1999
DOI: 10.6028/nist.ir.6319
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dispersed liquid agent fire suppression screen apparatus

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The aerosol injection system described earlier was used by Pitts et al [26] to compare the suppression performance of a water mist and methoxynonafluorobutane in the TARPF to that measured in the steadystate Tsuji burner [16]. The air flow in the tunnel was fixed at 6.67 x 10 -3 m 3 /s and the porous burner was operated at a propane flow rate of 33 mL/s.…”
Section: Aerosol Agentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The aerosol injection system described earlier was used by Pitts et al [26] to compare the suppression performance of a water mist and methoxynonafluorobutane in the TARPF to that measured in the steadystate Tsuji burner [16]. The air flow in the tunnel was fixed at 6.67 x 10 -3 m 3 /s and the porous burner was operated at a propane flow rate of 33 mL/s.…”
Section: Aerosol Agentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the Tsuji burner experiments, Yang et al [16] used a droplet delivery system that assured efficient transport of fine liquid droplets to the flame. They found that a calculated water mist mass fraction of 0.03 in the air stream was sufficient to extinguish their laminar counter-flow flame.…”
Section: Aerosol Agentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The liquid flow rate was varied from 0.3 ml/min to 1.2 ml/min. Unlike the piezoelectric droplet generator, the nebulizer creates droplets with a range of diameters, as evident in the PDPA measurements [3].…”
Section: An Aerometrics Two-component Phase Doppler Particle Analyzermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Irrespective of the uncertainty associated with the estimated agent mass concentration, water and the aqueous agents studied here are found to be more effective than CF 3 Br, compared to the propane cup-burner value (17% by mass) for CF 3 Br [6]. The computational study by Lenta* and Chelliah [7] also demonstrates that 20-um water droplets are more effective (4.24% vs. 5.9% by mass) in extinguishing an opposed-flow methane diffusion flame than CF 3 Br at an extinction strain rate of ~ 176 sec" 1 .…”
Section: An Aerometrics Two-component Phase Doppler Particle Analyzermentioning
confidence: 99%