Fuel 270 (2020) 117516

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Experimental and modelling study on flame tilt angle of flame spread over T
jet fuel under longitudinally forced air flows
Manhou Lia,b, , Zhizhong Shua,b, Shuwei Genga,b, Guangzhao Hana,b
⁎

a
School of Civil Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, China
b
Anhui International Joint Research Center on Hydrogen Safety, Hefei 230009, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The flame spread above oil surface is affected by the ambient wind, including the velocity and direction of the
Flame tilt angle wind. In current paper, the experiments of flame spread above jet fuel of RP-3 with different pool widths are
Flame spread conducted to find out the variations of flame tilt angle under the influence of longitudinally forced air flows. It is
Jet fuel found that as the longitudinally forced air flow speed increases from 0 to 2.57 m/s, the flame tilt angle increases
Longitudinal air flow
from 0° to about 75°, regardless of directions of air flows. The new non-dimensional parameter, characteristic
Modelling study
size ratio = d/ D is introduced into the Welker et al.’s model. The tangent value of the flame tilt angle is directly
proportional to (Ri ) (d/ D ) under both opposed and concurrent flame spreads. The mechanism of flame in-
clination under the effect of longitudinally forced air flow is analyzed according to the coupling of combustion
and gas flows. The flame inclination is principally determined by the coupled effects of vertical buoyancy and
horizontally forced air flow.

1. Introduction decreased initially but increased slightly afterwards to a critical value.

The flame spread above oil surface is affected by the velocity and
direction of the ambient winds. In the actual fire scenario, it is im-
possible for the oils to burn in the still air like the vertical buoyancy-
controlled pool fire. The environmental wind provides the extra oxygen
to the combustion area. The flame shape is inclined to the downstream
area, so the mixing of combustible gas and air is promoted and the heat
feedback involving the flame spread is enhanced. Meanwhile, the in-
clined flame may increase the temperature of the surrounding com-
bustible surface, ignite the combustibles and accelerate the flame
spread. All of these bring new challenges to the emergency disposal and
fire rescue of the leaking fuel fire accident. The flame tilt angle, defined
as the angle between the centerline of the individually pioneering flame
and the vertical axis is one of the most important parameters to char-
acterize the flame spreading behaviors in the forced air flow environ-
ment.
The flame spread over liquid fuel has been extensively examined by
previous researchers, mainly under the stationary air condition. The
influential factors included the fuel type, fuel depth, pool width, fuel
temperature etc. Gao et al. [1] experimentally studied the combustion
behaviors and flame spread over diesel and ethanol-diesel blended fuel
in the conditions of with/without ullage effects. With an increase in
non-dimensional ullage height, the flame spread rate of diesel
The 1.0–60 cm wide pools were used by the U.S. Naval Research In-
stitute who found that the flame spread rate continuously increased
with the increase of pool width [2]. Takahashi et al. [3] conducted
scaling analysis of liquid-phase circulation within subsurface flow,
finding that the flame spread could be divided into deep pool and thin
pool using the critical length scale ratio. The previous researchers also
examined the influence of air flow on flame spread above liquids. For
instance, Zamashchikov [4–6] studied the opposed flame spread over n-
butanol surface, finding that as the opposed gas velocity increased, the
flame speed decreased until extinction. Later, the authors concentrated
on the variations of flame spread rate as function of thickness of liquid
layer, velocity of gas mixture and oxygen concentration [7,8]. Ali et al.
[9] examined the effects of concurrent air flow on flame propagation
over methanol pool surface using numerical models. As the air flow
speed increased, the fuel consumption rate increased to promote the
flame spreading. Kim and Sirignano [10] numerically investigated the
two-dimensional flame spread across sub-flashpoint propanol in op-
posed air flow. In their model, the finite-rate, one-step chemical ki-
netics, variable properties, and an adaptive finite-difference gridding
scheme were applied.
In total, the reports on the spread of liquid fire under ambient winds
are limited. Nevertheless, the experimental results and semi-empirical
models to predict flame tilt angle of pool fires are useful. The influence

⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Civil Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, China.
E-mail address: mhli@hfut.edu.cn (M. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117516
Received 27 December 2019; Received in revised form 13 February 2020; Accepted 1 March 2020
0016-2361/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Li, et al.
of ambient wind on flame characteristics with different kinds of solids
(wood and PMMA) and liquid fuels (kerosene, diesel, heptane, acetone,
ethanol) were studied. Thomas [11] got the relation of the flame tilt
angle versus air flow speed on the basis of wood crib fire. The AGA
(American Gas Association) research group [12,13] studied the 0–15 m
diameter pool fires of liquefied natural gas on water. The sine of the
flame tilt angle was equal to unity or the square root of dimensionless
wind speed, depending on whether dimensionless wind speed was equal
to or beyond the unity. Apte et al. [14] studied the combustion rate and
flame tilt angle of aviation fuel fire in a tunnel at the wind speed of
0–2 m/s. The measured mass burning rate was decreased with the air
flow speed because at higher wind speeds, the flame was tilted away
from the pool surface, reducing the heat feedback. Welker et al. [15]
conducted experiments with the pool fire diameter in the range of
10–45.7 cm and wind speed 0–5.5 m/s, to study the burning rate, tilt
angle and length of the flame. The model of the flame tilt angle was
established to reveal the relationship of tan ( ) with Froude number
(u2/ gd ). Hu et al. [16] studied the pool fire of heptane, ethanol and
acetone in the horizontal wind in range of 0–3 m/s and the pool widths
of 10, 15, 20 and 25 cm. It was found that the measured results of flame
tilt angle did not conform to the calculations of Thomas model. Then,
the authors proposed a linear correlation of the tangent value of flame
tilt angle with the non-dimensional Richardson number. Lam and
Weckman [17,18] studied the flame geometry and mass burning rate of
the Jet-A pool fire under horizontal forced air flow. The air flow speed
was in the range of 3–10 m/s and the diameter of the oil pool was
1.97 m. Ferrero [19] proposed an empirical formula of the flame tilt
angle and forced air flow speed based on the different-size pool fires.
Kong et al. [20–22] studied the flame tilt angle using crude oil. The
experimental data had a low fit with Thomas’ model and AGA’s model,
but a good fit with the non-dimensional Richardson number and Hu
et al.’s model [16].
In summary, the variations of flame tilt angle with the influence of
forced air flow are not comprehensively understood. First, most of the
previous studies concentrate on the flame inclination of steady-state
pool fires, while there is relatively less research on the transient flame
spreading process. Second, the previous flame tilt angle predicting
models are obtained from the solid wood bonfires, or low-flashpoint
liquid fires such as heptane, acetone, ethanol or gasoline. It is unclear
whether these models apply to flame spread on high-flashpoint hy-
drocarbon fuel. Furthermore, the discussions on the internal me-
chanism of the influence of forced air flow on the flame tilt angle are
rare. Therefore, the jet fuel of RP-3 with flashpoint of 46 °C is used for
flame spread tests with different pool widths. The improved new model
is proposed to correlate the flame tilt angle with the non-dimensional
pool width and longitudinally forced air flow. The mechanisms of flame
inclination are revealed based upon the coupling of combustion and gas
flows.
2. Experimental apparatuses
As shown in Fig. 1, the entire experimental system included the
stainless steel rectangular pool, the uniformly forced air flow tunnel
and the data acquisition device. The design of the air flow tunnel re-
ferred to Hu et al.’s work [23] and this tunnel was used in our previous
investigations [24]. The tunnel consisted of the wind wall, the necking
section, and the transparent glass experimental section. The internal
dimension of the tunnel was 140 cm long by a cross-sectional area of
75 × 75 cm2. The forced air flow generated by the SF-5–4 axial flow fan
was controlled by adjusting the output power. In order to obtain the
uniform air flow field, a rectifying device made up of layers of 10 mm-
