats not perfect, but their I think that may simulate some
of the properties.
Particularly in my case, where i am modeling a sofa, with vertical and
horizontal PUF slabs.
> ...
>
> read more »
and the manual mentions the most common reaction,
But in a case where combustibles of a material are derived from two
different pyrolysis reactions... which should it be...
they are quite different.
I guess the common fuel is Polyurethane, but its secondary fuel is
polyol.
Kuldeep,
Ive come up with an idea for modeling vertical and horizontal PUF.
For vertical, if we allow burnaway - the sawtooth decay gives it
increased area imitating what it may be like for dripping polyol
In addition, the horizontal slab having no burnaway simulates a
burning pool.
Obviously thats not perfect, but their I think that may simulate some
of the properties.
Particularly in my case, where i am modeling a sofa, with vertical and
horizontal PUF slabs.
>
> read more »
Chris
Jan 22, 2009, 8:54:40 AM1/22/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
On question: How is the REAC-line in a 2-step-model applied to both
residues anyway?
> > > > > > > > > > In- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
residues anyway?
Kuldeep
Jan 23, 2009, 9:58:20 AM1/23/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
I am very interested in your ideas on modeling vertical slabs
of PUF. We have a lot of experimental test data, where large
slabs of PUF oriented vertically were burnt. The attempt was
to represent burning of the back side of a sofa / upholstered chair.
In this
configuration, the melt layer (polyol) would flow and could
potentially form a pool fire on a catch pan. Similar issues
would arise on a horizontal foam slab that is located at some height
above the floor.
I am trying various ways with in FDS to model this scenario
by representing the melt as fuel drops. I would like to know
more details on how you have tried to model a vertical slab
of foam. Have you compared your results with experimental data.
Kuldeep
> > > > > > > > > > In- Hide quoted text -
of PUF. We have a lot of experimental test data, where large
slabs of PUF oriented vertically were burnt. The attempt was
to represent burning of the back side of a sofa / upholstered chair.
In this
configuration, the melt layer (polyol) would flow and could
potentially form a pool fire on a catch pan. Similar issues
would arise on a horizontal foam slab that is located at some height
above the floor.
I am trying various ways with in FDS to model this scenario
by representing the melt as fuel drops. I would like to know
more details on how you have tried to model a vertical slab
of foam. Have you compared your results with experimental data.
Kuldeep
philio
Jan 24, 2009, 11:08:47 PM1/24/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Hey Kuldeep,
Ive posted my geometry strategy here:
http://groups.google.com/group/fds-smv/web/ppuf%20geometrics.jpg
And Im in the process of comparing it to large scale test results.. I
would say it is proving to be better than my previous results, but
since Im still adjusting the thermal and reaction parameters... I cant
say for sure,
But representing the amount of Surface area that the fuel has, is a
significant part of the game.
With vertical slabs, and the runoff that occurs, I dont think there is
a way to realisticly simulate that,
Notice by having the vertical slab burn away, it creates more surface
area temporarly, and its height gets reduced..
with the horizontal slab, I thought of two options ,
one where the material surface is defined as Non burn away. and the
other where the surface is split into a burn-away top and non burnaway
bottom. This will account for the viscocity and overall non uniform
surface.
Im testing this Now...
Ofcourse with this method I am using a 2 step reaction,
But Ive still got to refine it, and locate "A" and "E" and hopefully
ill yield similiar or better results>
--------
I havent had any luck using Char though, when i use Char to become
residue of polyol, I am finding it kills the fire very quickly and
char of PUF, doesnt seem to prevent its own burning as .. perhaps it
moves off with liquid polyol?
----
On Jan 23, 9:58 am, Kuldeep <prasad.kuld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am very interested in your ideas on modeling vertical slabs
> of PUF. We have a lot of experimental test data, where large
> slabs of PUF oriented vertically were burnt. The attempt was
> to represent burning of the back side of a sofa / upholstered chair.
