LABORATORY 1: POOL FIRE LABORATORY

David Yates

September 14, 2009

1. Introduction

This experiment was divided into two subsections, each intended to demonstrate a

different set of fire characteristics through a standard test. The first test was the cup

burner test, which employed the ASTMD56 and ASTMD92 test standards to determine

the flash point and flame point of a given liquid, as well as the associated flammability

limits. In it, [dimensions of fire]. A thermocouple was placed into the small container to

determine the temperature at which the pool ignited and sustained a flame. The second

test was the pool fire test, where 230 g of methanol was ignited in a 23.5-cm diameter

pan and allowed to burn out. This test showed the flame characteristics of methanol,

including flame height and color (as determined retroactively through video), and the

contour within the pan.

The cup burner test is meaningful for calibration of systems, as well as the

experimental determination of material properties. The flash point is a meaningful

measurement because it provides a guideline for the conditions necessary for ignition of a

material. In this case, the naphthalene and paraffin oil have relatively high flash points,

and

2. Approach

2.1 Pool Fire Test: Heptane and Methanol

2.1.1 Test Setup and Experimental Procedure

In the pool fire test, a known volume (250 mL) of the test fuels was placed into a

metal baking pan. At the base of the pan, the diameter was 21.5 cm, and at the top, 22.5

cm. The height of the fuel within the pan was very small with respect to the pan height.
The pan was mounted atop a load cell, so the bottom of the pan was .2 m above the

ground. A thermocouple tree was positioned along the centerline of the pan.

Thermocouples were located at the following heights (in m) above the bottom of the

baking pan: .05, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 2.0. The thermocouples were

numbered in order ascending from the thermocouple closest to the pan, but the number

11 was not used (the height of 1.5 m corresponded to the thermocouple that was called

number 12.) These heights were used to estimate the flame heights after ignition. The

data acquisition system (mass and temperature at each thermocouple v. time) was

checked, and a chronograph was used as a redundant measurement system to ensure that

the proper duration was recorded. After ensuring that all observers were a safe distance

away, the pan fire was lit and observations recorded.

2.1.2 Calculations

The calculations shown here are for heptane. Methanol was also used in this lab.

2.1.2.1 Average Mass Loss Rate

∆mtotal
Ý
mavg =
tb

∆m= the fuel mass burned

tb = measured burn time

∆ m=ρ heptane *V = 0.682 kg/L*0.25 L = 0.1705 kg

ρ heptane = the density of heptane

Therefore,

m
 = 0.1705kg/248s = 6.875*10^-3 kg/s

2.1.2.2 Quasi-Steady Mass Loss Rate

Figure [ ] reports the recorded mass at each point of the fuel burning. The quasi-steady

burning period, where the slope of the mass v. time curve is relatively steady, occurs from

t=[] to t=[]. Therefore,

∆m
i =
qu a
si
Ý
m
∆tquasi
q
ua
s

Ýquasi = (
m

2.1.2.3 Average Energy Release Rate

Using the average mass loss rate we can determine the average energy release rate by using

 ⋅ χ ⋅ ∆hc
 =m
Q

∆hc= the heat of combustion, 44.56 kJ/g -Table C.2 A-38[1].

χ = the combustion efficiency

χ = ∆H ch
∆H T

Using the tables found on 3-111[1] we find the value of χ to be .9238 using this value we

can now solve the equation above


Q = 1.48g/s*0.9238*44.56kJ/g = 60.92 kW

2.1.2.4 Energy Release Rate Estimated from Flame Length

The average energy release rate from flame length is

Q L = 37.35( L + 1.02 D )
5/2
(3)

L= the flame height

D= the pan diameter found by using 4As/π


Q = 37.35*(1.004 m+1.02*0.2605 m)5/2 = 67.85kW
L

2.1.2.5 Energy Release Rate Estimated from Pan Size

The energy release rate can be estimated from the pan with

Q D = ∆hc ⋅ χ ⋅ m∞′′ As (1 − e −kβD ) (4)

As = the surface area of the pool

m∞′′= the radiation dominated mass flux Table 3-1.13[1]

kβ= empirical constant coinciding with the radiative properties of the fuel. Table 3-1.13[1]

∆hc= the heat of combustion

∆hc= 44.56MJ/kg

As = π*D2/4=π*(0.2605m)2/4 = 0.0533 m2

χ = 0.9238,

m∞′′=0.101 kg/ (m2-s)

kβ=1.1 m-1

 = 0.9238*44.56*0.101kg/ (m2-s)*0.0533m2*(1-e-1.1*0.2605) = 55.2kW

Q D

2.2 Ignition Tests: Naphthalene and Paraffin Oil

2.2.1 Test Setup and Experimental Procedure

The apparatus was assembled with a small cup positioned atop a heater. This cup

was filled with ~50 mL of the fuel (naphthalene / paraffin oil) at room temperature and

placed upon the heater, below the smoke ventilator. A single thermocouple was inserted

into the cup with the fuel to record temperature, which was displayed on an external unit

adjacent to the heater. The test setup is shown in figure 1.

