NUREG/CR--4680

SAND86-0312

RP

Printed October 1986

Heat and Mass Release for Some

Transient Fuel Source Fires:

A Test Report

S. P. Nowlen

Prepared by

Sandia National Laboratories

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550

for the United States Department of Energy

under Contract DE-AC04-76DP00789

Prepared for

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SF2900Q(8-81)
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United

States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any

legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use, or the

results of such use, of any information, apparatus product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such

third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

Available from

Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Post Office Box 37082

Washington, D.C. 20013-7982

and

National Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA 22161
NUREG/CR-4680

SAND86-0312

RP

HEAT AND MASS RELEASE FOR SOME

TRANSIENT FUEL SOURCE FIRES: A TEST REPORT

S. P. Nowlen

October 1986

Sandia National Laboratories

Albuquerque. NM 87185

Operated by

Sandia Corporation

for the

U.S. Department of Energy

Prepared for

Electrical Engineering Branch

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555

Under Memorandum of Understanding DOE 40-550-75

NRC FIN NO. AlOlO

ABSTRACT

Nine fire tests using five different trash fuel source packages were conducted by Sandia National Laboratories. This

report presents the findings of these tests. Data reported

includes heat and mass release rates, total heat and mass

release, plume temperatures, and average fuel heat of

combustion.

These tests were conducted as a part of the U. S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission sponsored fire safety research program.

Data from these tests were intended for use in nuclear power

plant probabilistic risk assessment fire analyses. The

results were also used as input to a fire test program at

Sandia investigating the vulnerability of electrical control

cabinets to fire.

The fuel packages tested were chosen to be representative of

small to moderately sized transient trash fuel sources of

the type that would be found in a nuclear power plant. The

highest fire intensity encountered during these tests was

145 kW. Plume temperatures did not exceed 820 0 C.

iii/iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary .... .............

1.0 Introduction .... .............

2.0 The Test Facility .... ........

3.0 Test Instrumentation ...........

4.0 Test Results .... .............

4.1 General Comments on the Data

Processing .... .......... 4.2 Fuel Package One ......... 4.3 Fuel Package Two ......... 4.4 Fuel Package Three ........ 4.5 Fuel Package Four .......... 4.6 Fuel Package Five ..........

5.0 Summary of Test Results ........

References .......... ..............

3

4

5

6

and Data

6

9

. . . .10 .

. . . . 12 .

. . . . 13 .

. . . . 16 .

V
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 Schematic View of Fire Test Facility 19

Figure 2 Exhaust Gas Collection Hood and Fuel 20

Placement Used for Trash Fire Tests

Figure 3 Photograph of FP1 Prior to Ignition 21

Figure 4 Photograph of FPl at Typical Peak Intensity 22

Figure 5 Plume Temperatures for Trash Fire Tests 1 23

and 2 o .

Figure 6 Fuel Mass for Trash Fire Tests 1 and 2 24

Figure 7 Fuel Mass Release Rate for Trash Fire Tests 25

1 and 2

Figure 8 Heat Release Rate for Trash Fire Tests 1 26

and 2

Figure 9 Photograph of FP2 Prior to Ignition 27

Figure 10 Photograph of FP2 at Typical Peak 28

Intensity

Figure 11 Plume Temperatures for Trash Fire Tests 3 29

and 4

Figure 12 Fuel Mass for Trash Fire Tests 3 and 4 30

Figure 13 Fuel Mass Release Rates for Trash Fire 31

Tests 3 and 4

Figure 14 Heat Release Rates for Trash Fire Tests 3 32

and 4

Figure 15 Photograph of FP3 Prior to Ignition 33

Figure 16 Photograph of Post Test Residue from Test 5 34

Figure 17 Plume Temperatures for Trash Fire Tests 5 35

and 6

Figure 18 Fuel Mass for Trash Fire Tests 5 and 6 36

Figure 19 Fuel Mass Release Rates for Trash Fire 37

Tests 5 and 6

vi
LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.)

Figure 20

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

21

22

23

24

Figure 25

Heat Release Rates for Trash Fire Tests 5

and 6

Photograph of FP4 Prior to Ignition

Plume Temperatures for Trash Fire Tests 7

and 8

Fuel Mass for Trash Fire Tests 7 and 8

Fuel Mass Release Rates for Trash Fire

Tests 7 and 8

Heat Release Rates for Trash Fire Tests 7

and 8

Photograph of FP5 Prior to Ignition

Photograph of FP5 at Time of Peak Intensity

Plume Temperatures for Trash Fire Test 9

Fuel Mass for Trash Fire Test 9

Fuel Mass Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 9

Heat Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 9

Page

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

46

47

47

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

26

27

28

29

30

31

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1

Table 2

Description of Fuel Packages Tested. . . . 17

Summary of Trash Fire Test Results ........ 18

viii
Executive Summary

This report presents the findings of a series of nine trash

fire characterization tests. Five different fuel packages

composed of simulated small to moderate trash accumulations

were burned in order to obtain data on the heat and mass

release rate properties of fires in fuel packages of this

type. Additional data on plume temperatures, total heat and

mass releases, and heat of combustion is reported.

These tests were conducted as a part of the U. S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) sponsored fire safety research

program. The tests were conducted by members of the Adverse

Environment Safety Assessment Division (6447) of Sandia

National Laboratories. Albuquerque, NM.

Data on fires of this type are required as input to Probabilistic Risk Assessment fire analyses. A literature review

of the subject [1] revealed that while previous efforts had

investigated trash fire behavior each of these previous

efforts had shortcomings of one nature or another when

applied to a nuclear power plant situation. Some of these

previous efforts had used fuels atypical of those one would

expect to find in a nuclear power plant, while others had

not collected heat and/or mass release rate information.

The fuel packages tested are described in Table 1. These

fuel packages were selected based on previous test efforts.

NRC input, and on the results of a survey by Wheelis of

transient fuel sources reported in nuclear power plant

Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) reports [2]. Wheelis'

study considered 75 I&E reports covering the years 1979-

1984. The study also included telephone interviews of 35

I&E inspectors. The two fuel types identified by Wheelis of

primary concern to the present study were paper and trash

accumulations and cleaning solvents. Paper and trash was

found to be reported in quantities from a single candy bar

wrapper to several overflowing 55 gallon drum waste

receptacles. Typical trash accumulations were in the 30-55

gallon range. For solvents, quantities from 1 pint to more

than 5 gallons were reported with quantities on the order of

1 gallon considered most typical. All of the fuel packages

tested in the present study fall well within the limits

considered typical in Wheelis' study.

The results of the tests presented in this report were also

useful in defining the relative magnitude of ignition source

fires used in the Cabinet Fire Test Program (also conducted

by Division 6447 for the NRC) [3]. In the cabinet

fire program it was desirable to use a "small" and "credible"

ignition source for electrical cabinet fire tests in order

to more closely simulate potential plant scenarios. The
results of the tests described here helped to more clearly

define the terms "small" and "credible" as applied to a

trash fire.

