| Literature DB >> 28772675 |
Ruichao Wei1,2, Yaping He3, Jiahao Liu4,5, Yu He6, Wenzhong Mi7, Richard Yuen8, Jian Wang9.
Abstract
In order to ensure the safety of inflammable and explosive chemical substance such as nitrocellulose (NC) mixtures in the process of handing, storage, and usage, it is necessary to obtain the fire properties of NC with different exterior structures. In present study, fire properties of two commonly used nitrocelluloses with soft fiber structure and white chip structure were investigated by scanning electron microscope (SEM) and the ISO 5660 cone calorimeter. Experimental findings revealed that the most important fire properties such as ignition time, mass loss rate and ash content exhibited significant differences between the two structures of NC. Compared with the soft fiber NC, chip NC possesses a lower fire hazard, and its heat release rate intensity (HRRI) is mainly affected by the sample mass. In addition, oxygen consumption (OC) calorimetry method was compared with thermal chemistry (TC) method based on stoichiometry for HRRI calculation. HRRI results of NC with two structures obtained by these two methods showed a good consistency.Entities:
Keywords: combustion characteristic; cone calorimeter; hazard assessment; heat release rate intensity; nitrocellulose
Year: 2017 PMID: 28772675 PMCID: PMC5503402 DOI: 10.3390/ma10030316
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Comparison of the macroscopic product structures. (a) White soft fiber nitrocellulose (NC-F); (b) white chip nitrocellulose (NC-C).
Physical parameters of samples.
| Material | NC-F | NC-C |
|---|---|---|
| Apparent density (kg/m3) | 250 | 600 |
| Nitrogen content (%) | 12.00 | 11.96 |
| Plasticizer and content | - | Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) 19.5 wt % |
| Humectant and content | Isopropanol 29% | - |
| Acidity (as H2SO4) (%) | 0.04 | 0.03 |
| Ignition point (°C) | 182 | 174 |
| Viscosity (s) | 3.3 | 5.2 |
| 80 °C Thermal-resistance test (min) | 15 | >15 |
Figure 2Schematic of the experimental setup.
The experimental configurations.
| Sample | External Heat Flux (kW/m2) | Initial Mass (g) | Ambient Temperature (°C) | Ambient Relative Humidity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC-F | 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 | 1 ± 0.02 | 15 ± 2 | 45 ± 5 |
| 2 ± 0.04 | ||||
| NC-C | 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 | 1 ± 0.02 | ||
| 2 ± 0.04 |
Figure 3Photos of crucibles loaded with 1 g and 2 g samples. (a) NC-F; (b) NC-C.
Figure 4Comparison of the microcosmic structures. (a) NC-F; (b) NC-C.
Ignition times corresponding to two samples.
| Heat Irradiance (kW/m2) | Ignition Time (s) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC-F | NC-C | |||
| 1 g | 2 g | 1 g | 2 g | |
| 0 | I | I | N1 | N1 |
| 5 | 176.5 ± 30.5 | 13 ± 8 | N2 | N2 |
| 10 | 17 ± 1 | 2.5 ± 0.5 | 108 ± 1 | 92 ± 1 |
| 15 | 2.5 ± 0.5 | 3 ± 1 | 43.5 ± 3.5 | 40.5 ± 0.5 |
| 20 | 1.5 ± 0.5 | 1 ± 0.5 | 22 ± 1 | 20.5 ± 0.5 |
I: The samples were instantly ignited by the propane cigarette ignitor; N1: The samples cannot be ignited by the propane cigarette ignitor; N2: The samples cannot be ignited by heat irradiance within 600 s.
Figure 5The plots of versus incident heat flux for different samples. CHF: critical heat flux.
Liner regression results of the data in Figure 5.
| Sample | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| NC-F, 1 g | 0.03537 | −0.1046 | 0.9459 |
| NC-F, 2 g | 0.03117 | 0.23889 | 0.30557 |
| NC-C; 1 g | 0.01161 | −0.01993 | 0.99933 |
| NC-C; 2 g | 0.011 | −0.00607 | 0.99423 |
Figure 6Mass loss rate intensity profiles of (a) NC-F and (b) NC-C under 10 kW/m2.
Recorded ash content (%) of individual tests and the basic statistics.
| Test No. | NC-F | NC-C | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 g | 2 g | 1 g | 2 g | ||
| 1 | 5 | 8.18 | 2.39 | - | - |
| 2 | 5 | 5.09 | 2.20 | - | - |
| 3 | 5 | 3.26 | 4.08 | - | - |
| 4 | 10 | 4.95 | 1.59 | 1.88 | 3.24 |
| 5 | 10 | 5.85 | 2.34 | 4.55 | 3.76 |
| 6 | 10 | 6.72 | 1.00 | 3.29 | 1.10 |
| 7 | 15 | 4.67 | 2.50 | 0.90 | 1.75 |
| 8 | 15 | 4.00 | 2.10 | 0.30 | 1.89 |
| 9 | 15 | 3.48 | 2.05 | 1.00 | 1.34 |
| 10 | 20 | 5.33 | 0.60 | 0.20 | 0.50 |
| 11 | 20 | 5.19 | 1.00 | 0.20 | 0.15 |
| 12 | 20 | 2.39 | 1.55 | 0.30 | 1.60 |
| Total number of tests of the same sample | 12 | 12 | 9 | 9 | |
| Mean | 4.93 | 1.91 | 1.40 | 1.70 | |
| Standard deviation | 1.50 | 0.90 | 1.47 | 1.11 | |
Figure 7Transient evolution of heat release rate (HRR) for samples with different masses. (a) Heat flux: 10 kW/m2; (b) heat flux: 15 kW/m2. HRRI: heat release rate intensity; PHRRI: peak heat release rate intensity.
Figure 8Comparisons of HRRI profile under different heat fluxes. (a) NC-F; (b) NC-C.
Figure 9PHRRI as a function of external heat flux. (a) NC-F; (b) NC-C.
Parameter x for predicting fire risk [30,34].
| Values | Risk Classification |
|---|---|
| 0.1–1.0 | Low risk |
| 1.0–10 | Intermediate risk |
| 10–100 | High risk |
| 100–1000 | Very high risk |
Risk classification of NC samples under different experimental conditions.
| 1 g | 2 g | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC-F | NC-C | NC-F | NC-C | |||||
| Classification | Classification | Classification | Classification | |||||
| 5 | 4.07 | Low | - | - | 60.54 | High | - | - |
| 10 | 52.12 | High | 14.42 | High | 369.60 | Very high | 34.69 | High |
| 15 | 584 | Very high | 39.45 | High | 327.33 | Very high | 83.73 | High |
| 20 | 601.36 | Very high | 73.5 | High | 971.62 | Very high | 164.44 | Very high |
The A and q values for NC-F and NC-C.
| Material | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC-F | 0.84 | 0.22 | 0.31 | 1.12 | 0.10 | 477.40 |
| NC-C | 0.63 | 0.78 | 1.57 | 1.56 | 0.33 | 2248 |
Figure 10HRR profiles calculated by OC and TC methods. (a) NC-F-2 g; (b) NC-C-2 g.