Abstract
Two solid pyrolysis models are employed in a concurrent‐flow flame spread model to compare the flame structure and spreading characteristics. The first is a zeroth‐order surface pyrolysis, and the second is a first‐order in‐depth pyrolysis. Comparisons are made for samples when the spread rate reaches a steady value and the flame reaches a constant length. The computed results show (1) the mass burning rate distributions at the solid surface are qualitatively different near the flame (pyrolysis base region), (2) the first‐order pyrolysis model shows that the propagating flame leaves unburnt solid fuel, and (3) the flame length and spread rate dependence on sample thickness are different for the two cases.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
