Firebrand burning is a complex phenomenon that is influenced by several parameters which are difficult to fully explore experimentally. Computational fluid dynamics models capable of predicting local quantities are essential for accurate prediction of char oxidation in firebrands. This article presents a computational fluid dynamics model to estimate firebrand mass loss, diameter change, and surface temperature during char oxidation. The model was validated using previously conducted wind tunnel experiments. These experiments were conducted for firebrands of two different aspect ratios, which were arranged in three different configurations (single, horizontal array, and vertical array), and for four different wind speeds (0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 m/s). The computational fluid dynamics results were compared with a previous 1 D model. In all the test cases, the computational fluid dynamics model predicted the physical phenomena with significantly improved accuracy compared to a 1 D model. The char oxidation model presented in this article can be coupled with other models to study firebrand generation and trajectory, biomass pyrolysis, fluidized bed reactors, and coal combustion.
LindenmayerDKooymanRTaylorC, et al. Recent australian wildfires made worse by logging and associated forest management. Nature Ecol Evol2020; 4: 898–900.
2.
HassanQKRahamanKRAhmedMR, et al. Examining post-fire perceptions of selected mitigation strategies after the 2016 horse river wildland fire in Alberta, Canada. Appl Sci2021; 11(21): 10155.
3.
WangDGuanDZhuS, et al. Economic footprint of California wildfires in 2018. Nat Sustain2021; 4: 252–260.
4.
ManzelloSLSuzukiSGollnerMJ, et al. Role of firebrand combustion in large outdoor fire spread. Prog Energy Combust Sci2020; 76: 100801.
5.
CatonSEHakesRSPGorhamDJ, et al. Review of pathways for building fire spread in the wildland urban interface part I: exposure conditions. Fire Technol2017; 53: 429–473.
6.
TarifaCSdel NotarioPPMorenoFG.On the flight paths and lifetimes of burning particles of wood. Symp Int Combust1965; 10(1): 1021–1037.
7.
HolmesJBakerCTamuraY.Tachikawa number: a proposal. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2006; 94(1): 41–47.
8.
SuzukiSManzelloS.Characteristics of firebrands collected from actual urban fires. Fire Technol2018; 54: 1533–1546.
SuzukiSManzelloSL.Experimental investigation of firebrand accumulation zones in front of obstacles. Fire Saf J2017; 94: 1–7.
11.
TseSDFernandez-PelloA.On the flight paths of metal particles and embers generated by power lines in high winds—a potential source of wildland fires. Fire Saf J1998; 30(4): 333–356.
12.
SardoyNConsalviJKaissA, et al. Numerical study of ground-level distribution of firebrands generated by line fires. Combust Flame2008; 154(3): 478–488.
13.
SongJLiuNLiH, et al. The wind effect on the transport and burning of firebrands. Fire Technol2017; 53: 1555–1568.
14.
SardoyNConsalviJLPorterieB, et al. Modeling transport and combustion of firebrands from burning trees. Combust Flame2007; 150(3): 151–169.
15.
KortasSMindykowskiPConsalviJ, et al. Experimental validation of a numerical model for the transport of firebrands. Fire Saf J2009; 44(8): 1095–1102.
16.
BarrBEzekoyeO.Thermo-mechanical modeling of firebrand breakage on a fractal tree. Proc Combust Inst2013; 34(2): 2649–2656.
17.
SadhukhanAKGuptaPSahaRK.Analysis of the dynamics of coal char combustion with ignition and extinction phenomena: shrinking core model. Int J Chem Kinet2008; 40(9): 569–582.
18.
BibrzyckiJManciniMSzlekA, et al. A char combustion sub-model for CFD-predictions of fluidized bed combustion experiments and mathematical modeling. Combust Flame2016; 163: 188–201
19.
WengWHasemiYFanW.Predicting the pyrolysis of wood considering char oxidation under different ambient oxygen concentrations. Combust Flame2006; 145(4): 723–729.
