Effect of Density and Thickness of Steel–Steel Composite Metal Foam on Its Full‐Scale Torch Fire Response
Source abstract
Abstract
Tank cars carrying hazardous materials require fire and thermal protection to prevent disasters in case of accidents. A material with a combination of improved insulating thermal properties and impact resistance within the tank car skin can mitigate the repercussions of such accidents. Steel–steel composite metal foam (S–S CMF) is a novel material with properties that is being investigated for such applications. It is made up of metallic hollow spheres closely packed together within a metallic matrix. To corroborate the effectiveness of this material for the abovementioned application, a full‐scale torch fire test based on the 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 179, Appendix B must be conducted on 4 × 4 ft (1219.2 × 1219.2 mm) samples, where they are required to withstand a 30 min high velocity jet fire at 1204 ± 55.6 °C, by not recording a temperature higher than 427 °C on the unexposed side of the samples within 30 min. It is necessary to determine the critical thickness of CMF for which the test would pass; however it would be costly to do this experimentally and thus, a numerical simulation must be conducted to predict the optimum parameters that can address the torch fire requirements. This study outlines the procedure adhered to in modeling the torch fire test and investigates the effect of thickness and density on the thermal response of the S–S CMF. Fire Dynamics Simulator and COMSOL Multiphysics are utilized to compare the one dimesional and three dimensional modeling of S–S CMF response to a full‐scale torch fire test. Investigation shows that the thickness and density of the material play a significant role in how it responds under torch fire conditions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Fire dynamics and safety research · Combustion and Detonation Processes · Structural Response to Dynamic Loads
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering North Carolina State University Raleigh NC 27606 USA
Funding
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
References (38)
Show source-provided references
1. US Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration Hazardous Materials Transportation https://railroads.dot.gov/railroad‐safety/divisions/hazardous‐materials/hazardous‐materials(accessed: April 2024).
2. Mannan S. · 2012 · 1986
3. United States Department of Transportation Tank Car Specifications and Terms Bureau of Transportation Statistics [Online] https://www.bts.gov/surveys/annual‐tank‐car‐facility‐survey/tank‐car‐specifications‐terms(accessed: April 2024).
4. J.Murphy Lac‐Megantic: The Runaway Train That Destroyed a Town [Online] https://www.bbc.com/news/world‐us‐canada‐42548824(accessed April 2024).
5. C.Hauser How the Ohio Train Derailment and Its Aftermath Unfolded The New York Times [Online] http://www.NytimesCom/Article/Ohio‐Train‐Derailment‐TimelineHtml2023(accessed: March 2024).
6. J.Funk Norfolk Southern Agrees to $600M Settlement in fiery Ohio Derailment. Locals Fear It's Not Enough AP News [Online]2024 https://ApnewsCom/Article/Norfolk‐Southern‐Ohio‐Bd020560b01f5cb58bb6e15072ca97a1(accessed: April 2024).
7. Legal Information Institute CLS 49 CFR Part 179 ‐ Specifications for Tank Cars [Online] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/part‐179(accessed: August 2021).
8. 10.1016/j.psep.2016.10.00910.1016/j.psep.2016.10.009 ↗
9. 10.1002/adem.20160077610.1002/adem.201600776 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2020.10633610.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2020.106336 ↗
11. 10.1007/978-3-030-65249-4_1310.1007/978-3-030-65249-4_13 ↗
12. 10.1002/adem.20230021710.1002/adem.202300217 ↗
13. A.Rabiei United States Patent Office Pub. No.: US 2014/0091241 A1 2014.
14. 10.1016/j.matlet.2008.11.00210.1016/j.matlet.2008.11.002 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.matdes.2007.01.02610.1016/j.matdes.2007.01.026 ↗
16. 10.2320/matertrans.47.214810.2320/matertrans.47.2148 ↗
17. 10.1002/adem.20160077610.1002/adem.201600776 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.trc.2007.08.00110.1016/j.trc.2007.08.001 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.10453210.1016/j.ssci.2019.104532 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.firesaf.2014.11.01910.1016/j.firesaf.2014.11.019 ↗
21. 10.1007/s13296-013-3013-210.1007/s13296-013-3013-2 ↗
22. K. B.McGrattan G. P.Forney Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 4) Gaithersburg MD2004.10.6028/NIST.SP.1019 ↗
23. G. P.Forney Smokeview A Tool for Visualizing Fire Dynamics Simulation Data Volume I: User's Guide.
24. 10.1007/978-1-4939-2565-010.1007/978-1-4939-2565-0 ↗
25. 10.1007/978-1-4939-2565-010.1007/978-1-4939-2565-0 ↗
26. The International Standardization for Organizations Determination of the Resistance to Jet Fires of Passive Fire Protection Materials ‐ Part 1: General Requirements2021 p.06.
27. Eurocode 3 Design of Steel Structures ‐ Part 1‐2: General Rules ‐ Structural Fire Design European Committee for Standardization 2005 1993 pp.1–2.
28. Morgan Advanced Material Thermal Ceramics Inc · 2016
29. 10.1002/fam.83910.1002/fam.839 ↗
30. K. B.McGrattan Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 4) Gaithersburg2006.10.6028/NIST.SP.1018 ↗
31. 10.3390/jcs806020210.3390/jcs8060202 ↗
32. 10.1007/s10973-023-12515-410.1007/s10973-023-12515-4 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2014.02.05010.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2014.02.050 ↗
34. M. F.Ashby A. G.Evans N. A.Fleck L. J.Gibson J. W.Hutchinson H. N.Wadley Metal Foams: A Design Guide Library of Congress Cataloguing‐in‐Publication Data.
35. 10.1177/109963622094288010.1177/1099636220942880 ↗
36. 10.1002/fam.291210.1002/fam.2912 ↗
37. ASTM International Designation: E2536 − 21 Standard Guide for Assessment of Measurement Uncertainty in Fire Tests n.d.
38. 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2016.03.00510.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2016.03.005 ↗