APPENDIX A: FLAME

RADIATION REVIEW

The following is offered as a review of the essential equations and data required for engineering
estimates of flame radiation effects on surrounding materials and property. Simplifying assump-
tions associated with the equations and data are summarized, but it is assumed that the reader has
previously seen, or has access to, cited references containing equation derivations and descriptions
of the experiments conducted to obtain the data.
A common fire protection engineering problem is the calculation of the radiant heat flux
impinging on a target at some distance from a flame. The problem is composed of the following
three parts: (1) flame radiant emissive power calculations; (2) flame height calculations; and
(3) radiation configuration factor determinations.

A.1 Flame emissive power

The emissive power, E, of a flame is the radiant energy emitted per unit time per unit flame
surface area. Several alternative approaches have been used to calculate flame emissive powers.
If the flame can be approximated as a radiant grey body (radiant intensity independent of wave
length), E is given by
E = εσ Tf4 [A.1]

where ε is the flame emissivity, σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (5.67 × 10−11 kW/m2 · K4 ),
Tf is the flame radiation temperature (K), and E is the flame emissive power (kW/m2 ).
Strictly speaking, flames are not grey bodies since gaseous combustion products emit radia-
tion at discrete spectral bands. However, equivalent grey body emissivities of volumes of hot
gaseous combustion products have been determined by Hottel and can be found, for example in
Figure 2.32 of Drysdale (1985). Emissivities for luminous, sooty flames are often approximated
by the equation
ε = 1 − exp(−kL) [A.2]

where k is the effective emission/absorption coefficient (m−1 ), and L is the mean equivalent beam
length of the flame (m).
Mean equivalent beam lengths depend slightly on flame geometry (Drysdale, 1985,
Table 2.8), but are approximately equal to the flame radius. Published data on diffusion flame
emission/absorption coefficients are listed in Table A.1. Reported values for nominally the same
material differ by as much as a factor of four. These differences are important for flames with
338 INDUSTRIAL FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING

Table A.1. Effective flame emission/absorption coefficients, k, and radiation flame

temperatures, Tf

Material k(m−1 ) Tf (K) Referencea

Benzene 2.6 1190 Mudan (1984), Drysdale (1985)
Butane 2.7 – Mudan (1984)
Diesel Oil 0.43 – Drysdale (1985)
Ethyl Alcohol 0.37 – Mudan (1971)
Furniture (assorted) 1.13 – Drysdale (1985)
Gasoline 2.0 1240 Mudan (1984)
Gasoline – 1300 Drysdale (1985)
Hexane 1.9 – Mudan (1984)
Hydrogen (liquid) 7.0 – Mudan (1984)
JP-4 – 1200 Mudan (1984)
Kerosene 2.6 1600 Mudan (1984)
Kerosene – 1260 Drysdale (1985)
LNG 3.0 1500 Mudan (1984)
Methanol 4.6 1500 Mudan (1984), Drysdale (1985)
PMMA 0.5 – Drysdale (1985)
PMMA 1.3 1400 deRis (1979)
PMMA 1.5 1260 Orloff (1981)
Polypropylene 1.8 1350 deRis (1979)
Polystyrene 1.2 – Drysdale (1985)
Polystyrene 5.23 1190 deRis (1979)
Wood Cribs 0.5, 0.8 – Drysdale (1985)
Xylene 1.2 – Mudan (1984)
a Data attributed to Mudan (1984) were compiled primarily by Attalah and Allan (1971). Data attributed

to Drysdale (1985) were compiled from a variety of sources cited in his text

beam lengths on the order of one meter or less, but are insignificant for larger flames since the
emissivity is effectively equal to one.
Radiation flame temperatures needed in equation [A.1] are also material dependent. As indi-
cated in Table A.1, flammable liquid pool fire diffusion flame temperatures are reported to be in
the range 1190–1600 ◦ K (1680–2420 ◦ F), while solid polymer diffusion flame temperatures are
in the narrower range 1190–1400 ◦ K (1680–2060 ◦ F). The corresponding emissive powers for
polymers are 120–220 kW/m2 (10–20 Btu/sec-ft2 ). Under-ventilated fires would be expected to
produce lower effective flame temperatures because of heat absorption by soot.
In situations where reliable flame temperature or emission/absorption coefficient data are not
available, flame emissive powers may be calculated from flame heat release rate data and flame
surface area estimates. In these cases E is