The test results are summarized in Table 2. Note that peak

heat release rates never exceeded 150 kW. Typical heat

release rates were in the range of 20-50 kW. These heat

release rates are considered reliable as a number of gas

burner calibration tests were run in order to verify the

heat release rate calculation process. Fire durations were

typically 30-60 minutes with later stages of the fire

dominated by liquid plastic pool fires in those cases

involving plastic materials.

Heat release rates during these tests were considerably

lower than those in a similar test effort at Lawrence

Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) [4]. These differences are

attributed to the choice of both fuel material and fuel

configuration used in the LBL tests.

In particular, for the wastebasket fires in the LBL study

the fuel consisted of torn up plastic-coated milk cartons

packed into other plastic-coated milk cartons opened at each

end stacked vertically in the trash container. This configuration made the fuel appear in the form of small packed

chimneys of highly flammable material. This resulted in

effective maximization of the potential heat output of the

fire. Tests in the present series used similarly sized and

constructed wastebaskets packed with plain paper and cotton

rags. This resulted in significantly less intense fires.

Total heat and mass releases cannot be compared as data for

the LBL tests is reported for periods of only 10-15

minutes. Fire durations for the LBL tests are not reported.

When using data of this type, one must take care to use the

appropriate data set. If one is involved in making assessments of critical safety, a conservative calculation is most

likely called for. In such cases, use of the LBL test

results may be more appropriate than use of the results

presented here. The results presented here are useful to

such analyses in characterizing the degree of conservatism

introduced by use of the LBL data.

The data presented here will also be helpful to other efforts

in which "credible" ignition sources are desirable. For

instance, some cable fire test efforts have been criticized

for using unrealistically intense ignition sources where

small sources may have sufficed. This was a concern in the

cabinet fire program.

This data also illustrates the dramatic effects of fuel type

on fire behavior. Such effects complicate attempts to define

a generic trash fire and characterize trash fire behavior

generally.

2
1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a series of fire tests

on transient fuel source packages. The fuel packages tested

were intended to represent small to moderate accumulations

of combustible trash such as those which might be found in a

nuclear power plant (NPP). A total of nine tests using five

different fuel source packages were conducted. Table 1 provides a brief description of each of the five fuel packages.

These tests were conducted as a part of the U. S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) sponsored fire safety research

program. The primary purpose served by the results of these

tests is in providing guidance on the intensity and duration

of exposure source fires for use in NPP probabilistic risk

assessment (PRA) fire analyses. The test results reported

here were also used as input to an NRC-sponsored test effort

investigating the vulnerability of electrical cabinets to

fire [3].

The fuel packages tested were selected in part on the basis

of previous test efforts at SNL and elsewhere, and on NRC

input. Another source of guidance on fuel package selection

was a study of transient fuel sources reported in nuclear

power plants conducted by Wheelis [2]. Wheelis reviewed 75

Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) reports for nuclear power

plants covering the years 1979-1984. Wheelis' study also

included telephone surveys of 35 I&E inspectors. Two fuel

source catagories identified by Wheelis are of primary

interest to the present study.

The first of these catagories is paper and trash. Wheelis

found that paper and trash were reported in quantities as

small as a single candy wrapper to quantities as large as

several overflowing 55 gallon waste receptacles. The

typical size reported was on the order of 30-55 gallon sized

containers. All of the fuel packages tested fall well

within the size range reported for paper and trash with none

of the tested fuel packages exceeding the size considered

typical.

The second catagory of fuel sources identified by Wheelis of

concern to the present study is cleaning solvents. Wheelis

found that solvents were reported as transient fuel sources

in quantities from 1 pint to more than 5 gallons. The most

commonly reported quantities were on the order of 1 gallon.

Test fuel packages 1 and 2 each involved the burning of one

quart of acetone in conjunction with other materials one

could expect to be used in routine electrical contact cleanup operations. This quantity of fuel is well within the

3
limits defined by Wheelis and somewhat below the typical

quantity defined by Wheelis.

The tests described here were considered necessary based on

the findings of a review of available literature on quantitative fire characterization data as it applies to NPPs

[1]. In this review it was found that while some data on

the burning of trash fuel sources was available from previous

efforts. each of these previous test efforts had drawbacks

when applied to NPP situations.

Tests in the most complete of such efforts (at Lawrence

Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) [4]) were conducted using fuel

configurations and materials which could not be considered

typical of NPP trash sources. The LBL tests were intended

to provide guidance toward the design of a standard room

fire test ignition source. The use of highly flammable

plastic coated paper milk cartons in the configuration of

small fuel packed chimneys in the LBL tests served to

effectively maximize potential fire intensity. Thus, the

resulting heat release rates can be considered a worst case

for trash fuel packages of that size. The only fuel

configuration of a similar size 'which could be expected to

yield significantly higher heat release rates would be one

involving large quantities of highly flammable liquids.

In the tests described here, the fuel packages utilized what

were considered more typical materials and configurations.

The results are useful for two reasons. For many purposes,

one desires a conservative or worst case analysis. In such

cases use of the LBL data would be appropriate. The present

tests can help in defining the degree of conservatism introduced through use of the LBL data. Secondly, in many efforts

it is desirable to use a "credible" ignition source in an

attempt to deflect one source of potential criticism of the

test results. Many cable fire test efforts in the past have

been criticized for using unrealistically severe exposure

sources. The results of the tests described here should be

useful in defining the intensity of a "credible" exposure

fire.

2.0 THE TEST FACILITY

The facility utilized for conduct of these tests was the

Building 9830 fire test enclosure at the SNL Coyote Test

Field in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Figure 1 presents

schematic views of the test enclosure. The facility itself

is an earth covered bunker 50 feet long, 24 feet wide, and

18 feet tall at the center. This bunker has been partitioned

into two chambers, each 25 feet long. The outer chamber is

used to house various instrumentation and data conditioning

equipment. Test fires are placed in the inner chamber.

4
The inner burn chamber has a system of ducts which provide

inlet ventilation air through several vents located around

the perimeter of the chamber. The ventilation air is forced

from the outer chamber (which is vented to the external

environment) and into the burn chamber. The inlet ventilation rate for these tests was approximately 2600 CFM

(1.2 m3 /sec) or the equivalent of 16 room air changes per

hour.

The burn chamber operates under a slight positive pressure

during tests. Combustion products and through-flow air are

vented out from the burn chamber through an opening in the

top center of the burn chamber. This opening is connected

to an 18-inch diameter horizontal stack which houses instrumentation for analysis of the exhaust gasses.

For the purposes of this test program, a gas collection hood

was positioned in the center of the burn chamber over the

test fires as shown in Figure 2. The lower edge of this

hood was placed 11 feet above floor level. This hood helped

to channel fire products more directly to the exhaust port.

This resulted in increased sensitivity to low intensity

fires and reduced instrumentation response time lags caused

by buildup of exhaust gasses in the upper reaches of the

burn chamber.