diameter PVC plastic pipes, was set up at the outlet of the fan. The
smoke removal system was equipped at the top of the tunnel to exhaust
the hot gas products in time.
The experimental conditions are presented in Table 1. The rectan-
gular pools were placed in the longitudinal axis of the tunnel to make
2
Fuel 270 (2020) 117516
sure that the flame propagated under the longitudinal forced air flow.
The experimental trays had the dimensions of 100-cm long, 1.5-cm
deep and pool widths of 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 cm. The fuel depth was set
as 10 mm to satisfy the deep-pool condition [3], so the influence of fuel
depth on the experimental results was negligible. The initial tempera-
ture was controlled at 20 °C by heating or freezing the fuels. The flame
morphology was recorded by the CCD camera with sampling recording
frequency of 25 frames per second. In order to highlight the bright
yellow flame area, a huge black background board was placed behind
the pool to avoid the interference of optical noise. The mass burning
rate was measured by the Sartorius MSE70201s-000-D0 electronic
balance with sampling interval of 1 s and resolution of 0.1 g. As shown
in Table 1, the forced air flow speed ranged from −2.57 to 2.57 m/s.
The negative values represented the opposed flame spread while the
positive values implied the concurrent flame spread. The direction of
the wind was changed by initiating the combustion at different pool
ends. Actually, the fire established above the 4-cm-wide pool was ex-
tinguished at 2.57 m/s for both concurrent and opposed air flows.
As shown in Fig. 2, the flame configuration is divided into two
portions: the trailing flame at the back area of the flame contour and the
individually pioneering flame in the front area of the flame contour.
The trailing flame corresponds to the quasi-steady-state pool fire, while
the pioneering flame belongs to the continuously pulsating flame. The
flame tilt angle discussed in this paper refers to the characteristic value
of the pioneering flame. The length of the pioneering flame is estimated
by the width of the pool [19].
The mass burning rates of the pool fire and the flame spreading are
different. For the former, the mass burning rate is commonly corre-
sponding to the steady state of the pool fire. For the latter, however, the
mass burning rate changes with time because the pioneering flame is
continuously pulsating in the flame spreading process. The mass
burning rate of the pioneering flame is difficult to achieve by the direct
measurement, so it is calculated by the formula [24],
(l l )
m = ml mq
100 (1)
where l is the length of entire combustion zone, l is the length of the
pioneering flame zone which is estimated by the width of the pool, m
is the mass burning rate of the pioneering flame, ml is the total mass
burning rate of the combustion zone, and mq is the instantaneous mass
burning rate of the100-cm long pool fire.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Flame morphology and flame tilt angle under longitudinally forced air
flow
For the air flow speed of 2.15 m/s, the concurrent flame spreads at
different pool widths are shown in Fig. 3. The flame exhibits the bright
yellow color owing to the insufficient combustion. The RP-3 has the
high carbon component, so the combustion produces a great amount of
soot particles. The flame shape of pioneering flame is significantly
different from that of the stationary pool fire. It is seen from Fig. 3 that
the flame morphology presents a plurality of scattered small flames,
while it is a single large flame in quasi-steady-state pool fire [25].
The measurement of the flame tilt angle is taken the average value
of 25 consecutive frame pictures in one experimental run. The flame tilt
angle decreases as the oil pool width increases, whereas the bright
yellow flame area increases. The yellow flame does not stay steadily
above the pool, but periodically leaves the oil surface. As shown in
Fig. 4, when the forced air flow speed increases from 0 to 2.57 m/s, the
flame tilt angle increases from 0° to about 75°, regardless of directions
of the air flow.
For flame spread in still air, the angle of pioneering flame tilt to the
vertical is zero under the influence of thermal buoyancy [14]. For flame
spreading under forced air flows, by contrast, the flame tilt angle is
M. Li, et al. Fuel 270 (2020) 117516

