NUREG/CR-4679

SAND86-0311

RP

Printed February 1987

Quantitative Data on the Fire

Behavior of Combustible Materials

Found in Nuclear Power Plantt:

A Literature Review

S. P. Nowlen

Prepared by "

Sandia N ational Laboratories . .e C alif

Albuquerque. New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, Catifomia 94550

for the United States Department of Energy

under Contract DE-AC04-76DP00789

Prepared for

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

SF2900Q(8-81)

NUREG/CR-4679

SAND86-0311

RP

QUANTITATIVE DATA ON THE FIRE BEHAVIOR OF

COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS FOUND IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS:

A LITERATURE REVIEW

S. P. Nowlen

February 1987

Sandia National Laboratory

Albuquerque. New Mexico 87185

operated by

Sandia Corporation

for the

U. S. Department of Energy

Prepared for

Electrical Engineering Branch

Division of Engineering Technology

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington. D.C. 20555

Under Memorandum of Understanding DOE 40-550-75

NRC FIN A1010

ABSTRACT

This report presents the findings of a task in which currently available fire research literature was reviewed for

quantitative data on the burning characteristics of combustible materials that are found in nuclear power plants. The

materials considered for which quantitative data were

available include cable insulation materials, flammable

liquids, furniture, trash and general refuse, and wood and

wood products. A total of 90 figures and tables, taken primarily from the referenced works, which summarize the

available quantitative fire characterization information for

these materials is presented.

Eighty-two references are cited. Many more papers were considered though it was found that much of the data presented

on fire behavior of materials is of a qualitative nature.

This data often results from qualitative pass-fail or relative ranking tests. Information of a qualitative nature was

not considered for presentation in this review.

Fire characteristics emphasized include mass release, heat

release, distribution of heat released into radiative and

convective fractions, combustion products generation rates.

flame heights, ignitability. flame spread rate, and feedback

effects. The toxicity of combustion products was not considered in this study..

It is identified in the review that fire characterization

information for nuclear power plant type fuels is needed

primarily for use in risk assessment analyses. Much of the

data presented here may be used as stand-alone results for

use as input to environmental simulation computer codes.

This generally requires direct knowledge of the actual heat

release rate-of a given fire. Data of this type are presented for most fuel types including cable insulation in a

cable tray configuration, liquid fuels, and trash fires.

Other applications in risk assessment require the use of

computer simulation models that not only predict the environmental effects of a given fire but also attempt to

predict the growth and development history of a fire in a

particular fuel configuration. This requires more generalized information on the physical properties of the fuel

element. These properties include the common physical

properties such as density, thermal conductivity, and

specific heat, as well as other properties more directly

related to fire behavior including ignition criteria,

sensitivity of mass loss to fire feedback, flame spread

properties, and heat release per unit mass. Data of this

type, particularly for cable insulation materials, are

presented. These data were typically obtained from

small-scale tests and the limitations of these small-scale

test results are discussed.

-iii/iv-

CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ................... ....................... iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................ .................. 1

1. INTRODUCTION .................. ................... 4

1.1 Scope of the Current Work ...... ... .......... 4

1.2 The Fuel Sources of Concern ........ ......... 5

1.3 General Trends in Past and Present Fire

Research .................... .............. 7

1.4 Other Complementary Works ........ .......... 10

2. THE AVAILABLE DATA ON THE BURNING OF CABLE

INSULATION .............. .................... 13

2.1 Small-Scale Testing of Cable Insulation

Materials ...... .................. ...... 13

2.1.1 The OSU Rate of Heat Release

Apparatus ......... .............. 13

2.1.2 The FMRC Small-Scale Flammability

Apparatus ......... .............. 14

2.1.3 Small-Scale Cable Testing at LLNL . 16

2.1.4 Other Small-Scale Testing Efforts . 19

2.2 Large-scale Cable and Cabinet Fire Tests . 20

2.2.1 Testing by Sandia National

Laboratory ........ .............. 20

2.2.2 Testing by Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory ........ .............. 22

2.2.3 Testing by Factory Mutual Research

Corporation ....... ............. 25

2.2.4 Testing by Bell Laboratory ...... .. 30

2.2.5 Testing by Lawrence Berkeley

Laboratory ........ .............. 31

3. CHARACTERIZATION OF FURNITURE FIRES .. ....... 33

4. CHARACTERIZATION OF LIQUID FUEL FIRES . ..... 34

4.1 Introduction ....... .... ................ .... 34

4.2 Estimating Pool Fire Burning Rates ..... 34

4.3 Ignitability of High-Fire point Liquid

Fuels . . .................................... 36

4.4 Characterization of Hydraulic Fluid Spray

Fires .............. .................... 38

5. CHARACTERIZATION OF WOOD AND WOOD PRODUCT FIRES . 339
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

6. CHARACTERIZATION OF TRASH AND GENERAL REFUSE

FIRES ................. ...................... 40

6.1 Introduction ............................... 40

6.2 Trash Fire Testing by LBL ... .......... 40

6.3 Trash Fire Testing by SNL ... .......... 41

6.4 Predictive Correlations for Trash Fires . . 41

7. CONCLUSIONS ............... ................... 43

REFERENCES ................ ...................... 46

- vi -
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

I Histogram showing amounts of oil typically

reported as transient combustible fuels

in NPP inspection reports (Reference 3] . . . 53

2 Histogram showing amounts of solvent

typically reported as transient combustible

fuels in NPP inspection reports

[Reference 3] .............. ................ 54

3 Histogram showing typical amounts of paint

reported as transient combustible fuels in

NPP inspection reports [Reference 3] . . . . 55

4 Histogram showing typical amounts of paper

and/or trash reported as transient

combustible fuels in NPP inspection

reports (Reference 3] ..................... 56

5 Comparison of heat release rate values

obtained for PMMA samples from a modified

OSU Rate of Heat Release Apparatus using

oxygen consumption and conventional

calorimetry methods [Reference 24] ..... 57

6 Comparison of heat release rate data for

PMMA samples from a modified OSU apparatus

and the NBS-II apparatus at a nominal heat

flux of 25 kW/m 2 based on oxygen

consumption [Reference 24] .. ......... .. 58

7 Mass burning rate per unit exposed

surface area versus net external heat flux

for various polymers [Reference 30] ..... 59

a Mass burning rate per unit exposed

surface area versus net external heat flux

for various organic fluids [Reference 30] . . 60

9 Correlation between yield of CO2 and

actual heat of combustion for cable

samples [Reference 31] ... ........... .. 67

10 Correlation between actual heat of

combustion and percentage of cable weight

attributed to insulation [Reference 31] . . . 67

-vii-
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure Page

11 Correlation between yield of unburned

hydrocarbons and percent of cable weight

attributed to insulation (Reference 31]

12 Correlation between yield of carbon

monoxide and percent of cable weight

attributed to insulation [Reference 31]

13 Time to ignition of cable samples

[Reference 43] . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

* . 68

74

14 Rate of flame spread versus exposure

heat flux for LLNL small-scale radiant

exposure tests [Reference 44] ........ 80

I5 Influence of oxygen concentration on

surface mass loss flux and surface

temperature for nonflaming PMMA and PE

[Reference 45] . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 Effect of wire diameter and wire

orientation on flame propagation rate for

PMMA and PE threads [Reference 46]

17 Estimated heat release rates for heptane

pool experiments and heptane pool - cable

tray tests from SNL/UL fire tests

[Reference 49] . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 Burn mode analysis threshold diagrams

with example data from actual fire tests

included; time increases clockwise around

plotted data [Reference 54] ... ........

19 Experimental apparatus used in LLNL

vertical cable fire tests [Reference 54]

20 End view of cable installations

illustrating packing densities; note that

slats are used to separate layers but no

cable trays as such are used

[Reference 43] . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 Comparison of mass loss-based and oxygen

consumption-based heat release rates for

LLNL Tests (a) VCAB-2 (Hypalon) and

(b) VCAB-5 (PVC) [Reference 43]......

. . 81

* . 82

83

* . 84

. . 85

• . 88

-viii-
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure

22 Three-dimensional view of test enclosure

used for FMRC/EPRI cable tray fire tests

(References 56. 57] .......... ...........

23 Cable tray arrangement used in Test 3 of

second series of FMRC/EPRI cable tray fire

tests [Reference 57] . ........

Page

* 90

. 91

24 Estimated actual heat release rate

versus time for FMRC/EPRI Tests 2 and 3 of

the second series (Reference 57] . .... .. 92

25 Mass release rate versus area of

involvement for first series of FMRC/EPRI

PE/PVC extinguishment fire tests

[Reference 21] ......... ............... 93

26 Area of involvement versus time for first

series of FMRC/EPRI extinguishment fire

tests [Reference 21] ..................... 94

27 Mass flux versus exposure heat flux for

PE/PVC cable #5 based on data of

Tewarson [31] and Lee [32] ............. .. 95

28 Calculated exposure heat flux versus

area of involvement for FMRC/EPRI cable

tray fire tests involving PE/PVC cables . . . 96

29 Heat release rate versus time for the

FMRC/EPRI free-burn PE/PVC cable fire

tests based on mass release rate and heat

of combustion .......... ............... .. 97

30 Heat release rate versus time for the

FMRC/EPRI extinguishment PE/PVC cable fire

tests based on mass release and heat of

combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31 Flame spread results for Bell Labs

Steiner Tunnel fire tests for various PVC

cables; note that the J32 jacket material

had "improved fire retardancy" over the

J28 material [Reference 59] .... ........

* 98

101

- ix-
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure Page

32 Heat release rate based on oxygen consumption for exposure source fire used in

UCB/LBL cabinet fire testing [Reference 60] . 102

33 Heat release rate based on oxygen

consumption for February 14. 1983 UCB/LBL

cabinet fire test (Reference 60] ...... .. 103

34 Test results for molded fiberglass chair

tested by Lawson (Reference 61] ......... .. 106

35 Test results for wood frame chair tested

by Lawson (Reference 61] ... .......... 107

36 Test results for set of four stackable

metal frame chairs tested by Lawson

(Reference 61] ......... ............... .. 108

37 Description of predictive correlation for

determining peak heat release rate (in

kilowatts) for upholstered chairs similar to

those tested by Babrauskas [Reference 62] . . 109

38 Comparison of peak heat release rate

using correlation described in Figure 37

and actual test results [Reference 62] . . . 110

39 Linear fuel consumption rate and flame

height to pan diameter ratio versus

container diameter for liquid fuel fires

[Reference 19] ............. ............... I

40 Correlation for estimation of large pool

fire fuel mass consumption rate

[Reference 67]) ......... ............... .. 112

41 Comparison of experimental data and

predictive correlation of Figure 40 for

gasoline and LNG pool fires

(Reference 67] ............. ............... 114

42 Schematic of large-scale experiment

using a heptane source fire of diameter

1.2 m. Cylinders containing the

high-fire point liquids are placed

noncontiguous with, but adjacent to. the

heptane source fire [Reference 71] . ....... 116
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure Page

43 Peak and first one-minute average heat

release rates versus material density for

wood-based materials (Reference 18] ..... .. 119

44 First five-minute and first ten-minute

average heat release rates versus material

density for wood-based materials

[Reference 18] ......... ............... .. 120

45 Correlation for predicting flame spread

velocity of wood surfaces as recommended

by Quintiere and Harkleroad and presented

by Lee [Reference 21] .... ............ .. 125

46 (a) - (i): Description of test fuel

sources and summary of test results for

UCB/LBL Ignition Source Fire Tests

[Reference 75]) ......... ............... .. 127

47 Summary of UCB/LBL Ignition Source Fire

Test heat release rates [Reference 75] . . . 136

48 Measured radiative heat flux delivered

to a target 4 feet from the fuel source

during the SNL Ignition Source Fire Tests

described in Table 36 [Reference 48] . . . . 138

49 Estimated peak radiative flux versus

separation distance for SNL Ignition

Source Fire Tests [Reference 48] ...... .. 139

50 (a) - (e): Heat release rates for SNL

Trash Fire Tests described in Table 37 . . . 141

51 Correlation between peak heat release

rate per unit exposed surface area versus

effective fire diameter for trash fires

[Reference 21] ......... ............... .. 146

52 Correlation between peak heat release

rate of trash fires and effective fire

diameter as a function of packing density

[Reference 21] ......... ............... .. 147

53 Envelope observed by Lee to encompass

behavior of trash fires [Reference 21] . . . 148

-xi-
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I Physical properties of cables used in

FMRC small-scale characterization tests

(Reference 31] . ............

2 Heat of combustion values for cables

tested in FMRC small-scale apparatus

including breakdown of convective and

radiative portions of heat release

(Reference 31] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 Convective and radiative fractions of

actual heat release for FMRC small-scale

cable fire tests [Reference 31] ... ........

4 Actual heat release rates from cable

samples during FMRC small-scale cable fire

tests [Reference 31] ............

61

62

63

64

5 Cable mass loss sensitivity values for

FMRC small-scale tests [Reference 31] . . . . 65

6 Generation rates of primary fire

products during FMRC small-scale cable

fire tests (Reference 31] ... .......... .. 66

7 Total and actual heat of combustion

values at various external heat flux

exposure levels for various fuels

[Reference 34] ......... ............... 69

8 Actual, radiative, and convective

fractions of total heat of combustion for

various fuels (Reference 34] .. ........ 70

9 Convective fraction of actual heat of

combustion for polymers (Reference 34] . . . 71

10 Mean distribution of carbon in the

combustion products of liquids and polymers

[Reference 34] ......... ............... 72

11 Heat generation values for use in oxygen

consumption and carbon dioxide generation

calorimetry methods for liquids and

polymers (Reference 34] .... ........... .. 73

12 High temperature degradation products

for PVC formulations [Reference 43] ..... .. 75

-xii-
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table

13 High temperature degradation products

for Neoprene formulations [Reference 43]

14 High temperature degradation products

for rubber formulations [Reference 43]

15 High temperature degradation products

for Polyethylene formulations

(Reference 43] . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 Physical characteristics of cables

tested by LLNL in small-scale radiant

exposure chamber [Reference 44] . . . . .