A barrier made of 1" thick marinite panels was constructed

along one edge of the hood assembly. All test fuel packages

were placed on a load platform below the center of the hood

such that the edge of the fuel package closest to the barrier

was 12 inches away from the barrier as shown in Figure 2.

Ignition of the fuel packages was achieved through the use

of an electrically ignited gas pilot light. The pilot was

positioned such that a small amount of the fuel source on

the top of the package was ignited (typically a scrap of

paper). Once ignition was achieved the pilot was pulled out

of the way and extinguished. The test fuel package was then

allowed to burn to self-extinguishment.

3.0 TEST INSTRUMENTATION

A variety of instrumentation was utilized in these tests.

The primary objectives of the test program were to obtain

heat and mass release rate information for each of the fuel

packages. Secondary objectives included assessments of

plume temperature and fuel heat of combustion.

For the measurement of fuel mass loss rate each fuel package

was placed on a load platform during testing. The load

5
platform was constructed from a 3'x3' sheet of 3/8" thick

carbon steel supported by three "S"-type strain gauge load

cells. A 4'x4'xl" marinite panel was placed on top of the

steel plate to minimize radiant heating of the steel. A

metal skirt was placed around the steel plate and load cells

below the marinite panel. Fresh cool air was supplied to

this skirted area in order to prevent heating of the platform

assembly. (The air temperature in this skirted area was

monitored and in no case were temperature variations large

enough to cause significant changes in load cell calibration.)

Heat release rates (HRR) were measured indirectly through

use of oxygen consumption calorimetry as described by Parker

[5]. The concentration of oxygen in the exhaust gas was

monitored through a Beckman Gas model 755 paramagnetic

oxygen analyzer. Ventilation flow rates were monitored

through the use of pressure probes in both the inlet and

outlet flow streams. These pressure readings were converted

to velocities through the Bernoulli equation for fluid flow,

and in turn to volume flow rates through the cross sectional

area. (Traverses of both the inlet and exhaust ducts were

conducted to insure that velocity readings were

;representative of average values.) Nine calibration tests

were conducted using gas burners ranging from 50-175 KW in

intensity. Excellent agreement was observed between

calculated and theoretical heat release rates for each of

these tests.

Plume temperatures were monitored through a series of K-type

thermocouples placed over the center of the fuel source at

heights (above the fuel base) of 18. 36, 54, 72, 84, and 144

inches. For fuel packages taller than 18", the lower level

thermocouples were eliminated.

In addition. video tape and still photograph records of each

test were made.

Data was logged using an HP-9216 minicomputer and an HP-3497

data logger. A total of 14 thermocouple and 10 analog

channels of data was typically logged. All channels were

scanned once every 15 seconds for the duration of the test

(typically for about one hour). Data was stored on floppy

discs and recalled later for processing on an HP-9216

computer.

4.0 TEST RESULTS

4.1 General Comments on the Data and Data Processing

The tests described here were conducted over a period of

three weeks during May of 1985. Ambient temperatures at the

6
time of the tests were typically 70-80 F. All of the tests

were conducted on days during which the weather was clear

and dry.

Standard test procedures used in conducting these tests

included the logging of one minute of "baseline" data prior

to ignition. Thus in each of the plots presented here.

ignition occurs at time = 1 minute. In the case of the

heat release rates which are based on analysis of gas samples

taken from the exhaust stack, the data has been shifted in

time in order to account for the transit time of the gas

samples from the exhaust stack to the oxygen analyzer. Thus,

for the heat release rate plots presented, ignition effectively occurs at time = 1 minute as in all other plots.

In calculation of heat release rates by oxygen consumption. the data processing procedures included a correction for

local atmospheric pressures at the test site. This correction was necessary as the test site used for conduct of

these tests is at an elevation of 6350 feet above sea level.

Due to this elevation, normal atmospheric pressure is in the

range of 11.7 psi as compared to 14.7 psi standard at sea

level. The ratio of actual ambient pressure to standard

atmospheric pressure enters the calculation as a direct

multiplier to the heating value per volume of oxygen consumed.

Special consideration was also given to the fuel mass data.

The load platform used in these tests was made up of a steel

plate supported by three "S"-type strain gauge load cells.

In order to prevent thermal damage to the load cells or

distortion of calibration factors through heating of the

cells an air cooling scheme was utilized. This air cooling

did maintain the load cells at a constant temperature but

also introduced a small amount of vibration in the load

platform. This vibration manifests itself as noise in the

resulting data.

In order to smooth out this noise in the data, a ninth

degree polynomial curve was fit to the load platform data

through application of a "least squares minimization" curve

fitting technique. In the data presentation both the raw

data and the curve fit are shown for each test. This curve

fit was then differentiated in order to obtain smooth and

continuous mass loss rate information.

In general, this curve fitting procedure worked well. On

occasion, however, the fitted curve would break away from

the general trend of the data either at the very start or

very end of the data string. This is caused by the lack of

constraint on the curve outside the bounds of the data time

limits. As a result, when plotting the mass loss rate

7
information, some curves included data during very early or

very late times which were clearly not in line with actual

fire behavior. In such cases this data was deleted from the

plot. These deletions do not detract from the general

validity of the remainder of the plots.

4.2 Fuel Package One

Fuel Package 1 (FP1) was made up of a 16" x 12" x 12" cardboard box (395 g). a large "16 oz" box of "Kimwipes" or

"Assembley Wipes" (562 g) (box measured 12" x 5" x 4"), and

a quart of acetone (747 g) in a polyethylene wash bottle (79

g). The cardboard box with an open top was placed on the

load platform. The "Kimwipes" were opened and the first

tissue pulled out so that the second tissue protruded from

the box. The acetone, held in a capped wash bottle, and the

"Kimwipes" were then placed upright in the box. Total

weight of the fuel package was approximately 1.8 kg. The

fuel package was ignited through piloted ignition of the

exposed tissues. Figure 3 presents a photograph of FP1

prior to ignition. Figure 4 shows FP1 at its peak intensity

during fire Test 1.

This fuel package was intended to represent cleaning

materials such as might be left by maintenance personnel

during routine operations. Acetone is often used as an

electrical contact cleaner and would typically be held in a

wash bottle, such as that used in these tests. The "Kimwipes" are a typical cleaning tissue used in a variety of

applications. Two tests using this fuel package were

conducted (Trash Fire Tests 1 and 2).

Following ignition of the fuel package, the fire quickly

spread through the tissues and ignited the cardboard box.

Melting of the wash bottle presumably allowed leakage of the

acetone after approximately one minute of burning. The peak

intensity of the fire (approximately 110 kW) is believed to

be primarily a result of intense burning of the vertical

sides of the cardboard box. Following consumption of the

box sides, the fire settled into a more steady mode of

burning. For times after approximately 6 minutes. the fire

seemed to consume the remainder of the "Kimwipes" and the

plastic bottle. Virtually all of the fuel package was

consumed in each test with very small amounts of plastic and

paper ash remaining after burnout.

