Study on Combustion Properties of Aviation Carpet under Low Ambient Pressure

Xuhong Jia; Xiaoguang Yang; Song Huang; Maoyong Zhi; Xinhua Zhu

doi:10.1051/jnwpu/20203820319

All issues

Volume 38 / No 2 (April 2020)

JNWPU, 38 2 (2020) 319-324

Full HTML

Open Access

Issue		JNWPU Volume 38, Number 2, April 2020


Page(s)		319 - 324
DOI		https://doi.org/10.1051/jnwpu/20203820319
Published online		17 July 2020

JNWPU 2020, 38(2): 319-324

Study on Combustion Properties of Aviation Carpet under Low Ambient Pressure

低压条件下航空地毯燃烧特性研究

Xuhong Jia (贾旭宏), Xiaoguang Yang (杨晓光), Song Huang (黄松), Maoyong Zhi (智茂永) and Xinhua Zhu (朱新华)

College of Civil Aviation Safety Engineering, Civil Aviation Flight University of China, Guanghan 618307, China

Received: 5 March 2019

Abstract

The flame-retardant materials in the cabin of civil aircraft is possible to induce fire accident, which can cause certain threat to the operation safety of aircraft. The cabin pressure of civil aircraft is generally maintained at 75~84 kPa under normal transport condition, and the combustion behavior of aviation carpet will change under this pressure. Combustion properties of an aviation carpet, selected from civil aircraft, were studied at Guanghan City (520 m altitude) and Kangding airport (4290 m altitude), Sichuan province of China in this work, respectively. The results showed that the smoke density of the aviation carpets increased sharply and the decreasing rate of the oxygen volume fraction became more quickly under low pressure. Furthermore, the rising rate of carbon dioxide volume fraction also became rapidly with the decrease of the ambient pressure. The content of the carbon monoxide under low pressure was lower than that under normal pressure at the beginning of the combustion. However, the carbon monoxide production increased sharply when the combustion lasted for 4 minutes. In addition, the ignition time of the aviation carpet was shorter under low pressure.

摘要

民用飞机舱内阻燃材料的火灾危险性对客机的安全运行造成了一定的威胁。正常运输条件下民用飞机客舱压力一般维持在75~84 kPa，该压力下航空地毯的燃烧行为将发生变化。以民用客机地毯为实验材料，分别在四川广汉（海拔520 m）和康定机场（海拔4 290 m）开展实验，研究低压环境下航空地毯的燃烧特性。结果表明，低压环境下航空地毯的烟密度大幅升高，氧体积含量下降速度更快，CO₂含量上升速度增加。燃烧开始时CO含量小于常压，但在4.00 min后生成量急剧增加。此外，低压环境下航空地毯的点燃时间更短。

Key words: low pressure / smoke density / combustion properties / aviation carpets / ignition time

关键字 : 低压 / 烟密度 / 燃烧特性 / 航空地毯 / 点燃时间

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

机舱火灾严重威胁着飞机的安全运行。要预防火灾的发生, 必须先了解导致可燃物燃烧的物理、化学机理。同样, 环境的变化会导致预期之外的火灾发生, 这就需要认识不同环境条件对可燃物燃烧过程的影响。据统计, 每架飞机大约要使用几百公斤的各类内饰材料[1], 其中窗帘、围布、地毯等织物被广泛使用于飞机舱内。一旦发生火灾, 将成为舱内火灾蔓延的重要途径, 严重威胁舱内人员的生命安全。根据美国联邦航空管理局(FAA)条例[2], 为满足飞机运行过程中乘客的舒适度及飞机结构损伤的最小化, 舱内压力一般维持在75~84 kPa, 该环境下可燃物燃烧特性必将发生改变。因此, 有必要研究低压低氧环境下飞机舱内织物的燃烧特性。

