Full-scale and Small-scale Tests of Room Lining Materials

Publisher’s version / Version de l'éditeur:

Vous avez des questions? Nous pouvons vous aider. Pour communiquer directement avec un auteur, consultez la première page de la revue dans laquelle son article a été publié afin de trouver ses coordonnées. Si vous n’arrivez pas à les repérer, communiquez avec nous à PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.

Questions? Contact the NRC Publications Archive team at

PublicationsArchive-ArchivesPublications@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca. If you wish to email the authors directly, please see the first page of the publication for their contact information.

https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/droits

L’accès à ce site Web et l’utilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions présentées dans le site LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT D’UTILISER CE SITE WEB.

Internal Report (National Research Council of Canada. Institute for Research in Construction), 1991-03

READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE. https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/copyright

NRC Publications Archive Record / Notice des Archives des publications du CNRC :

https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=0ba34637-e6c4-483c-b0c4-f2a8fbc57918 https://publications-cnrc.canada.ca/fra/voir/objet/?id=0ba34637-e6c4-483c-b0c4-f2a8fbc57918

NRC Publications Archive

Archives des publications du CNRC

For the publisher’s version, please access the DOI link below./ Pour consulter la version de l’éditeur, utilisez le lien DOI ci-dessous.

https://doi.org/10.4224/20358560

Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at Full-scale and Small-scale Tests of Room Lining Materials

R 4 2 7 CwndlCannda n o . 606 1 lnstitute for . . . . i -Besearch in ionstruction de rechercher Canada lnstitut de recherche en construction LRC PUB

f

ull-Scale and Small-Scale Tests of Room

Lining Materials

Andrew Kim and Trevor Dvck

Internal Report No. 606

Date of issue: March 1991

7

L I B R A R Y

e2

1

Thl8 is an internal report of the lnstitute for Research in Construction. Although not ~ntended for general distribution, it may be cited as a reference in other publications

FULL-SCALE AND SMALL-SCALE TESTS OF ROOM LINING MATERIALS

by

Andrew Kim and Trevor Dyck

INTRODUCTION

Large fires usually start as small fires in a room igniting other combustibles that contribute to fire growth and often result in flashover. At flashover, the fire has the energy

to spread beyond the room of origin and thus poses a signiiicant danger. The rate at which the fire grows and its eventual size depend on the quantity and type of combustible

materials in a room. Obviously, then, one method to conml fire growth is to control the properiies of those materials.

There are several small-scale test methods which can be used to evaluate the fire performance of various room contents, including lining materials. While small-scale tests may have the benefit of lower cost, they may not always give a true picture of real fire performance. For that reason, a full-scale room burn test is proposed as the standard test to

determine the hazard of room lining materials.

This paper will compare small-scale test

data

with those of full-scale tests. Each small-scale test method will be examined carefully to evaluate its appropriateness for predicting the full-scale fire performance of various combustible materials. The paper will also list data on the fire properties of some common building materials.

TEST METHODS

Seven lining materials were evaluated using three small-scale standard test methods; the International Marine Organization (IMO) test method

and

the International Standards Organization (ISO) test melhod using the ~bbertson apparatus (radiant panel apparatus), and the ASTM E906 test method using the Ohio State University Calorimeter (OSU). The same seven lining materials were alsockvaluated in full-scale m6m bum tests.

The International Marine Organization (TMO) test method is based on IMO Resolution A.564(14)

"Fi

Test Procedures for Surface Flammab'ility of Bulkhead and Deck Finish Materials"1. It is similar to ASTM El317 "Standard Test Method for

Flammability of Marine Surface FinishesM2. The IMO test method involves the use of the Robertson apparatus and yields the following data either directly or through calculation:

1. Heat release rate

2. Total heat release

3. Heat for sustained burning 4. Heat for ignition

5. Critical flux for extinguishment

The Robertson apparatus consists of two main assemblies, a radiant panel assembly and a specimen holder assembly. The panel is at an angle to the specimen holder so as to provide a decreasing flux field along a specimen. A pilot flame is located in front of the specimen to ignite the flammable gases that are created when the heat from the radiant panel

the temperature rise from the burning sample.

In the test, the pilot is ignited and the sample is inserted into the specimen holder. Records are made of the time to ignition, the flame front progression along the sample and the heat release from the burning material. The test is considered complete when three minutes have elapsed after the last visible flame i h m the sample surface. Based upon the m r d s kept during the test, all the parameters described in the IMO test method can be

calculated.

.

.

International Standards O r e m z a Test Method

The International Standards Organization (ISO) test method is based on the "Lateral Ignition and Flame Spread Test (LIlT) Methf13, also using the Robenson apparatus and yields the following data either directly or through calculation:

1. Critical flux for ignition 2. Surface tempe.ratuTe at ignition 3. Thermal inertiavalue

4. Flame heating parameters 5.

Flame

front velocities

The IS0 method consists of two procedures, one for ignition and one for flame spread. The flame spread test depends on the data from the ignition procedure.