Flame Flame spread tray

Oil surface (140 × 75 × 75 cm3)
Longitudinally
forced air flow d
100 cm
Fireboard

Electronic balance

Axial flow fan Honeycomb boards Camera Baffle barrier

Ignition region

10 mm
15 mm

Fig. 1. Experimental device diagram.

related to the coupled effects of the vertical buoyancy flow and the cos ( ) = a·(u )b (2)
horizontal flows including forced air flow, hot expansion of gas pro-
u
ducts and opposed natural flow [26]. Both the vertical and horizontal u =
components of the velocity are affected by the external gas flow, op- (gm d/ )1/3 (3)
posed natural flow, expansion of combustion products and the vapor where is the flame tilt angle, u is the non-dimensional air flow speed,
flow from the liquid. The opposed natural flow has the same direction g is the acceleration of gravity, is the air density and u is the actual
as the forced air flow in opposed flame spread, but the opposite di- air flow speed. a and b are two constants; for wooden crib fire, a = 0.7
rection of concurrent flame spread. Besides, the vertical buoyancy effect
and b = -0.49 [11].
is independent of the direction and speed of the longitudinally forced
As shown in Fig. 5, the Thomas’ modelling calculations severely
air flow, whereas the hot gas expansion depends on the air flow speed
underestimate the experimentally measured data, no matter whether it
because the flame spread rate is greatly influenced by the air flow [27].
is the concurrent or opposed flame spread. This is because the Thomas’
Therefore, even at the same forced air flow speed, the flame tilt angle in
model is proposed according to the solid wooden crib fire. The burning
the opposed and concurrent flame spreads is not identical. The velo-
of the solid material requires the heat absorption, evaporation, and
cities of buoyancy-induced natural convection and hot gas expansion
thermal decomposition, and the accumulation of combustible gas. The
possess the magnitude 10–30 cm/s [28], one order of magnitude
combustion continues when the gas concentration from pyrolysis
smaller than the forced air flow speeds, thus, the vertical buoyancy
reaches the lean flammability limit. In this paper, the liquid fire does
effect and the horizontal air flow are the main factors for the flame tilt
not undergo the process of thermal decomposition. The fuel vapors
angle. As the horizontally forced air flow speed is small, the flame tilt
diffuse into the air to mix with each other and burns while mixing. The
angle is small. In the strongest the longitudinally forced air flow speed,
essential properties of the solid and liquid fuels, as well as the mass
the flame is blown almost completely close to the oil surface, resulting
burning rate of both materials, are completely different. Therefore, the
in the largest flame tilt angle.
experimental data of liquid flame spread do not agree with the calcu-
lations of Thomas’ model.

3.2. Flame tilt angle data collapse by previous models and an improved
3.2.2. Hu et al.’s model
model
The dimensionless analyses of flame tilt angles of two pool fires,
namely n-heptane and acetone under the influence of longitudinally
3.2.1. Thomas’ model
forced air flow are conducted by Hu et al. [16] The widths of oil pool
Based upon the experimental studies of wooden crib fire, Thomas
are 10, 15, 20 and 25 cm. Based on the Thomas and AGA’s models, the
[11] proposes that the cosine value of the flame tilt angle is related to
new non-dimensional air flow speed is proposed to characterize the
the non-dimensional air flow speed:
flame inclination behaviors. It is found that the tangent value of the

Table 1
Experimental conditions.
Pool width Air flow speeds Pool width Air flow speeds Pool width Air flow speeds Pool width Air flow speeds Pool width Air flow speeds
(cm) (m/s) (cm) (m/s) (cm) (m/s) (cm) (m/s) (cm) (m/s)

4 0.45 8 0.45 12 0.45 16 0.45 20 0.45

0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73 1.73
2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15
2.57 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.57
4 −0.45 8 −0.45 12 −0.45 16 −0.45 20 −0.45
−0.88 −0.88 −0.88 −0.88 −0.88
−1.3 −1.3 −1.3 −1.3 −1.3
−1.73 −1.73 −1.73 −1.73 −1.73
−2.15 −2.15 −2.15 −2.15 −2.15
−2.57 −2.57 −2.57 −2.57 −2.57

3
M. Li, et al. Fuel 270 (2020) 117516

Flame spreading direction

l −l* l*
Fig. 2. Instantaneous flame spread image under the longitudinally forced air flow.

Fig. 6 indicates that the results deviated from the Hu et al.’s model
4 cm considerably overestimate the experimentally measured data. The
spread of flame is evidently different from the pool fire where the Hu
θ
et al.’s model is proposed. The pool fire is the static and stable com-
8 cm bustion, while the flame spread phenomenon is highly transient [30].
The combustion of the pool fire lasts hundreds of seconds or even
θ longer, so the heat feedback to the fuel surface is completely devel-
oped. As a contrast, the whole process of the flame spread continues
several seconds, therefore, the mass burning rate of pioneering flame is
12 cm
significantly smaller than that of pool fire. Also, the thermo-physical
parameters such as the specific heat capacity cp and combustion heat
θ
Hc of the jet fuel are considerably different from n-heptane and
16 cm acetone used by Hu et al. These parameters exist in the non-dimensional
2 1/5

θ
forced air flow speed
cp (Tf
m d2 Hc
T ) u5
( T
g (Tf T ) ) .