目前, 国内外学者在低压环境下开展了大量燃烧实验, 如利用低压来模拟外太空舱内的微重力环境, 研究固体可燃物的燃烧特性[3-9]。Hirsch等[10-11]在1 400 L的可变压燃烧室中对太空舱塑料与人造橡胶材料进行火焰正向点燃传播(即向上传播)实验, 发现随总压的增加, 导致材料自熄的最大氧浓度(MOC)呈线性减小, 最大氧分压(MOP)呈线性增大。McAllister等[12-13]对聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(PMMA)在可变压容器内进行热辐射点燃实验, 研究压力与氧浓度的共同作用对其燃烧特性的影响, 发现在一定的压力范围内, 随压力的降低点火延迟时间减小, 当降低到一定的值之后继续降低压力则点火延迟时间会变大, 直至无法点燃。Fereres等[14]对PMMA材料进行外部热辐射点燃实验, 发现可燃物点燃时的临界质量流量减小, 这与低压下被加热的材料与周围环境的对流热损失减小有关。Osorio等[15]在变压容器中对阻燃织物进行极限火焰传播实验, 探讨了低压下可燃物火焰传播的极限氧浓度。低压环境下对非炭化聚合物进行热解实验发现, 在低外部热辐射的条件下, 随着环境压力减小材料的质量损失率增大, 表面温度增大, 在强外部热辐射下, 压力对材料的质量损失率和表面温度变化不起主导作用[16-17]。Thomsen等[18]在40~100 kPa的压力范围内对阻燃织物进行极限火焰传播实验, 得出材料的极限氧浓度值不仅取决于传热机制, 还与化学动力学机制有关。

值得注意的是, 前人在低压下进行材料的燃烧特性研究时, 大多关注的是外太空航天器内饰材料, 对民机内饰材料低压下的燃烧特性研究甚少。本文通过自主设计燃烧实验, 研究了低压环境下航空地毯的燃烧特性及不同火源功率下的点燃时间, 以探讨航空运输条件下民航客机舱内织物火灾特性。

1 实验概况

选取西南地区某航空公司客机在用地毯, 分别于四川广汉和康定机场对其进行燃烧对比实验, 以确定低压环境下航空地毯烟密度、燃烧特性、点燃时间等参数的变化情况。实验前1 h打开实验房间的空调, 使得室内温度基本保持不变, 两实验地测试条件如表1所示。

表1

不同压力下的实验条件

1.1 航空地毯燃烧特性测试方法

航空地毯烟密度、烟气特性测试实验在一个改造的、底部边缘与大气相通的燃烧箱中进行, 且燃烧箱放置在通风厨内, 图1为实验装置示意图。实验开始前, 所有实验样品均放入40℃干燥箱中干燥12 h, 然后放入常温干燥器中静置12 h。将称好重量的试样(25.4 mm×25.4 mm)放置在图中支架的中心位置。连接烟气分析仪, 将烟气收集软管的进气口安装在箱内顶部中心位置且朝正下方, 与试样的中心位置处于一条垂直线。打开烟密度测试装置电源预热30 min, 然后用不同透光滤光片(25%, 50%, 75%)对仪器进行校准。打开丙烷(纯度不小于85%)气瓶阀, 调节仪器右侧调压旋钮使燃气压力为0.276 MPa左右, 按点火键, 然后同时按烟气分析仪和烟密度测试仪的开始按钮, 持续点火4 min, 记录相关实验数据, 最后打开排气扇进行排烟。实验时, 每个实验工况进行3次重复实验, 每2次实验间隔60 min, 以减小箱内烟雾对实验的影响。

图1

烟密度、烟气特性测试装置示意图

1.2 航空地毯热辐射点燃测试方法

热辐射点燃实验在一个改装的恒温高温炉中进行, 炉腔尺寸为300 mm×300 mm×150 mm, 炉内温度控制范围50~1 200℃, 升温速率可调, 观察窗口大小为50 mm×50 mm, 左右两侧均预留2个可放置传感器的小孔。观察窗前放置一台摄像机监测炉腔, 从试样放入燃烧室并关闭炉门到炉内出现明火的时间记为点燃时间。实验开始前, 在右侧控制屏设置升温程序, 经前期探索性研究, 本试样点燃时间测试实验温度可设置为500℃，600℃，700℃，800℃，900℃，1 000℃。试样最低着火点测试温度区间选定在400~500℃之间, 每一组实验依次增加5℃, 每个工况下进行3次重复实验。试样尺寸为120 mm×20 mm×5 mm, 样品均放入100℃干燥箱中干燥12 h, 然后放入常温干燥器中静置12 h。

图2

热辐射点燃实验示意图

2 结果与分析

2.1 烟密度特性分析

烟密度是表征材料燃烧性能的重要参数。飞机客舱内饰材料烟密度的大小直接决定了火灾发生时舱内人员的存活时间。不同压力下航空地毯的烟密度如图3所示。

从图3可以看出, 低压环境对航空地毯烟密度有较大影响。常压环境下, 试样烟密度在测试时间内先增大后减小, 于1.25 min时达到最大值34.99%。在低压环境下, 航空地毯烟密度先增大, 在1.25 min时达到最大值66.77%后基本维持不变。这是因为烟气中的固体颗粒物是影响试样烟密度的主要因素, 试样燃烧至1.25 min时, 常压环境由于氧气较为充分, 燃烧反应已基本结束, 不再产生烟尘; 而在低压低氧环境下, 此时燃烧反应由有焰燃烧转为阴燃, 继续产生大量烟气。

图3

不同压力下烟密度对比

2.2 烟气成分分析

飞机客舱空间较小且相对封闭, 较小规模火灾即可引起氧气浓度的明显下降及CO等有毒气体浓度迅速上升。环境压力可对飞机舱内织物燃烧引起的O₂浓度下降以及产生的CO、CO₂等烟气成分的变化产生明显影响。

图4显示随着燃烧反应的进行, 不同压力下箱内氧体积浓度均先下降后上升, 并在4.00 min时达到最低, 低压环境下的氧气体积浓度更低。原因同样是低压环境下氧分压较低, 氧分子数较少, 燃烧耗氧速率高于常压。燃烧进行至4.00 min时, 燃烧器关闭, 箱内氧气得到外界补充, 体积浓度开始上升。

由图5、图6可以看出, CO₂浓度变化趋势正好与O₂相反; 在0.00~4.00 min内, 低压下CO的生成量小于常压, 随后急剧上升, 并于4.75 min达到最大值1.733×10^-3后逐渐下降; 而常压下CO的生成量上升速度缓慢且变化幅度不大。根据前人的研究结果[19-22], 多孔固体材料燃烧过程中裂解气体的流动速率可由Darcy′s law来描述:

式中：u为裂解气体流动速率; κ_D为达西系数; μ为气体黏性系数; P为环境压力; X为裂解气体从材料内部扩散至材料表面的距离。

由(1)式可知, 多孔固体材料燃烧时裂解气体在材料内部的流动速率与压力梯度成正比。环境压力降低导致材料内外压力梯度增大, 裂解气体流速增大。因此, 在氧体积浓度足以支持可燃物燃烧时, 航空地毯燃烧质量损失速率随环境压力的降低而增大, 即航空地毯在低压下燃烧更加充分, 燃烧产物中CO₂含量较高而CO含量较低。燃烧进行至4.00 min后, 常压下航空地毯燃烧反应基本结束, 燃烧率达到100%, 不再产生新的CO₂, 而CO的产生速率也大幅降低。因此, 随着新鲜空气的不断补充, CO₂浓度下降而CO浓度在略微上升后开始下降。低压环境下的氧分压较低且下降速度快, 难以支持试样燃烧完全。因此在4.00 min关闭燃烧器后, 燃烧残留物仍然在进行阴燃(燃烧率约为81.8%), CO含量在短时间内急剧升高; 在燃烧进行至4.50 min时阴燃结束, CO含量开始下降。

图4

不同压力下氧体积浓度的变化

图5

不同压力下CO₂含量的变化

图6

不同压力下CO含量的变化

2.3 热辐射点燃实验分析

点燃时间是衡量固体材料可燃性的重要指标之一[23]。图7为低压与常压下不同外部热辐射温度对航空地毯点燃时间的影响。随着外部热辐射温度的增加, 2种压力下试样的点燃时间均呈下降趋势, 最终趋于一致, 且低压下点燃时间更短。热辐射温度较低时(500℃), 低压下航空地毯的平均点燃时间(24.41 s)仅为常压下(42.53 s)的57.4%;而在热辐射温度较高时(1 000℃), 不同压力下的点燃时间几乎相等。可见在相对较低外部热辐射温度下, 压力对可燃物的点燃时间影响较大; 随着温度的升高, 压力的作用逐渐减弱, 而热辐射温度成为影响点燃时间的主导因素。

固体材料的点燃过程可以分为3个阶段[24-25]:首先固体材料被加热到足够裂解的温度, 随之产生裂解气体并与氧化剂结合形成可燃混合物; 温度进一步升高使气相反应过程热失控, 导致可燃物被点燃。点燃时间的近似解析表达式可以看成裂解时间和化学反应时间的总和[24]。在标准大气压环境下, 可燃气的预混时间很短, 可以忽略不计[25], 那么点燃时间可表示为:

式中：k为导热系数; ρ为材料的密度; T_ig为固体点燃表面温度; T₀为初始温度; q″_e为外部热通量; h_eff为辐射和对流传热过程中的热传导系数; c₁为不变量; χ/u_∞为气流流过时间; Γ为点燃临界达姆科勒数; Λ_x为达姆科勒特征数。在自然对流热传导的过程中, 对流热传导系数可以表示为[26]

式中：Re为雷诺数; Pr为普朗特数; Gr为格拉晓夫数。Re, Gr与环境压力的关系为

式中：ρ为气流密度; β为体积热膨胀系数; μ为黏度; g为重力加速度; L为特征长度; P为压力; ΔT为固体可燃物表面与环境的温度差。在相对较高的气流速度下, (3)式可简化为h∝Re^1/2Pr^1/3, 普朗特数与压力无关, 压力通过影响环境密度来影响雷诺数且成比例关系。在纯自然对流状态下, 对流传导系数可表示为h∝Gr^1/4Pr^1/4。理想状态时, Gr与压力的平方成比例。可见, 无论是何种对流状态, 热传导系数都与压力的平方根成比例关系。因此, 当压力减小时, 热传导系数减小导致固体表面燃料的对流热损失减小, 材料表面在短时间内即可聚集较多的热量, 因此点燃时间减小。

图7

不同压力下外部热辐射温度对地毯点燃时间的影响

3 结论

本文研究了低压环境下航空地毯的燃烧特性, 主要得出了以下结论:

1) 常压环境下试样烟密度在测试时间内先增大后减小; 而低压环境下则先增大, 在达到最大值后基本维持不变。

2) 低压下氧体积浓度下降速度大于常压, 产生更多的CO₂; CO的产生量在0~4.00 min时小于常压, 4.00 min后生成量急剧增加。

3) 随着外部热辐射温度的增加, 试样的点燃时间呈下降趋势, 且低压下点燃时间更短。在相对较低外部热辐射温度下, 压力对可燃物的点燃时间影响较大; 随着温度的升高, 压力的作用逐渐减弱, 而热辐射温度成为影响点燃时间的主导因素。

References

Guo Huimin. Research of Ecological Textile Technology Application in the CivilI Aircraft Cabin Design[D]. Shanghai: Donghua University, 2016(in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
Federal Aviation Administration. 14 CFR Part 25, §25.841-Pressurized Cabins[EB/OL].(2014-11-04)[2019-03-03]. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=pt14.1.25&rgn=div5#se14.1.25_1841 [Google Scholar]
Mcalevy R F, Magee R S. The Mechanism of Flame Spreading over the Surface of Igniting Condensed-Phase Materials[J]. Symposium on Combustion, 1968, 12 (1): 215– 227 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Goldmeer J S, T'ien J S, Urban D L. Combustion and Extinction of Pmma Cylinders during Depressurization in Low-Gravity[J]. Fire Safety Journal, 1999, 32 (1): 61– 88 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Kong Wenjun, Lao Shiqi, Zhang Peiyuan, et al. Study on Wire Insulation Flammability at Microgravity by Functional Simulation Method[J]. Journal of Combustion Science and Technology, 2006, 12 (1): 1– 4 [Article] [Google Scholar]
Saitok K. Progress in Scale Modeling[M]. Berlin: Springer Netherlands, 2008 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Nakamura Y, Yoshimura N, Ito H, et al. Flame Spread over Electric Wire in Sub-Atmospheric Pressure[J]. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2009, 32 (2): 2559– 2566 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Hu L, Zhang Y, Yoshioka K, et al. Flame Spread over Electric Wire with High Thermal Conductivity Metal Core at Different Inclinations[J]. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2015, 35 (3): 2607– 2614 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Hu L, Lu Y, Yoshioka K, et al. Limiting Oxygen Concentration for Extinction of Upward Spreading Flames over Inclined Thin Polyethylene-Insulated Nicr Electrical Wires with Opposed-Flow under Normal-And Micro-Gravity[J]. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2016, 36 (2): 3045– 3053 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Hirsch D, Williams J, Beeson H. Pressure Effects on Oxygen Concentration Flammability Thresholds of Polymeric Materials for Aerospace Applications[J]. Journal of Testing & Evaluation, 2006, 36 (1): 69– 72 [Article] [Google Scholar]
Hirsch D, Williams J, Harper S, et al. Pressure Flammability Thresholds of Selected Aerospace Materials[C]//International Conference on Environmental Systems, 2010 [Google Scholar]
Mcallister S, Fernaadez-Pello C, Urban D, et al. Piloted Ignition Delay of Pmma In Space Exploration Atmospheres[J]. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2009, 32 (2): 2453– 2459 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Mcallister S, Fernandez-Pello C, Urban D, et al. The Combined Effect of Pressure and Oxygen Concentration on Piloted Ignition of a Solid Combustible[J]. Combustion & Flame, 2010, 157 (9): 1753– 1759 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Fereres S, Lautenberger C, Fernandez-Pello C, et al. Mass Flux at Ignition in Reduced Pressure Environments[J]. Combustion & Flame, 2011, 158 (7): 1301– 1306 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Osorio A F, Fernandez-Pello C, Urband L, et al. Limiting Conditions for Flame Spread in Fire Resistant Fabrics[J]. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2013, 34 (2): 2691– 2697 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Zong R, Kang R, Hu Y, et al. Modeling the Pyrolysis Study of Non-Charring Polymers under Reduced Pressure Environments[J]. Heat & Mass Transfer, 2018, 54 (4): 1135– 1144 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Shi L, Chew M Y L, Liu X, et al. An Experimental and Numerical Study on Fire Behaviors of Charring Materials Frequently Used in Buildings[J]. Energy & Buildings, 2017, 138: 140– 153 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Thomsen M, Murphy D C, Fernandez-Pello C, et al. Flame Spread Limits(LOC) of Fire Resistant Fabrics[J]. Fire Safety Journal, 2017, 91: 259– 265 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Kansa E J, Perlee H E, Chaiken R F. Mathematical Model of Wood Pyrolysis Including Internal Forced Convection[J]. Combustion & Flame, 1977, 29 (3): 311– 324 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Blasi C D. Modeling and Simulation of Combustion Processes of Charring and Non-Charring Solid Fuels[J]. Progress in Energy & Combustion Science, 1993, 19 (1): 71– 104 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Qie Junfang. Experimental Study of the Influences of Orientation and Altitude on Pyrolysis and Ignition of Solid Combustibles[D]. Hefei: University of Science and Technology of China, 2011(in Chinese) [Google Scholar]
Dai J, Yang L, Zhou X, et al. Experimental and Modeling Study of Atmospheric Pressure Effects on Ignition of Pine Wood at Different Altitudes[J]. Energy & Fuels, 2010, 24 (1): 609– 615 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lautenberger C, Torero J, Fernandez-Pello C. Understanding Materials Flammability//Flammability Testing of Materials Used in Construction Transport & Mining[M]. UK, Woodhead Rublishing: 2006: 1– 21 [Google Scholar]
Quintiere J G. Ignition of Liquids//Fundamentals of Fire Phenomena[M]. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2006: 135– 158 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Torero J. Flaming Ignition of Solid Fuels//SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering[M]. New York: Springer, 2016: 633– 661 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Annaratone D. Introduction to Heat Transfer//Engineering Heat Transfer[M]. Berlin: Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 2010: B37– B38 [Google Scholar]

All Tables

表1

不同压力下的实验条件

In the text

All Figures

	图1 烟密度、烟气特性测试装置示意图
In the text

	图2 热辐射点燃实验示意图
In the text

	图3 不同压力下烟密度对比
In the text

	图4 不同压力下氧体积浓度的变化
In the text

	图5 不同压力下CO₂含量的变化
In the text

	图6 不同压力下CO含量的变化
In the text

	图7 不同压力下外部热辐射温度对地毯点燃时间的影响
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.

[1] Guo Huimin. Research of Ecological Textile Technology Application in the CivilI Aircraft Cabin Design[D]. Shanghai: Donghua University, 2016(in Chinese) [Google Scholar]

[2] Federal Aviation Administration. 14 CFR Part 25, §25.841-Pressurized Cabins[EB/OL].(2014-11-04)[2019-03-03]. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=pt14.1.25&rgn=div5#se14.1.25_1841 [Google Scholar]

[3] Mcalevy R F, Magee R S. The Mechanism of Flame Spreading over the Surface of Igniting Condensed-Phase Materials[J]. Symposium on Combustion, 1968, 12 (1): 215– 227 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[4] Goldmeer J S, T'ien J S, Urban D L. Combustion and Extinction of Pmma Cylinders during Depressurization in Low-Gravity[J]. Fire Safety Journal, 1999, 32 (1): 61– 88 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[5] Kong Wenjun, Lao Shiqi, Zhang Peiyuan, et al. Study on Wire Insulation Flammability at Microgravity by Functional Simulation Method[J]. Journal of Combustion Science and Technology, 2006, 12 (1): 1– 4 [Article] [Google Scholar]

[6] Saitok K. Progress in Scale Modeling[M]. Berlin: Springer Netherlands, 2008 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[7] Nakamura Y, Yoshimura N, Ito H, et al. Flame Spread over Electric Wire in Sub-Atmospheric Pressure[J]. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2009, 32 (2): 2559– 2566 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[8] Hu L, Zhang Y, Yoshioka K, et al. Flame Spread over Electric Wire with High Thermal Conductivity Metal Core at Different Inclinations[J]. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2015, 35 (3): 2607– 2614 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[9] Hu L, Lu Y, Yoshioka K, et al. Limiting Oxygen Concentration for Extinction of Upward Spreading Flames over Inclined Thin Polyethylene-Insulated Nicr Electrical Wires with Opposed-Flow under Normal-And Micro-Gravity[J]. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2016, 36 (2): 3045– 3053 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[10] Hirsch D, Williams J, Beeson H. Pressure Effects on Oxygen Concentration Flammability Thresholds of Polymeric Materials for Aerospace Applications[J]. Journal of Testing & Evaluation, 2006, 36 (1): 69– 72 [Article] [Google Scholar]

[11] Hirsch D, Williams J, Harper S, et al. Pressure Flammability Thresholds of Selected Aerospace Materials[C]//International Conference on Environmental Systems, 2010 [Google Scholar]

[12] Mcallister S, Fernaadez-Pello C, Urban D, et al. Piloted Ignition Delay of Pmma In Space Exploration Atmospheres[J]. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2009, 32 (2): 2453– 2459 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[13] Mcallister S, Fernandez-Pello C, Urban D, et al. The Combined Effect of Pressure and Oxygen Concentration on Piloted Ignition of a Solid Combustible[J]. Combustion & Flame, 2010, 157 (9): 1753– 1759 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[14] Fereres S, Lautenberger C, Fernandez-Pello C, et al. Mass Flux at Ignition in Reduced Pressure Environments[J]. Combustion & Flame, 2011, 158 (7): 1301– 1306 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[15] Osorio A F, Fernandez-Pello C, Urband L, et al. Limiting Conditions for Flame Spread in Fire Resistant Fabrics[J]. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2013, 34 (2): 2691– 2697 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[16] Zong R, Kang R, Hu Y, et al. Modeling the Pyrolysis Study of Non-Charring Polymers under Reduced Pressure Environments[J]. Heat & Mass Transfer, 2018, 54 (4): 1135– 1144 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[17] Shi L, Chew M Y L, Liu X, et al. An Experimental and Numerical Study on Fire Behaviors of Charring Materials Frequently Used in Buildings[J]. Energy & Buildings, 2017, 138: 140– 153 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[18] Thomsen M, Murphy D C, Fernandez-Pello C, et al. Flame Spread Limits(LOC) of Fire Resistant Fabrics[J]. Fire Safety Journal, 2017, 91: 259– 265 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[19] Kansa E J, Perlee H E, Chaiken R F. Mathematical Model of Wood Pyrolysis Including Internal Forced Convection[J]. Combustion & Flame, 1977, 29 (3): 311– 324 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[20] Blasi C D. Modeling and Simulation of Combustion Processes of Charring and Non-Charring Solid Fuels[J]. Progress in Energy & Combustion Science, 1993, 19 (1): 71– 104 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[21] Qie Junfang. Experimental Study of the Influences of Orientation and Altitude on Pyrolysis and Ignition of Solid Combustibles[D]. Hefei: University of Science and Technology of China, 2011(in Chinese) [Google Scholar]

[22] Dai J, Yang L, Zhou X, et al. Experimental and Modeling Study of Atmospheric Pressure Effects on Ignition of Pine Wood at Different Altitudes[J]. Energy & Fuels, 2010, 24 (1): 609– 615 [Article] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[23] Lautenberger C, Torero J, Fernandez-Pello C. Understanding Materials Flammability//Flammability Testing of Materials Used in Construction Transport & Mining[M]. UK, Woodhead Rublishing: 2006: 1– 21 [Google Scholar]

[24] Quintiere J G. Ignition of Liquids//Fundamentals of Fire Phenomena[M]. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2006: 135– 158 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[25] Torero J. Flaming Ignition of Solid Fuels//SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering[M]. New York: Springer, 2016: 633– 661 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

[26] Annaratone D. Introduction to Heat Transfer//Engineering Heat Transfer[M]. Berlin: Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 2010: B37– B38 [Google Scholar]