In the ignition test, a 155 mm x 155 mm sample is used. The sample is inserted into the flux field and the time to ignition noted. Ignition is induced by a pilot flame located above the specimen holder. By adjusting the flux, an ignition time-flux profile is obtained. From the ignition time-flux profile, two parameters; viz., the critical flux for ignition and the preheat time, are calculated.

For flame spread testing, an 800 mm x 155 mm sample is used. The sample is placed in the flux field for a

certain

preheat time. The flux level is set at 10 kW/m2 greater than the minimum flux for ignition of the sample. The horizontal pilot is ignited once the preheat time has elapsed and the flame spread along the specimen is tracked. Three specimens are tested for each material.

ASTM E906 Test Method

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E906 method4, which is based upon the ASTM E906-83 "Standard Test Method for Heat

and

Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials

and

R o d ~ c t s " ~ , involves the use of the OSU apparatus a d yields the following data through calculation:

1. Heat release rate (thermopile and oxygen depletion methods) 2. Total heat release (thermo~ile

-

and oxygen de~letion

-

-

methods)

3. smoke release E&

-

The ASTM E-906 method uses only the thermopile method to measure the heat release rate. The apparatus was modified so that the oxygen depletion method could be used as well for this test series. Unlike the Robertson apparatus, all burning in the OSU

apparatus

is contained within its enclosure. A predetermined flow of air into the

OSU

chamber provides the oxygen needed for the sample to b m . A pilot flame is used to ignite the sample exposed to thermal radiation. Heat release data is measured in two ways. The first is similar to the Robertson apparatus in that a thermopile, located above the burning sample, measures the temperature rise. The second, which is not part of the standard, uses

a

probe, located in the chamber, to measure the quantity of C@ produced and @ depleted by the burning of the sample. Located in a duct above the chamber, a smoke monitor measures the smoke wncenuation by means of a photometer.

The test consists of a 60 second preheat period in the OSU hold chamber to allow conditions to stabilize. The sample is then d e d into the chamber and is exposed to a certain thermal radiation for 10 minutes,

after

which the test is terminated.

Three specimens of each material are tested in the apparatus. For this test series, only the vertical orientation was used and each of the seven materials was exposed to flux levels of 30 kWlmz and 50 kW1mz.

e Room

Burn

Test M a

This method, which is based upon the. ASTM "Proposed Method for Room Fire Test of Wall and Ceiling Materials and Assemblies"s, involves the use of a full-scale room

and

yields the following data either directly or by calculation: 1. Heat release rate (oxygen depletion method) 2. Temperature measurements in the

room

3. Smoke re.1ease rate

4. Flashover time

The full-scale test is performed in a 2.4 m x 3.7 m room which contains one opening to simulate a doorway. A propane sand burner is located in a comer, opposite the doorway, and provides the s o m e for ignition in the test. Gases and smoke from the burning

nunn

aw

drawn into a hood located outside the room above the doorway.

Concentrations of CO,

C@

and @, gas temperature

and

optical density are measured in the exhaust duct as well as the flow rate of the gases. Thermocouples are located inside the room at various positions on the ceiling. Two floor-mounted radiometers and one wall- mounted radiometer monitor the flux

created

by the burning material.

The sample material is attached to three walls in the mom. The wall containing the door is excluded. The pilot for the sandburner is ignited and the propane gas flow adjusted to produce 40 kW. Five minutes later the flow is increased to produce 160 kW. Nonnally the burner is extinguished

after

15 &utes at which time the test is terminated, however, for some materials that reach flashover, the test may be terminated sooner.

TEST MATERIALS

Seven typical construction materials were tested in the full-scale and small-scale tests. The seven materials are: expanded polystyrene, rigid polyurethane, plywood, fire retarded plywood, laminated woodpanel, chipboard and gypsum wallboard. The thickness of each material and the sample sizs for each test method are listed in Table 1.

Table 1

. .

Mate rials

RESULTS

Based on a comparison of small-scale and full-scale test data, it

was

possible to

evaluate the effectiveness of the small scale methods. Although each method may be effective for the purpose for which it was designed, this effectiveness is limited when correlated with full-scale results. Thus, some potential problems with the methods were observed

Sample size for ASTM E906

(mm x

mm)

150 x 150 150 x 150 150 x 150 150 x 150 150 x 150 150 x 150 150 x 150

IMO Test Methd - The observations

and

data for the IMO tests are summarized in Appendix A. Concerning

the

IMO test method, two important observations were made that may have a significant effect on data collected. The first observation deals with the

configuration of the hood for obtaining heat release data. During the burning of samples that emit a great deal of flame, such as chipboard, some flames were observed outside the hood. This will affect the estimates for such parameters as Peak Heat Release Rate (PHR) and Total Heat Release (THR). The second potentiat problem concerns the stack

calibration for the Robertson apparatus. The apparatus was calibrated with the radiant panel on

and

the pilot

flame

off. This flame is capable of inducing a signiticant rise in the thennopile and could be mistakenly anributed to the heat release of the specimen, especially for materials that do not bum well.

