## 3 Results and Discussion
### Thermal Imaging and Heat Transfer Simulations  
In Figure 12, the temperature of the tested composite lining depends on the exposure time of the outer layer to hot plate heat. The solid line indicates the experimental results, and the dashed line indicates the simulation results. The results presented in Figure 11 show the correlation between the actual and simulated heating processes of both composites. Both the thermal imaging results and the simulation results showed that a more effective heat barrier was composite \(B\), which heated up significantly slower compared to composite \(A\). Moreover, the results obtained show that both tested composites are characterized by lower thermal insulation than their three-dimensional models. Moreover, the differences in the heating rate of both composites are greater than the differences in the heating rate of both models. Based on the obtained experimental and modeled \(T_{\rm L}=T_{\rm L}(t)\) relationship curves, they were calculated and presented on a graph of the rate of increase in the lining temperature in the first two seconds of the composites heating process (\(R_{\rm T\,exp}{}^{0-2}\); \(R_{\rm T\,sym}{}^{0-2}\)) and between the first and second minute (\(R_{\rm T\,exp}{}^{1-2}\), \(R_{\rm T\,sym}{}^{1-2}\)). In the first two seconds of the experiment, composite \(A\) heated up at a rate of \(R_{\rm T\,exp}{}^{0-2}=11.46\)\({}^{\circ}\)C\(\cdot\)min\({}^{-1}\), while composite \(B\) heated up at a rate of \(R_{\rm T\,exp}{}^{0-2}=10.32\)\({}^{\circ}\)C\(\cdot\)min\({}^{-1}\). The heating rates calculated based on the simulation were \(R_{\rm T\,sim}{}^{0-2}=9.54\)\({}^{\circ}\)C (composite \(A\)) and \(R_{\rm T\,sim}{}^{0-2}=8.96\)\({}^{\circ}\)C\(\cdot\)min\({}^{-1}\) (composite \(B\)). The percentage differences between the experimental and simulated values of this coefficient were: (\(\Delta R_{\rm T}{}^{0-2}=9.94\)% for composite \(A\)) and (\(\Delta R_{\rm T}{}^{0-2}=6.07\)% for composite \(B\)). A clearly greater agreement between the experimental and simulated \(T_{\rm L}=T_{\rm L}(t)\) relationship was obtained between the first and second minutes of the composites heating process. At this stage of the experiment, composite \(A\) heated up at a rate of \(R_{\rm T\,exp}{}^{1-2}=13.55\)\({}^{\circ}\)C\(\cdot\)min\({}^{-1}\), while composite \(B\) heated up at a rate of \(R_{\rm T\,exp}{}^{1-2}=13.16\)\({}^{\circ}\)C\(\cdot\)min\({}^{-1}\). The modeled heating rates were \(R_{\rm T\,sim}{}^{1-2}=13.55\)\({}^{\circ}\)C\(\cdot\)min\({}^{-1}\) for both composites. The percentage differences between the experimental and simulated values of this coefficient were: (\(\Delta R_{\rm T}{}^{1-2}=0.02\)% for composite \(A\)) and (\(\Delta R_{\rm T}{}^{1-2}=2.89\)% for composite \(B\)). Differences between (\(\Delta R_{\rm T}{}^{0-2}\)) and (\(\Delta R_{\rm T}{}^{1-2}\)) may result from the too-simplified structure  
Figure 12: Lining temperature versus exposure time of the outer layer to hot plate heat. of the designed three-dimensional models of both composites. The most likely reason for the discrepancy in the experimental and simulated results is the failure to take into account in both composite models the presence of a certain amount of silicone between the weft and warp yarns (shown in Figures 2 and 3) created in the composite forming process as a result of the applied mechanical load. The silicone present between the weft and the warp reduced the porosity of the basalt fabric and thus contributed to reducing the thermal insulation properties of the entire composite. The consequence of this may be a faster heating rate for both composites compared to their models. The discrepancy in the heating kinetics of both tested composites between the experimental and simulation results could also be influenced by the heterogeneity of the morphology of the layers from which they were built.