After assembly, the heater was turned on gradually in order to raise the fuel

temperature. The rate of heating was about 10 degrees every seven seconds in the

naphthalene test and 10 degrees every 24 seconds for the paraffin oil. The pilot was lit
and slowly vacillated over the fuel. Temperatures for the smoke point, fire point, and

flash point were recorded in table 1 for each fuel and each trial.

2.2.2 Ignition Test Calculations

The Clausius-Clayperon relationship is used to estimate the fuel volume fraction at

the fuel surface at ignition. Results are in table 1, calculations for naphthalene are shown.

X2 M * h fg 1 1
Ln ( )= ( − )
X1 R T1 T2

X2 = Fuel Volume fraction at surface at T2 (Kelvin)

X1 = Fuel volume fraction at surface at T1 (Kelvin) (used 1. T1 was the boiling

point.)

M= Molar mass of desired fuel kg/mol

hfg = Enthalpy of Vaporization kJ/kg

R= Gas Law Constant, 8.314 kJ/ mol

X2= e^(.128kg/mol*.3645kJ/kg)/ 8.314kJ/mol*(1/491-1/369)

X2 =.995

3. Results

3.1 Pool Fire Results

3.1.1 Observations

Figure [] shows the setup and measurement devices used for both pool fire tests,

and table [] summarizes the resulting measurements. For the heptane fire, the fire was

observed to immediately hit a steady state fire. The fire plume appeared concentrated to

one side of the pan, and listed off to one side during burning. Thin clouds of black smoke

were produced from the billowing flames. Figures [] show these flame characteristics.
The flame height remained relatively constant, remaining within the same range for the

first three minutes, at which point it began to wane. Around this time, the smoke evolved

from the fire seemed to increase. The fire decreased to about ½ of its previous height

over the next 30 seconds, and abruptly (in a span of less than three seconds) was extinct.

The methanol fire was burning the entire pan in less than three seconds. A small

blue flame was observed at the beginning of the experiment, which seemed concentrated

to the right side of the pan. The flame height stayed below the second thermocouple in

the tree (.4 m above the bottom of the pan) for most of the fire. Traces of yellow flames

were observed, beginning 20 seconds after the start of the fire, and but were not sustained

until about 1 minute after the beginning of the fire. It was at this time that a greater

degree of wrinkling was observed in the fire. Between 3 and 4 minutes, the yellow

flames comprised the greater portion of the upper half of the flame. The flame waned

beginning about 4:30 into the fire, and was characterized by smaller yellow flames with

less wrinkling. At about 5 minutes, the flames were concentrated around the perimeter of

the pan. The flames continued to wane and became entirely yellow and orange by 6:00,

and were localized to one side of the pan until slowly reaching extinction.

3.1.2 Measurements

3.1.2.1 Overall Fire Behavior

The summary of both fuel types can be found in Table []. The burn time for

heptane was roughly 4 minutes, and the burn time of methanol was 7 minutes. Both fires

had a maximum burn temperature of around 900 degrees C, measured from the lowest

thermocouple.
 This error is due to the design and size of the particular thermocouples used. The

thermocouples were 1.25 mm in diameter and the error for the thermocouples can be

illustrated using the equation

ρC p D / 6h = τ

The larger the τ value means a larger discrepancy between the temperature of

the thermocouple and that of the actual fire. The values in Table 1 provide valuable

information in making the desired calculations for the energy release rates for each

particular fuel.

3.1.2.2 Energy Release Rate

We used three different approaches in order to find the energy release rates for

our particular fuels. Our first approach found the energy release rate based on burn time

and the total mass consumed (Q ) . The second approach involved a correlation between
the energy release rates from the experimental flame heights along with our calculated

diameter (Q )
L . The third and final calculation related pool diameter along with the

radiative properties for each fuel (Q )D . For Methanol this third calculation was slightly

altered due to studies discussed in the SFPE handbook. The book states that the radiative

properties of alcohols such as methanol or ethanol in fact can be governed by the

radiation dominated mass flux. The book provides separate values for certain fuels based

on diameter. By taking These values can be found using Table 3.