Sample size

for IS0 Test (mm x m) 155 x 155 155 x 155 155 x 155 155 x 155 155 x 155 155 x 155 155 x 155 Sample Material Expanded polystyrene Polyurethane Plywood

fire retarded plywood Woodpanel

Chipboard Gypsumboard

Based on the observations noted in Appendix A, it is apparent that this method is better suited to samples that do not melt, such

as

chipboard and plywood. In those materials, the flame spread along the specimen and

was

easily observable because the sample continued to burn until all combustibles were consumed. For melting materials, such

as

polystyrene, ignition times became =cult to reproduce since the sample was no longer receiving direct heat flux. The sample was puddled in the base of the specimen holder and ignited only after the liquid became hot enough to decompose rapidly. Moreover, the ability to observe fire behaviour over different levels of

flux

became impossible since, the only flaming that did occur, was at the base of the specimen holder.

Sample thickness (m) 26.1 26.1 12.3 12.3 3.0 7.0 13.4 Sample size

for IMO Test

(mmx-1 155 x 800 155 x 800 155 x 800 155 x 800 155 x 800 155 x 800 155 x 800

fi0

Test

M

M

-

The

observations and data for the IS0 tests are summarized in

Appendix B. Problems involving the IS0 test method deal mainly with the interwetation of thkkdata. Some samples posed p&cula~ difficulty for the meth& to yield realis&

calculations. For example, gypsum wallboard required a preheat time of 151 seconds according to the method. Yet this time was far too long when evaluating the paper and too short for the plaster beneath. Polyurethane presented a similar problem where parameters calculated from the data suggest a preheat time of 12 seconds. Realistically, this time is much too short for thermal equilibrium to be reached. It was observed that the data from the IS0 test method did not match well with the full-scale

room

bum data.

QSU Test Method -The observations and data for the OSU test are summarized in

Appendix C. Based on observations made during the test, the OSU test did not reflect any problems that might provide an obstacle in comparing data with the full-scale test results. The data available

from

tests, using both the oxygen depletion and thermopile methods, seemed to provide good correlation with full-scale results. However, it should be noted, as shown in Tables 4 and 5, that the PHR and

THR

obtained with the 50 kW exposure

showed a larger difference between materials than with 30 kW. This fact is important in the establishment of reference values.

Polystyrene burned wmpletely at both 30 kW/m2 and 50 kW/m2, but melted before ignition. Pol

_F

thane ignited immediately at both fluxes but bumed better at 50 kW/m2. At 50 kW/m

,

plywood bumed completely. At 30 kW/m2, charcoal remained and was burning after the test was terminated.

Fii

retarded plywood bumed rather well at both fluxes, except that a sizable amount of charcoal remained after both tests. The woodpanel, beiig thin, bumed completely at 30 kW/m2 and 50 kW/m2 and displayed a sharp rise in heat release after ignition. Chipboard burned wmpletely at both 30 kW/m2 and 50 kW/m2 with only a small amount of charcoal left The paper covering on the gypsum wallboard samples quickly burned off at both fluxes and released very little heat.

Test

M

M

- The observations and data from the full-scale tests are

summarized in Appendix D. In the full-scale

mom burn test, the materials that reached

flashover were p6iyurethane, plywood and chipboard. polyktyrene melted around the burner flame thus preventing flame attachment. Fire retarded plywood

required

seven minutes to ignite and was not able to sustain flaming. The woodpanel bumed through in the corner before reaching flashover.

Summary of data

The results of each test for the seven materials are given in Appendices A, B, C and D. Each test method yields results for a large variety of parameters. To determine the correlation between the various test methods, however, it is necessary to examine

parameters that are comparable. Summary data for these parameters are given in Tables 2 to 6.

Table 2 ofm from0 W i g

Nomenclature

PHR Peak heat release rate

TPHR Time to

peak

heat release rate THR Total heat release

-43

T i

to ignition Tig 6 ) 412 2 49 169 54 39 45

Table 3 Surnmarv of data

from

IS0 testing Sample Material

Expanded p0l~stYrene Polyurethane

Plywood

Fire retarded plywood Woodpanel Chipboard Gypsum

wallboard

T m

6)

425 14

607

560 86 256 50 PHR

0

1.0 2.2 6.3 2.9 9.2 10.5 2.9

go,"

Critical flux for ignition Flame heating parameter

THR

0

364.9 98.5 4454.7 1570.2 1089.4 3578.8 128.0 A E (kW/m)2h

----

72.2

----

15.7 33.8

----

-

Sample Polystyrene Polyurethane Plywood

FR

P ~ Y w O O ~ Woodpanel Chipboard Gypsum

wallboard

4*

0%

.