3.2.3. An improved new model based on Welker et al.’s model

20 cm
Although there are already several models proposed in the litera-
tures, they are not developed based on experiments of flame spread
θ
above hydrocarbon fuel. Also, the mass burning rate of the pioneering
flame is considerably different from that of pool fire. Based on the pool
Fig. 3. Flame tilt angle versus pool width in concurrent flame spread. fire behaviors of five fuels namely methanol, n-hexane, acetone, ben-
zene and cyclohexane, Welker et al. [15] proposes that the flame tilt
flame tilt angle is proportional to the non-dimensional forced air flow angle is proportional to the Froude number. The correlation does not
speed. It yields, include the mass burning rate, so it is tentatively introduced into the
flame spread results.
2 1/5
cp (Tf T ) u5 T u2
tan( ) tan ( )
m d 2 Hc g (Tf T ) gl (5)
(4)
Frw = u2/ gl (6)
where T is the ambient temperature, Tf is the flame temperature, as-
suming as 1000 K for the adiabatic flame temperature of hydrocarbon In fact, the Froude number is inversely proportional to non-di-
fuel [29]. mensional Richardson number. Therefore, the tangent value of flame

90 90
d = 4 cm d = 4 cm
80 80
d = 8 cm d = 8 cm
70 d = 12 cm 70 d = 12 cm
d = 16 cm
Flame tilt angle (degree)

d = 16 cm
Flame tilt angle (degree)

60 d = 20 cm 60 d = 20 cm
50 50

40 40

30 30
(a) Concurrent flame spread (b) Opposed flame spread
20 20

10 10

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Air flow speed (m/s) Air flow speed (m/s)

Fig. 4. Variations of flame tilt angle with longitudinally forced air flow speeds. (a) concurrent flame spread; (b) opposed flame spread.

4
M. Li, et al. Fuel 270 (2020) 117516

Fig. 5. Collapse of [cos ( ) ] by the parameter 1/(u ) 0.49 proposed in Thomas’ model. (a) concurrent flame spread; (b) opposed flame spread.

cp (Tf T ) u5 2 1/5
Fig. 6. Collapse of [tan ( ) ] by the parameter proposed in Hu et al.’s model. (a) concurrent flame spread; (b) opposed flame spread.
T
m d2 Hc g (Tf T )

Fig. 7. Collapse and correlation of [tan ( ) ] by non-dimensional parameter Ri and . (a) concurrent flame spread; (b) opposed flame spread.

5
M. Li, et al. Fuel 270 (2020) 117516

tilt angle is proportional to the reciprocal of non-dimensional 3.3. Analysis of flame inclination under longitudinally forced air flow
Richardson number,
Fig. 8 shows the complicated combustion process during the flame
(Tf T ) gl
Ri = spread over jet fuel. As shown in Fig. 8(a), in the absence of long-
T u2 (7) itudinally forced air flow, the stratification of fuel vapor exists above
the pool. The flame plume expands freely under the steady-state com-
Apparently, it is arrives at Frw u2/ gl and Ri (u2 / gl ) 1, there-
bustion, so the flame stands vertically off the liquid surface [31]. The
fore, it yields,
fire plume develops accompanying by the air entrainment around the
T u2 flame and the flame tilt angle is zero. Once the fuel vapor and air
tan ( )
(Tf T ) gl (8) mixture established above the oil pool is sufficient to sustain the com-
bustion, a self-sustaining pool fire is produced.
However, the pool width, one of the important parameters influ- In the case of the longitudinally forced air flow, as shown in
encing the flame tilt angle, is excluded in this model. In order to take Fig. 8(b), the thermal buoyancy and the flame height increase as the
into account the effect of the pool width, a non-dimensional number pool width increases. The increased amount of air entrainment in the
= d / D is introduced. Here, is the characteristic size ratio of the pool wider pool causes the smaller flame tilt angle. Meanwhile, the move-
in flame spread which defined as the ratio of the actual pool width and ment of hot gas products and the vapor concentration distribution are
the maximum width D = 20 cm. Then, is introduced into the Welker affected by the forced air flow. A part of the fuel and air mixture is
et al.’s model, so the Eq. (10) is improved to: blown to the downstream combustion zone. As a result, in such a re-
gion, the flammable gas concentration and the combustion area are
d enhanced. Eventually, due to the larger combustion area in the down-
tan ( ) = (Ri 1)
D (9) stream zone, the heat radiation is significantly increased. The more fuel
vapors are subsequently produced, which in turn promote the com-
where α, β and γ are all constants. The new model that correlates the
bustion process.
flame tilt angle with the pool size and the longitudinally forced air flow
is proposed. The experimental data of the pioneering flame tilt angle of
4. Conclusions
the flame spread over the diesel fuel [24] are also introduced into the
model. The results are shown in Fig. 7.
In this paper, the flame tilt angle of pioneering flame is measured in
Fig. 7 shows that in the range of longitudinally air flow speeds
the experiment of flame spread over jet fuel. Based on previous flame
(0 < u < 2.57 m/s), the proposed non-dimensional parameters collapse
inclination models, a new model is proposed to quantify the flame tilt
and correlate well with the experimental data.
angle by combining the pool size, air flow speed and flame temperature.
For the concurrent flame spread:
The main conclusions include:
0.46
d
tan ( ) = 1.875Ri - 0.667 , R2 = 0.95 (1) For a given air flow velocity, the flame tilt angle decreases as the
D (10)
pool width increases.
For the opposed flame spread: (2) Owing to the differences of thermo-physical parameters and mass
tan ( ) = 1.847Ri 0.725
()
d 0.277
D
, R2 = 0.91 (11)where R is the corre- burning rate of pioneering flame and pool fire, the current experi-
mental data of flame tilt angle had a low fit with Thomas’ model
lation coefficient.