Figure 5 shows the plume temperatures for the two tests

involving FP1. Figure 6 shows the fuel mass data, and

Figure 7 shows the fuel mass release rates based on the

curve fits shown in Figure 6. Figure 8 shows the heat

release rates calculated based on oxygen consumption.

8
In general, the two tests of FPM showed good repeatability.

The fire in each test followed much the same pattern of

growth and development. Temperatures, mass, and heat release

rates for each test are quite similar.

Peak fire intensities occurred two to three minutes after

ignition. Peak temperatures ranged from 7200C to 820 0 C.

Flame heights ranged from approximately five feet early in

the tests to approximately two feet late in each test

(measured from the base of the fuel package).

4.3 Fuel Package Two

Fuel Package Number 2 (FP2) was made up of a 2.5 gallon

polyethylene bucket (788 g), a 16 oz box of "Kimwipes" or

"Assembly Wipes" (562 g) and one quart of acetone (747 g) in

a polyethylene wash bottle (79 g). Total weight of the fuel

package was approximately 2.2 kg. The plastic bucket was

placed on the center of the load platform. The acetone in

the wash bottle and "Kimwipes" or "Assembly Wipes" were then

placed standing upright in the bucket. The "Kimwipes" or

"Assembly Wipes" were opened and the first tissue pulled out

so that the second tissue protruded from the box as they

would under normal use.

This fuel package was quite similar to FM. except that a

plastic bucket was substituted for the cardboard box. As

with FPl, this fuel package is of a type which might be left

by maintenance personnel during routine cleaning operations.

Two fire tests, designated Tests 3 and 4. were conducted

using FP2. This fuel package was also used as the ignition

source for several of the cabinet fire tests conducted by

SNL for the NRC. Figure 9 shows FP2 prior to ignition in

Test 3. Ignition of the fuel package was achieved through

ignition of the tissue paper. The fire quickly spread

through the protruding tissues. This resulted in initiation

of melting and ignition of the plastic bucket and wash

bottle within approximately 45 seconds.

During Test 3 the acetone spilled from the bucket approxi- mately 6 minutes after ignition. This resulted in a large

flash of burning acetone. It is believed that the acetone

which spilled was contained on the load platform and that

most of that acetone burned within 5 seconds of the spill.

This type of behavior was not observed in test 4 nor in any

of the cabinet fire tests which used this ignition source.

After approximately 10 minutes of burning, the plastic

bucket had melted completely. A fire composed primarily of

a burning plastic pool then ensued. This mode of burning

continued until fire burnout. Figure 10 shows the fuel

package during this steady burning period for Test 3.

9
Plume temperatures for fire Tests 3 and 4 are shown in

Figure 11. In general plume temperatures were relatively

moderate (less than 4000C). During the acetone flashing of

Test 3 peak plume temperatures reached 8100C. The fuel mass

histories for Tests 3 and 4 are shown in Figure 12. Fuel

mass release rates based on the curve fits presented in

Figure 12 are shown in Figure 13. Heat release rates for

Tests 3 and 4 are shown in Figure 14.

Note that in the mass release rate plots for test 3 the

acetone spill and burning is not evident. This is a result

of the curve fitting procedure which tends to smooth out

rapid transients. In the raw fuel mass data for test 3 in

Figure 12a one can clearly see the rapid drop in mass from

approximately 1.8 kg to approximately 1.4 kg at 6 minutes.

This rapid transient is not reflected in the curve fit.

Flame heights were in general 1-3 feet. This is in exception

to the acetone flash in Test 3 in which flames leapt briefly

to 6 feet in height.

4.4 Fuel Package Three

Fuel package 3 (FP3) was made up of a 16" x 12" x 12" cardboard box (395 g), 15 lbs of folded 12" x 16" computer paper

(6.8 kg) (approximately a 3" stack) and 1-1/2 lbs of crumpled

paper (680 g). The box was placed on the load platform with

an open top. The folded paper was placed in the bottom of

the box (approximately a 3" stack) with the crumpled paper

filling the remainder of the box. The total weight of the

fuel package was 7.9 kg.

This fuel package was intended to represent one such as might

be found in a NPP computer or control room. Cardboard boxes

of computer paper are common wherever computer hardcopy

units are used. These same boxes are also often used for

discarding output after use.

Two tests (5 and 6) were conducted using this fuel package.

Figure 15 shows FP3 prior to ignition in Test 5. Ignition

of the fuel packet was achieved through ignition of a small

section of the crumpled paper. The fire spread quickly

through the crumpled paper consuming both the crumpled paper

and the upper sides of the box. Flames were then observed

to diminish quickly with flame extinguishment occurring

within 15 minutes of ignition. Figure 16 shows the residue

left after flame extinguishment. Upon examination of the

residue, which included nearly all of the folded paper, it

was found that a deep seated smoldering fire persisted. In

Test 6 the fuel was checked periodically and the smoldering

10
was observed to persist for over 1 hour after flame

extinguishment. No reignition of the fuel package into open

flaming was observed.

Plume temperatures for Test 5 and 6 are shown in Figure 17.

Peak temperatures were approximately 265 0 C. Fuel mass data

is shown in Figure 18. A total of only 1.0 and 0.8 kg of

mass out of a total of 7.9 kg was released in Tests 5 and 6

respectively. Fuel mass release rates based on the curve

fits shown in Figure 18 are presented in Figure 19. Heat

release rates for Tests 5 and 6 are presented in Figure 20.

4.5 Fuel Package Four

Fuel Package 4 (FP4) was made up of a 3 gallon (approximately

6" x 12" x 18") polyethylene wastebasket (771 g), a polyethylene liner bag (35 g), 1 lb of cotton clean room rags

(455 g). and 3/4 lbs of crumpled paper (340 g). The plastic

liner bag was placed in the wastebasket and pressed along

the inner sides. The cotton rags and crumpled paper were

then mixed evenly in the trash can. This loading resulted

in a full but loosely packed wastebasket. Total weight of

FP4 was approximately 1.6 kg.

This fuel package was intended to be representative of waste

containers such as those which could be found in NPP computer

rooms, control rooms, and security monitoring stations. This

fuel package is quite similar in size and weight to one of

the fuel packages tested by LBL (4]. In the present case

cotton and plain paper were used as the packing material as

opposed to the plastic-coated paper used in the LBL study.

Two tests were conducted using FP4 (Tests 7 and 8). Figure

21 shows FP4 prior to ignition in Test 7. Ignition of the

fuel package was achieved through ignition of a scrap of the

paper at the top of the fuel package. Following ignition

the pilot igniter was pulled out of the fire zone from the

next room.

In Test 7 when the pilot was being pulled out of the way of

the fire it caught on the edge of the wastebasket causing

the fuel package to fall over. Approximately 1/2 of the

paper and packing material spilled from the wastebasket and

it was primarily this material which actually burned during

the test. When the fuel package toppled it also moved the

center of the fire out from under the thermocouples used for

measurement of plume temperatures. Thus, the temperatures

shown in Figure 22 for Test 7 are not representative of true

plume temperatures.