(kwh2) 23.0 25.0 21.3 26.3 20.5 16.9 27.4

7

Table 4 m a w of OSU testin-el at 30

kW)

Nomenclature Sample Polystyrene Polyurethane Plywood

FR

P ~ Y w O O ~ Woodpanel Chipboard Gypsum wallboard

PHR-T Peak heat release rate using thermopile method

Tpm-T Time to peak heat release rate using thermopile method THR-T Total heat release using thermopile method

PHR-02 Peak heat release rate using oxygen depletion method

TPHR'Q Time to peak heat release rate using oxygen depletion method THR-02 Total heat release using oxygen depletion method

Table 5 Summarv of data from OSU testing (Radiant panel at 50

kUrl

PHR-T

0

1.9 1.1 3.9 2.4 5.4 6.0 0.8 T p m T (s) 278 13 512 532 88 233 173

=-a

410.3 289.2 1633.8 817.0 360.2 1081.2 82.5 THR-T

(W

417.0 175.8 1324.5 491.0 610.2 1403.3 81.1 Sample Polystyrene Polyurethane Plywood

FR

plywood Woodpanel Chipboard Gypsumboard PHR-Q OrW) 4.1 3.2 5.9 3.2 9.2 8.1 2.4 PHR-02 (kw) 2.4 2.0 3.4 2.1 6.9 6.6 0.9 Tm-02 (s) 153 26 397 394 75 185 46 PHR-T &w) 2.9 2.1 6.3 4.0 7.8 8.4 2.5 TPHR-02 6 ) 262 28 486 535 100 250 218 T m - T (s) 158 12 402 398 64 175 35

=-%

(kJ) 335.0 188.2 1052.2 425.6 629.0 1223.9 34.9 m - T (kJ) 509.8 412.9 2126.1 1142.7 846.3 1554.3 296.1

Table 6 Room bum testing

Nomenclature

Tflssh Time to flashover

COMPARISON OF THE DATA

Tflash (s) No flashover 385 372 No flashover No flashover 252 No flashover

The data

from

all tests were examined to determine patterns of correlation between the small-scale and full-scale results. The process of finding a pattern was initiated by compiling the room bum data in order based on Peak Heat release Rate (PHR).

T F ~ R (s) 438 385 372 960 246 252 594 Sample Polystyrene Polyurethane Plywood P ~ Y w O O ~ Woodpanel Chipboard Gypsum wallboard

Table 7 shows the materials ranked based on PHR values in the room bum test with the Total Heat release Rate (THR) values from the other test methods shown. Table 7 shows that the ranking of materials based on PHR in the full-scale room burn test is the same as the ranking based on the THR values

from

two small-scale tests, the IMO and the OSU at 50 kW. Also, in the full-scale tests, the two materials with PHR values higher than 600 kW (i.e. chipboard and plywood) reached flashover whereas those with PHR values below 600 kW did not This seems to indicate that ranking based on PHR gives a relative indication of "fire hazard".

PHR &w) 235.4 619.3 830.0 411.4 311.2 746.6 205.2

Studying the room data carefully, however, one observes that materials that reached flashover fell into two categories. The first category represents materials, such as

chipbard, that are extremely hazardous because they reach flashover with only a small (40 kW) ignition flame. The second category involves materials that require a larger (160 kW) ignition flame to reach flashover. Plywood falls into this category.

Materials that did not reach flashover in the full-scale room test also fell into two categories. The first category includes materials that do not pose a fire hazard in a room because they cannot sustain burning, such as gypsumbard and polystyrene. For gypsumboard, only the surface paper bums. The polystyrene melted away from the ignition fire and did not provide a s o m e of fuel for the flames to advance. The second category involves materials which almost reached flashover; for example, woodpanel. This material ignited easily

and

burned very well early in the test, however, due to the thickness of the sample, quickly burned through and almost went to flashover. The flames were near the doorway and would have emerged had the material been thicker (i.e., more fuel). The heat release curve for woodpanel is identical to chipboard for the first four minutes, thus confirming the observations that fire progression was rapid and stopped only because the material burned through.

Based on this obserdon, another ranking of materials was made

-

based on flashover potential. Table 8 shows the ranking of materials based on flashover potential in the full-scale room burn test. This ranking does not match the ranking based on the

THR

from the small-scale tests, however, it has a promising pattern when compared with PHR from the small-scale tests.

Table 9 shows the same ranking of mate.rials as in Table 8, but with THR and PHR values

from

the small-scale tests. Therg would appear to be a promising relationship between the PHRs from the small scale tests and the PHR from the room burn test in most cases. As shown in Table 5, the data &om the OSU at 50 kW shows that chipboard, plywood and woodpanel, all have high PHR-02 values. Plywood had the lowest PHR-O;? value among the three with 5.9 kW. Therefore, a reference value of 5.5 kW could be chosen, based on this limited data, as a critical value to predict materials which would reach flashover in the room fkscenario. It

wdd

be said that a material which produces a PHR value above 5.5 kW in the OSU test w i l l reach flashover in the room burn test. Woodpanel does not, however, fit into this gen-tion. This material did not flashover, yet

displayed the highest PHR in the small-scale methods. The small-scale data suggests extreme flammability which corresponds well to the visual observations h m the room burn test. The absence of flashover for this material is a remarkable exception and the material is still considered dangerous because it ignites with a low ignition flame and spreads fire rapidly. Therefore, for the same thickness of lining materials, PHR from the small-scale test can be used to determine whether most materials will reach flashover or not.