20.
ChaosMKhanMMDorofeevSB.Pyrolysis of corrugated cardboard in inert and oxidative environments. Proc Combust Inst2013; 34(2): 2583–2590.
21.
TurnsSR.An introduction to combustion: concepts and applications. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012.
22.
UrbanJLVicariottoMDunn-RankinD, et al. Temperature measurement of glowing embers with color pyrometry. Fire Technol2019; 55(3): 1013–1026.
23.
WessiesSChangMMarrK, et al. Experimental and analytical characterization of firebrand ignition of home insulation materials. Fire Technol2019; 55: 1027–1056.
24.
LattimerBYBearingerEWongS, et al. Evaluation of models and important parameters for firebrand burning. Combust Flame2022; 235: 111619.
25.
WongSHodgesJLLattimerBY.Impact of ash layer retention on heat transfer in piles of vegetation and structure firebrands. Fire Saf J2022; 134: 103694.
26.
ManzelloSMaranghidesAShieldsJ, et al. Measurement of firebrand production and heat release rate (HRR) from burning Korean pine trees. Fire Saf Sci2007; 7: 108.
27.
MonsonCRGermaneGJBlackhamAU, et al. Char oxidation at elevated pressures. Combust Flame1995; 100(4): 669–683.
28.
ZhouL. Chapter 3—fundamentals of combustion theory. In: ZhouL (ed.) Theory and modeling of dispersed multiphase turbulent reacting flows. London: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2018, pp. 15–70.
29.
RogersFEOhlemillerTJ.Cellulosic insulation material I. overall degradation kinetics and reaction heats. Combust Sci Technol1980; 24(3–4): 129–137.
30.
KashiwagiTNambuH.Global kinetic constants for thermal oxidative degradation of a cellulosic paper. Combust Flame1992; 88(3): 345–368.
31.
SchulzeSKestelMNikrityukPA, et al. From detailed description of chemical reacting carbon particles to subgrid models for CFD. Oil Gas Sci Technol—Rev IFP Energ Nouvelles2013; 68(6): 1007–1026.
32.
ZhangJPrationoWZhangL, et al. Computational fluid dynamics modeling on the air-firing and oxy-fuel combustion of dried Victorian brown coal. Energy Fuels2013; 27(8): 4258–4269.
33.
ZhangZLiZCaiN.Reduced-order model of char burning for CFD modeling. Combust Flame2016; 165: 83–96
34.
ZhangZLuBZhaoZ, et al. CFD modeling on char surface reaction behavior of pulverized coal mild-oxy combustion: effects of oxygen and steam. Fuel Process Technol2020; 204: 106405.
35.
RippeCMLattimerBY.Full-field surface heat flux measurement using non-intrusive infrared thermography. Fire Saf J2015; 78: 238–250.
CelikIBGhiaURoachePJ, et al. Procedure for estimation and reporting of uncertainty due to discretization in CFD applications. J Fluids Eng2008; 130(7): 078001.
38.
OhlemillerTJ.Smoldering combustion propagation on solid wood. Fire Saf Sci1991; 3: 565–574.
39.
RichterFAtreyaAKotsovinosP, et al. The effect of chemical composition on the charring of wood across scales. Proc Combust Inst2019; 37(3): 4053–4061.
40.
ZhangHLiuJShenJ, et al. Thermodynamic and kinetic evaluation of the reaction between no (nitric oxide) and char(n) (char bound nitrogen) in coal combustion. Energy2015; 82: 312–321.
41.
DahouTDefoortFKhiariB, et al. Role of inorganics on the biomass char gasification reactivity: a review involving reaction mechanisms and kinetics models. Renew Sust Energ Rev2021; 135: 110136.
42.
IslamMAAutaMKabirG, et al. A thermogravimetric analysis of the combustion kinetics of karanja (Pongamia pinnata) fruit hulls char. Bioresour Technol2016; 200: 335–341.