76

77

* . 78

17 Physical characteristics of cables used

in LLNL vertical cable tests through FY83

[Reference 43] . . . . . . . . . . . . .

* . 79

* . 86

* . 87

18 Tabulated summary of LLNL vertical cable

fire tests conducted through FY83

[Reference 43] . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19 (a) Physical characteristics of cables

tested by LLNL in FY84 and summary of

tests results for FY84 tests (b) without

and (c) with radiant heat exposure panels

[Reference 44] . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 Comparison of peak heat release rates

reported by Sumitra [56] and those

calculated in the present work based on

mass loss rates reported by Sumitra (56]

and heat-of-combustion values reported by

Tewarson [31] for the FMRC/EPRI cable

tray fire tests ...................

21 PVC compound formulations of cables used

in Bell Labs fire tests [Reference 59]

22 Physical characteristics and heat

content of cables used in Bell Labs fire

tests [Reference 59] ..........

23 Description of chairs tested by Lawson

(Reference 61] . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

. . 99

100

100

* . 104

-xiii-
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page

24 Summary of fire test data reported by

Lawson [Reference 61] .... ............. 105

25 Parameter values recommended by

Babrauskas for use in correlation

described in Figure 40 (note that

nomenclature matches that of Figure 40)

[Reference 67] ......... ............... .. 113

26 Critical fire temperatures for

hydrocarbon liquids and ignition times for

deep pools exposed to 1.2 meter diameter

heptane pool fire [Reference 71] ...... .. 115

27 Unconfined spill depths for hydrocarbon

liquids on epoxy-coated concrete and steel

[Reference 71] ..... ............... .... 115

28 Results of liquid fuel spray fire tests

[Reference 72] ......... ............... .. 117

29 Summary of results from Table 28 for

fluids at 40 0 C [Reference 72] ...... ........ 118

30 Comparison of actual heat of combustion

from high pressure spray fire to total heat

of combustion from calorimeter testing

[Reference 72] ......... ............... .. 118

31 Effect of external heat flux on heat

release rate and time to ignition behavior

of wood-based materials [Reference 18] . . . 121

32 Effects of fire retardant treatment on

heat release rate and time to ignition

behavior of Douglas fir lumber

[Reference 18] ......... ............... .. 122

33 Summary of heat release rate behavior of

wood-based materials [Reference 18] ..... .. 123

34 Summary of heat release rate and time to

ignition behavior of wood-based materials

[Reference 18] ......... ............... .. 124

-xiv-
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page

35 Parameters for use in correlation

presented in Figure 45 as recommended by

Quintiere and Harkleroad and presented by

Lee [Reference 21] ....... ............. .. 126

36 Description of fuel sources tested

during SNL Ignition Source Fire Tests

(Reference 48]...... . . ............. .. 137

37 Summary of SNL Trash Fire Test source

fuel configurations and test results . . . . 140

-xv-
0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the findings of a literature review on

currently available fire characterization data as they apply

to nuclear power plant fire situations. Fuel sources for

which quantitative fire characterization data is reported

are:

- Cable insulations.

- Furnishings (primarily chairs).

- Flammable liquids.

- Wood and wood products, and

- General trash and refuse.

Additional potential combustible fuel sources identified for

which no quantitative fire characterization data was found

are:

- Nonwaste Configurations of Paper (drawing racks.

computer paper, procedures manuals. etc.).

- Computer Disc and Tape Storage Racks. and

- Anticontamination Clothing Storage Racks and Disposal

Hampers.

Data on each of the first five categories of fuel material

are presented in the report. The characteristics associated

with the release of heat and mass are focused on as those of

primary concern. For some fuel sources additional information on flame spread rates, flame heights, and combustion

product yield rates is also presented.

Cable insulation materials are identified as the major combustible fuel source for most areas of a nuclear power plant.

Quantitative data from both large and small-scale test

efforts are reported. It is pointed out that the use of

small-scale test data is still considered an uncertain prospect at best within the fire research community. Inherent

difficulties in the construction of appropriate test apparatuses and in interpretation of the test data are discussed.

A certain amount of large-scale test data on the burning of

cable insulation materials is also presented. While largescale test data is not as readily available, its use involves

less interpretation and extrapolation when applied properly.

Large-scale cable fire test data. however, is rather limited

in that large-scale test efforts have typically focused on

the effectiveness of fire suppression systems rather than on
the fire itself. It is also noted that very few welldocumented large-scale cable fire test efforts have been

undertaken.

For furnishing materials it was found that the National

Bureau of Standards has engaged in a series of furniture

fire characterization efforts. Furnishings such as chairs

are primarily of concern in the control and computer areas

of a plant. Data from the NBS test efforts which utilized

chairs similar to those one might expect to find in a nuclear

power plant are presented. This data includes the rates of

heat and mass release for typical furnishings. A predictive

correlation is also presented for use in estimating the

expected heat release rate of a given chair.

For flammable liquids it was found that a large base of data

exists on the burning of a pool fire. For a variety of

liquids a correlation is presented which provides a prediction of the mass release rate of a liquid pool fire based on

certain properties of the liquid and the size of the pool.

High pressure fluid spray fires are also identified as

potential forms in which a liquid fuel fire may be

encountered. It was found that only very limited data on

the burning of spray fires were available. This area appears

to be a relatively new area of research.

For wood and wood products, most of the information presented is taken from a review by Chamberlain.[18] In

Chamberlain's review a variety of wood and wood-based

products were considered. A large base of data was presented by Chamberlain. Reproduction of this data in the

present work was considered redundant, and hence, for this

category of fuel limited examples of the data in

Chamberlain's work are presented.

The final category for which quantitative fire characterization data was found is trash and general refuse. Within

this category four studies are cited. In general it was

found that a fairly complete data base on the heat and mass

release rates for small trash fuel source packages exists.

The reader should note that the data presented here are a

compilation of the works of many researchers from many

facilities. While fire research has been underway for many

years, the conventions and standards for data presentation,

data collection, and technical terminology are not fully

consistent. For instance, in large-scale fire characterization testing, the degree to which room effects such as oxygen

depletion, smoke, local temperatures, wall/ceiling proximity.

and ventilation configuration and rate effect the development

of a given fire are often not directly addressed. Thus, in

using a particular data set, it is important that the user

-2-
review the test setup and procedures in order to insure that

the data are used appropriately. In this review an attempt

has been made to identify any particular aspects of each data

set which may effect the validity of certain end uses of the

data. The ultimate responsibility for appropriateness of

data usage rests with the user and it is recommended that a

review of the original references be made before utilizing

the data presented here.

As a result of this review it is recommended that should

further fire characterization efforts be undertaken that

they focus primarily on larger scale cable fire characterization tests. Cable insulation is the major source of

potential fires in a nuclear power plant. In most cases.

other than very large spills of flammable liquids, other fuel

sources within nuclear power plants will primarily play the

role of ignition and exposure sources for the cable insulation as opposed to representing significant hazards in and

of themselves. For this reason it would be of interest to

gain a more thorough understanding of the behavior and

characteristics of fires involving large arrays of cable

trays.

It should be noted that to be truly helpful in reducing the

uncertainty associated with the burning of cables such tests

should be conducted such that the results may be used to

validate the small-scale test data already available. This

should first begin with an investigation of fires in intermediate scale cable tray installations, moving eventually to

larger scales. If it can be demonstrated that the smallscale test results can be successfully used to predict largescale fire behavior, then the need for large-scale test

efforts will diminish. If this validation process shows no

ability to predict large-scale fire behavior based on smallscale results, then the data from large-scale tests will

become more valuable.

This necessarily implies a coupling between experimental and

analytical techniques. Validation of the small-scale test

results will be at least in part dependent on the validation

of computer simulation models which utilize those results.

A number of such models of the behavior of cable fires are

identified.

-3-
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope of the Current Work

This is a report on the findings of a review of currently

available literature on heat and mass release rates in fires.

The purpose of this review was to determine the current state

of knowledge regarding the burning characteristics of various

types of combustible materials found in safety-related areas

of nuclear power plants. Other areas of the plant, such as

the administrative offices, will have significantly different

fuel loadings than will the plant in general. However, these

areas are not critical to safe operation of the plant and

hence are not specifically considered in this review.

This effort was conducted primarily in support of separate

efforts investigating the damageability of various components

in fire environments and efforts to develop mathematical

tools capable of predicting fire environment development.

Emphasis in this review is placed on those combustion

characteristics which influence the development of the

thermal and corrosive aspects of the environments, as

opposed to the toxicity/habitability aspects of the environment. (For a review of toxicological studies refer to two

works by Tewarson.[l.2])

The discussion will focus primarily on the heat release rate

characteristics of the fuels of concern and the factors which

influence heat release rate behavior. Material characteristics closely related to heat release behavior are the mass

release characteristics, the heat of combustion, the burning

efficiency, and the distribution of the total heat release

into convective and radiative fractions. These additional

factors will be discussed as appropriate. Also to be discussed will be the generated products of combustion where

such data is available.

Tests which provide this type of data have been conducted on

both a small-scale and a large-scale basis (large-scale here

will include what some investigators refer to as intermediate

scale). Small-scale tests are generally those performed on

very small samples of the material of concern. These samples

will typically be on the order of a few square inches of

material. Large-scale tests are generally those conducted

using fuel sources which approach the actual installation

scale. This definition is somewhat flexible as for many

situations, particularly cable tray installations, it is

impractical to use mockups of full-scale installations due

to their complexity and the magnitude of material involved.

Tests which use fuel sample configurations with a scale on

the order of feet in size are generally classified as large

(or intermediate) scale tests.

-4-
The reader should note that the data presented here are a

compilation of the works of many researchers from many

facilities. While fire research has been underway for many

years. the conventions and standards for data presentation.

data collection, and technical terminology are not fully

consistent. For instance, in large-scale fire characterization testing, the degree to which room effects such as oxygen

depletion, smoke, local temperatures, wall/ceiling proximity.

and ventilation configuration and rate effect the development

of a given fire are often not directly addressed. Thus, in

using a particular data set, it is important that the user

review the test setup and procedures in order to insure that

the data are used appropriately. In this review an attempt

has been made to identify any particular aspects of each data

set which may effect the validity of certain end uses of the

data. The ultimate responsibility for appropriateness of

data usage rests with the user and it is recommended that a

review of the original references be made before utilizing

the data presented here.

The body of this report begins with a definition of the fuel

sources of concern. This is followed by a general discussion of trends in current and past fire research, and a

brief description of several works which complement the

present work. In Sections 2 through 6 the available data of

the type described above on the fuel sources of concern is

presented. The report closes with a discussion of the perceived needs with regards to characterization of the fuels

found in nuclear power plants from the viewpoint of both

stand-alone results and predictive modeling of fire and fire

environment development.

1.2 The Fuel Sources of Concern

The first step in any study must be to define the problem.

In the present case this implies the definition of the fuel

sources of concern in nuclear power plants. Combustible

fuel sources are commonly divided into two broad categories;

the in situ fuel sources and the transient fuel sources.

The in situ fuel sources are defined as those fuel sources

which are present in a plant on a permanent or semipermanent

basis either by design or by practice. The transient fuel

sources will be defined as all other fuel sources and are

presumably introduced into the plant on a temporary basis.

While a fuel's status as either an in situ or transient fuel

source has no bearing on the availability of fire characterization data. this convention will be used for convenience

of presentation.

The in situ fuel load is clearly dominated by the electrical

cable insulating materials in most areas of a nuclear power

-5-
plant. These electrical cables will be found in both the

cable routing trays throughout the plant and in the

electrical control cabinets. These cables will be made up

of a variety of cable types specific to each plant site.

Even within a single plant a variety of cable types may be

found. The primary characteristics which distinguish one

cable type from another with respect to fire behavior include

cable jacket formulation, cable insulator formulation, multiversus single-conductor, cable size. and flammable to nonflammable material weight ratios.

In addition to the cable insulation, the control and computer

rooms will have in situ combustible fuel loadings of paper

(in the form of instruction and procedure manuals, drawings.

and documentation manuals), storage racks of computer discs

and tapes, and a limited amount of office furniture

(primarily chairs). Other plant areas, such as diesel

generator and pump areas, will contain combustible diesel

fuel, lubricating oils. and hydraulic fluid. (As described

below, each of these additional items can also appear as

transient fuel sources depending on the specific location

and circumstances.)

One fuel type which may be counted as either an in situ or

transient fuel source depending on the specific plant application includes such items as anticontamination protective

clothing storage racks (for unused clothes), and hampers for

disposal of these items after use. In some cases these items

may be located in a particular location for extended periods

of time. In other cases they may be installed on a very

short-term basis during specific plant operations.

The transient fuel loads will be much more difficult to describe. as a comprehensive study of transient fuel sources

has not yet been completed for nuclear power plants. Some

insights can be gained from the results of a study by

Wheelis.[3] As a part of this study, a review was made of

37 Inspection and Enforcement (I-and-E) reports, covering

approximately 25 plants for the period 1979-1984. The study

also included interviews with 35 nuclear power plant

inspectors. One of the problems with this data base is that

the specific quantity of material found is not always

reported by the inspector. There is also some question as

to how consistently transient fuels are actually reported.

In general, however, certain trends were clear.

Wheelis found that reported transient fuel sources could be

grouped into five major categories: untreated wood, paper

products (in the form of trash), oil and/or grease, cleaning

solvents, and paint. The transient fuels were in general

found in relatively small quantities. For instance, oil and

-6-
grease were typically reported in quantities of five gallons

or less and other flammable liquids in quantities of one

gallon or less. as shown in Figures 1 through 3. Paper

products and general refuse were reported in quantities from

a single candy wrapper or matchbook to an overflowing

industrial waste container, although partially full 55-

gallon-drum-sized industrial waste containers were the norm.

as shown in Figure 4. Untreated wood was generally found in

small to moderate quantities (i.e.. a couple of planks or a

sheet of plywood), although on occasion very large quantities

were reported (usually involving some form of construction

or repair scaffolding).