Flame direction

Fire plume

O2 O2
Oil surface

(a) Still air

Flame direction
Thermal buoyancy
Forced air flow
Downstream
combustion zone
Fuel vapor in
upstream zone Thermal radiation
Horizontal force Oil surface

(b) Flame spread in longitudinal air flow

Fig. 8. Analysis of flame plume under still air and longitudinally forced air flow.

6
M. Li, et al.
[11] and Hu et al.’s model [16].
(3) The new non-dimensional parameter, characteristic size ratio
= d / D is introduced into the Welker et al.’s model [15]. The
tangent value of the flame tilt angle is directly proportional to
(Ri) (d/ D) under the opposed and concurrent flame spreading
conditions.
(4) The flame shape is principally determined by the coupled effects of
the vertical buoyancy and the horizontally forced air flow.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Manhou Li plays the role of Conceptualization, Writing - original
draft, and Funding acquisition. Zhizhong Shu plays the role of
Investigation, Methodology and Data curation. Shuwei Geng plays the
role of Project administration, Supervision and Resources and Writing -
review & editing. Guangzhao Han plays the role of Software and
Methodology.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of
China (No. 51806054), Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation
(No. 1808085QE151) and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No.
2018T110614).
References
[1] Gao Z, Lin S, Ji J, Li M. An experimental study on combustion performance and
flame spread characteristics over liquid diesel and ethanol-diesel blended fuel.
Energy 2019;170:349–55.
[2] Glassman I, Sirignano WA, Summerfield M. Physics of flame. in: U.S. Army Ballistics
Research Laboratories Report No. 952. 1970, Ballistics Research Laboratory, U. S.
Army, Princeton, New Jersey, 1970.
[3] Takahashi K, Ito A, Kudo Y, Konishi T, Saito K. Scaling sub-surface layer circulation
induced by pulsating flame spread over liquid fuels. In: Saito K, editor. Progress in
scale modeling. Springer: Netherlands; 2008. p. 149–62.
[4] Zamashchikov VV. Effect of modulations of opposed gas flow velocity on flame
spread rate over a liquid surface. Combust Expl Shock Waves 2009;45:8–13.
[5] Zamashchikov VV. Flame spread across shallow pools in modulated opposed air
flow in narrow tube. Combust Sci Technol 2009;181:176–89.
[6] Zamashchikov VV. Flame spread over a liquid surface in a channel of finite section
under oncoming air-flow conditions. Combust Expl Shock Waves 2008;44:25–30.
[7] Zamashchikov VV, Korzhavin AA, Chinnov EA. Combustion of n-butanol in a flat
minichannel. Thermophys Aeromech 2014;21:397–400.
[8] Zamashchikov VV, Korzhavin AA, Chinnov EA. Combustion of a liquid fuel in a
Fuel 270 (2020) 117516
rectangular channel. Combust Expl Shock Waves 2014;50:381–6.
[9] Ali SM, Raghavan V, Velusamy K, Tiwari S. A numerical study of concurrent flame
propagation over methanol pool surface. J Heat Trans 2012;134:1–9.
[10] Kim I, Sirignano WA. Computational study of opposed-force-flow flame spread
across propanol pools. Combust Flame 2003;132:611–27.
[11] Thomas P. The size of flames from natural fires. Symp (Int) Combust
1963;9:844–59.
[12] Raj PP, Moussa AN, Aravamudan K. Experiments involving pool and vapor fires
from spills of liquefied natural gas on water. Report No. CG-D-55-79, US Coast
Guard, China Lake, California, 1979.
