...
首页> 外文期刊>Fire Technology >Fixed Fire Protection Systems in Tunnels: Issues and Directions
【24h】

Fixed Fire Protection Systems in Tunnels: Issues and Directions

机译:隧道固定式消防系统:问题和方向

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Fire protection practices for highway tunnels have been undergoing significant changes in the last decade, largely in response to a number of catastrophic fires that caused tunnel authorities to thoroughly review their fire safety assumptions. One of the fire safety issues currently receiving much attention includes the installation of "active" fire protection systems in addition to the "passive" fire protection features that were until recently considered to be sufficient to mitigate fire risk in tunnels. Passive fire protection measures include the use of fire resistive construction materials which help protect the critical structural elements from damage due to high temperatures. Active fire protection systems include fixed piping systems to deliver water sprays, such as deluge sprinklers and water mist, or other water-based agents such as compressed air or high expansion foam (CAF or Hi-Ex respectively). Active fire protection systems for tunnels are currently referred to as water based fixed fire fighting systems, or FFFS for short. Fire research suggests that measures based solely on passive protection are not likely to be sufficient to protect life and property to the degree warranted by the high monetary and strategic value of modern tunnel infrastructure. Full-scale fire testing and engineering analysis indicate that FFFS have the potential to reduce the impact of a severe fire on the tunnel structure from catastrophic to manageable at an affordable cost. Fire testing with CAF and Hi-Ex foam systems has shown them capable of actually extinguishing very large fires, including hydrocarbon pool fires. Systems based on water sprays on the other hand are not expected to extinguish fires, but rather to control the fire, limit fire growth and heat release rate, prevent fire propagation and provide thermal management. Although there are a few years of experience internationally that have proven sprinkler and deluge sprinkler system to be effective in mitigating tunnel fires, recent testing of FFFS in Europe has concentrated on water mist. One reason is the perception that water mist systems may involve less complex piping and agent storage than CAF or Hi-Ex foam, and may provide equivalent or superior performance with less water and smaller pipes than conventional sprinkler deluge systems. However, many engineering challenges remain to be resolved, such as how much credit to grant to the FFFS in terms of reduced criteria for passive protection, and how exactly to integrate active protection systems with traditional fire safety measures such as the ventilation systems. This article examines some recent developments in understanding how active fire-fighting systems might alter the impact of fires in tunnels.
机译:过去十年中,公路隧道的消防做法发生了重大变化,这在很大程度上是由于许多灾难性大火导致隧道当局彻底审查了其消防安全假设。当前受到广泛关注的消防安全问题之一包括安装“主动”消防系统,以及直到最近才被认为足以缓解隧道火灾风险的“被动”消防功能。被动防火措施包括使用耐火建筑材料,这些材料有助于保护关键的结构元件免受高温损坏。主动式消防系统包括固定的管道系统,用于喷洒水,例如洒水喷头和水雾,或其他水基介质,例如压缩空气或高膨胀泡沫(分别为CAF或Hi-Ex)。隧道的主动消防系统目前被称为水基固定灭火系统,简称FFFS。火灾研究表明,仅基于被动保护的措施可能不足以在现代隧道基础设施具有很高的货币和战略价值的情况下保护生命和财产。全面的火灾测试和工程分析表明,FFFS有潜力以可承受的成本将严重火灾对隧道结构的影响从灾难性降低为可控制。使用CAF和Hi-Ex泡沫系统进行的燃烧测试表明,它们能够真正扑灭包括烃池火灾在内的大火。另一方面,基于喷水的系统不能扑灭大火,而是控制火势,限制火势增长和放热率,防止火势蔓延并提供热量管理。尽管国际上已有数年的经验证明洒水装置和雨淋式洒水系统可有效缓解隧道火灾,但欧洲最近对FFFS的测试主要集中在水雾上。原因之一是人们认为,与CAF或Hi-Ex泡沫相比,水雾系统可能涉及的管道和药剂存储更为简单,并且与传统的洒水喷头系统相比,所需的水量更少且管道更小,从而可以提供同等或更高的性能。但是,许多工程挑战仍然有待解决,例如,就降低的被动防护标准而言,应给予FFFS多少信用,以及如何将主动防护系统与传统的消防安全措施(如通风系统)准确集成。本文考察了最近的一些进展,以了解主动灭火系统如何改变隧道火灾的影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号