> In this
> configuration, the melt layer (polyol) would flow and could
> potentially form a pool fire on a catch pan. Similar issues
> would arise on a horizontal foam slab that is located at some height
> above the floor.
>
> I am trying various ways with in FDS to model this scenario
> by representing the melt as fuel drops. I would like to know
> more details on how you have tried to model a vertical slab
> of foam. Have you compared your results with experimental data.
>
> Kuldeep
>
> On Jan 22, 6:24 am, philio <pmck...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
>
> > REAC lines only allow one reaction.. Ive read quite a bit into this.
> > and the manual mentions the most common reaction,
> > But in a case where combustibles of a material are derived from two
> > different pyrolysis reactions... which should it be...
> > they are quite different.
> > I guess the common fuel isPolyurethane, but its secondary fuel is
> ...
>
> read more »
Ive posted my geometry strategy here:
http://groups.google.com/group/fds-smv/web/ppuf%20geometrics.jpg
And Im in the process of comparing it to large scale test results.. I
would say it is proving to be better than my previous results, but
since Im still adjusting the thermal and reaction parameters... I cant
say for sure,
But representing the amount of Surface area that the fuel has, is a
significant part of the game.
With vertical slabs, and the runoff that occurs, I dont think there is
a way to realisticly simulate that,
Notice by having the vertical slab burn away, it creates more surface
area temporarly, and its height gets reduced..
with the horizontal slab, I thought of two options ,
one where the material surface is defined as Non burn away. and the
other where the surface is split into a burn-away top and non burnaway
bottom. This will account for the viscocity and overall non uniform
surface.
Im testing this Now...
Ofcourse with this method I am using a 2 step reaction,
But Ive still got to refine it, and locate "A" and "E" and hopefully
ill yield similiar or better results>
--------
I havent had any luck using Char though, when i use Char to become
residue of polyol, I am finding it kills the fire very quickly and
char of PUF, doesnt seem to prevent its own burning as .. perhaps it
moves off with liquid polyol?
----
On Jan 23, 9:58 am, Kuldeep <prasad.kuld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am very interested in your ideas on modeling vertical slabs
> of PUF. We have a lot of experimental test data, where large
> slabs of PUF oriented vertically were burnt. The attempt was
> to represent burning of the back side of a sofa / upholstered chair.
> In this
> configuration, the melt layer (polyol) would flow and could
> potentially form a pool fire on a catch pan. Similar issues
> would arise on a horizontal foam slab that is located at some height
> above the floor.
>
> I am trying various ways with in FDS to model this scenario
> by representing the melt as fuel drops. I would like to know
> more details on how you have tried to model a vertical slab
> of foam. Have you compared your results with experimental data.
>
> Kuldeep
>
> On Jan 22, 6:24 am, philio <pmck...@ryerson.ca> wrote:
>
> > REAC lines only allow one reaction.. Ive read quite a bit into this.
> > and the manual mentions the most common reaction,
> > But in a case where combustibles of a material are derived from two
> > different pyrolysis reactions... which should it be...
> > they are quite different.
>
> read more »
lucasbv
Feb 10, 2009, 3:43:33 AM2/10/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Hi Philio,
The kinetic mechanism that you consider is interesting: Only two
pyrolysis reactions, the first one produces a semi-liquid residue and
a gaseous product; the second reaction produces a solid residue and
gases.
As Kevin explained, FDS pyrolysis model does not allow to consider
oxidation reactions in solid phase. Also, as Kuldeep explained,
considering only pyrolysis reactions is not realistic.
You wrote a kinetic mechanism. Now you need kinetic constants (A, Ea
and n) for the pyrolysis model of FDS. Unfortunately kinetic constants
are function of solid behaviour, but also of the mechanism and method
for calculating constants. The method that we are using right now
requires experimental data and a genetic algorithm optimization tool.
Right now we are calculating a group of kinetic parameters for this
reaction mechanism. It will be available after verification of
accuracy.