To effectively evaluate

a

material for fire hazard, one has to consider its behaviour in a room fire condition. The observations

from

the full-scale tests indicate that materials with high flammability cause flashover when ignited, provided there is sufficient material to

sustain the fire. In the small-scale tests, a material with high flammability is distinguished by a high PHR value, whereas the THR value in a small-scale test involves high

flammability as well as a higher quantity of combustible materials in the sample. To evaluate materials for fire hazard in a room

fire

scenario, therefore, small-scale tests can be used but one must examine both the PHR and THR values. Materials with a PHR value above 5.5 kW and a

THR

value above 1500

kJ

(based on the value for plywood in Table 9) seem to cause flashover in a room fire scenario. In the tests, chipboard was the most hazardous material as shown by high PHR and THR values in the small-scale tests.

Table 7 Ranking on

Room

Test PHR

Sample Gypsum wallboard Polystyrene Woodpanel

FR

Plywood Chipboard Plywood THR

@lo)

(kJ) 128 364 1089 1570 3579 4454 PHR (room) &w) 205 235 311 41 1 747 830 THR-T (OSU-5OkW)

(W

296 509 846 1143 1554 2126

Table 8

&&&& "Fi

Hazard t. m Full-gaEkit

.

Table 9 Sample data for establishment of reference values Required ignition

0

NIA NIA 160 40 160 40

In comparing the PHR of the m bum test to the small-scale data,

an exception

was made.

This

exception for polyurethane recognizes the markedly different behaviom that polyurethane displayed in the small-scale and full-scale tests. In the small-scale tests, the samples ignited immediately and had a PHR early in the test Flaming on the sample surface was completed within 30 seconds and the remaining material was mostly char. In the full-scale test, with the exposure of the 40 kW ignition burner, the sample charred considerably. Yet, when the heat output of the burner was increased to 160 kW, the sample soon flashed over. Polyurethane obviously requires a large heat flux to release its volatile gases through the charred layer. Since the heat fluxes generated by the small-scale apparati are far below that of t h e m , the small scale methods used are not adequate in predicting

full

scale performance for all materials. Polyurethane data was, therefore, omitted from the comparison.

Flashover No No Almost Almost Yes Yes Sample Gypro~ Polystyrene

FR

~ l y ~ o o d Woodpanel Plywood Chipboard PHR (-1

0

205 235 41 1 311 830 747 THR @40)

(kJ1

128 364 1570 1089 4454 3579 Sample Gypsum wallboard Polystyrene ~lywood Woodpanel Plywood Chipboard PHR (room) (kw) 205 235 41 1 311 830 747 PHR-T (OSU-5OkW) &w) 2.5 2.9 4.0 7.8 6.3 8.4 PHR @40)

0

2.9 1 .O 2.9 9.2 6.3 10.5 THR-T (OSU-5OkW) (kJ) 296 509 1143 846 2126 1554

I

I CONCLUSION

Based on the

data

provided by the seven test materials, it seems possible to predict flashover for most materials in the full-scale room burn using small-scale test results. This is based on the results given by the OSU and the IMO methods that relate the PHR and THR from the small-scale tests to the PHR from the full-scale room test. Materials with PHR values above 5.5

k W

in the OSU test and IMO test and a THR value above 1500 kJ

in the OSU test (with 50

kW)

wiU likely reach flashover in a room fire scenario. It is, however, premature to apply

this

to other combustible materials because of the small quantity of

data

used.

Comparison of

data

also

illustrated problems inherent in the small-scale test methods. The IS0 method has major problems in the interpretation of the data. Several materials prcduced data which do not seem to be realistic. The IMO method works well for wood products but has problems with melting materials. The OSU method did not exhibit problems with the materials tested and seems to produce the most promising results when

compared with full-scale data.

The large quantity of data from this series

w

i

l

l

be

useful

to enable an understanding of small-scale and full-scale fire test behaviour. It is, however, necessary to conduct more tests with other materials to establish the validity of the method over a complete range of materials. More testing is also necessary to verify the interpretations made based on the

-

limited data

REFERENCES

1. "Revised Recommendation on FireTest Procedures for Surface Flammability of

Bulkhead and Deck F i s h Materials", Resolution A.564(14), International Maritime Organization, London, January 16, 1986.

2. "Standard Test Method for Flammability of Marine Surface Finishes", ASTM Standard E1317,1990 Annual Book ofASTM Stan-, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1990.

3. "Standard Test Method for Deteminkg Material Ignition and Flame Spread F'nmdes". ASTM Standard E1321.1990 Annual Book of ASTM Standards.

can

society for Testing and hiaterials, Philadelphia, 1990.

4. "Standard Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials and Products", ASTM Standard

E906,

pp 905-925,1983 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1983.

5 . "Reposed Method for

Room

Fire Test of Wall and Ceiling Materials and Assemblies", pp 1618-1638.1982 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 18, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1982.

TABLE A-1

N

O

-

FOR IMO

TEST

% Diffemm 0.0 1.7 4.6 3.2 2.9 0.0 0.4 0.1 3.1 5.3 10.6 13.7 17.5 30.0

-

Distance from exposed end (mm) 50 100 150

200

300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 Measlned Flux

(W

50.5 48.8 45.0 41.8 30.1 23.9 18.1 13.2 8.9 6.5 4.8 3.6 2.7 2.1 Standard Flux

(kW)

50.5 49.5 47.1 43.1 30.9 23.9 18.2 13.2 9.2 6.2 4.3 3.1 2.2 1.5

IMO TEST REPORT

-

SAMPLE BEHAVIOUR

MATERIAL

QBSERVATIONS

POLYSTYRENE All samples melted under radiant exposure to form a puddle of liquid and ignition occurred while the liquid was melting. There was a large variation in ignition times between tests. The sample r e 1 4 large quantities of thick black smoke. There was no distinguishable flame spread since melting occurred.