One significant exception to this general rule was that in

more than one instance very large quantities of waste oil

were reported. For instance in one case. 60 55-gallon drums

of waste oil were reported to have been found in one plant's

turbine building. In another case. a single 55-gallon

drum of liquid labeled "kerosene" was found in a turbine

building outside the entrance to the diesel board room. In

a third case. 12 open drums, each containing as much as

several gallons of oil, were found in an emergency diesel

generator room. Cases such as this were not common and

typically involved a plant in which large machinery was currently undergoing, or had recently undergone, major

servicing.

Thus. the fuels of concern in the present study can be summarized as follows:

1. Cable insulation

2. Office-type furnishings

3. Paper (nonwaste) in the form of

a. procedures manuals

b. computer documentation manuals

c. computer printer paper

d. drawings

4. Storage racks for computer tapes and disks

5. Flammable liquids such as

a. diesel fuel

b. lubricating oils

c. cleaning solvents

d. grease

6. Wood and wood products

7. Anticontamination clothing storage racks and disposal

hampers

-7-
8. General trash and refuse

The author knows of quantitative data available for each of

these fuel sources other than categories 3. 4. and 7. Each

of the remaining categories will be discussed in the sections

which follow.

1.3 General Trends in Past and Present Fire Research

It is useful when undertaking an effort such as this to first

look at the historical factors which have resulted in the

availability of the data one is seeking. Currently some

12.000 people in the United States lose their lives to fire

each year with an additional 300.000 seriously injured.[4]

This loss of human life is accompanied by an estimated four

billion dollars in property damage each year.[4] It has been

the long-term continuation of staggering annual fire loss

statistics which has initiated and continues to drive the

bulk of research on unwanted, uncontrolled fire.

Research on undesired fires has been primarily sponsored by

the insurance industry and by various government agencies at

both private and government research centers. More recently

the subject of undesired fires has become a legitimate topic

for study at an academic level as well. with more and more

research being conducted at universities around the country.

Differences between the motivating forces which drive various

groups to study undesired fires have led to a divergence of

the thrust of fire research as well.

Insurance industry groups have sponsored a variety of studies

on fire prevention, detection, and suppression as well as a

number of studies on the toxicological effects of combustion

products. For innumerable references of this type one need

only consult the annual summaries of research activities

published by such groups as Factory Mutual Research

Corporation. While these studies have led to a greater

understanding of fire phenomena overall, they do not

generally have direct applicability to the current review.

The main objectives of these tests are typically to

characterize the environment created by the fire and fire

suppression efforts under certain specific fire conditions.

as opposed to characterization of the fire itself. These

studies typically do not include specific instrumentation

for the calculation of heat. mass. and combustion products

release rates.

Government regulations have resulted in a variety of qualitative tests which are intended to provide comparative

measures of the behavior of different materials under carefully prescribed conditions.[5.6.7] These types of tests

-8-
will compare materials based on such aspects of fire behavior

as ignitability. flame spread rate, smoke production, toxic

gas production, and contributed heat release. These tests

do not provide the type of quantitative data sought in this

study. Indeed the validity of tests of this type for even

qualitative judgments has been questioned.[5.6,7]

University studies on uncontrolled fire have been primarily

concerned with the fundamentals of combustion including flame

spread mechanisms, plume dynamics, buoyancy fundamentals.

chemical kinetics, and the development of computer simulation

models. The data obtained in these studies is generally of

such a fundamental nature that it is not the type sought in

the present review.

Many of the large-scale fire tests conducted, particularly

those conducted on cables and cable trays, are qualificationtype tests. That is to say, the materials are tested in a

relatively large-scale configuration and qualitatively ranked

as to their performance in the tests (as defined by the particular test in question) on a comparative basis. Other

tests have been conducted on a large scale to study the

effectiveness of suppression systems in extinguishing various

fuels. These two types of large-scale tests will typically

measure various environmental conditions created by the

experimental fire without addressing the details of fire

growth and spread. Very few of these tests attempt to

characterize the experimental fire itself in more than a very

superficial way.

This lack, of information is due, at least in part, to the

fact that large-scale fire test instrumentation *is still in

a rather primitive state. Much of the instrumentation and

many of the techniques used in fire research today have been

developed in very recent years. For instance, oxygen consumption calorimetry was first investigated for use in largescale fire testing in the late 70s and has only recently

become a practical and widely accepted tool for the calculation of heat release rates during large-scale fire tests.

Similar methods which calculate heat release rates based on

the generation rates of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide

are also relatively recent developments.[8] Prior to the

advent of these methods, the primary method for measuring the

actual heat release rates during large fire tests was to

conduct the test in a calibrated test enclosure and carefully track the flow of heat into and out of the test chamber. This process was very involved and very few calibrated

facilities were available. This method introduced a number

of uncertainties in the calculation process and hence the

data obtained was often questioned. Other methods, such as

integration of the plume flow and attempts to measure the

total radiative power of the fire, have also been attempted

and have yielded questionable results.

-9-
Another source of test instrumentation development has been

the Home Fire Project.[9] This project was sponsored by the

National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research (NBS

CFR) and conducted in conjunction with Factory Mutual

Research Corporation (FMRC) and Harvard University between

1972 and 1982. In addition to a number of theoretical

studies, several large-scale fire tests were performed.

These tests were primarily concerned with fires in residential structures and hence the fuels used were primarily

furniture (especially bedding material) and wall finishing

materials. While most of the data obtained during these

tests does not have direct applicability to this study, as

the fuels used were not those of concern here, these tests

have resulted in a much greater understanding of the phenomena of fire overall. During the course of this project

many advances in the state of the art in fire test instrumentation were made, particularly in the area of flame

radiation measurements.

While many of the early fire tests, particularly those on

cable fires, were conducted on a large-scale basis, the clear

trend in more recent studies has been towards small scale

material characterization tests. This trend towards smallscale testing is motivated by two factors. First, the cost

of full-scale testing is much greater than is that of smallscale tests. Secondly. the state of fire modeling through

computer simulation has been greatly advanced in recent years

(particularly by the above-mentioned Home Fire Project), and

small-scale materials testing can provide the quantitative

values for the commonly needed input parameters.[10-16]

Small-scale experiments will typically measure quantities

such as heat release rate, smoke production rate, rate of

generation of certain combustion products, and mass release

rates using very small samples of the material in question.

These properties are usually measured on a "per unit area of

exposed surface" basis, and as functions of such parameters

as exposure heat flux (either incident or net), and oxygen

concentration. Small-scale tests have generally attempted

to address the issue of feedback effects on fire behavior by

carefully controlling the conditions under which the test is

conducted.

These small-scale test results do have drawbacks. Many

investigators have questioned the degree to which small-scale

test results reflect true fire behavior.[lO,,1113] Until

these small-scale test results have been more fully validated

through larger-scale test data, caution must be exercised in

the use of small-scale test results in the prediction of

full-scale fire behavior.

-10-
1.4 Other Complementary Works

There are several works which complement the present review

in such a way as to be worthy of special note. These works

are recommended as supplements to the presentation of the

present work. Each of these works will be discussed in

greater detail as appropriate in the sections which follow.

Tewarson-[1] performed a review of combustion and pyrolysis

products generated by burning polyvinyl chloride (PVC). This

review includes a number of references on PVC combustion/

pyrolysis studies. PVC is one of the commonly used materials

in the formation of cable insulation and jacketing material.

This type of cable insulation can be found particularly in

the older nuclear power plants. A significant amount of

data is presented in the report on both the rates of specific

product release and the toxicity of those products. Hydrogen

chloride (HCl) is identified as the major product of PVC

combustion. Benzene. smoke. toluene. vinyl chloride, carbon

monoxide, and other saturated and unsaturated hydrocarbons

are also identified as products of PVC combustion.

Cahn and Mishima [17] of Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL)

recently performed a review of combustion products literature for the NRC Office of Regulatory Research, Division of

Risk Analysis. This review was concerned with combustible

fuel sources in nuclear fuel cycle facilities and focused on

the following materials:

- Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) (glovebox viewing

windows)

- Polystyrene (PS) (ion exchange resin)

- PVC (wrapping/covers)

- Elastomers (i.e.. rubber and other plastics used as

seals/gaskets)

- Cellulose

- Cellulosic materials (i.e., paper and rags for

cleaning)

Organic fluids (i.e.. kerosene as liquid-liquid

extraction solvent and hydraulic fluids as

lubricants)

Cable insulation materials were not considered. For those

materials that were considered, many studies were reviewed

and data from these studies was compiled and presented in

the report. The data presented forms an excellent data base

for these materials. Some of the findings from this work

will be presented as appropriate in the sections that follow.

-11-
Chamberlain [18] conducted a study of the burning characteristics of wood-based materials. This work was sponsored

by the National Forest Products Association. The materials

investigated included a number of raw types of lumber as

well as a number of processed wood products including

plywood, particle board, and acoustical tiles. This type of

material can be found in a variety of forms in a nuclear

power plant. As appropriate some of the findings of Chamberlain's review will be presented in the sections which follow.

For a more comprehensive treatment of the burning behavior

of these materials the reader is directed to Chamberlain's

work.

Hall [19] reviewed the properties of flammable liquid pool

fire burning. This work presents a great deal of information on many of the early fire research studies which

involved pool fires. Hall's work presents an excellent

treatment of both theoretical and practical aspects of pool

fire behavior. Some of the findings of this review will be

presented in the sections which follow. This information is

supplemented by more recent publications which utilize the

information presented by Hall and others in order to form

predictive correlations for pool fire behavior.

Another work worth noting is Hilado's Flammability Handbook

for Plastics.[20] This work contains a compilation of certain fundamental properties such as density, thermal

conductivity, specific heat, heat of gasification, heat of

combustion, stoichiometric flame temperature, and decomposition temperatures for a variety of plastic materials. While

these plastics are not actual cable insulation samples, many

are the basic types of polymer used in the formulation of

cable insulations. Many of the fire retardant materials used

in plastics formations are also presented and discussed.

This work also provides insights into the burning characteristics and behavior of plastic materials. Discussions on

the processes by which various plastics are formed, the end

uses to which plastics are distributed, and the characteristics of various classifications of plastics are also presented. The tables contained in Hilado's work are far too

extensive to reproduce here.

Lee (21] of the National Bureau of Standards performed a

review similar to the present work. Lee's work consolidates

the data from a number of studies conducted by the NBS and

others. Lee's review was not as extensive as the current

review. Many of the sources cited here were not considered

by Lee. The data from one of the more extensive large-scale

cable tray fire studies (the FMRC/EPRI extinguishment tests)

was examined in detail. Lee also attempted to obtain useful

-12-
correlations for the burning of trash fire sources using the

data from a number of experimental studies. A limited presentation was also made of the characteristics of wood and

liquid fuel fires. Lee's findings are presented in the

present work as appropriate. Particular consideration is

given to Lee's treatment of the FMRC/EPRI cable fire tests.

2. THE AVAILABLE DATA ON THE BURNING OF CABLE INSULATION

2.1 Small-Scale Testing of Cable Insulation Materials

As was stated previously, there has been a trend in recent

fire research studies towards small-scale characterization

testing. Most of the information of a quantitative nature

on the behavior of cable insulating materials under fire

exposure conditions has been obtained using various small

scale test apparatuses. The data of this type available

from a number of test apparatuses is discussed in the sections which follow.

The largest drawback to the use of these data is that smallscale test results have not been validated to any great

extent. It is still uncertain to what extent the response

of these materials in small-scale tests reflects the behavior

of these materials under large-scale exposure conditions.

Thus, the validity of small-scale data for quantitatively

representing actual fire behavior is still in

question.[10.11.13]

The data are presented here as the trend is towards this type

of small-scale characterization testing. It is important

that one understand the type of information available from

these investigations, and the limitations and drawbacks of

the data presented. The reader is cautioned to use this data

only with the full, recognition of the current debate

regarding the validity of the test results. Caution must be

exercised in the use and extrapolation of this data beyond

the actual test conditions.

2.1.1 The OSU Rate of Heat Release Apparatus

One of the more popularly used small-scale test apparatuses

is the Ohio State University (OSU) Rate of Heat Release

Apparatus.[22.23] This is the only commercially available

apparatus of its kind and is now in use in some two dozen

facilities.[24] As is. the apparatus uses conventional calorimetry calculations (as opposed to oxygen consumption calorimetry) with a number of numerical correction schemes

(25-27] available for compensation of. the data for thermal

lag in the apparatus.

-13-
Recently. Krause and Gann [28] modified an OSU apparatus to

make use of oxygen consumption calorimetry methods. Their

results using the modified apparatus showed large differences

between the values for heat release rate predicted based on

the conventional calculation methods and those based on

oxygen consumption calorimetry. Babrauskas [24] also investigated this discrepancy in results using a modified OSU

apparatus with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and several

gaseous fuels. The results of this study indicated two

problems with the OSU apparatus. First. and most serious.

it was found that the heat release rates calculated using the

latest version of the standard operating procedure [25] were

as much as 20 to 30 percent below the values calculated

based on oxygen consumption calorimetry' as shown in Figure 5.

Babrauskas attributed this discrepancy to heat storage

problems in the apparatus.

Secondly, when using the solid fuel (PMMA) it was observed

that the heat release rate would not remain constant

throughout an experiment (as would be expected given that

experimental conditions were held constant); but rather, as

the experiment progressed the heat release rate calculated

would steadily increase as shown in Figure 6. Babrauskas

attributed this phenomenon to the observation that flame

from the specimen being tested would impinge upon, and heat

up portions of the test apparatus. This heating of the

apparatus presumably resulted in an increase in the incident

heat flux delivered to the test specimen due to feedback

from the hot test apparatus which in turn resulted in an

increase in the fuel burning rate.

Because of these limitations, Babrauskas suggests that any

data obtained using an OSU apparatus be considered as relative. semiquantitative data only.[24] For this reason data

obtained using the OSU apparatus will not be presented here.

The reader is cautioned against use of data from the OSU

apparatus for other than qualitative or relative comparisons

until these discrepancies have been resolved.

2.1.2 The FMRC Small-scale Flammability Apparatus

A second small-scale apparatus, developed by Tewarson and

Pion [29] at Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FMRC).

appears to have avoided the problems of the OSU apparatus.