Cheers,
Lucas
> > > > > > > > > > - Zitierten Text anzeigen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
The kinetic mechanism that you consider is interesting: Only two
pyrolysis reactions, the first one produces a semi-liquid residue and
a gaseous product; the second reaction produces a solid residue and
gases.
As Kevin explained, FDS pyrolysis model does not allow to consider
oxidation reactions in solid phase. Also, as Kuldeep explained,
considering only pyrolysis reactions is not realistic.
You wrote a kinetic mechanism. Now you need kinetic constants (A, Ea
and n) for the pyrolysis model of FDS. Unfortunately kinetic constants
are function of solid behaviour, but also of the mechanism and method
for calculating constants. The method that we are using right now
requires experimental data and a genetic algorithm optimization tool.
Right now we are calculating a group of kinetic parameters for this
reaction mechanism. It will be available after verification of
accuracy.
Cheers,
Lucas
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
philio
Feb 12, 2009, 3:23:11 AM2/12/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Thank you very much Lucas,
I have a couple of things to respond.
1. In regards to a 2 step reaction not being totally realistic, I
agree,
If I am correct, oxidation will be contributory mainly at fire
ignition, development and later stages.
This has led me inflate the pyrolysis reactions slightly to
compensate. For what I am working on now Iam not concerned so much
about oxidation, rather the amount of combustion the fuel will
release. (I realize that many of wish to look at all aspects)
2. Thus far Ive come up with some preliminary results which are
shaping up really well to real large scale test.
As for parameters A and E, I did have a few sources for "appropriate"
ranges and they worked somewhat, but due to time restraints I went
back to Reference rate and Reference temperature.
Please take a look at my Reaction results in mass loss of small scale
pyrolysis. I took a snapshot of your work for comparison.
http://groups.google.com/group/fds-smv/web/ppuf%20pyrolysis.jpg
(NOTE the AE and Reference Rate results were from experiments I picked
at random with slightly different variables)
3. Representing the surface area with burnaway the model increases in
surface area as it burns. I dont know if there would ever be a way to
have viscous liquid spill and flow as polyol. Again point here is
that this surface area does increase and that in some fires it may be
more some less.
4. Question, is the Heat Flux in your verification for pyrolysis, not
an indication of the endothermic reactions?
and an indication that they are both similar in proportion for foam
and polyol.?
> ...
>
> read more »
I have a couple of things to respond.
1. In regards to a 2 step reaction not being totally realistic, I
agree,
If I am correct, oxidation will be contributory mainly at fire
ignition, development and later stages.
This has led me inflate the pyrolysis reactions slightly to
compensate. For what I am working on now Iam not concerned so much
about oxidation, rather the amount of combustion the fuel will
release. (I realize that many of wish to look at all aspects)
2. Thus far Ive come up with some preliminary results which are
shaping up really well to real large scale test.
As for parameters A and E, I did have a few sources for "appropriate"
ranges and they worked somewhat, but due to time restraints I went
back to Reference rate and Reference temperature.
Please take a look at my Reaction results in mass loss of small scale
pyrolysis. I took a snapshot of your work for comparison.
http://groups.google.com/group/fds-smv/web/ppuf%20pyrolysis.jpg
(NOTE the AE and Reference Rate results were from experiments I picked
at random with slightly different variables)
3. Representing the surface area with burnaway the model increases in
surface area as it burns. I dont know if there would ever be a way to
have viscous liquid spill and flow as polyol. Again point here is
that this surface area does increase and that in some fires it may be
more some less.
4. Question, is the Heat Flux in your verification for pyrolysis, not
an indication of the endothermic reactions?
and an indication that they are both similar in proportion for foam
and polyol.?