POLYURETHANE

The samples ignited almost immediately upon radiant exposure.

Flaming occurred on the specimen surface for only a few seconds resulting in the appearance of a flash fire.

Large quantities of smoke were released but no burning or flame spread was observed.

PLYWOOD The samples burned well and displayed flame spread

Due to the thichess of the sample, flaming was maintained for 30 minutes.

Near the end of the test, chunks of charred material fell out of the specimen holder.

F. R PLYWOOD Although large quantities of smoke were released from the samples, ignition occurred only when the samples were severely charred.

There

was no flame

spread beyond the charred material and all

flames were of a pale blue colour.

WOODPANEL. The sample ignited quickly and the

flame

spread along the surface.

The test was of short duration because the sample was thin and quickly burned through resulting in a sharp peak heat release rate.

CHIPBOARD The test was similar to that of plywood, but the chipboard burned faster, resulting in a shorn test duration.

IMO TEST DATA

FOR

PLYWOOD

SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 Mean

CRITICAL

FLUX

HEAT FOR IGNITION FOR EXTINGUISHMENT

k W

U/m2

HEAT FOR SUSTAINED BURNING

Distance SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE2 SAMPLE3 MEAN

kJ/d

kJhn2

Ulm2

u/m2

SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE2 SAMPLE 3 Mean SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 Mean

TOTAL HEAT RELEASE TIME TO IGNlTION

kJ S

PEAK HEAT RELEASE TIME TO PEAK HEAT RELEASE

SAMPLE

1

SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 Mean

CRITICAL F%UX HEAT FOR IGNITION

FOR EXTINGUISHMENT

k W

H/m2

HEAT FOR SUSTAINED BURNING

Distance SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 MEAN

HhnZ

H M

H / d

U r n 2

TOTAL HEAT RELEASE TIME TO IGNlTION

kJ S SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE2 SAMPLE 3 Mean SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 Mean

PEAK HEAT RELEASE TIME TO PEAK HEAT RELEASE

IMO TEST DATA FOR POLYURETHANE

CRITICAL FLUX HEAT FOR IGNITION FOR EXTJNGUISHMENT

k W

kJ/m' SAMPLE

1

SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 Mean Distance SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 Mean SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 Mean

HEAT FOR SUSTAINED BURNING

SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE2 SAMPLE3 MEAN

kT/m2 kJh12 kT/m2 kJIm2

TOTAL HEAT RELEASE

TIME

TO IGNITION

kJ

S

PEAK HEAT RELEASE TIME TO PEAK HEAT RELEASE

IMO TEST DATA FOR GYPSUMBOARD

CIUTICALFLUX HEAT FOR IGNITION FOR EXTINGUISHMENT SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE2 SAMPLE 3 Mean Distance 50 mm 100 mm 150 nnn 200 mm 250 mm 300 mm 350 mm mmm 450 nnn SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 Mean SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 Mean

HEAT FOR SUSTAINED BURNING

SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 MEAN

kJhnZ kJW kJ/m2 kJ/m2

TOTAL HEAT RELEASE TIME TO IGNITION

16 S

PEAK HEAT RELEASE

TIME

TO PEAK HEAT RELEASE

IMO

TEST

DATA FOR CHIPBOARD SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 Mean Distance SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE

2

SAMPLE 3 Mean SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 Mean

CRITICAL FLUX HEAT FOR IGNlTION

FOR EXTlNGUISHMENT

k W

kJh2

HEAT FOR SUSTAINED

BURNING

SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE2 SAMPLE3

kJ/m2 k J / d kJ/m2

MEAN

k J h 2

TOTAL HEAT RELEASE TIME TO IGNITION

kJ s

PEAK HEAT RELEASE TIME TO PEAK HEAT RELEASE

CRlTICAL FLUX HEAT FOR IGNITION FOR EXTINGUISHMENT

k W

kJlm2 SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 Mean Distance SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE2 SAMPLE 3 Mean

HEAT FOR SUSTAINED BURNING

SAMeLE 1 SAMPLE 2

SAMPLE 3 Mean

SAMPLE1 SAMPLE2 SAMPLE3 MEAN

kJ/m2 kJ/m2 k J l d kJIrn2

TOTAL HEAT RELEASE TIME TO IGNITION

kJ S

PEAK HEAT R E U S E TIME TO PEAK HEAT RELEASE

IMO TEST DATA FOR FIRE RETARDED PLYWOOD

CRlTICALFLUX HEAT FOR IGNITION FOR EXTINGUISHMENT

k W

kThn2

SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 Mean

HEAT FOR SUSTAINED

BURNING

Disraxe SAMPLE1 SAMPLE2 SAMPLE3 MEAN

H/mZ k J h 2 kJ/mZ

kThn2

SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE2 SAMPLE 3 Mean SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE2 SAMPLE 3

Mean

TOTAL HEAT RELEASE TIME TO IGNITION

kJ s

PEAK HEAT RELEASE TIME TO PEAK HEAT RELEASE

I S 0 IGNITION TEST REPORT

-

SAMPLE BEHAVIOUR

MATERIAL

OBSERVATIONS

POLYSTYRENE The samples melted and released thick, dark smoke before ignition.