The FMRC apparatus uses disc-shaped samples approximately 10

cm in diameter and 2 cm thick. The apparatus has also been

used for the exposure of similarly sized samples of a variety

of cable types. The test samples are placed in a horizontal

configuration within a quartz tube. Air is introduced into

the bottom of the apparatus at a known flow rate, temperature. and oxygen concentration. The sample is subjected to

-14-
external heat fluxes through the use of four radiant

heaters. The pyrolysis/combustion products are then

collected in a hood for analysis. The configuration of the

apparatus allows for independent control of incident heat

flux to the fuel surface, ventilation rate, oxygen concentration of the inlet air, inlet air temperature, and other

properties of the inlet flow.

A large number of studies have been conducted using this

apparatus with a number of materials.[8,29-40] These studies

have included investigation of the effects of incident (or

net) feedback heat flux and oxygen concentration on the

burning characteristics of various materials. Many of these

tests have used plastics and cable insulating materials as

the combustible fuel. Data reported typically includes mass

release rate per unit area at various flux levels, convective and radiative fractions of the heat release, actual

heat of combustion per unit mass, combustion efficiency.

smoke generation rates, and products of combustion analysis

(yield fractions for carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and

unburned hydrocarbons).

Many of the experimental results obtained using the FMRC

apparatus for a variety of polymers and organic liquids were

compiled in a work by Tewarson.[30] One of the most

interesting results documented is that a linear relationship

between the mass release rate and net heat flux delivered to

the fuel surface was clearly demonstrated for most

materials, including all polymeric cable insulation

materials.[30] Figures 7 and 8 illustrate this relationship

for the polymers and organic liquids tested. While the

materials shown in these two figures are not actual cable

insulation samples, these data are presented here in order

to illustrate this behavior.

Observation of this phenomena led the FMRC researchers to

the definition of a critical exposure heat flux and a fuel

sensitivity parameter which characterize this relationship.

This type of relationship between the exposure conditions and

material behavior should prove useful in attempts to predict

the development of fires using deterministic computer codes.

In a later work [31] the findings of a similar FMRC study on

cable samples were compiled. Table 1 gives the physical

properties of the cables tested. Tables 2. 3. and 4 present

the compiled heat-of-combustion values for these cable

samples. These data include a breakdown of the convective

and radiative portions of the actual total heat release.

Table 5 presents the heat flux sensitivity values for some

-15-
of the cable samples. These sensitivity values are of the

same nature as those discussed above in regards to polymers

and organic liquids. They characterize the slope of the

linear relationship between the incident, external heat flux

received at the fuel surface and the resulting rate of mass

release from the fuel surface.

Also reported for the FMRC small-scale cable fire tests were

the yield rates for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and

unburned hydrocarbons. These data are presented in Table

6. The investigators noted that yield of carbon dioxide can

be related to burn efficiency and actual heat of combustion.

The actual heat-of-combustion correlation is illustrated in

Figure 9. The researchers also observed that heat of combustion of a particular cable insulation material appeared

to decrease as the percentage by weight of insulation

material in the cable increased. This relationship is illustrated by Figure 10. It was also noted that yields of

unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide appeared to

increase with increasing weight percentage of insulating

material as illustrated by Figures 11 and 12. While the

investigators recognize that the data are somewhat sparse it

does seem to indicate that as the percentage of cable weight

attributed to insulation increases, burning efficiency

decreases.

Tables 7-11 are taken from another work by Tewarson [8] which

also presented a compilation of small-scale test results from

a number of studies. Table 7 presents total and actual

heat-of-combustion values for selected liquids and polymers.

The total heat-of-combustion values are the type obtained in

bomb calorimetry tests while the actual heat-of-combustion

values are obtained from open fire testing. The actual

heat-of-combustion values (sometimes referred to as lower

heat-of-combustion values) include a realistic burning

efficiency.. These burning efficiencies can be estimated from

the ratios of the actual to the total heat of combustions.

Table 8 presents the distribution fractions which characterize the radiative and convective fractions of the heat

released by fire involving these fuels. Table 9 presents the

recommended average values of the convective fraction of the

actual heat release recommended by Tewarson for these fuels.

Table 10 presents the distribution ratios of the carbon

released from the fuel into the various products of combustion. Table 11 presents the heat generation values per unit

of oxygen consumed or carbon dioxide generated recommended

by Tewarson for use in oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide

generation calorimetry methods.

These results are only a small sample of the data which has

been gathered using the FMRC small-scale apparatus. The

references cited provide an excellent data base for smallscale materials property data as related to the fire behavior

of materials.

-16-
2.1.3 Small-scale Cable Testing at LLNL

Hasegawa et al.. of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

(LLNL). used a modified NBS ease-of-ignition apparatus to

investigate the ignitability of cable insulations.[41-44]

Small samples of the cable of interest are subjected to a

methane diffusion flame of approximately 7-kW intensity. The

specimen is visually observed to determine the time of flame

attachment, and the output of a thermopile is observed to

determine the time at which the cable sample begins to

contribute significantly to the heat release. The test

results are shown in Figure 13 for three types of cable.

The authors reported the following conclusions about the

behavior of PVC cables based on their test results:

- Decreasing outside diameter reduces the ignition time.

- Although it is not a linear relationship, it appears

that decreasing the mass also reduces the ignition

time.

- No correlation exists between the percentage of

insulating material and the ignition time.

A limited number of tests were also conducted by LLNL using

Neoprene cable. These tests seemed to indicate that no correlation existed between the cable's physical properties and

the time to ignition. Ignition time appeared to depend only

on the chemical composition of the jacket material and was

found to be the same for all of the Neoprene samples tested.

Using cables insulated with a rubber compound, no correlation

between physical cable properties and time to ignition were

observed. Ignition times did vary between samples; however,

this variation was not consistent and so no correlation

appeared evident. For all cable types it was observed that

multiconductor cables ignited nearly twice as fast as did

single conductor cables. This finding may be accounted for

through a consideration of the thickness of the thermal

barrier represented by the cable jacketing and for

insulation. For a single conductor, unjacketed cable the

single layer of insulation represents a relatively thinner

thermal barrier between the exposure source and the metallic

core than does the insulator plus jacket combination for a

multiconductor cable. As the metallic core represents a

significant heat sink one would expect the outer surface

temperature of the coating materials to increase more

rapidly in the case of a greater coating thickness for a

given exposure as heat will not be as quickly removed to the

metallic sink at the core. This would result in ignition

temperatures at the surface being reached more quickly as

coating thickness increases.

-17-
Another ongoing program at LLNL is investigating the

chemistry associated with the thermal degradation of cable

and wire insulation.[43.44] An extensive list of degradation

products for a variety of cable insulation and polymer

samples was presented in the FY83 report.[43] Of the

materials listed those of interest to the present study are

those materials which are used in the manufacture of cable

insulations. The materials which fall into this category

which were tested in the LLNL program were various compounds

of PVC. neoprene, rubber, and polyethylene (PE). The results

for the high temperature degradation of these compounds are

reproduced in Tables 12, 13, 14. and 15 respectively. Additional data was reported for compounds of polyurethane.

mylar, and polyester though these materials are not of

interest to the present study.

A series of small-scale radiant heat exposure tests were also

conducted by LLNL in FY84.[44] These tests were conducted

as a part of a larger effort at LLNL which is investigating

the behavior of large-scale cable fires (described below).

The radiant heating tests were intended to provide data

associated with the following issues:[44]

- Flame spread rate versus irradiance level.

- Flame spread rate versus bulk jacket temperature.

- Flame spread rate versus rate of heating.

- Threshold irradiance level for vertical (upward) flame

spread.

- Contribution of the cable core to flame spread.

Samples of seven types of cable were used in these tests.

The physical properties of these cables are described in

Table 16. Samples of each of the cable types were exposed

to five irradiance levels from 0.5 to 2.5 W/cm2 . The primary result of interest to the present study is illustrated

in Figure 14. This figure shows the rate of flame spread

versus the irradiance level for each of the cable types

tested. As expected the flame spread rate (FSR) increases

with increasing irradiance levels. This dependence appears

to be characterized by a minimum heat flux required to initiate flame spread (typically 0.5 to 1.5 W/cm2 ) with the

flame spread rate then increasing linearly with higher irradiance levels. Both the threshold flux level and slope of

the flame spread versus irradiance level curve were noted to

be dependent on the formulation of the cable jacketing

materials and the physical characteristics of the cable.

-18-
As a part of the FY84 report a limited comparison between

the LLNL small-scale cable fire tests and the large-scale

cable fire tests was presented.[44] This comparison was

primarily a qualitative comparison of the relative performance of the various cables as measured by time to ignition.

rate of flame spread and heat release rate. No quantitative

comparison of the experimental results was presented.

Even when qualitatively comparing cable performance under

the large- and small-scale conditions the authors note mixed

success. For some cable types and some experimental results

the comparison yielded consistent results. However. the

authors do note that when considering small-scale thermogravinimetric analysis which "correlates directly to the

large-scale FSR and is similar to the HRR, comparison...

produced a number of results totally inconsistent with the

large-scale results." While the authors do note several

factors which could contribute to these discrepancies they

go on to note that "in order to accurately define a cable's

fire response, the cable must be tested as a complete

assembly. This is one of the dangers of attempting to

extrapolate various fire-response characteristics from a

small-scale test which does not consider the complete

cable."[44]

2.1.4 Other Small-scale Testing Efforts

Kashiwagi [45] investigated the effects of oxygen concentration on the nonflaming gasification of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and polyethylene (PE). Mass fluxes leaving

the surface of the fuel sample were measured at five

different oxygen concentrations and under two levels of

radiative flux. The results are shown in Figure 15.

The findings of this study indicated that the oxygen concentration had a clear influence on the rate at which gases

were evolved from the test samples. For PMMA it was suggested that the fuel surface tended to be less viscous in

the presence of oxygen than in an oxygen-depleted atmosphere,

which caused an increase in the gas evolution rate in the

presence of oxygen as compared to the oxygen-depleted case.

For PE it was observed that the fuel surface would turn brown

in the presence of gaseous oxygen causing an increase in the

heat absorption and hence the fuel gasification rate and fuel

surface temperature.

While the mechanisms were different, both materials displayed an increase in gasification rate with increasing

oxygen concentration. While these tests were conducted under

nonflaming conditions the results would indicate that a significant change in the oxygen concentration could effect the

-19-
burning behavior under flaming conditions as well, with the

fuel burning more intensely for a given heat flux exposure

level in the presence of higher oxygen concentrations. Here

it is not particularly the materials which are of interest

but rather the fact that similar changes in fire behavior are

attributed to entirely different mechanisms for two polymeric

materials. This illustrates yet another difficulty which may

be encountered in attempts to describe material fire behavior

using generic correlations.

Bakhman et al..[46] studied the rate of flame propagation

for PMMA threads, rods, and coated wires and PE-coated wires.

Data on the flame spread velocity as functions of angle of

progression, coating thickness, wire diameter, and initial

specimen temperature are reported. As with the previous

discussion it is not particularly the materials which are of

interest to the present study but rather the differences in

the mechanisms observed and the effects of those mechanisms

on fire behavior which are of interest.

In Figure 16 the flame propagation rate is shown for upward,

downward, and horizontal burning of PMMA threads and PE

coated wires as a function of outside diameter. In all cases

the flame spread was observed to decrease with increasing

diameter. It is interesting to note that for PMMA the flame

spread rate was slowest for downward propagation whereas

with the PE the flame spread rate was slowest in a horizontal

configuration. The authors attributed this to the observation that large amounts of the PE coating melted and ran down

the wire causing an increase in the rate of flame spread.

This melting was not observed with the PMMA. These results

illustrate the importance of both the orientation of the

cables and the formulation of the insulation on the rate of

development of a fire. The results also illustrate that the

effects of these parameters are coupled and not truly independent.

Also using the moving wire technique. Shacke et al.[47]

investigated the combustion of PVC coatings on wires. This

study investigated the critical ignition temperature and the

generated products of combustion. Very little quantitative

data is reported and none will be reproduced here.

Many other small-scale tests of a qualitative nature have

been conducted using cable insulation and other common

materials. However. as these tests do not provide the type

of quantitative data sought in this review they will not be

discussed in the present work.

-20-
2.2 Large-scale Cable and Cabinet Fire Tests

Large-scale cable fire tests have been conducted at a number

of facilities for a variety of reasons. While the data

gathered in these tests is not generally the type sought in

the present review, for the reasons discussed above, some

useful data is available and useful insights can be gained

from an understanding of previous test efforts. There have

also been a very small number of cabinet fire tests performed at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) under the sponsorship of Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) in which electrical cables were used to simulate the actual fuel loading

of electrical control cabinets. These large-scale cable and

cabinet fire tests will be discussed in the sections which

follow.

2.2.1 Testing by Sandia National Laboratory

In a test effort intended to "investigate the adequacy of

the 20-foot separation criteria as specified in 10 CFR 50.

Appendix R" Underwriters Laboratory (UL) conducted a series

of large-scale fire tests under the direction of Sandia

National Laboratories (SNL).[48] These tests were intended

to characterize the environment created by a source fire in

order to determine if cables separated from the source fire

by 20 feet could suffer fire damage. Characterization of

the source fire itself was not a concern at the time of the

tests so that the source fuels were not instrumented for

weight loss and no attempt was made to determine heat release

rates at the time of the tests.

More recently, with the increased interest in fire modeling

efforts, renewed interest was placed on this particular test

series as the test instrumentation included an extensive

array of thermocouples measuring both atmospheric and wall

surface temperatures, a limited number of doorway velocity

and temperature measurements, and a variety of heat flux

measurements at various locations in the room. It became

desirable to attempt to "back out" the heat release rates

for the test fires in order that the test data might be used

in the validation of various computer models of fire

environment development. Nowlen (49] performed a post-test

analysis of the experimental data in order to estimate the

heat release rates for some of the tests through a global

energy balance on the test enclosure.