[13] Duffyy AR, Gideon DN, Putnam AA, Carpenter HJ, Shackleford W, Parker RO, Allan
DS, Atallah S, Drake EM, Raj P, Harris SH, Reid RC, Welker JR, Wesson HR,
Sliepcevich CM. LNG Safety Program, Interim Report on Phase II Work. Report No.
A.G.A. Project IS-3-1, Final Report to American Gas Association from Battelle-
Columbus Laboratories, 1974.
[14] Apte V, Green A, Kent J. Pool fire plume flow in a large-scale wind tunnel. In: Fire
Safety Science-Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. New York, USA.
International Association for Fire Safety Science; p. 425-34. 1991.
[15] Welker JR. The effect of wind on uncontrolled buoyant diffusion flames from
burning liquids. Norman, Oklahoma: The University of Oklahoma; 1965.
[16] Hu L, Liu S, de Ris JL, Wu L. A new mathematical quantification of wind-blown
flame tilt angle of hydrocarbon pool fires with a new global correlation model. Fuel
2013;106:730–6.
[17] Lam CS, Weckman EJ. Wind-blown pool fire, Part I: Experimental characterization
of the thermal field. Fire Safety J 2015;75:1–13.
[18] Lam CS, Weckman EJ. Wind-blown pool fire, Part II: Comparison of measured flame
geometry with semi-empirical correlations. Fire Safety J 2015;78:130–41.
[19] Ferrero F, Muñoz M, Arnaldos J. Effects of thin-layer boilover on flame geometry
and dynamics in large hydrocarbon pool fires. Fuel Process Technol
2007;88:227–35.
[20] Kong D, Zhang Z, Ping P, Chen G, He X, Yang H. Experimental study on burning
behavior of crude oil pool fire in annular ice cavities. Fuel 2018;234:464–72.
[21] Kong D, He X, Khan F, Chen G, Ping P, Yang H, et al. Small scale experiment study
on burning characteristics for in-situ burning of crude oil on open water. J Loss
Prevent Proc 2019;60:46–52.
[22] Kong D, He X, Yang H, Zhang Z. Experimental study for flame base drag and
burning efficiency of spilled crude oil during in-situ burning on water. Process Saf
Environ 2019;131:48–54.
[23] Hu LH, Liu S, Peng W, Huo R. Experimental study on burning rates of square/
rectangular gasoline and methanol pool fires under longitudinal air flow in a wind
tunnel. J Hazard Mater 2009;169:972–9.
[24] Li M, Wang C, Li Z, Yang S, Fukumoto K, Fan C. Combustion and flame spreading
characteristics of diesel fuel with forced air flows. Fuel 2018;216:390–7.
[25] Mishra KB, Wehrstedt K-D. Diffusive burning characteristics of peroxy-fuels. Fuel
2013;113:158–64.
[26] Ross HD, Miller FJ. Flame spread across liquid pools with very low-speed opposed
or concurrent airflow. Proc Combust Inst 1998;27:2723–9.
[27] Schiller DN, Sirignano WA. Opposed-flow flame spread across n-propanol pools.
Proc Combust Inst 1996;26:1319–25.
[28] Ross HD. Ignition of and flame spread over laboratory-scale pools of pure liquid
fuels. Prog Energ Combust 1994;20:17–63.
[29] Stark G. Liquid spillage fires. In: Fourth Symposium on Chemical Process Hazards.
Institute of Chemical Engineers, NW Branch. p. 71-8.1972.
[30] Tashtoush G, Saito K, Cremers CJ, Konishi T, Ito A. Measurement of a 3-D (gas and
liquid) flow structures generated by a spreading flame over n-butanol. In: Fire
Safety Science-Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium. Poitiers, France.
International Association for Fire Safety Science; p. 753-64. 2000.
[31] Tang F, Cao Z, Palacios A, Wang Q. A study on the maximum temperature of ceiling
jet induced by rectangular-source fires in a tunnel using ceiling smoke extraction.
Int J Therm Sci 2018;127:329–34.