E = Qr /Af [A.3]

where Qr is the radiant heat release rate (kW), and Af is the flame surface area (m2 ).
The radiant heat release rate, Qr , is often expressed as

Qr = χrad Q = χrad MHc [A.4]

where χrad is the ratio of the radiative heat release rate to the theoretical heat release rate, M
is the fuel mass burning rate (g/s), Hc is the theoretical heat of combustion (kJ/g), and Q is
APPENDIX A: FLAME RADIATION REVIEW 339

Table A.2. Chemical, convective and radiative combustion efficien-

cies (data from Chapter 3-4 of SFPE Handbook, 1995)

Material Hc χ χconv χrad

Gases
Ethane 47.5 0.99 0.79 0.20
Propane 46.4 0.95 0.68 0.27
Butane 45.7 0.95 0.68 0.27
Ethylene 47.2 0.91 0.59 0.32
Propylene 45.8 0.89 0.50 0.39
1,3-Butadiene 44.6 0.74 0.34 0.40
Acetylene 48.2 0.76 0.37 0.39

Liquids
Heptane 44.6 0.93 0.59 0.34
Octane 44.4 0.92 0.61 0.31
Benzene 40.1 0.69 0.28 0.41
Styrene 40.5 0.67 0.27 0.40
Methanol 20.0 0.95 0.81 0.15
Ethanol 26.8 0.97 0.73 0.24
Isopropanol 30.2 0.97 0.73 0.24
Acetone 28.6 0.97 0.73 0.24
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 31.5 0.97 0.67 0.24
Polydimethyl Siloxane 25.1 0.61 0.51 0.10
High MW Hydrocarbons 43.9 0.84 0.56 0.28

Solids
Red Oak 17.7 0.70 0.44 0.26
Douglas Fir 16.4 0.79 0.49 0.30
Pine 17.9 0.69 0.49 0.21
Polyoxymethyene 15.4 0.94 0.73 0.21
Polymethylmethacrylate 25.2 0.96 0.66 0.30
Polyethylene 43.6 0.88 0.50 0.38
Polypropylene 43.4 0.89 0.52 0.37
Polystyrene 39.2 0.69 0.28 0.41
Silicone 21.7 0.49 0.34 0.15
Polyester 32.5 0.63 0.33 0.30
Epoxy 28.8 0.59 0.30 0.30
Nylon 30.8 0.88 0.53 0.35
Polyethylene-25%-Cl 31.6 0.72 0.32 0.40
Polyethylene-36%-Cl 26.3 0.40 0.24 0.16
Polyethylene-48%-Cl 20.6 0.35 0.19 0.16
Polyvinyl chloride 16.4 0.35 0.19 0.16
Fluoropolymers 5.3 0.32 0.17 0.15

Flexible Polyurethane Foams

GM 21 (29 kg/m3 ) 26.2 0.68 0.33 0.35
GM 23 (FR 29 kg/m3 ) 27.2 0.70 0.38 0.32
GM 25 (44 kg/m3 ) 24.6 0.69 0.29 0.40
GM 27 (FR 44 kg/m3 ) 23.2 0.71 0.33 0.38

(continued overleaf )
340 INDUSTRIAL FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING

Table A.2. (continued )

Material Hc χ χconv χrad

Rigid Polyurethane Foams

GM 29 (35 kg/m3 ) 26.0 0.63 0.26 0.37
GM 31 (FR 32 kg/m3 ) 25.0 0.63 0.28 0.35
GM 35 (64 kg/m3 ) 28.0 0.63 0.28 0.35
GM 37 (320 kg/m3 ) 28.0 0.64 0.31 0.33
GM 41 (36 kg/m3 ) 26.2 0.60 0.22 0.38
GM 43 (33 kg/m3 ) 22.2 0.67 0.29 0.38