These tests involved both heptane pool fires alone, and combinations of a heptane pool and two vertical cable trays.[48]

Results were successfully obtained for two pool fire tests

and two pool/cable fire tests. While there is considerable

-21-
uncertainty in the calculated values, the results for the

pool fires closely matched the expected results based on an

assumption of a uniform heat release rate for the observed

duration of the test fire and actual heat-of-combustion

values for heptane reported in the literature.

Nowlen's results are presented in Figure 17 which shows the

calculated total heat release rates for the experimental

fires successfully processed. The two "experiments" each

involved 10 gallons of heptane in a 1- by S-foot pool placed

along the rear wall of the enclosure. These two experiments

differed in that Experiment 2 utilized an 8- by 8-foot open

doorway while Experiment 3 utilized a 4- by 8-foot open

doorway. The two "tests" each involved 5 gallons of heptane

in the same pool with an additional fuel loading of two vertical cable trays with a 12.5 percent fill (43 10-foot

lengths of cable per tray). For the two tests processed no

fire protection for the cable trays was utilized. In Test 1

the cables were unqualified while in Test 2 the cables were

IEEE-383 qualified. Further details on the conditions during

each of the tests and the results are presented in Reference

48.

Other large-scale cable fire tests conducted by SNL have been

summarized in other works. These tests have included investigations of cable separation criteria as specified in Regulatory Guide 1.75.[50.51] the effectiveness of fire retardant

coatings in suppressing fire propagation in cable tray

stacks, [50.51] the effectiveness of fire shielding in

suppressing fire propagation.,[50,51] the effects of wall

proximity on fire intensity (as measured by radiative heat

flux).[52] and the effectiveness of Halon, carbon dioxide.

and water suppression systems on the extinguishment of cable

fires.[50.53] As with the 20-foot separation tests described

above, the primary purpose of these tests was not to characterize the fire itself and hence instrumentation for the

calculation of heat or mass release rates was not specifically provided. Back calculation of the heat release rates.

such as that performed on the 20-foot separation tests, is

not considered practical for these other tests.

Analysis of the overall test effort at SNL has led to the

development of a burn mode analysis method for cable tray

fires.[54] Under this method the mode of burning (e.g..

open flaming, smoldering, deep-seated burning) is related to

the fuel (cable) surface and fuel (cable) internal temperatures. A mode analysis threshold diagram is developed with

these two parameters forming the ordinate and abscissa of

the diagram. The field thus defined is then divided into

various regions each representing a particular mode of

burning. Examples of burn mode threshold diagrams for

-22-
IEEE-383 unqualified and qualified cables are shown in

Figure 18. Also shown on these diagrams are the time

history of actual cable tray fire tests plotted onto the

burn mode diagram. It is stated by the authors that "the

data base is neither statistically significant nor extensive

enough to cover the wide range of architecture, ventilation.

and fire protection design parameters encountered in LWR

plants. The tests do, however, provide important insight as

to how a suitable *classification of fire phenomena might be

developed, especially for electrical cables." This method

may have application to future modeling efforts for cable

tray fires in that by tracing the time development of both

the surface and subsurface temperatures a model may be able

to more accurately predict the burning mode locally within a

cable tray; and hence, more accurately predict overall fire

development.

2.2.2 Testing by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has developed

a large-scale test method intended to evaluate various fire

performance properties of cables such as time to ignition.

mass loss rate, flame spread rate and extent, and generated

products of combustion.[41-44.55] It is also intended that

the tests be instrumented and monitored such that the data

can be used in the validation of small-scale fire test

results for cable insulating materials. As of the end of

fiscal year 1981 (FY81). four preliminary tests had been

performed in order to evaluate the adequacy of the test

apparatus. The results of these tests were not considered

adequate and a redesign of the test apparatus was deemed

necessary. During FY82 the test apparatus was redesigned and

six additional tests were conducted.

The new apparatus uses a 1.8-meter (6-foot) vertical run of

cables attached to a load cell for mass loss data collection

(see Figure 19). Note that the cables are not placed in a

cable tray but that layers of the cable are separated by

slats inserted at specified separation distances. A drip pan

and load cell are also placed below the cables to collect.

extinguish, and weigh any dripping insulation material.

Three cable loading levels were used, as illustrated in Figure 20. The highest loading was approximately 20 cables in

two layers with virtually no space between cables (100 percent loading). The second loading was approximately ten

cables in two layers arranged such that there was a space

equivalent to one cable diameter between cables (50 percent

loading). The final loading was approximately five cables

in a single layer (25 percent loading). During FY83 several

refinements were made in the test apparatus and 17 additional tests were conducted.

-23-
Results from tests conducted on seven basic types of cable

have been reported (Hypalon. Neoprene. PVC. Neoprene/rubber.

rubber. Rubber/Hypalon. and Nylon/PVC). Table 17 lists the

cable characteristics for each of the 23 FY82 and FY83 tests

reported. Note that the status of these cables with respect

to the IEEE-383 testing standard is not addressed by the

authors. Most of the early tests involved very large

diameter power cables while some of the later tests involved

smaller diameter communication, control. and power cables.

Table 18 summarizes the experimental data obtained during

each test. Though not all of this data is actually presented.

experimentally determined quantities reportedly included

total flame spread, average rate of flame spread, oxygen

depletion, heat release rate by both oxygen consumption and

mass loss rate, and environmental temperatures.

One result observed by LLNL personnel during early tests was

that the rate of heat release calculated based on oxygen

consumption did not match that calculated based on the mass

loss rate data. In the FY82 report the authors presented the

calculated heat release rates based on mass loss and on

oxygen consumption for two cable tests. These results are

presented in Figure 21. The first of these tests (VCAB-2)

involved Hypalon cables in the 100 percent fill configuration. while the second (VCAB-5) involved PVC cables in the

50 percent fill configuration. In both cases the oxygen

consumption values of heat release rate were consistently

and significantly lower than the mass loss/heat release

rates. During the FY83 tests the same discrepancy was

apparently observed. Two potential explanations are offered

by the authors.

First, with respect to the mass-based calculations, cable

insulation is made up of a variety of polymeric materials

and hence the heat of combustion can only be approximated.

If this is indeed the case then it points out one of the

weaknesses with using unvalidated small-scale test results

in the prediction of full-scale fire behavior. Secondly.

the ventilation rate was relatively high (500 liters/sec)

while burning intensities during these early tests were relatively low (peak values ranged from 2.5 to 300 kW with typical values in the range of 10 to 100 kW). Thus the depletion of oxygen was very small so that small errors in oxygen

concentration measurements would have resulted in large

errors in the calculated heat release rates. This problem

was also complicated by the presence of leaks in the chamber.

ventilation system. These effects have rendered the early

fire test oxygen consumption values unreliable in the

opinion of the authors.[43] Leakage problems in the test

-24-
facility ventilation system were subsequently corrected.

The authors consider oxygen consumption values for later

tests to accurately reflect the true heat release rates

(personal communication with H. Hasegawa and N. Alvares.

9/85).

Seven general observations based on the experimental results

obtained from the tests run through FY83 were documented by

the authors:[43]

- The 50 percent packing configuration produced the

highest heat release rate for most cable types.

- When exposed to the 20-kW exposure fire, the majority

of cables were very difficult to ignite. (Note that

all FY83 tests utilized only the 20 kW source fire as

exposure source.)

- Once ignited, the flame spread rate was very slow.

- In most cases, the extent of flame spread was only a

fraction of the vertical section.

- Heat release rates remained low and were slow to peak.

- Fire performance correlates to the cable diameter

(1.25 to 2.54 cm). the percentage of conductor., and

the packing density.

- Multiconductor cables generally have less fire

resistance.

During FY84 15 additional vertical cable fire tests were

conducted. For all of the FY84 tests the 50 percent packing

configuration, as described above, was used. The cable types

tested during FY84 are described in Table 19(a). Note that

these cables are somewhat smaller than previously tested

cables. Each of these cable types was tested once each as

described above for previous tests, and once each in the same

configuration with the addition of a radiant heat source

providing a heat flux to the cable's surface of 0.5 W/cm2 .

The results of these tests are summarized in Table 19(b) and

19(c). It is not clear whether the peak heat release rate

values reported are based on mass loss or on oxygen

consumption.

In all cases the peak heat release rate (HRR) and the flame

spread rate (FSR) were observed to increase significantly

with the addition of the external heat flux source. It was

also observed that the time to sustained ignition was

observed to decrease by as much as a factor of two under the

-25-
radiant exposure. While not reproduced here, data was also

presented on the cable temperatures at ignition and heat

flux and temperature conditions in the test enclosure during

the tests.

Also reported in the FY84 report from LLNL are the results

of fire tests on a particular type of coaxial cable used

extensively in the LLNL computer network.,44] This cable

"has an o.d. of 13 mm with a polyethylene jacket, solid

aluminum shielding, and a foamed polyethylene dielectric."

During fire tests similar to those described above "the cable

ignited quite readily, produced rapid flame spread, but then

some sections began to explode violently. This phenomenon

enhanced the burning, which in turn accelerated flame spread

and the production of molten, flaming polyethylene. The

explosions were caused by pressure produced by melting and

vaporizing polyethylene confined within the solid aluminum

shielding by the nonmolten polyethylene. Results from these

experiments show that this cable type should be wellprotected from source of ignition wherever it is used."

These results also show that unexpected results can be

produced by seemingly similar cable insulation formulations through mechanisms related to the physical characteristics of the cable construction. Such effects make it difficult to extrapolate the results for tests on one type of

.cable to a "similar" cable type as it broadens the requirements for declaring a cable to be "similar" to that for which

results may be available.

2.2.3 Testing by Factory Mutual Research Corporation

Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FMRC) has conducted a

number of large-scale (the investigators refer to these tests

as intermediate-scale) cable fire tests. These large-scale

cable fire tests have primarily focused on the susceptibility of cable tray installations to ignition, the detection of cable fires, and the effectiveness of water as a

cable fire suppression agent. This section will focus on

these FMRC large-scale cable fire tests and a subsequent

analysis of those tests by B. T. Lee of the National Bureau

of Standards.[21]

The large-scale cable fire tests at FMRC were conducted as a

part of an overall study of cable flammability characteristics sponsored by the Electrical Power Research Institute

(EPRI). During the first part of this test program 17 cable

tray fire tests were conducted.f56] Each of these tests

utilized a cable tray configuration composed of 12 fully

loaded horizontal trays in two stacked tiers. In the final

three tests of this initial series an additional two vertical trays were added to the configuration. Several sizes of

-26-
cable with three types of jacket material were tested. Seven

of these tests were free-burn tests while the remaining ten

were water extinguishment tests. During a second part of

this test program an additional four tests were conducted

using a similar array of 12 horizontal cable trays with an

additional loading of 3. 3. 4. and 9 vertical cable trays

and 0. 0. 1. and 2 horizontal trays near the ceiling of the

enclosure respectively.[57]

Figure 22 shows a schematic representation of the test

enclosure used in all of these tests. As an example, the

experimental setup used in Test 3 of the second series is

shown in Figure 23. The other tests all had similar test

setups differing only in the number and placement of the

vertical and near-ceiling horizontal cable trays.

An extensive array of thermocouples and bi-directional

velocity probes was constructed directly above the cable

trays in each test (although very little of the data gathered

is actually reported). The data from these probes were utilized in a plume integration scheme to. estimate the convective heat release rate for each of the test fires. Data

from a radiometer located 14.5 ft (4.42 m) above the floor

and 65.6 ft (20 m) away from the fire was used to estimate

the radiative heat release rate of the fire. An estimate of

the actual total heat release rate of the fire can be

obtained from the sum of these two measured components. It

is stated in the report that the convective heat release

rates are "suitable for use in a relative study of fire

intensity. It is not intended to be used in studies that

require an exact value" (Reference 22. page 5-3). This was

apparently due to large uncertainties in the results obtained

using the plume integration scheme. For the second series

of 4 tests this data was not presented.

No gas analysis equipment was reportedly utilized in any of

these tests. For each of the first 17 tests the combustible

fuel weight, temperature above the fire, and the radiative

heat release rates were plotted as functions of time. Also

presented was a chronology of observations 'made during each

test and schematic representations of the post-test extent

of visible fire damage in each tray.

For the remaining four tests the ceiling temperature above

the fire and the time various detectors and sprinklers

actuated were reported along with a post-test assessment of

the extent of fire damage for each test. The estimated

actual total heat release rates for tests 2 and 3 of the

second series were also reported as shown in Figure 24.

These estimated heat release rates "are based on the actual

heat of combustion for PE/PVC cable, the mass loss rate data.

and analysis of the intermediate-scale cable fire test data"

(obtained during the first series of 17 tests).

-27-
No mention was made by the authors of any attempt to convert

the mass *release rate data into total heat release rates

through actual heat-of-combustion values for any of the other

tests. However, in a subsequent effort B. T. Lee of the

National Bureau of Standards [21] attempted to establish

correlations for the mass release rates to be expected for

this particular cable tray array using the data from the 10

extinguishment tests of the first series of 17 tests as

reported by Sumitra.[56]

Lee established a correlation between mass release rate and

area of involvement for the PE/PVC cables as shown in

Figure 25. This correlation was established using the

reported burning r.ates at the time of suppression initiation.

The area of involvement was determined by summing the top

and bottom areas of post-test cable damage. This method

implies an assumption that once water application was

initiated significant spread of visible fire damage was

halted. This assumption would appear valid based on the

reported times to total extinguishment following initiation

of suppression. Lee also used these involvement areas and

the times at which suppression was initiated to establish a

correlation between the area of involvement and time of

burning for each of the three cable types tested as shown in

Figure 26.

Lee also attempted to separately convert both the mass

release rates and the areas of involvement into heat release

rates using small-scale tests results reported by

Tewarson.[31] The mass release rates were converted using

the actual heat of combustion for the cables. The areas of

involvement were independently converted using the heat

release per unit area at an exposure heat flux of 60 kW/m 2

values reported by Tewarson.[31] Lee found that the mass

loss-based heat release rates were consistently 45 percent

lower than were the area of involvement based values. Lee

offers no explanation for this observed discrepancy.