>
> read more »
lucasbv
Feb 12, 2009, 8:37:45 AM2/12/09
to FDS and Smokeview Discussions
Hi Philio,
Your idea of simulating horizontal and vertical fire propagation is
interesting. However, when fuel of a cell is totally consumed, the
current cell dessapears. Take care with boundary conditions of each
new element exposed to fire. Experimentally, when a volume of sample
dessapears, material that is in contact with the material that just
dessapears is not at the initial conditions.
According to experimental pictures that you show, test of foam
supported in a grid (bottom), I imagin that around 80 to 100 seconds
after ignition, almost all the semi-liquid residue dripped and formed
a pool fire at the foor. I wonder if this affect HRR measurement?
Cheers
Lucas
> > > > > > > > > > > > conductivity would be at the temperatures near- Hide quoted text -
Your idea of simulating horizontal and vertical fire propagation is
interesting. However, when fuel of a cell is totally consumed, the
current cell dessapears. Take care with boundary conditions of each
new element exposed to fire. Experimentally, when a volume of sample
dessapears, material that is in contact with the material that just
dessapears is not at the initial conditions.
According to experimental pictures that you show, test of foam
supported in a grid (bottom), I imagin that around 80 to 100 seconds
after ignition, almost all the semi-liquid residue dripped and formed
a pool fire at the foor. I wonder if this affect HRR measurement?
Cheers
Lucas
Bilal Aydogan
Aug 10, 2013, 5:09:43 PM8/10/13
to fds...@googlegroups.com
Hi philio,
ı wonder if you could finish your model for PUF. ı am studying rigid polyurethane too. and trying to model PUF burning in cone calorimeter in FDS. we can share our experiments about PUFs.
12 Şubat 2009 Perşembe 10:23:11 UTC+2 tarihinde philio yazdı:
12 Şubat 2009 Perşembe 10:23:11 UTC+2 tarihinde philio yazdı:
philip
Nov 17, 2013, 11:51:08 AM11/17/13
to fds...@googlegroups.com
Hi Bill,
I realize I haven't been on here in ages.. and i'm using a different username atm.
Are you still working on polyurethane experimentation? I have a few models on the go right now.
philio
I realize I haven't been on here in ages.. and i'm using a different username atm.
Are you still working on polyurethane experimentation? I have a few models on the go right now.
philio
Bilal Aydogan
Apr 17, 2014, 3:56:23 PM4/17/14
to fds...@googlegroups.com
Hi Philio,
Sorry ı replied you too late but there was something wrong with my family (my dad was sick). Yes still working on polyurethane and still have important problems with FDS. could you get the same results with your experiments on FDS? ı hope you see my message.
17 Kasım 2013 Pazar 18:51:08 UTC+2 tarihinde philip yazdı:
17 Kasım 2013 Pazar 18:51:08 UTC+2 tarihinde philip yazdı:
Konrad Wilkens
Apr 15, 2015, 10:24:55 AM4/15/15
to fds...@googlegroups.com
Philip,
just wondering if I would have seen any of your modelling work on FPUF in literature.
I am starting up some work on FPUF at the moment, and I have been doing some lit research. I have found Prasad's work and a few other recent modelling studies.
currently I am attempting to replicate some of it with FDS6, so far so good.
I have seen that you have been in a lot of the discussions here on FPUF, so would be great if you can give some further info.
Konrad.
philip
Apr 15, 2015, 3:12:51 PM4/15/15
to fds...@googlegroups.com
Hi Kondrad,
Most likely not - Although I have been involved and currently authoring some works under review.
My only contribution will be the synthesis of existing works and implementation into the modelling of FPUF in FDS.
I view the pyrolsis reactions as being quite simple and easy to replicate in FDS. But keep in mind, properties between different FPUF affect this, and each one is different.
Representing the geometry, is tricky. Kuldeep's model is a good concept. I extend this and tailor it based on how I think polyol will flow.
The thinking is that such a model would be good for specific situations. ie, Kuldeeps model works for a 10 cm thick slab. But it doesn't work for a 100 cm slab or a horizontal slab.
Cheers,
Philip
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages