1 / 14

A Combined Experimental and Theoretical Study of the Combustion of Live vs. Dead Leaves

A Combined Experimental and Theoretical Study of the Combustion of Live vs. Dead Leaves. Dallan R. Prince and Thomas H. Fletcher.

sally
Download Presentation

A Combined Experimental and Theoretical Study of the Combustion of Live vs. Dead Leaves

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Combined Experimental and Theoretical Study of the Combustion of Live vs. Dead Leaves Dallan R. Prince and Thomas H. Fletcher

  2. Figure1. Flaming leaf after 4 s of heating as viewed from the video and infrared cameras. The leaf is held from a rod which extends through the black backdrop to the mass balance. A glass duct borders the FFB, which is rolled underneath the leaf from the left. The IR image is taken through a 1-inch hole in the glass.

  3. Leaf thickness profile, dry dead leaf

  4. Figure 2. (Left) schematic of leaf divided into analysis regions, first into equal leaf-area rows, then into equal leaf-area regions on each row; (right) example of a subdivided leaf (m = 20, n = 10).

  5. Figure 3. Temperature histograms at 3 s of heating averaging all runs for (a) dry dead leaves, (b) rehydrated dead leaves, (c) dehydrated live leaves, and (d) fresh live leaves. Error bars represent 95% CIs on bin temperature (horizontal) and fraction of leaf area (vertical). Fraction of leaf area is determined by pixel counting of the IR images. (a) (b) (c) (d)

  6. Figure 4. Traces of temperature histograms at 2 s, 4 s, 6 s and 8 s, averaging all runs for (a) dry dead leaves, (b) rehydrated dead leaves, (c) dehydrated live leaves, and (d) fresh live leaves. Each marker represents one histogram bin (see Figure 3). (a) (b) (c) (d)

  7. Figure 5.Mode temperatures averaged for each leaf group. Average values (solid with markers) are bounded by 95% CIs (dashed or dotted).

  8. Figure 6.Average normalized mass remaining for each leaf group. Average values (solid with markers) are bounded by 95% CIs (dashed or dotted).

  9. Mass vs. Temperature

  10. Figure 7. IR thermal images of a fresh live manzanita leaf during heating at 2 s intervals. Temperature maps such as these were averaged with other runs to produce the histograms in Figures 3 and 4.

  11. Figure 8. Modeled and experimental mass release during heating for each leaf group: (a) dry dead, (b) rehydrated dead, (c) dehydrated live and (d) fresh live. The experimental mass curves are bounded by 95% intervals. The data-fit single-component, model-fit single-component, multicomponent one-step and CPD models are plotted. The TPD model treats water release for all cases. (a) (b) (c) (d)

  12. Figure 9. Comparison of TLH, KIN and TPD water release models for (a) a rehydrated dead leaf, (b) a dehydrated live leaf, and (c) a fresh live leaf. The multicomponent one-step model was used to determine a dry mass curve to which each water prediction is added. Quenching MC data is included with 95% CIs. (a) (b) (c)

  13. Pictures vs. Time Rehydrated 2 6 8 10 12 Dehydrated 6 8 10 12 2 Fresh 2 s 6 8 10 12 2

More Related