This discrepancy can be accounted for based on other smallscale test results. As noted above the values of heat

release rate per unit area of involvement reported by

Tewarson and used by B. T. Lee were obtained at an exposure

level of 60 kW/m 2 . In other works. Tewarson [30] and

J. L. Lee [32] have demonstrated a linear relationship

between the exposure heat flux and the rate of mass release

per unit area for many materials including cable insulation

(as discussed above in Section 2.1.2). Should the exposure

conditions in the large-scale cable tray tests have been

different than those used in obtaining the small-scale test

results used by B. T. Lee. one could expect significant

-28-
error to result in any area of involvement based heat

release rates. The mass-based heat release rates, however.

would remain relatively valid as the actual heat of

combustion has not been observed to vary significantly with

exposure heat flux under open flaming conditions.

An alternative method for utilizing this information on the

area of involvement and mass release rate was utilized as a

part of the present work. This method was used here to calculate the exposure conditions in the large-scale tests based

on small-scale test results. The first step in this process

is to establish the mass release per unit area versus

exposure heat flux relationship for the PE/PVC cables.

J. L. Lee [32] reported a critical exposure heat flux for

initiation of degradation of 18 kW/m 2 . Tewarson [31]

reported a mass release per unit area of 24 g/s/m2 at an

exposure of 60 kW/m 2 . It should be noted that both of

these test results were obtained from the FMRC small-scale

test apparatus (described above) using samples of cable

identical to the cable used in the large-scale tests. Using

these two data points (and assuming a linear relationship

such as that shown in Figures 7 and 8) the relationship

shown in Figure 27 is established.

The spacially averaged mass flex rate was calculated using

the mass release rates at time of extinguishment reported by

Sumitra and the areas of involvement calculated by

B. T. Lee. The actual (spacially averaged) exposure heat

flux incident on the cables for each of the extinguishment

tests involving PE/PVC cables was then estimated through use

of Figure 27. Figure 28 presents these estimated exposure

levels plotted versus the area of involvement. This plot

illustrates a trend towards higher exposure levels for higher

areas of involvement. This is as would be expected as the

fire intensity generally grows with increased area of

involvement. The plotted line is based on a linear regression of the data points. Also note that these calculated

values are much lower than those implicitly assumed by Lee

in estimating the heat release rate based on the area of

involvement. Caution should be used in extrapolating these

values to other cable types and other cable tray configurations.

It is also possible to obtain a relative assessment of the

heat release rate versus time for each of the first 17 tests

based on the data presented by Sumitra [56] and actual heatof-combustion values reported by Tewarson.[31] Sumitra has

presented a chronology of fire events for each of the tests.

For the free-burn tests the data reported includes an

assessment of the time at which the fire reached a "steady

state" condition, the length of time steady state

-29-
appeared to last, the average mass release rate over this

period, and the total mass consumption throughout the test.

The time to fire burnout was often difficult to assess for

the free-burn tests due to the accumulation of smoke in the

test enclosure. For the extinguishment tests the time of

water application, the mass release rate at the time of water

application, the total mass loss up to time of water application, the time to extinguishment, and the total mass loss

throughout the test are reported.

Using this information, the curves in Figures 29 and 30 were

developed as part of the present work. These curves assume

a linear growth rate to time of either water application or

the observed onset of steady state. For the free-burn tests

a constant heat release rate is assumed for the observed

duration of the steady state burning as reported by

Sumitra. This is followed by a linear decline to burnout.

For the free-burn tests the smoke in the enclosure typically

obscured the view of the fire, making it difficult to

determine the actual time of fire burn out. For the assumed

free-burn profiles, the estimated time of burnout is based

on matching the integrated mass release for the assumed

profile to the total mps release observed during the test.

For the extinguishment tests, a linear decline from

application of water to the observed fire burnout is assumed.

While these plots suppress the transient nature of the real

fires and can not be assumed to accurately reflect the true

fire behavior, they do provide an assessment of the relative

magnitude and duration of cable tray fires involving an

unqualified high risk cable in a typical, though limited.

installation configuration. They also provide insight into

the effectiveness of water suppression on cable tray fires

of various magnitudes. Caution must be exercised in extrapolating these results to other cable types and other cable

configurations.

It is also possible to compare the peak heat release rates

calculated as a part of the present work based on the mass

release rates and small-scale test results as described above

with those based on measurements made during the tests and

reported by Sumitra. Table 20 summarizes these values.

Radiative and convective fractions of the actual heat release

rate reported by Tewarson (31] were used to estimate the

relative levels of these forms of heat release for the

mass-based actual heat release rates. In all cases other

than Test I the mass-based heat release rates calculated in

the present work are significantly higher than those

reported by Sumitra. There are several identifiable factors

which may have contributed to this discrepancy.

-30-
With respect to the mass-based values calculated as a part

of the present work, the small-scale test heat-of-combustion

results may not accurately reflect the behavior of the cables

in a large-scale fire. Due to the large areas of involvement, certain portions of the cable trays may have been subjected to depleted oxygen levels. This could have resulted

in a decrease in the efficiency of burning, and hence, a

decrease in the actual heat of combustion. This would tend

to imply that the mass-based heat release rates may overestimate the actual values, though by how much is not known.

With respect to the measured values of radiative heat release

reported by Sumitra. smoke attenuation may have biased the

measurement. The chronologies presented by Sumitra

repeatedly refer to smoke obscuring the view and making

observations difficult. As mentioned previously, the heat

flux sensor used was located 20 meters from the fire. While

corrections to the measured values were made for attenuation

due to the presence of water vapor in the air, the assumed

transmittance values used were still very high (0.799 to

0.886). The presence of thick smoke could have reduced the

actual transmittance values considerably causing much of the

heat radiated by the fire to be absorbed by the smoke. This

energy absorbed by the smoke not caught up into the plume

would not be accounted for by either of the measurement

techniques used. This would imply that the actual radiative

heat release rates could have been significantly higher than

those reported.

Finally, with respect to the reported convective'heat release

rates, as stated by the author these values are considered a

relative measure of the actual values only. This uncertainty

arose from the inherent uncertainties in the plume integration technique used to obtain the reported values. It is

not possible to assess the effects of these uncertainties on

the reported values using the information presented by

Sumitra.

The net effect of these observations would seem to imply that

the true values lie somewhere between the two sets presented

in Table 20.- This exercise serves to illustrate the potential difficulties which arise from the use of small-scale

test data in predicting large-scale fire test behavior. It

also illustrates the difficulties which can be encountered

in the interpretation of data gathered and reported by

various investigators.

2.2.4 Testing by Bell Laboratory

Bell Laboratory has been engaged in the testing of communication cable fire behavior using both a Steiner

-31-
Tunnel.[59.591 and a mock-up of typical installations in air

plenums above a drop ceiling.(59] These tests are primarily

intended to provide a comparative measure of cable fire performance. The Steiner Tunnel tests evaluate both the flame

spreading and smoke-evolution characteristics, while the

plenum tests are concerned only with the spread of flames in

a simulated installation situation. The cables tested are

primarily PVC "which is inherently fire-resistant. (and) is

overwhelmingly the most widely used material for Bell System

(inside) building cables."[591 The effects of air flow rate.

cable size, cable installation practice, and exposure fire

strength have been investigated.

While the results of these tests are primarily qualitative,

there is quantitative data reported on the rate of flame

spread under various conditions. Tables 21 and 22 show the

composition of the cable insulations used in the Bell Labs

tests. Figure 3A shows examples of the type of data reported

on flame-spread rates. In these tests, a 4-1/2-ft-long.

300,O00-Btu/hr (88-kW) flame was used to ignite the cables.

The cables themselves were placed in a horizontal configuration in a Steiner Tunnel. A draught of 240 ft/min was

induced in the tunnel. The results shown in Figure 31 are

those for two different formulations of jacketing material.

The formulation designated J32 has "improved fire retardancy." These results illustrate the importance of cable

jacket formulation on the resulting rate of flame spread and

fire development. No heat or mass release rate information

was reported.

2.2.5 Testing by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

In a test program sponsored by SNL and performed at Lawrence

Berkeley Laboratory (LBL). Williamson et al.[60] performed

two electrical cabinet fire tests. It was intended that

these tests provide a preliminary assessment of the potential severity of environments within control cabinets in the

event of a fire within the subject cabinet or in an adjacent

cabinet.

In the first of these two experiments a single bay cabinet

was used. The cabinet was loaded with only thermocouple

wire and leads with no internal cabinet fuel loading. This

test was intended to assess the environments due to the

exposure fire alone. The exposure fire itself was composed

of two polyethylene trash bags loosely packed with paper in

a 32-gallon polyethylene trash container, plus two cardboard

boxes full of polystyrene foam packing chips. The primary

result obtained from this test and of interest to the present

study was the heat telease rate of the experimental fire

based on oxygen consumption calorimetry as shown in

Figure 32. While this test did not involve the burning of

-32-
cable insulation, the heat release rate data is presented

here in order to show the relative magnitude of the exposure

fire used in these tests. Also collected was data on the

smoke production rate, flame height, and local temperatures.

In the second test the cabinet was divided into two bays

separated by a steel barrier. The right-hand compartment had

a set of ventilation openings in the top and bottom with the

bottom vents exposed to the source fire. The left-hand compartment also had ventilation openings, although they were

not exposed to direct contact with the exposure fire. Fortyeight lengths of either PVC or Neoprene-insulated cables

were suspended in the right-hand compartment. In the lefthand compartment 16 lengths of cable were mounted on the

barrier separating the compartments. The source fire for

this second test was very similar to that in the first test,

except that the polyethylene trash container was somewhat

heavier and loose packed paper was substituted for the polystyrene chips in the cardboard boxes. The intensity of this

exposure fire was presumably similar to that shown in

Figure 32.

As in the first test, the primary result of interest to the

present study was the determination of heat release rate by

oxygen consumption calorimetry as shown in Figure 33. While

the early stages of the two experiments show very similar

behavior with respect to heat release rate, it is quite

apparent that the burning of the cable insulation material

in the second test contributed more to the total heat release

than did the exposure fire. It is also worth noting that

the cables in the left-hand compartment which were not exposed directly to the fire were also consumed by fire during

the test.

The cabinets used in these tests were not typical of those

used in nuclear power plants, nor were the cable configurations typical of common installation practices. Thus caution

should be exercised in extrapolating these results to actual

plant installations. A more in-depth study of electrical

cabinet fires is being conducted at SNL. This test program

is using cabinets representative of actual nuclear power

plant control cabinets, and cable configurations typical of

common installations. At least two types of cable will be

used during the SNL tests. These tests will provide more

information on the burning characteristics of control

cabinets in various configurations and with various fuel

loadings.

-33-
3. CHARACTERIZATION OF FURNITURE FIRES

For certain plant areas, such as the control room, computer

room, and operator lounges, furniture may represent a part

of the fuel loading. These furnishings will most typically

be similar to those found in office-type settings. For

operator lounges a certain amount of more plush furniture

such as couches may also be found. The National Bureau of

Standards Center for Fire Research has been engaged in a

number of test programs investigating the burning characteristics of furnishings.[61-64] The results of these test

programs as they apply to the problem of fire in nuclear

power plants is discussed in this section.

Lawson et al. conducted a series of fire tests sponsored by

the Department of Health and Human Services on various types

of furnishing materials.[61] These tests were primarily

intended to provide source term information for use in

assessing the fire risk associated with hospital facilities.

Included in this study were tests on eight different patient

waiting chairs. While these chairs are not entirely typical

of office-type furnishings they are similar in many respects.

These tests do provide some insight into the characteristics

of fires involving chairs such as one might find in a nuclear

power plant control or computer room.

Table 23 describes the chairs tested by Lawson. Table 24

summarizes the test results for each of these chairs. In

Figures 34. 35. and 36 three of the most typical office-type

chair configurations and the heat and mass release rates for

those chairs are presented in more detail.

In a similar effort Babrauskas conducted a series of fire

tests involving larger upholstered chairs and sofas.[62]

The primary result of interest to the present work is that

Babrauskas developed a correlation with which to predict the

peak heat release rate for upholstered furniture fires. This

correlation is described in Figure 37. Figure 38 shows a

comparison between the values obtained using this correlation and those obtained during the actual fire tests. The

author does point out that this correlation is valid "only

for estimating the behavior of pieces generically similar to

the ones included in the testing program. Thus single-piece

molded chairs, bean-bag chairs, built-in furniture and other

specialty items are not included." The correlation does

appear to work well for free-standing padded wood and foam

frame chairs and sofas. The author also points out that the

time to peak heat release rate will be dependent on the

ignition source while the value of the peak heat release rate

can be considered independent of the ignition source provided

ignition is achieved.

-34-
4. CHARACTERIZATION OF LIQUID FUEL FIRES

4.1 Introduction

One of the major transient fuel sources commonly found in

nuclear power plants as described by Wheelis [3] were a

variety of flammable liquids. Fires involving these flammable liquids will fall into one of two classifications. If

the liquid is contained in an open container or has spilled

onto a surface then a pool fire will result. Alternately. a

spray fire could result from a ruptured fuel or hydraulic

line. These two types of fires are discussed in the sections

which follow.

A large number of studies have focused on investigating the

characteristics of pool fires. The characteristics which

have been investigated and which are of interest to the

present review are the growth of an unconfined liquid spill,

the flame height of an open pool fire. the heat and/or mass

release rate of a pool fire as a function of the pool size

and fuel type. and the convective and radiative fractions of

the heat release. Much data of this type has already been

presented through earlier discussions regarding test efforts

at Factory Mutual Research Corporation (see Section 2.2.3.

Figure 7. and Tables 7 through 11).

Pool fire research efforts have resulted in a variety of pool

fire burning correlations'. [19.21.65-71] The general consensus among fire researchers appears to be that pool fire

burning for many common flammable liquids is reasonably well

understood, and that prediction of pool fire burning rates

to within practical engineering accuracies is possible based

on certain fundamental fuel parameters. While pool fire

research continues this is perhaps the most thoroughly

researched and the best understood of fire phenomena.