In Test 8 the fire developed quickly in the crumpled paper

packing. This caused melting of the plastic wastebasket and

11
eventual development of a fairly steady plastic pool fire.

Open flaming in Test 8 continued steadily for approximately

65 minutes. Nearly all of the fuel material was consumed in

the fire with only a small amount of plastic left following

fire extinguishment.

Figure 22 presents the temperature data from Tests 7 and 8.

As noted above the temperatures for Test 7 are not truly

taken from within the plume and are presented here only in

the interest of providing a complete permanent record of the

data from these tests. Figure 23 presents the fuel mass

history for Test 7 and 8. Fuel mass release rates based on

the curve fits presented in Figure 23 are shown in Figure 24.

Heat release rates for Test 7 and 8 are presented in Figure

25.

Flame heights for Tests 7 and 8 were generally quite low.

Typical flame heights remained less that 2 feet above the

base of the fuel package and 6 inches above the top of the

fuel package.

The intensity of burning in this fuel package was somewhat

less than that anticipated. As mentioned above, LBL tested

a fuel package of similar size and weight using a different

packing material and configuration [4]. In the LBL tests

peak heat release rates reached nearly 70 kW or nearly three

times the peak intensity of Test 8. This difference is

attributed to differences in the material within the wastebasket and in the configuration of that material. These

differences are discussed in more detail in Section 5.

4.6 Fuel Package Five

Fuel package 5 (FP5) was made up of a 30 gallon (approximately 24" in diameter by 36" tall) polyethylene wastebasket

(3.6 kg), a plastic liner bag (35 g), 3.3 lbs of crumpled

paper (1.5 kg) and 2.8 lbs of cotton clean room rags (1.3

kg). As with FP4. the crumpled paper and rags were evenly

mixed in the wastebasket to result in a full, but loosely

packed, condition.

This fuel package was intended to represent larger industrial

waste containers such as those used in a variety of applications including use in most NPP areas. A variety of

materials including wood, cardboard, oily rags, paper, and

plastics could have been used as the packing material. The

choice of paper and cotton rags was made in order that the

results might be more directly comparable to those for FP4.

FP5 is also similar in size and weight to one of the fuel

packages tested in the LBL test series [4].

One test was conducted using FP5 as the fuel source (Test 9).

Figure 25 shows FP5 prior to ignition. Ignition was achieved

12
through piloted ignition of a piece of paper on the top of

the fuel package. The fire developed quickly in the packing

material. Melting of the wastebasket was evident approximately 2 minutes after ignition. Within 15 minutes of

ignition, the wastebasket had melted away almost entirely

leaving a pile of burning paper, cotton, and plastic approximately 1/2 the original height of the fuel package. Shortly

thereafter, this pile of burning material toppled resulting

in a surge in fire intensity. As the packing material burned

away a liquid plastic pool fire became the dominant mode of

burning. This pool fire continued to burn for an additional

40 minutes flaring up to high intensities twice during that

period. Following fire burn out approximately 1.1 kg of

residue, mostly plastic, was left.

Plume temperatures for Test 9 are shown in Figure 26. Peak

temperatures measured reached 360 0 C. The fuel mass data is

shown in Figure 27 with the mass release rate information

shown in Figure 28. The heat release rate for Test 9 is

shown in Figure 29. The peak heat release rate for this

fuel package was 113 kW. Flame heights for this test were

in general 3-4 feet above the base of the fuel package with

occasional flame heights of 5-6 feet during peak intensities

which lasted approximately 1 minute on each of 3 occasions.

As mentioned above, this fuel package was similar in size

and weight to one tested by LBL [4]. In the LBL test, the

peak fire intensity was over 600 kW, or more than 5 times

that seen in Test 9. In the LBL test, this peak intensity

was reached within 3 minutes of ignition. These differences

in fire behavior are attributed to the differences in fuel

packing material and configuration. The rapid intense

development of the LBL test fire can only be attributed to

development of the fire within the highly flammable plasticcoated paper used to fill the wastebasket. These differences

are discussed more fully in Section 5.

5.0 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

The results of this series of 9 transient fuel fire tests

are summarized in Table 2. This table provides the peak

temperatures, heat release rates, and mass release rates for

each test. The table also gives the total amount of heat

released and the total amount of the fuel mass consumed.

The final column presents the ratio of total heat to total

mass release. This value is an estimate of the average

effective heat of combustion for the fuel materials.

In general, the fires in this test effort were much less

intense than those of previous efforts by LBL [4]. Peak

temperatures ranged from 150 0 C to 920 0 C. Peak heat release

rates ranged from 12 to 145 kW with typical heat release

13
rates in the range from 20 to 100 kW. These heat release

rates are considered reliable as a number of gas burner

calibration tests were conducted in order to validate the

heat release calculation process. Burn durations ranged

from 15 to 65 minutes with typical durations from 30 to 60

minutes.

FP4 (Tests 7 and 8) and FP5 (Test 9) can be compared directly

to similarly sized wastebasket fuel sources tested by LBL

(4]. In the LBL test series, a 6.6 liter (1.75 gal) plastic

wastebasket resulted in peak heat release rates of approximately 70 kW. In fire Tests 7 and 8, a larger 11 liter (3

gal) wastebasket resulted in peak fire intensities of only

24 kW. Similarly in the LBL test series, a 121 liter (32

gal) plastic wastebasket. resulted in peak fire intensities

of over 600 kW. In fire Test 9. a similar sized (30 gal)

plastic wastebasket resulted in peak fire intensities of 113

kW.

These differences in fire intensity for similarly sized

wastebasket fires are directly attributable to the differences in the material chosen to fill the wastebaskets and

the configuration of those materials within the wastebasket.

In the present test series, a uniform mixture of crumpled

paper and cotton rags were used. In the LBL tests .98 liter

(1 qt) plastic coated cardboard milk cartons were used. The

milk cartons were placed such that "half of the cartons are

opened to form open tubes and are placed upright in the

wastebasket. The remaining cartons are torn into pieces.

measuring approximately 50-75 mm (2-3 in) square. These

pieces are then placed within the tubes formed by the upright

cartons." The result of this configuration is a set of small

fuel loaded chimneys of highly flammable material. This has

the effect of maximizing potential heat output and fire

growth rate.

Further evidence that these differences in fire intensity

are due to the materials within the wastebasket is available

from the results on the larger wastebasket. In Test 9 of

the present series the peak in fire intensity (113 kW)

occurred approximately 30 minutes after ignition. This peak

was attributed primarily to the burning of the molten plastic

from the wastebasket itself. In the LBL test involving a

similar wastebasket, the fire reached over 600 kW in 3

minutes. This quick rise time clearly indicates combustion

of the packing materials is the primary source of heat

release.