POLYURETHANE Fluxes less than 35.0 kWhn2 could not ignite the samples.

PLYWOOD The samples ignited easily.

As the flux decreased, ignition time increased.

F.

R

PLYWOOD A flux of at least 34.0 kW/m2 was necessary to produce ignition within

2Q

minutes.

The samples b e d

with

a pale blue flame and ignited only when severely charred.

WOODPANEL At very low fluxes, the sample pyrolyzed slowly, and the thin samples decomposed without ignition. When ignition did

occur at higher fluxes, the samples burned fiercely. CHIPBOARD Overall behaviour was similar to plywood.

GYPSUMBOARD Low fluxes decomposed the paper too slowly to cause ignition The lowest flux able to cause ignition was 41.0 kWJm2.

M!!wmk&

OBSERVATIONS

POLYSTYRENE

After the preheat time had elapsed, the sample had completely melted and ignition did not occur.

POLYURETHANE Since ignition test calculations yielded a preheat time of

12 seconds, the sample did not ignite. Flame spread data was not obtainable.

PLYWOOD Although the sample did ignite, ignition occurred before the preheat time elapsed. The radiation alone

was

high enough to cause ignition.

F. R PLYWOOD The sample ignited 500 seconds before the preheat time had elapsed.

There

was no observable flame spread on the

WOODPANEL The sample was ignited by the pilot after the designated preheat time and the flame progressed along the sample. CHIPBOARD The sample was ignited by the pilot after the preheat time and

the flame progressed along the sample.

GYPSUMBOARD After the preheat time had elapsed, the paper covering had decomposed and ignition was not possible. Flame spread data was not obtainable.

COMMENTS ON THE I S 0 TEST METHOD (IGNITION TEST)

In the ignition test procedure, polystyrene melted completely before ignition

occurred.

This material behaved erratically in that at 32.0 kW/m2, ignition o c c d at 75 seconds, and yet at 31.0 kW/m2, ignition occurred at 862 seconds. No other material displayed such a difference. The calculated results must be questioned in terms of its relation to reality. Based on the ignition results, a preheat time of 567 seconds was needed

to establish thennal equilibrium for the sample. Since the sample

was

converted to a liquid after radiation exposure and remained in a pool on the base of the specimen holder, this preheat time had no meaning.

Chipboard and plywood both gave predictable results. As the flux decreased, ignition time increased and the inverse relationship between ignition time and flux was

For woodpanel, long ignition times

were

not possible since, as the flux fell below the critical flux for ignition (21.6 kW/mz), pyrolysis

did

not occur fast enough for flame attachment As temperature rose and reached a point where ignition wuld occur, there

was

no longer any material undergoing thermal decomposition, so ignition did not occur.

An identical situation

occurred

with gypsumboard The paper decomposed under flux exposure, and unless the flux

was

high enourrh to cause fast decomsition, flame attachxknt did not occur. Also, gypsum

&

a combsite material so the chculated results may not he realistic. A preheat time of 151 seconds can be confusing since it is too long for the paper to achieve thermal equilibrium

and

too short for the plaster.

Polyurethane was another sample that caused problems in interpreting the data.

Ignition of the samples at most fluxes was fast

and

violent and burning continued for only a few seconds. The lowest heat flux that produced ignition was 34.0 kW/mz and ignition

occurred in only six seconds. Calculations yielded a critical flux for ignition of

25.0 kW/mz and a preheat time of 12 seconds, yet it is doubiful that thermal equilibrium could be established in that time ar ignition occur at that flux.

Polystyrene did not ignite after the preheat time had elapsed but remained as a molten pool of liquid on the base of the specimen holder. Polyurethane also did not ignite. The problems with the ignition test calculations canied over to the flame spread testing with this sample. A preheat time of 12 seconds was too long to allow flame attachment since all of the flammable materials on the suface were released by that time. Plywood ignited and spread flame along the sample but this ignition was not piloted and did not occur at the preheat time, instead, the radiation from the panel ignited the sample before the specified

time

had elapsed resulting in flawed

data.

Fire retarded plywood also ignited prematurely but since there was no flame advance on the sample, no data was obtainable. In all

likelihood, the preheat time of 1417 seconds was much too long as thermal equilibrium was probably established sooner.

Gypsumboard performed similar to Polyurethane. The paper covering soon decomposed, and there was no flammable material remaining after the preheat time had elapsed. This also reflects the problem evident with the ignition test calculations which produced a preheat time of 151 seconds.

OSU TEST REPORT (30 kW/m2 and 50 kW/mz)

-

SAMPLE BEHAVIOUR

MATERIAL,

OBSERVATIONS

POLYSTYRENE

The sample burned completely at both fluxes and released black smoke.