3.1.2.3 Heat Flux

The heat flux has been plotted vs. time in Figure 5. Both fires experienced a quick

rise in heat when ignited and then remained at a relatively constant temperature heat
output for the duration of the fire until the fuel was exhausted. For heptane the average

value for this area of the curve was approximately 5.25 kW, methanol was only about .82

kW. These values can be calculated by using the data the heat flux device provided us in

volts and converting with our conversion factor of 6800 kW/volt. This reading will be

able to show us how the fire behaved relating heat flux to a specified time.

3.1.3 Analysis and Discussion

There are several errors which may have occurred in this lab that may have

affected our results for our heat release rate and mass flux readings. One of the possible

errors lies within our ability to determine the flame height of the fires. The flame room

had inadequate lighting and when the fire was not particularly bright the estimation of

flame height can become a difficult undertaking. Also the burn room was not isolated

from the air flow in the room causing the flame to not have a complete vertical

alignment. Since the flame height estimation is based upon a vertical measurement

system this provides another source of error. Another possible error was found when the

pool fires were close to extinction. The pan in which the fires were burning seemed to

have a slight incline causing the fuel to tend towards one side. This trend may have

affected the burn time and come into play while calculating the mass loss rate which was

used to find our energy release rate. The thermocouples also contain error due to the

radiative properties of the materials in the burn room. The colder brick walls would have

affected the readings due to the relationship discussed in section IV 1. Even with the

multiple possibilities for error the multiple Heat release rate values proved to be very

consistent.
 During the small scale fire testing we came to the conclusion that we were dealing

with a transient fire in the initial phase. After a brief period of growth the fire

characteristics turned towards a steady state process for both fuels, as predicted for pool

fires. Due to the consistency of our calculations concerning heat release rate and the

verification of the steady state fire we were able to clearly illustrate the behavior and fire

characteristics. From these results we are able to clearly demonstrate that small scale

testing can be used as an effective tool for modeling larger scale fires that occur in real

life situations.

3.2 Ignition Test Results

3.2.1 Observations- Open Cup Test

Figure 2 shows the setup used for the open cup test. The first test we ran consisted

of mineral spirits. There was no visible smoke or distinguishable flash point. The fire

point was 57.6 degrees C. The next fuel we used was cooking oil. At around 158 degrees

we started to notice bubbling in the fuel and smoking started at around 254 degrees. The

flash point began at 326.4 degrees and continued until the flame point occurred at 376

degrees. While trying to distinguish the flame point the pilot fire continued to go out due

to the lack of oxygen. This may have caused us to get a higher value for the flame point

due to the interruptions.

3.2.2 Measurements

3.2.2.1 Overall Fire Behavior

3.2.2.2 Flash Point and Fire Point

3.2.2.3 Surface Concentration

3.2.3 Analysis and Discussion

4. Conclusion

By using the Clausius-Clayperon equation we are able to determine the mol

fractions at the surface at a particular temperature. For mineral spirits we estimated the

temperature @ boiling to be 175 degrees Celsius. At the point of boiling intuitively the

mol fraction is equal to one simplifying the equation. The Enthalpy of Vaporization for

mineral spirits is estimated by comparing it with a similar substance, n-hexane. This

value along with the other values applicable for the equation can be found on Table 2. By

plugging in the various elements in the equation we calculated the mol fraction of mineral

oil to be .995. Comparing this to the given lower flammability of .77 our value is slightly

higher. This discrepancy may be due to the inability to recognize the flash point either

because it was to faint or we were heating to rapidly for the substance to flash before the

flame point starts. Several problems arose when attempting to calculate the mol fraction

of cooking oil at our desired temperature. First the Clausius-Clayperon equation relates

the mol fractions of pure substances; cooking oil is a complex compound. This

complication makes the analysis of cooking oil far more difficult. The first problem arises

when trying to find the Enthalpy of Vaporization for cooking oil. Only by further

inspection can be determine that even with the significant values the equation provides us

with an impossible result. For most sources the boiling point of cooking oil was found to

be around 300 degrees Celsius which relates that value to a mol fraction of one. Our

analysis from lab found the flash point to be 326 degrees Celsius and the flame point at
376 degrees Celsius. These measurements would force the desired mol fraction to result

in a number greater than one. This result may be due to the properties of cooking oil as a

complex compound. The substance may begin to boil separate components in the fuel at

separate temperatures. This would explain the discrepancy in boiling points as well as

making the Clausius-Clayperon equation unreliable.

References

[1] SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering 3rd edition, DiNenno, P.J. ed.
National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2002.

[2] Drysdale, D. An Introduction to Fire Dynamics 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
Chichester, England, 1998.

[3] Quintiere, J. Fundamentals of Fire Phenomena, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester
England, 2006