For a more complete treatment of pool fire burning characteristics the reader is referred to a work by Hall.[19]

This work presents a comprehensive treatment of the phenomena

involved in the burning of a liquid pool. The findings of

Hall's review will be discussed below as appropriate.

The second form of liquid fuel fires, spray fires, has not

been as thoroughly researched, and hence, is not as well

understood. Some data does exist on the burning of high

pressure hydraulic fluid sprays. This data will be discussed

in Section 4.4 below.

4.2 Estimating Pool Fire Burning Rates

One of the commonly encountered methods of expressing the

burning rate of a liquid fuel is in terms of a surface

-35-
regression rate. These values take the form of a linear

velocity which describes the rate of consumption of fuel in

terms of the depth of fuel consumed per unit time (typically

in the range of 0.5 to 20 mm/min). These values, however.

can be very deceptive. Blinov and Khudyakov [65] observed

that pool fire behavior was dominated by one of three fluid

flow regimes, depending primarily on the diameter of the

pool. For very small pools, on the order of 10 mm, laminar

flow dominates. At about 30 mm diameter pulsations in the

flame zone can be observed indicating the onset of a transitional regime. At diameters larger than 1 meter turbulent

flow dominates.

Hall presented a plot of the linear fuel consumption rate

versus pool diameter for a variety of liquid fuels using data

from a number of sources.[19] This plot is shown in

Figure 39. This plot illustrates that in the laminar flow

regime the linear consumption rate decreases with increasing

pool diameter until a minimum is reached at 50- to 150-mm

diameter (depending on the fuel). In the transitional and

turbulent regions this consumption rate increases again until

a constant value is reached for pools about 1 meter in

diameter and larger.

As can be seen from this plot. extrapolation of a single

experimental data value of the linear consumption rate to

general pool sizes can result in very significant error.

Depending on the size of the pool used to obtain the data

and on the size of the pool for which one is attempting to

obtain an estimate of the burning rate. one could under or

overestimate the actual consumption rate by as much as an

order of magnitude. Single value linear consumption rates

do not account for the behavior illustrated in Figure 39.

Also presented in Figure 39 are the flame-height-to-pool

diameter ratios versus pool diameter. This ratio is observed

to decrease monatomically with increasing pool diameter and

does not show the complex type of behavior that the linear

fuel consumption rate does.

For large pool fires, where large is defined in this context

as a pool whose diameter is greater than 0.2 meters. the

fluid dynamics are dominated by the transitional and turbulent flow regimes. As shown in Figure 39 the linear burning

rate (and hence the mass flux leaving the pool surface) is

observed to increase with pool diameter asymptotically to a

constant value at around 1.0 meters diameter and larger.

Zabetakis and Burgess first proposed a correlation for

characterizing this behavior.[66] Subsequently. Babrauskas

investigated this correlation using data from a variety of

sources.[67] Figure 40 presents the recommended correlation. The values for the required parameters for a variety

-36-
of common liquid fuels are presented in Table 25. This

table was compiled by Babrauskas based on studies by various

researchers. Figure 41 presents a comparison of predictions

based on the correlation to actual experimental data for two

fuels.

Once the mass flux is determined, the resulting heat release

rate can be estimated based on the area of involvement and

the heat of combustion of the fuel. In using heat-ofcombustion values one must take care to distinguish between

the total heat of combustion (such as that obtained from

bomb calorimeter testing) often reported in material property

tables, and the actual or lower heat-of-combustion values

often reported by fire researchers. Actual or lower heat-ofcombustion values are obtained from actual fire tests and

imply that a realistic burning efficiency is already

accounted for. In using total heat-of-combustion values the

user must assume a burning efficiency and reduce the calculated heat release rate accordingly. Note that the heat-ofcombustion values compiled by Babrauskas and reproduced in

Table 25 are total heat of combustion values.

Presented in Tables 7 through 11 are various liquid fuel

pool fire properties as determined by researchers at Factory

Mutual Research. The data in these tables includes total

and actual heat-of-combustion values, convective and radiative fractions of heat release, products of combustion carbon

distribution information, and heat generation values for use

in oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide generation calorimetry methods.

4.3 Ignitability of High-Fire point Liquid Fuels

Modak. of Factory Mutual Research. conducted a study investigating the ignitability of high-fire point hydrocarbon

oils.[71] A high-fire point fuel is a fuel which must be

raised to temperatures much higher than ambient before ignition can be achieved. Five high-fire point lubricating or

hydraulic oils were exposed to various heat flux and/or flame

sources in order to assess the ignitability of these fuels.

The investigation was undertaken in order to determine under

what circumstances a spill of such fluids would result in

their ignition.

The fuels tested were:

- #2 fuel oil

- 46 residual oil

- Mobil DTE 797 turbine lubricating oil

-37-
- Pennzoil 30-HD motor oil

- Tyrquel 220 hydraulic control fluid

Table 26 gives the critical fire temperatures for each of

these fuels. These fuels were tested on three surfaces:

- 21 MPa (uncoated) concrete with a float finish

- 21 MPa concrete with a 0.4-mm epoxy coating

- AISI C 1018 cold rolled steel

In a large-scale test five open 0.2-meter-diameter buckets.

each containing a sample of one of the five fuels were placed

around the perimeter of a 1.2-meter-diameter heptane pool as

shown in Figure 42. (It is worth noting that using the

correlation presented in Figure 40 and actual heat-of

combustion values for heptane from Table 7. the heat release

rate of the heptane pool is estimated at 2.5 MW.) Table 26

shows the times required to achieve ignition for each of the

fuel samples. None of the fuel samples ignited in less than

2 minutes. The estimated heat flux exposure levels were

20 (+5) kW/m 2 .

In further tests both deep and shallow pools of each of the

five fuels were subjected to simulated exposure to weld

splatters and to an oxyacetylene torch flame. Weld splatters

were simulated by the melting of a 13x3-mm steel rod over a

period of 60 seconds with the molten metal allowed to fall

into the oil pools from a height of 0.5 meters above the

pool surface. Subsequently. an oxyacetylene torch flame was

played for 15 seconds directly on the pool surface. In no

case was a sustained fire achieved.

Modak also investigated the depth of an unconfined spill of

each of the fuels. The results showed that the spill depth

was independent of both the size of the spill and the surface

onto which it was spilled. Table 27 gives the reported

spill depths.

Concern was expressed by the investigator that power plant

risk analyses often assumed that a spill of flammable liquids

has occurred under or near a set of cables and that the

liquid has been ignited. Often the fuel of concern is a

high-fire point fuel. In these analyses it is often assumed

that a fully developed pool fire results with no consideration given to how it was ignited. The investigators concern

was that this assumption was overly conservative as these

high-fire point fuels require rather intense heat exposures

to achieve sustained ignition and that such exposures could

only result from fires which in and of themselves would

-38-
represent significant hazards. This argument only applies

to high-fire point liquids. Volatile liquids such as

cleaning solvents. heptane. some alcohols, gasoline, and

others which have firepoints below or somewhat above ambient

temperatures are much more easily ignited.

Modak also performed a number of small-scale tests in which

samples of each of the five fuels were subjected to known

heat fluxes while monitoring the fuel surface temperature.

A theoretical model of the temperature response was developed

and presented. Due to its complexity this model will not be

presented here. The reader is referred to Modak's paper for

the details of this model.

4.4 Characterization of Hydraulic Fluid Spray Fires

Roberts and Brookes, of the Explosion and Flame Laboratory.

U.K., developed a test method for characterizing the burning

of high-pressure fluid sprays.[72] Under this method a

high-pressure spray is introduced into a chamber and ignited.

The temperature rise of the air passing through the chamber

and out the stack, and the thermal radiation emitted by the

flame, are monitored. This data yields estimates of the

convective and radiative heat release rates respectively.

Tables 28 through 30 show the results obtained for five

types of hydraulic fluid. Note that the values in Table 30

provide an estimate of the efficiency of burning in this

mode.

Kanakia et al.. of South-West Research Institute, reviewed

flammability test methods for hydraulic fluids with the goal

of proposing a standardized test procedure.[73] While no

data of the type sought here is presented, this paper does

provide insights into the potential pitfalls which may be

encountered during spray fire testing. Kanakia was particularly concerned with the effects of uncontrolled droplet size

in spray tests.

5. CHARACTERIZATION OF WOOD AND WOOD PRODUCT FIRES

Chamberlain performed an extensive review of the heat

release rate properties of wood and wood-based materials.[18]

The reader is directed to Chamberlain's work for a complete

treatment of the subject. For illustrative purposes some of

Chamberlain's findings are presented here. Also presented

in this section are some of the findings of Lee's review

[21] which deal with the spread of fire over wood surfaces.

-39-
Figures 43 and 44 present the heat release rate per unit

area of involvement for a variety of wood-based materials.

These plots show values for the peak. first one-minute

average. first five-minute average. and the first ten-minute

average heat release rates at an external exposure level of

60 kW/m2 . It is interesting to note that the material

density appears to present a good parameter against which to

correlate these materials.

Chamberlain's work also considered the effects of moisture

content, incident heat flux. fire-retardant treatment, and

other physical properties on wood fire characteristics. Some

of this data is summarized in Tables 31 through 34. For a

more complete description of this data, refer to the

original document.

Lee's review [21] also considered the combustion of wood

products. Lee's treatment focused primarily on correlations

for estimating the rate of spread of fire over wood surfaces.

The correlation illustrated in Figure 45 along with the

parameter values given in Table 35 were developed by

Quintiere and Harkleroad (74] and are recommended by Lee for

use in predicting flame-spread rates over wood-based

materials. Once the area of involvement is established the

data presented by Chamberlain can then be used to estimate

the total heat release rate.

6. CHARACTERIZATION OF TRASH AND GENERAL REFUSE FIRES

6.1 Introduction

A number of test programs have investigated the burning

characteristics of trash and general refuse fuel sources.

These investigations are typically intended to provide ignition source characteristics for use in the fire testing of

other types of fuel packages. It is typically desired that

a fuel package such as a chair, wall finishing material. or

cable tray array be exposed to a credible ignition source in

order to assess its fire behavior under realistic ignition

conditions. Thus these "credible" sources have typically

been examined in fair detail with several aspects of the fire

considered. As these fires are also relatively small in both

size and intensity they are much more easily monitored than

are large complex fuel arrays such as cable trays and even

furnishings.

in the sections which follow, a number of trash fire studies

will be discussed. Also to be discussed will bq Lee's

treatment of trash fires [21] in which correlations for

various trash fire test results were obtained.

-40-
6.2 Trash Fire Testing by LBL

One source of information on the burning of trash fires is a

study by Van Volkinburg et al..[75] at Lawrence Berkeley

Laboratory. This study was primarily concerned with the

development of a standard gas burner for use in fire

testing. During the course of this study a variety of trash

and wood crib fire tests were conducted in order to compare

the gas burner fire to typical trash fire sources. Data

reported include the total rate of heat release, flame

height, and enclosure ceiling temperature. Figures 46(a)

through (i) present descriptions of each of the test fuel

sources and the reported data for each test. Figure 47

presents a compilation of the heat release rate curves for

all of the tests.

It should be noted that the material used to fill the rubbish

containers and trash bags represent very conservative fuel

loadings (i.e.. the fuels burned very intensely when compared

to other trash fuel loadings). In particular, the waste

containers were filled with pint sized plastic coated milk

cartons half of which were opened at both ends and placed

vertically in the container and half of which were torn into

small pieces and placed inside the opened cartons. Thus.

each of the opened cartons formed a small, fuel-packed

chimney. This configuration resulted in very rapid growth

of the fire within the fuel package and very high peak heat

release rates when compared with the results of other tests.

These fuel configurations cannot be assumed to reflect those

one would expect to find in a nuclear power plant setting.

These test results should be considered to represent an upper

bound to fire intensity for this type of fuel package.

6.3 Trash Fire Testing by SNL

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) has also conducted a

number of ignition source fire characterization tests. The

first such series of tests was performed in conjunction with

the 20-ft separation tests, mentioned above (see Section

2.2.1). in order to compare the intensity of heat flux

exposure levels due to the heptane pool used in the

full-scale tests to those due to typical trash fires.[48]

Table 36 provides a description of each of the 12 tests conducted during this test series. Figure 48 shows the

measured total heat flux delivered to a calorimeter located

4 feet from the fire source. The calorimeters were

aspirated and had' a 180 degree field of view. Due to the

high ventilation rate used smoke obscuration was minimal.

Figure 49 shows the estimated peak heat flux which would

have been delivered to a target as a function of the

separation distance from the source fire. These estimated

values were calculated based on the measured values

presented in Figure 48.

-41-
The data gathered and reported as a part of the Ignition

Source Fire Tests included the oxygen depletion levels in the

test enclosure. However, subsequently identified problems

with the test setup have indicated that these values are in

significant error. The oxygen concentration values reported

by Cline [48] are considered to significantly underestimate

the actual levels of oxygen depletion during these tests.

It is therefore inappropriate to attempt to use these values

to estimate the heat release rates of the test fires. These

problems were corrected prior to subsequent test efforts.

In a more recent test series nine "typical" trash source fire

tests were conducted. The findings of this test series are

documented in a report by Nowlen.[76] Table 37 presents a

description of each of the test fuel sources. Figures 50(a)

through (e) show the heat release rates based on oxygen consumption for each of the test fires (as noted above the oxygen measurement problems were resolved and calibration data

is available for the fire test facility used). Data was

also gathered on the flame height, flame temperature, heat

fluxes, and mass loss rates.

6.4 Predictive Correlations for Trash Fires

Lee [21] of the National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire

Research (NBS-CFR) reviewed the data available for the

burning of trash fires. Using data from the UCB/LBL tests

(75] and the SNL Ignition Source Fire Tests [48] (both

described above) and additional data on the burning of piles

of clothing from a test program at the NBS-CFR, [77] Lee

attomptcd to ottain predkictive correlations for the burning

of trash fire sources.