Polystyrene Foams
GM 47 (16 kg/m3 ) 38.1 0.68 0.30 0.38
GM 49 (FR 16 kg/m3 ) 38.2 0.67 0.26 0.41
GM 51 (34 kg/m3 ) 35.6 0.69 0.29 0.40
GM 53 (29 kg/m3 ) 37.6 0.69 0.30 0.39

Table A.3. Theoretical unit heat release rates for fuels

burning in the open

Commodity Heat release

rate (Btu/sec)
Flammable Liquid Pool 290/ft2 of surface
Flammable Liquid Spray 2000/gpm of flow
Wood Pallets (Single Stack) 1000/ft of height

Wood or PMMA (Vertical)

2 ft Height Burning 30/ft of width
4 ft Height Burning 70/ft of width
8 ft Height Burning 180/ft of width
12 ft Height Burning 300/ft of width

Wood of PMMA
Top of Horizontal Surface 65/ft2 of surface
Solid Polystyrene (Vertical)
2 ft Height Burning 65/ft of width
4 ft Height Burning 150/ft of width
8 ft Height Burning 400/ft of width
12 ft Height Burning 680/ft of width
Solid Polystyrene (Horizontal) 120/ft2 of surface

Solid Polystyrene (Vertical)

2 ft Height Burning 45/ft of width
4 ft Height Burning 100/ft of width
8 ft Height Burning 280/ft of width
12 ft Height Burning 470/ft of width
Solid Polypropylene (Horizontal) 70/ft2 of surface
APPENDIX A: FLAME RADIATION REVIEW 341

Table A.4. Theoretical unit heat release rate for commodities burning in the open
(compiled by Dr G. Heskestad)

Commodity Heat Release Rate

(Btu/sec per ft2 of
floor area)
Wood Pallets
Stack 1-1/2 ft High (6-12% Moisture) 125
Stack 5 ft High (6-12% Moisture) 460
Stack 10 ft High (6-12% Moisture) 940
Stack 16 ft High (6-12% Moisture) 1500
Mail Bags, Filled, Stored 0.5 ft High 35
Cartons, Compartmented, Stacked 15 ft High 150
PE Letter Trays, Filled, Stacked 5 ft High on Cart 750
PE Trash Barrels in Cartons, Stacked 15 ft High 175
PE-Fiberglass Shower Stalls in Cartons, Stacked 15 ft High 125
PE Bottles in Compartmented Cartons, Stacked 15 ft High 550
PE Bottles in Cartons, Stacked 15 ft High 175
PU insulation Board, Rigid Foam, Stacked 15 ft High 170
PS Jars in Compartmented Cartons, Stacked 15 ft High 1250
PS Tubs nested in Cartons, Stacked 14 ft High 475
PS Toy Parts in Cartons, Stacked 15 ft High 180
PS Insulation Baord, Rigid Foam, Stacked 14 ft High 290
PVC Bottles in Compartmented Cartons, Stacked 15 ft High 300
PP Tubs in Compartmented Cartons, Stacked 15 ft High 390
PP and PE Film in Rolls, Stacked 14 ft High 550
Methyl Alcohol 65
Gasoline 290
Kerosene 290
Diesel Oil 175

the theoretical heat release rate based on the mass burning rate and Hc , i.e. assuming 100%
combustion efficiency.
The combustion efficiency, χ, is the sum of the convective and radiative combustion efficien-
cies:
x = χconv + χrad [A.5]

Experimental values of these three combustion efficiencies as obtained by Tewarson (1995) are
listed in Table A.2, along with values of Hc for a variety of combustible materials. The data in
Table A.2 were obtained at well-ventilated conditions in Tewarson’s laboratory apparatus with
imposed external radiant heat flux impinging on the fuel surface. Large external heat fluxes
presumably are representative of large fires or intense exposure fires.
Theoretical heat release rates for an assortment of industrial commodities have been compiled
by Alpert and Ward (1984) and are reproduced here as Tables A.3 and A.4. These heat release
rates represent steady-state values after the fires are fully developed.

