An Experimental Study of Upward

Flame Spread over Inclined Fuels

M. J. Gollner1, X. Huang1, F. A. Williams1 and A. S. Rangwala2
1

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, San Diego,

2 Department of Fire Protection Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Research Sponsor:
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
Educational and Scientific Research
Foundation

Fire Spread
Many fire-spread configurations are not purely upright, but rather inclined at some
angle from the vertical such as wildfires and ceiling fires (Figure 1). The objective of
this study is to investigate the influence of orientation on heat flux profiles in the
combusting plume and subsequent relation to spread rates. Quantifying the effect
of flame spread on inclination angles will improve the accuracy of upward flame
spread models.

g
m f

[4]
[4]
[5]

m f

Vp

xf

Accelleration due to gravity

Mass-loss rate of fuel per unit area

[6]

q p

xp

Slowest
spread
(45o & 60o)
Theory [3]

yf

Flame spread rate

peak (this study)

Theory [3]

t ~ xn

ff ((xx,,tt))
qq

f
y m

Fastest spread
(0o, 30o & -30o)

xf

Flame height

xp

Pyrolysis height

q f ( x, t ) Heat flux from flames to unignited fuel (x x p )

yf

q p

Heat flux from flames to burning fuel (x x p )

Vp

Flame spread rate (dx p / dt )

t ~ x

Flame standoff distance

n

Figure 4: Total heat fluxes measured by thin-skins above

the PMMA sample, xp = 20cm. Exponentially-decaying heat
flux profiles are observed, plotted both nondimensionally
and logarithmically following [3]. HFP* is the
nondimensional heat flux, qx Pr/ (Grx0.4p LB) , where Gr is the
Grashof number, Pr the Prandtl number, L the latent heat of
vaporization, and B the fuel B-number.

Figure 5: The flame spread rate shown above was

observed using thermocouples melted onto the surface of
the PMMA. Previous experimental [4,5] and numerical
(model) [4,6] data available are indicated by symbols. A
peak is observed somewhere between = -30 to 0.

Thermal boundary layer height

Angle of inclination from vertical

Figure 1: Upward flame spread over inclined surfaces is

rapid because some fuel, termed excess pyrolyzate [1] is
carried past the pyrolysis region and burns above unignited
fuel. Both the rate of flame spread and the burning rate of
fuel changes with inclination due to changes in how close
the diffusion flame resides above the surface of the fuel,
modifying the heat flux ahead of the pyrolysis region as
well as the heat flux in the pyrolysis region.

Figure 2: Experimental setup used to assess the effects

of inclination angle on flame spread, heat flux and massloss rates.

Experimental Approach
A thermally-thick plastic fuel, Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) was ignited evenly
at the base and flames allowed to spread upwards (Figure 2). Seven
thermocouples were melted onto the surface of the fuel to detect the position of the
burning front and eleven thin-skin calorimeters [2] were positioned above the fuel to
measure the heat flux from the flame ahead of the burning surface. The entire
apparatus was placed atop a load cell to measure the rate of mass loss.

Mass-Loss Rates
The mass-loss rate per unit area, m
f normalized by the value at 0 is shown as a
function of angle in Figure 6. Results from the spreading 20 cm long PMMA test in
this study and a 65 cm gas-burner test with sidewalls
from literature [8] exhibit an
[3]
increasing trend with . This is in contrast with [7]two previous theoretical models [3,7]
f varies
and tests with a steadily-burning 5x5 cm square PMMA sample that show m
parabolically with , similar to results for Vp. As [8]> 0, more excess pyrolyzate burns
directly above the pyrolysis region, increasing heat fluxes (primarily radiant) to the
fuel surface, increasing local burning rates. Three dimensional effects also begin to
occur, increasing the heat flux to the burning surface.

5x5cm PMMA

10x20cm PMMA

[3]
[7]

Side - View of Experiment

[8]

Figure 6: (Left) The mass-loss rate per unit area, normalized with the value at = 90 is shown here as a
function of . Larger samples with turbulent flames reveal an increasing burning rate per unit area with increasing
while smaller, laminar flames and previous theories predict a parabolic trend with increasing . (Right) 10x20cm
and 5x5cm PMMA samples at = 60, showing significant entrainment from the sides. The influence of the side
entrainment on the 5x5 cm and 10x20 cm samples on the burning rate is still being investigated.

Conclusions
Heat flux profiles ahead of xp exponentially decay. The slope of the decay
increases with decreasing spread rates.
Figure 3: Images were taken perpendicular to the sample surface as it spread upwards, xp
=10cm. Starting from the left ceiling fire, as the inclination angle is increased, underside
flames transition from long blue, well-mixed laminar flames into increasingly turbulent yellow
flames on the topside that lift from the surface, separating from the boundary layer,
dramatically increasing the flame standoff distance yf.

Experimental Results

Maximum flame spread rates occur between = -30 to 0 as a

consequence of heat flux profiles ahead of xp.
Maximum mass-loss rates per unit area occur near = 60 as a
consequence of increased heating rates in x < xp.
This effect plays an important role in defining the worst case
scenario for
fire safety test standards.
[4]
[4]
[5]
[6]

Measurements of heat fluxes above the fuel surface (x > xp) in Figure 4 reveal that
the heat flux decays exponentially past xp, with an increasing slope as departs 0.
As the slope of these heat flux profiles increases, rates of upward flame spread (Vp)
decrease accordingly, shown in Figure 5 as a function of the angle of inclination, .
Maximum flame spread rates are observed at angles of inclination between -30
and 0 and minimum rates of spread at 60. At angles where > 0 flames lift away
from the surface (Figure 3), resulting in decreased heat fluxes past xp because heat
flux scales inversely with the flame standoff distance, producing lower spread rates.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

References

Sibulkin, M. and Kim, J. Comb. Sci. Tech. 17 (1977) 39-49.

ASTM E459 - Thin Skin Calorimeter.
Ahmad, T. and Faeth, G.M., Proc. Comb. Inst. 17 (1978) 1149 -60.
Pizzo, Y., Consalvi, J.L. and Porterie, B. Combust. Flame. 156 (2009) 1856-59.
Drysdale, D. and Macmillan, A. Fire Safety. J. 18, no. 3 (1992) 245-54.
Xie, W. and Desjardin, P., Combust. Flame. 156 (2009) 522-30.
Kim, J., de Ris, J. and Krosser, W. Proc. Comb. Inst. 13 (1971) 949-61.
de Ris, J. and Orloff, L. Proc. Comb. Inst. 15 (1975) 175-82.