In using data of the type described here, one must clearly

define their objectives and needs. If one is making a

calculation which is intended to be "conservative" (ieo

14
worst case fires) then use of the LBL data would be appro- priate. The LBL tests can be considered as representative

of a worst case ignition/exposure fire source for the size

of fuel packages tested. The LBL tests appear to indicate

fire intensities on the order of 3 to 5 times as intense as

those in the present test series. If the user's goal is to

provide a "realistic" or more "credible" ignition/exposure

fire source then the present data set is more appropriate

for providing guidance on the intensity of such fuel sources. U

One must recognize that these tests have clearly demonstrated

the dependence of fire development on the fuel material and

configuration. Due to the variety of materials and configurations in which trash and other transient fuels can be

found, one must exercise extreme caution in extrapolating

the present data and that from the LBL tests to a particular

situation.

It is also interesting to note that the LBL tests report

data for only 10 minutes. In the present test series, fire

durations were from 15-65 minutes. One should also recognize

that the apparent fire durations for the LBL tests may

underestimate actual fire durations. Most of the test fires

reported by LBL appeared to be burning quite intensely at

the end of the data reporting period.

The purpose of the LBL test series was to provide guidance in the definition of a standard room fire test ignition

source. As a result of the LBL test series, an ignition

source using a gas burner with an intensity of approximately

300 kW was recommended. This burner clearly encompasses the

present tests with regards to fire intensity. Duration of

this recommended ignition source is not addressed in the LBL

report. In order to encompass the current test series in

time durations of up to 60 minutes would be required in the

absence of any credit being taken for fire suppression

efforts.

15
References

1. Nowlen. S. P.. "Quantitative Data on the Fire Behavior

of Combustible Materials Found in Nuclear Power Plants:

A Literature Review," SAND 86-0311, Sandia National Laboratories, 1986.

2. Wheelis. W. T.. "Transient Conbustible Fuel Sources Found

at Nuclear Power Plants" A letter report to the USNRC,

Sandia National Laboratories. 1984.

3. Chavez. J. M., "An Experimental Investigation of

Internally Ingited Fires in Nuclear Power Plant Control

Cabinets: Part 1: Cabinet Effects Tests." Sandia

National Laboratories. SAND86-0336. 1986.

4. Von Volkenburg. D. R.. et al. "Towards a Standard

Ignition Source." LBL-8306, Lawrence Berkeley

Laboratory. October 1978.

5. Parker. W. J.. "Calculation of the Heat Release Rate by

Oxygen Consumption for Various Applications." NBSIR

81-2427-1, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau

of Standards, March 1982.

16
TABLE 1: DESCRIPTION OF FUEL PACKAGES TESTED

Fuel Package 1:

12"x16"x12" cardboard box (395 g)

"16 oz" box of "Kimwipes" (562 g)

1 qt of acetone (747 g)

in a polyethylene wash bottle (79 g)

Fuel Package 2:

2.5 gal polyethylene bucket (788 g) "16 oz" box of "Kimwipes" (562 g)

1 qt of acetone (747 g)

in a polyethylene wash bottle (79 g)

Fuel Package 3:

12"x16"x12" cardboard box (395 g)

15 lbs of folded 12"x16" computer paper

(3 inch stack) (6.8 kg)

1-1/2 lbs of crumpled paper (680 g)

Fuel Package 4:

5 gal polyethylene trash can (-6"x12"x18") (771 g)

polyethylene liner (35 g)

1 lb of cotton clean room rags (455 g)

3/4 lbs of crumpled paper (340 g)

Fuel Package 5:

30 gal polyethylene trash can (3.6 kg) polyethylene liner (35 g)

3.3 lbs. of crumpled paper (1.5 kg)

2.8 lbs. of cotton clean room rags (1.3 kg)

17
TABLE 2: SUbQ4ARY OF TRASH FIRE TEST RESULTS

Sou~ce Test Peak Plume Peak Peak Total Total Mass Egfective avecage

Fuel 0 Tempecatuce HRRW uRagn Heat Release Release Heat of Combustion

Package (C) (kW) (g9/) (NJ) (kg) (kJ/g)

DPI I 818 97 4.2 48 1.8 27

2 720 109 3.9 37 L.8 21

FP2 3 810 145 2.0 75 2.4 31

4 413 34 1.3 49 1.7 29

FP3 5 260 26 2.4 13 1.0 13

6 265 21 1.9 to 0.8 12

FP4 7 --- 12 0.9 25 0.8 31

8 155 24 0.8 56 1.4 35

FPS 9 360 113 2.4 202 5.5 37

I..I

a Beat Release Rate

00 Mass Release Rate
Steel False Floor

Sand Filled Subfloor

Figure 2 Exhaust gas collection hood and fuel placement used for

trash fire tests

19
18z10O Exhaust

SIDE VIEW

Figure I Schematic view of fire test facility

20
Figure 3 Photograph of FP1 Prior to Ignition

21
Figure 4 Photograph of FP1 at Typical Peak Intensity

22
Figure 5.a:

Plume Temperatures for Trash Fire Test 1

PLUME AT 18 IN - PLUME RT 54 IN

PLUME AT 72 IN

w

CE

w3

H

a:

1088

988

888

788

688

588

488

388

280

188

8

0 2 4 6 8 18 12 14 16 18 28 22 24 26 28 38

Time (min)

Figure 5b.

Plume Temperatures for Trash Fire Test 2

PLUME AT IS IN PLUME AT 54 IN

PLUME AT 72 IN

w

cc.

wi

H

a:

1888

Z88

888

788

688

588

488

388

288

188

8

8 2 4 6 8 18 12 14 16 18 28 22 24 26 28 38

Time (min)

23
Figure 6a:

Fuel Mass for Trash Fire Test 1

Raw Data Curve Fit

Lii

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

.8

.8

.4

.2

0

0 2 4 6 8 18 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Time (min)

Figure 6b:

Fuel Mass for Trash Fire Test 2

Raw Data Curve Fit

Lii

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8

1.8

1.4

1.2

1

.,

.6

.4

.2

0

•m

8 2 4 8 8 10 12 14 IS 18 28 22 24 26 28 30

Time (min)

24
Figure 7a:

Fuel Mass Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 1

Loss Rate

0

0

0)

I)

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

.5

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 38

Time (min)

Figure 7b:

Fuel Mass Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 2

Loss Rate -

U

0)

43

4d

cr

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

.5

0

6 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 36

Time (min)

25
Figure 8a:

Heat Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 1

Inflow 02 -

'-Y

Er

150

140

130

120

110

100

90

88

79

50

50

40

80

20

19

a

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 IS 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Time (min)

Figure 8b:

Heat Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 2

Inf Iow 02 -

Q:

150

140

130

120

110

1800

90

80

70

50

48

30

20

10

a

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Time (min)

26
Figure 9 Photograph of FP2 Prior to Ignition

27
I

Figure 10 Photograph of FP2 at Typical Peak

Intensity

28
Figure 11a:

Plume Temperatures for Trash Fire Test 3

PLUME AT 16 IN PLUME AT 36 IN

PLUME AT 54 IN PLUME AT 72 IN

a:

F1000

880

766

660

500

400

380

200

166

0

8 5 16 15 20 25 38 35 40 45 50 55 60

Time (min)

Figure llb:

Plume Temperatures for Trash Fire Test 4

PLUME AT 18 IN - PLUME AT 36 IN

PLUME AT 54 IN PLUME AT 72 IN --

w

w

0-

X:

w

1000

968

880

700

508

408

308

200

100

0

6 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Time (min)

46 45 56 55 so

29
Figure 12a:

Fuel Mass for Trash Fire Test 3

Raw Data Curve Fit

cLLI

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

.8

.6

.4

.2

0

0 5 10 15 28 25 30 35 40 45

Time (min)

50 55 60

Figure 12b:

Fuel Mass for Trash Fire Test 4

Raw Data - Curve Fit

0)

IW

x,

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

.8

.6

.4

.2

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time (min)

50 55 6s

30
Figure 13a;

Fuel Mass Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 3

Loss Rate

43

to

0

0

-j

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

.5

0

0 5 10 15 210 25 38 35 40 45 50 55

Time (min)

0

63

V

4.)

0

a:

GI

0

-J

Figure 13b:

Fuel Mass Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 4

Loss Rate

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

.5

0

8 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time (min)

50 55 so

31
Figure 14a:

Heat Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 3

Inf low 02 --

-Y

158

148

138

120

118

188

98

88

78

s8

58

48

38

28

18

8

0 5 18 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 58 55 68

Time (min)

Figure 14b:

Heat Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 4

Inf I ow 02

X:

-Y

158

140

138

128

110

900

88

70

60

58

40

30

20

10

0 i n I m I ml m I I m I I m

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 68

Time (min)

32
/

Figure 15 Photograph of FP3 Prior to Ignition

33
Figure 16" Photograph of Post Test Residue from Test 5

34
Figure 17a:

Plume Temperatures for Trash Fire Test 5

PLUME AT 36 IN PLUME AT 54 IN

PLUME AT 72 IN

U

Li

0::

:3

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30"

Time (min)

Figure 17b:

Plume Temperatures for Trash Fire Test 6

PLUME AT 36 IN PLUME AT 54 IN

PLUME AT 72 IN

U

ci:

cy

a1:

w

508

450

400

350

308

250

200

150

100

50

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 26 30

Time (min)

35
Figure 18a:

Fuel Mass for Trash Fire Test 5

Raw Data -- Curve Fit ---

I0

7.4

7.2

7

5.8

6.6

5.4

5.2

5

5.8

5.S

5.4

5.2

5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 19 20 22 24 26 28 30

Time (min)

Figure 18b:

Fuel Mass for Trash Fire Test 6

Raw Data - Curve Fit ---

Lii

7.9

7.6

7.4

6.2

7

6.9

6.6

6.4

6.2

6

5.9

5.s

5.4

5.2

5

8 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time (min)

I 18 29 22 24 26 29 38

36
Figure 19a:

Fuel Mass Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 5

Loss Rate -

4-2

J,

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

.5

B

0 2 4 6 8 110 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Time Cnj~n)

Figure 19b:

Fuel Mass Release Ratc fr Trash Fire Test 6

Less Rate --

4.5 F4 ý

3.5 1

a

e

P2

Oi

I,

4 J

0

P2

P2

C

-j

3

2.5

21-

1.5

1

.5

A

0

8 2 4 6 9 10 12 14 IS 19 20 22 24 26 29 30

Time kmin)

37
Figure 20a.

Heat Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 5

Inf low 02 -

X%

5s

45

48

35

30

25

20

15

16

5

a

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 26 22 24 26 28 36

Time (min)

Figure 20b:

Heat Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 6

Inf low 02 -

50

45

46

35

36

25

20

15

10

5

a

0 2 4 6 8 16 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Ttme (min)

38
I

|

4# tc

Figure 21 Photograph of FP4 Prior to Ignition

39
Figure 22a:

Plume Temperatures for Trash Fire Test 7

PLUME AT 36 IN PLUME AT 54 IN

PLUME AT 71 IN

Ld

Icr

LI

LIJ

200

186

160

140

126

106

86

40

20

* I

0 6 5 16 15 26 25 38 35 48 45 50 55 66 65 76

Time (min)

Figure 22b:

Plume Temperatures for Trash Fire Test 8

PLUME AT 36 IN - PLUME AT 54 IN

PLUME AT 72 IN

FIx

aLd

206

186

168

146

126

106

80

so

46

20

a

6 5 16 15 26 25 36 35 46 45 50 55 66 65 70

Time (min)

40
Figure 23a:

Fuel Mass for Trash Fire Test 7

Raw Data - Curve Fit

co

F-I

ri

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.e

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

.8

.6

.4

.2

0

0 5 10 15 28 25 38 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 78

Time (min)

Figure 23b:

Fuel Mass for Trash Fire Test 8

Raw Data - Curve Fit

Oi

co

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

.8

.6

.4

.2

0

8 5 18 15 28 25 38 35 48 45 58 55 68 65 70

Time (min)

41
Figure 24a:

Fuel Mass Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 7

Loss Rate

4.5

4

3.5

a)

4.)

0

3

2.5

2

1.5

l

.5

0

8 5 10 15 20 25 38 35 48 45 58 55 GO 65 ?8

Time (min)

Figure 24b:

Fuel Mass Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 8

Loss Rate

4.5

4

3.5 F

U

0)

-1

3 -

2.5 I2[-

1.5 1-

IF

.5

0 ................. ......... ......

0 5 10 15 28 25 38 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 78

Time (min)

42
Figure 25a:

Heat Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 7

Inflow 02

0-:

X

56

45

40

35

30

25

26

15

10

5

0 8 5 16 15 20 25 30 35 48 45 56 55 66 65 70

Time (min)

Figure 25b:

Heat Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 8

Inflow 02

X

50

45

46

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

0 5 16 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 58 55 66 65 70

Time (min)

43
I! 4 /

I

Figure 26 Photograph of FP5 Prior to Ignition

44
Figure 27 Photograph of FP5 at Time of Peak Intensity

45
Figure 28:

Plume Temperatures for Trash Fire Test 9

PLUME RT 3$ IN PLUME RT 54 IN

PLUME RT ?2 IN

LAJ

580

458

400

350

300

250

208

150

100

50

a

8 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 ?8

Time (min)

Figure 29:

Fuel Mass for Trash Fire Test 9

Raw Data - Curve Fit ---

B

X.

b0

:9

6

5

4

3

2

I

B

0 5 18 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 78

Time (min)

46
Figure 30:

Fuel Mass Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 9

Loss Rate

U

a,

0,

63

4,

a:

0

-J

a:

a:

2:

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

I

.5

8

158

148

138

128

118

188

98

88

70

68

50

48

38

28

18

8

0 5 18 15 20 25 30 35 48 45 58 55 68 65 70

Time (min)

Figure 31:

Heat Release Rate for Trash Fire Test 9

Inflo w 02

8 5 18 15 28 25 38 35 48 45 58 55 6G 65 70

Time (min)

47
DISTRIBUTION:

U.S. Government Printing Office

Receiving Branch (Attn: NRC Stock)

8610 Cherry Lane

Laurel, MD 20707

(200 copies for RP)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Electrical Engineering Branch

Attn: A. Datta (5)

Mail Stop NL 5650

Washington, DC 20555

Impell Corporation

Attn: Collin A. Lewis

350 Lennon Lane

Walnut Creek, CA 94598

Professional Loss Control, Inc.