A.2 Flame height

Flame height calculations are needed to determine the flame surface area (in equation [A.3] and
the configuration factors described in Section A.3. Buoyant diffusion flame height data have been
342 INDUSTRIAL FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING

correlated by Heskestad (1983) for cylindrical and conical flames with base diameter, D. The
simplified Heskestad correlation is

Hf = 0.23Q2/5 − 1.02D [A.6]

where Hf is the flame height (m) above the top of the fuel, Q is the actual heat release rate (kW),
and 7 < Q2/5 /D < 700 kW2/5 /m.
Flame heights given by equation [A.6] are not applicable to flames exposed to ambient cross-
winds. Flame height and tilt correlations for this situation have been reviewed by Mudan (1984)
and Drysdale (1985).
According to Delichatsios (1984), flame heights for rectangular wall fires can be correlated by

Hf = 0.050Q2/3
w [A.7]

where Qw is the heat release rate per unit wall width (kW/m), and Hf is the flame height (m)
above the wall base.
Values of Qw for several wall materials are given in Table A.3.

A.3 Configuration factor

The configuration factor, sometimes called the view factor, for an elemental target area is the
geometric factor relating the emissive power of the flame to the radiant heat flux impinging on
the elemental target area. Thus,
q  = Eϕτ [A.8]

where q  is the radiant heat flux (kW/m2 ) at the remote elemental target, ϕ is the flame-target con-
figuration factor, and τ is the atmospheric transmissivity accounting for atmospheric absorption.
Values of the configuration factor have been mathematically derived for a variety of flame-
target geometries. Table A.5 shows the mathematical representations for eight simple geometries.
Figure A.1 shows a graphical representation of ϕ for an elemental rectangle parallel to, and oppo-
site one corner from, a rectangular flame. Configuration factors for contiguous flames exposing
the same elemental target are additive, as shown by Drysdale (1985).
Figure A.2 shows plots of ϕ for an elemental target area parallel to a cylindrical flame. Config-
uration factors for a vertical cylindrical flame and a target oriented at the angle that would produce
the maximum view factor to the flame are shown in Figure A.3, reproduced from Mudan (1984).
Configuration factors for wind-tilted flames have also been computed by Mudan. Formulas and
some tables for well over one hundred configurations involving combinations of differential areas
and finite areas of varying geometry are available in Howell’s (1985) compilation. In general,
choosing a differential target closest to the flame will result in a larger configuration factor than
for the finite target surface area containing that differential element.

A.4 Atmospheric transmissivity

Radiation attenuation due to atmospheric absorption can be significant over long path lengths
if the flame emits in the same spectral bands as the atmospheric gas (water vapor and carbon
dioxide) absorption bands. This effect is usually negligible for sooty, grey body flames.
APPENDIX A: FLAME RADIATION REVIEW 343

1.0

.0
10 2.0
1.0

0.4
F12

0.1
a

b 2
0.1
= c
X

0.01
0.1 1.0 10
Y


2 X Y Y X
F12 =  tan−1  + tan−1 
π 1 + X2 1 + X2 1 + Y2 1 + Y2
A
X=
C
B
Y=
C

Figure A.1. View factor for parallel rectangular radiator. (Reproduced from Blackshear, 1974)

Atmospheric absorption effects are also important when there is a water spray curtain between
the flame and the target. The transmissivity through the spray curtain is given by Heseldon and
Hinkley (1965) as
τ = exp[−3Q d/4vr] [A.9]

where Q is the water flow rate per unit horizontal area of curtain (ft3 /sec-ft2 ), d is spray curtain
depth (ft), v is the average droplet fall velocity (ft/s), and r is the average drop radius (ft).
The data used by Heseldon and Hinkley in deriving equation [A.9] is shown in Figure A.4.
Values for v and r depend upon the nozzle diameter and pressure. Small diameter nozzles operated
at high pressure produce small drops which also have small terminal fall velocities, thus leading
to small values of τ .