There was melting before ignition.

POL-

The sample ignited immdiately at both fluxes and released large quantities of smoke.

At 30 kW/m2, a lot of residue remained after the test, whereas, at

50

kW/m2, very little was left.

There was continuous burning throughout the test.

PLYWOOD Sample bumed completely at

50

k W / d , leaving only ash. At

30

kW/d, a substantial amount of charcoal remained, and the material had not finished burning at test completion.

F. R.

PLYWOOD Although a lot of charcoal was left after the tests at both fluxes, the sample appeared to burn quite well at

50

kW/m2. Flame colour was a green-yellow.

WOODPANEL Sample burned completely at

30

W/m2 and 50 kW/m2. Burning time of the material was very short due to the thin sample.

CHIPBOARD The sample bumed completely at 50 kwh12 leaving only ash. At 30 kW/m2, although no flaming was evident, after test termination there was some charcoal.

GYPSUMBOARD At both fluxes the paper quickly burned off and the remaining material released neither

flame

nor smoke.

MATERIAL PHR-T TPHR-T THR-T PHR-02 TPHR-02 THR-02

0

6)

(kJ) (kw) (s) POLYSTYRENE 1.9 195 477.6 2.4 213 341.4 1.5 366 348.9 1.9 3 10 326.1 2.3 273 424.6 2.8 262 337.4 Mean 1 . 9 278 417.0 2 . 4 262 335.0 1.2 14 199.9 1.9 26 170.7 Mean 1 . 1 1 3 175.8 2 . 0 2 8 188.2 PLYWOOD 4.0 548 1318.6 3.4 3.7 546 1355.1 3.2 4.0 443 1299.8 3.7 Mean 3 . 9 512 1324.5 3.4 F.

R

PLYWOOD 2.4 559 439.5 1.8 2.1 504 432.9 2.3 2.6 534 600.5 2.1 Mean 2.4 532 491.0 2 . 1 WOODPANEL 5.6 90 608.7 7.6 101 597.6 5.4 81 588.6 7.0 94 601.9 5.3 94 633.4 6.2 105 687.6 Mean 5 . 4 8 8 610.2 6 . 9 100 629.0 CHIPBOARD 6.2 230 1391.6 6.7 234 1216.5 5.4 225 1377.2 6.0 262 1147.8 6.3 244 1441.0 7.0 253 1307.3 Mean 6 . 0 233 1403.3 6 . 6 250 1223.9 GYPSUMBOARD 1.7 154 99.6 1.8 168 37.0 0.3 191 33.7 0.3 157 32.8 0.3 N/A 109.9 0.6 229 35.0 Mean 0 . 8 173 81.1 0 . 9 218 34.9

OSU TEST DATA

-

50

k W

MATERIAL PHR-T TPHR-T THR-T PHR-@ TPHR-@ THR-02

0

(9

(kJ)

0

(s)

06)

FQLYSlnUZNE! 3.0 128 453.3 4.6 115 352.0 2.8 162 530.4 4.0 184 417.1 2.8 184 545.8 3.7 160 461.9

Mean

2 . 9 158 509.8 4 . 1 153 410.3 POLYUFXTHANE 2.4 12 533.3 3.1 27 279.9 2.1 11 346.5 3.4 27 293.6 1.9 12 358.9 3.7 25 295.1 Mean 2 . 1 1 2 412.9 3 . 2 2 6 289.2 Mean F.

R

PLYWOOD Mean WOODPANEL Mean CHIPBOARD Mean GYPSUMBOARD Mean

ROOM BURN TEST REPORT

-

SAMPLE BEHAVIOUR

MA= OBSERVATIONS

POLYSTYRENE The sample melted around the flame source and burned once melted.

Flame attachment onto the solid material did not occur, therefore, flashover was not reached.

Large quantities of smoke were produced by the material that did burn.

POLYURETHANE The sandburner at 40 kW ignited the sample but was not enough to advance the flame to continuous burning. 160 kW from the burner was needed to cause flame progression along the ceilinglwall joints, and flashover occurred as a result PLYWOOD Fireprogression was rapid for the first two minutes of the test

and then receded substantially until the burner was increased to

160 kW. The fire progressed rapidly again and reached flashwer approximately one minute after the increase in heat output

F. R PLYWOOD The sample did not bum well and ignited 7 minutes after the burner was lit Charring was the main observation in the test as the material did not spread flame. Flashover was not achieved.

WOODPANEL The panelboard ignited quickly and burned well but was too

thin to allow flame to progress along the sample. The material burned through at 40

k W ,

and when the heat output was increased to 160

kW,

there was little material left near the flame, so progression was not possible. Flashover was not achieved.

CHIPBOARD Chipboard reached flashover before the burner was increased to 160 kW. Flame progression was steady and rapid with flashover occuning just after four minutes.

GYPSUMBOARD The

thin

layer of paper was not capable of continuous burning. Flashover did not occur as the paper quickly burned off.

Material PHR

0

Polystyrene 235.4 Polyurethane 619.3 Plywood 830.0 ~lywood 41 1.4 Woodpanel 311.2 Chipboard 746.6 Gypsumboard 205.2