Attn: Kenneth Dungan

P.O. Box 446

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Electric Power Research Institute

Nuclear Power Division

Attn: Joseph Matte III

3412 Hillview Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Risk Management

Tennessee Valley Authority

Attn: Ralph Thompson

5N 79A Lookout Place

Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801

ANI

Exchange Building, Suite 245

Attn: Dotti Sherman, Library

270 Farmington Avenue

Farmington, CT 06032

Underwriters Laboratories

Attn: Leon Przybyla

333 Pfingston Road

Northbrook, IL 60062

M&M Protection Consultants

Attn: Stan Chingo

222 South Riverside Plaza

Chicago, IL 60606

Impell Corporation

Attn: John E. Echternacht

350 Lennon Lane

Walnut Creek, CA 94598

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory

Attn: Harry K. Hasegawa

P.O. Box 5505 L-442

Livermore, CA 94550

Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant

CRBRP Project

Attn: Larry W. Clark

P.O. Box U

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Patton Fire Suppression Systems, Inc.

Attn: Richard Patton

4740 Myrtle Avenue, Suite B

Sacramento, CA 95841

Electricite De France

Thermal Production Headquarters

Attn: Jean-Pierre Berthet

EDF-DSRE-6, Rue Ampere

BP 114

93203 Saint Denis Cedex 1

FRANCE

Factory Mutual Research Corporation

Attn: Jeff Newman

1151 Boston-Providence Hwy.

Norwood, MA 02062

Florida Power Corporation

Attn: L. R. Perkins

System Fire Protection Coordinator

6115 Park Blvd.

Pinellas Park, FL 33565

American Electric Power Service Co.

Attn: Jack D. Grier

Fire Protection and HVAC Section

1 Riverside Plaza

P.O. Box 16631

Columbus, OH 43216-6631

Commonwealth Edison

Attn: Tom Grey

72 W. Adams Street

Room 1248

Chicago, IL 60603

48
Grinell Fire Protection Co.

Attn: Joe Priest

10 Dorrance Street

Providence, RI 02930

Brookhaven National Laboratories

Attn: John Boccio

Bldg. 130

Upton, NY 11793

U.S. Department of Energy

Albuquerque Operations Office

Attn: Andrew J. Pryor

P.O. Box 5400

Albuquerque, NM 87115

Edison Electric Institute

Attn: Jim Evans

1111 19th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036-3691

Dr. Ulrich Heinz Schneider

Gesamthochschule Kassel

Universitat des Landes Hessen

FB 14, Postfach 101380

3500 Kassel, FRG

Dr. Heinz-Willi Brenig

Gesellschaft fur Reaktorsicherheit

Schwertnergasse 1

D-5000 Koln 1,

FRG

Dr. Dietmar Hosser

Koning und Heunisch

Letzter Hasenpfach 21

6000 Frankfurt/Main 70,

FRG

NUPEC

No. 2 Akiyama Building

Attn: Toshihiko Sekine

6-2, 3-Chome, Toranomon

Minatoku, Tokyo 105,

JAPAN

Mr. Liemersdorf

Gesellschaft fur Reaktorsicherheit

Schwertnergasse 1

D-5000 Koln 1,

FRG

Centre Scientifique et

Technique du Batiment

Station de Recherche

Attn: Xavier Bodart

84 Avenue Jean-JauresChamps-sur-Marne

77428 Marne-La-Vallee Cedex 2

FRANCE

Societe Bertin & Cie

BP No. 3

Attn: Serge Galant

78373 Plaisir Cedex

FRANCE

H. Allen Matteson, Jr.

Code 1740.2

Ship Protection Division

Department of the Navy

David W. Taylor Naval Ship

Research and Development Center

Headquarters

Bethesda, MD 20084-5000

Mr. David Satterfield

National Center #4, Room 311

Naval Sea System Command (56Y52)

Washington, DC 20362

3141

3151

6400

6410

6417

6420

6430

6440

6442

6444

6446

6447

6447

6447

6447

6447

6447

6449

8024

S.

W.

A.

J.

D.

J.

N.

D.

W.

L.

H.

D.

D.

V.

S.

B.

W.

K.

P.

A. Landenberger (5)

L. Garner

W. Snyder

W. Hickman

D. Carlson

V. Walker

R. Ortiz

A. Dahlgren

A. von Riesemann

D. Buxton

J. Jacobus

L. Berry

King

Nicolette

P. Nowlen (15)

L. Spletzer

T. Wheelis

D. Bergeron

W. Dean

49

NRC FORM 335 U.&k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, I. REPORT NUMBER (A,,gnaoby TIDC, ad Vol No., itan"v

(2.841

NRCM 1102.

3201.3202 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE NUREG/CR4680, SAND86-0312

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. LEAVE BLANK

Heat and Mass Release for Some Transient Fuel

Source Fires: A Test Report 4. DATE REPORT COMPLETED

MONTH I YEAR

. AUTHORISI October 1986

G. DATE REPORT ISSUED

Steven P. Nowlen MONTH I YEAR

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (IfcludeZo Cod) B. PROJECT/TASK/WORK UNIT NUMBER

Sandia National Laboratories 9 FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

PO Box 5800

Albuquerque, NM 87185 A1010

10. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS fincudeZ~p Code) I I. TYPE OF REPORT

QE..S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Electrical Engineering Branch

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research b. PERIOD COVERED (,I,.i.u data)

Washington, DC 20555

12 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

13.... ABTR C (20 ..... wod s s

Nine fire tests using five different trash fuel source packages

were conducted by Sandia National Laboratories. This report

presents the findings of these tests. Data reported includes

heat and mass release rates, total heat and mass release, plume

temperatures, and average fuel heat of combustion.

These tests were conducted as a part of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission sponsored fire safety research program. Data from

these tests were intended for use in nuclear power plant probabilistic

risk assessment fire analyses. The results were also used as

input to a fire test program at Sandia investigating the vulnerability

of electrical control cabinets to fire.

The fuel packages tested were chosen to be representative of

small to moderately sized transient trash fuel sources of the

*type that would be found in a nuclear power plant. The highest

fire intensity encountered during these tests was 145 kW. Plume

temperatures did not exceed 820 0 C.

14. DOCUMENT ANALYSIS -a. KEYWORDS/DESCRIPTORS

Fire

b. IDENTIFIERSIOPEN.ENDED TERMS

Fire Characterization

Fire Testing

Transient Fuels

Trash Fires

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1986-773049/41020"