A.5 Point source approximation

If atmospheric absorption effects are negligible, and if the target distance is large compared to
flame height, the radiant point source approximation provides an attractive simplification of the
344 INDUSTRIAL FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING

R
2

     
1 L L  A − 2D A(D − 1) 1 D − 1
F12 = tan−1  + √ tan −1
− tan −1
πD D2 − 1 π D AB B(D + 1) D D+1

d L
D= ,L =
r R
A = (D + 1)2 + L2 , B = (D − 1)2 + L2

0.5
0.4 D = 1.1
0.3
1.3
0.2 1.6
2.0
0.1 3.0
F12

0.07
0.05 5.0
0.04
0.03 10
0.02
20

0.01
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.50.7 1.0 2 3 4 5 7 10 20 30 ∞
L

Figure A.2. Cylindrical radiator to parallel received. (Reproduced from Blackshear, 1974)

preceding equations. The radiant heat flux, q  , at a target at a distance x (m) from a point source
of radiation is
Qr cos θ
q  = [A.10]
4πx 2

Equation [A.10] is useful for far field estimates of radiant heat fluxes. However, it significantly
over-estimates heat fluxes in the immediate vicinity of the flame, i.e. when the distance to the
target is small compared to the flame height, and it under-estimates heat fluxes at target distances
that are comparable to the flame height.
APPENDIX A: FLAME RADIATION REVIEW 345

Height to radius ratio

0.2
0.5
Maximum view factor at ground level

1.0
3.0
0.1 5.0 0.1

0.01 0.01

0.002 0.002
1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80
Nondimensional distance from flame surface X /R

H Radiation
receiving
element

X
Right circular source
   
1  (B − 1/S) −1 (B + 1)(S − 1) (A − 1/S) −1 (A + 1)(S − 1) 
FH =  tan −  tan
x B2 − 1 (B − 1)(S + 1) A2 − 1 (A − 1)(S + 1)
    
1 1 −1 h h  −1 S − 1 A −1 (A + 1)(S − 1) 
Fv = tan  + tan − tan
π S S2 − 1 S S+1 A2 − 1 (A − 1)(S + 1) 

where h = flame height or length/flame radius, S = distance to observer from axis/flame radius,

h2 + S2 + 1 1 + S2
A= and B =
2S 2S

Figure A.3. Configuration factors for a vertical cylindrical flame and a target oriented at the angle that
would produce the maximum view factor to the flame. (Reproduced from Mudan, 1984)
346 INDUSTRIAL FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING

QD = G / cm / sec
0 5 10
Radiation transmission (%) 100

50
Sprinkler spray 50 psi
Sprinkler spray 6.5 psi
Flat spray 1.2−2.6 psi
30

20

10

7
0 1 2 3 4 5
QD = gal / ft / min

Figure A.4. Effect of factor QD on radiant transmission through water sprays

References

Alpert, R.L. and Ward, E.J., Evaluation of Unsprinklered Fire Hazards, Fire Safety Journal , 7, 127–143, 1984.
Atallah, S. and Allan, D.S., Safe Separation Distances from Liquid Fuel Fires, Fire Technology, 7, 47–56, 1971.
Blackshear, P. (ed.), Heat Transfer in Fires, Scripta Book Co., Washington, DC, 1974.
Delichatsios, M., ‘Modeling of Aircraft Cabin Fires,’ Factory Mutual Research Corporation J.I. 0H5N5.BU, pre-
pared for Federal Aviation Administration, 1984.
de Ris, J.N., Fire Radiation – a Review, 17th Symposium (International) on Combustion, pp. 1003–1016, 1979.
DiNenno, P., SFPE TP 82-9, 1982.
Drysdale, D., An Introduction to Fire Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, 1985.
Heselden, A.J.M. and Hinkley, P.L., Measurement of the Transmission of Radiation through Water Sprays, Fire
Technology, 1, 130–137, 1965.
Heskestad, G., Luminous Heights of Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Fire Safety Journal , 5, 103–108, 1983.
Howell, J.R., A Catalog of Radiation Configuration Factors, McGraw-Hill, 1985.
Mudan, K.S., Thermal Radiation Hazards from Hydrocarbon Pool Fires, Progress in Energy and Combustion
Science, 10, 59–80, 1984.
Orloff, L., ‘Simplified Radiation Modeling of Pool Fires,’ 18th Symposium (International) on Combustion, The
Combustion Institute, 1981, pp. 549–562.
Tewarson, A., Generation of Heat and Chemical Compounds in Fires, Chapter 3-4 in SFPE Handbook of Fire
Protection Engineering, S.F.P.E. and NFPA, 1995.