Lee attempted to correlate the peak heat release rate per

unit area of exposed surface area of a trash fire source to

the effective diameter of the fire. Figure 51 presents the

results. Lee took the exposed surface area to be the sum of

the top and side areas of the fuel source. In Figure 52 the

peak heat release rate for the trash fires is plotted versus

the effective diameter of the fire as a function of the

estimated fuel packing density. Figure 53 presents an

envelope which Lee observed to encompass all of the data

considered. Lee suggests that Figures 52 and 53 can be used

to predict the burning behavior of a trash fire source recognizing certain limitations.

The author points out that the data is rather sparse so that

the correlations are not well characterized. This makes

extrapolation of these correlations to other cases difficult

and somewhat uncertain. The plots also suffer from the

problems associated with reported oxygen depletion values

which resulted in the under-prediction of the SNL Ignition

Source fire heat release rates. However these plots do

provide a foundation upon which to build.

-42-
7. CONCLUSIONS

This study identified. eight major categories of fuel types

which were of concern when considering the problem of fires

in nuclear power plants. The dominant combustible fuel

source identified is cable insulation materials. These

materials will be found in cable trays and electrical cabinets throughout most plant areas. Another fuel type identified which could in and of itself represent a significant

hazard is combustible liquid fuels such as diesel generator

fuels and various lubricating fluids. The presence of these

liquids could result in either a pool or high pressure spray

fire. Other fuel sources identified, both in situ and

transient, such as trash, wood. furniture, clothing disposal

bins, and paper documentation, will most likely not present

significant hazards in and of themselves. These fuel types

will, however, represent potential exposure-ignition sources

for the cable insulation materials and hence should not be

discounted.

When considering the fire behavior of cable insulation

materials one will find that most of the quantitative information available on these materials has been obtained from

small-scale tests. Data of this type reported by researchers

at Factory Mutual Research is generally the most complete and

reliable available. Small-scale test data has yet to be

fully. validated, and questions still remain as to whether or

not small-scale test responses are consistent with full-scale

fire exposure behavior. In some cases, such as time to

ignition, good correlation between large and small-scale

results has been noted. In other cases, such as heat release

rate and rate of flame spread, insufficient data exists to

assess the accuracy of small-scale results in the prediction

of full-scale fire behavior.

This lack of sufficient validating data is due to the fact

that full-scale tests on cable and cable tray fires have to

date not addressed the issues of fire intensity and fire

spread in more than a superficial way. This lack is primarily due to the fact that detailed characterization of the

fire itself has not been the purpose of most of the

large-scale cable fire tests run to date. Large-scale cable

fire tests have typically been concerned with the effectiveness of detection and suppression systems rather than fire

characterization. Some large-scale cable fire test data on

heat release rate and mass release rate. is available

primarily from the FMRC/EPRI cable tray fire test series.

This type of data is useful though extrapolation to cable

types and configurations different from those tested is a

difficult and uncertain proposition at best.

-43-
Due to the large number of cable types available and the

expense involved in large-scale fire testing it is simply not

practical to test every type of cable in a full-scale con-*

figuration. Hence, should further fire characterization

testing be undertaken effort should focus first on

large-scale cable tray fire tests which can be used to validate the small-scale test results. Such large-scale tests

should be conducted in a manner such that adequate results

are obtained for the validation of fire spread, mass release

and heat release data obtained in small-scale tests. The

large-scale cable fire tests being conducted at Lawrence

Livermore Laboratories are designed to meet this need for

vertical cable configurations.

This validation will be dependent, at least in part, on validation of computer simulation models which are based on

fuel parameter values obtained primarily from small-scale

tests. This would include zone models, field models, and

"submodels" of cable tray fires such as those developed by

Woollerton.[78] Hunter.[79-81] and Clarke.[82] Data will be

needed on both a global and a local scale (where possible)

so that models of fire growth and spread can be validated on

both a global and local level. The state of deterministic

modeling of fire development is advancing at a rapid pace.

However, the results obtained using computer simulation

models have not been adequately validated for nuclear power

plant type situations due to the lack of adequately

instrumented full-scale fire tests.

Ahen considering the transient fuel sources reported in

nuclear power plants, one finds that a fair amount of quantitative data is available for several typical fuel types.

One of the most thoroughly researched areas of fire phenomena is that of liquid fuel pool fires. A large base of data

exists on both the fundamental fuel properties of liquids

and on predictive correlations for pool fire burning rates.

Tor liquid fuel spray fires a much smaller base of data is

avaiLable. More research is needed in the area of spray

fires. However, in the fire research community no clear

consensus has appeared as to appropriate methods for the

testing of spray fires.

A number of tests have been performed to characterize the

type of fires one can expect from small to moderate quantities of trash. The information available on this type of

exposure fire is probably adequate to meet current needs.

While further test data would be useful, particularly in

refining correlations such as those proposed by Lee [21] for

the burning of trash sources, testing of small trash fuel

packages should not be considered a major need or priority

in fire characterization testing.

-44-
There is a lack of data available for exposure-ignition

source fuel packages other than small to moderate quantities

of trash. Such items as storage racks and disposal hampers

used for anticontamination protective clothing have not been

tested for fire behavior. There is also a lack of quantitative data on the burning of paper documentation procedures

manuals, storage racks for computer discs, and drawing racks

which could be found in plant computer and control rooms.

For most common instances of such fuel packages the resulting

fires would be expected to be relatively small. Hence one

would expect these fuel sources to represent exposure

ignition sources for other materials rather than significant

hazards in and of themselves. This may not be true for all

situations depending on the quantity and configuration of the

fuel package.

Another fuel source common to computer and control rooms is

furniture. The National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire

Research (NBS-CFR) has conducted a number of test programs

investigating the fire behavior of various types of

furnishings. The furnishings tested range from office-type

furniture to residential furniture. Various wall. floor, and

ceiling finishing materials have also been tested. The

NBS-.CFR effort has also resulted in correlations for the

prediction of peak heat release rates to be expected for

certain common types of chairs. The available data on furniture fires is adequate to meet current needs as related to

nuclear power plant fire analysis.

-45-
REFERENCES

1. Tewarson. A.. Fire Toxicology A Literature Review for

Polyvinyl Chloride. Factory Mutual Research Corp., FMRC

serial no. OCIR9.RC. RC79-T-41, August 1979.

2. Tewarson. A.. The Effects of Fire-Exposed Electrical

Wiring Systems on Escape Potential From Buildings Part

I--A Literature Review of Pyrolysis/Combustion Products

and Toxicities-Poly(vinyl Chloride). Factory Mutual

Research Corp.. Tech. Rep. 22491, December 1975.

3. Wheelis. W. T.. Transient Combustible Fuel Sources Found

at Nuclear Power Plants (Data). Sandia National

Laboratories, USNRC Letter Report, July 1984.

4. Garmon. L.. "Science on Fire." Science News V:120

(1981).

5. Hilado. C. J.. "Flammability Tests 1975: A Review." Fire

Tech. V:11.4 (1975).

6. Braun. E.. Review of Literature, Applicable Test

Methods, and Incidental Data for the Evaluation of the

Fire Performance of Central Telephone Office Equipment, National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research.

NBSIR 81-2261. May 1981.

7. Robertson. A. F.. "Fire Test Methods: Classification

and Application." Behavior of Polymeric Materials in

Fires. American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM-STP-816, 1983.

8. Tewarson. A., "Experimental Evaluation of Flammability

Parameters of Polymeric Materials." in Flame-Retardant

Polymeric Materials - V-3, (New York: Plenum Press.

1982).

9. Home Fire Project. National Bureau of Standards Center

for Fire Research Report, NBS-GCR-82-416. November 1982.

10. Christian, A. J. and Waterman. T. E.. "Ability of Smallscale Test to Predict Full-Scale Smoke Production." Fire

Tech. V:7.4 (1971).

11. Emmons, H. W., "Fire and Fire Protection." Scientific

American. V:231.1 (1974).

12. Huggett, C., "Rate of Heat Release--Implications for

Engineering Decisions." Proceedings of the Engineering

Applications for Fire Tochnology Workshop, Apr. 16-18,

1980. Soc. for Fire Protection Engineers (1983).

--46-
13. Smith, E. E., "Relation of Performance Tests to Actual

Fires." Fire Tech. V:12.1 (1976).

14. Galant. S., "The Use of Deterministic Computer Codes to

Assess Fire Behavior and Ventilation Requirements in

Confined Enclosures: Present Capabilities and Future

Prospects," Proceedings of the CSNI Specialist Meetinq

on Interaction of Fire and Explosion with Ventilation

System in Nuclear Facilities. CSNI report no. 83

(April 25-28, 1983).

15. Rockett. J. A.. "Data for Room Fire Models.," Combustion

Science and Technology Vol. 40. pp 137-151 (1984).

16. MacArthur. C. D.. "Mathematical Modeling of Enclosed

Fires: A Review of Current U.S. Research."

17. Chan. M. K. W. and Mishima, J.. Characteristics of

Combustion Products: A Review of the Literature,

Pacific Northwest Laboratories, NUREG/CR-2658, PNL

4174. July 1983.

18. Chamberlain. D. L.. Heat Release Rate Properties of

Wood-Based Materials. National Bureau of Standards,

NBSIR 82-2597, July 1983.

19. Hall. A. R.. "Pool Burning." Oxidation and Combustion

Reviews 6. pp 169-225 (1973). Elsevier Scientific Pub.

Co.. Amsterdam, printed in The Netherlands.

20. Hilado. C. J.. Flammability Handbook for Plastics,

second edition, (Westport. CT: Technomatic Publishing

Co. Inc.. 1974). LOC card number 74-82519.

21. Lee. B. T., Heat Release Rate Characteristics of Some

Combustible Fuel Sources in Nuclear Power Plants. U.S.

Dept. of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. NBSIR

85-3195. July 1985.

22. Smith. E. E.. "Measuring Rate of Heat, Smoke, and Toxic

Gas Release." Fire Tech. V:8.3 (1972).

23. Smith. E. E., "Heat Release Rate of Building Materials,"

Ignition Heat Release and Noncombustibility of

Materials. American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM-STP-502. 1972.

24. Babrauskas. V., "Performance of the Ohio State

University Rate of Heat Release Apparatus Using

Polymethylmethacrylate and Gaseous Fuels." Fire Safety

Journal V5 (1982).

-47-
25. Evans. D. D. and Breden. R. F.. "Time Delay Correction

for Heat Release Rate Data." Fire Tech. V:14 (1978).

26. Smith. E. E. and Heibel. J. T.. Evaluating the

Performance of Cellular Plastics in Fire Systems,

Products Research Committee. Dept. of Chemical Eng..

Ohio State University. RP-75-1-36. 1975.

27. Proposed Test Method For Heat and Visible Smoke Release

Rates for Materials. American Society for Testing and

Materials. ASTM Standards Part 18. November 1980.

28. Krause. F. R. and Gann. R. G., "Rate of Heat Release

Measurements Using Oxygen Consumption." Jour. Fire

Flamm. V:11 (1980).

29. Tewarson. A.. Lee. J. L.. and Pion. R.F.. "The

Influence of Oxygen Concentration on Fuel Parameters

for Fire Modeling." Eighteenth Symposium

(International) on Combustion. The Comb. Inst. (1981).

30. Tewarson. A.. Flammability of Polymers and Organic

Liquids Part I: Burning Intensity, FMRC serial 22429,

RC 75-T-6. February 1975.

31. Tewarson. A.. Lee. J. L., and Pion. R. F..

Categorization of Cable Flammability Part I:

Laboratory Evaluation of Cable Flammability Parameters.

FMRC report NP-1200. October 1979.

32. Lee. J. L.. A Study of Damageability of Electrical

Cables in Simulated Fire Environments, FMRC report

NP-1767. March 1981.

33. Tewarson, A. and Pion. R. F.. "Flammability of Plastics

Part I: Burning Intensity." Comb. and Flame V:26 (1976).

34. Tewarson. A.. Damageability and Combustibility of

Electrical Cables. Factory Mutual Research Corp..

Summary of research contract RP-1165-1. December 1981.

35. Tewarson. A.. Physico-Chemical and Combustion/Pyrolysis

Properties of Polymeric Materials. National Bureau of

Standards. NBS-GCR-80-295. December 1980.

36. Tewarson. A.. "Heat Release Rates From Samples of

Polymethylmethacrylate and Polystyrene Burning in

Normal Air." Fire and Materials (1976).

37. Tewarson. A.. Combustibility Evaluations Using FM

Small-, Intermediate-, and Large-scale Test

Apparatuses. FMRC serial J.I. IA7E4.RC. June 1982.

-48-
38. Tewarson. A.. "Heat Release Rates in Fires." Fire and

Materials V:4.4 (1980).

39. Tewarson. A., Fire Hazard Evaluation of Mine Materials

in Small-scale Combustibility Apparatus. FMRC serial

J.I. OEON6.RC. October 1980.

40. Kahn. M. M. and Tewarson. A., Small-scale Testing of

Flame Retardant Coated Cables, FMRC serial J.I.

OG3R9.RC. May 1982.

41. Hasegawa. H. K. et al., Fire Protection Research for

Energy Technology Projects FY 1981 Year-End Report,

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-53178-81,

July 1982.

42. Hasegawa. H. K. et al.. Fire Protection Research for

DOE Facilities: FY 1982 Year-End Report, Lawrence Livermo

re National Laboratory. UCRL-53179-82. September 1983.

43. Hasegawa. H. K. et al.. Fire Protection Research for

DOE Facilities: FY83 Year-End Report. Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory. UCRL-53179-83. August 2.

1984.

44. Hasegawa, H. K. et al.. Fire Protection Research for

DOE Facilities: FY84 Year-End Report. Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory. UCRL-53179-84,

September 25. 1985.

45. Kashiwagi. T. and Ohlemiller. T. J., "A Study of Oxygen

Effects on Nonflaming Transient Gasification of PMMA

and PE During Thermal Irradiation." Nineteenth

International Symposium on Combustion. The Comb. Inst.

(1982).

46. Bakhman. N. N. et al, "Burning of Polymeric Coatings on

Copper Wires and Glass Threads: I. Flame Propagation

Velocity." Comb. and Flame V:41 (1981).

47. Schacke. H., Hunter. L. W.. Fristrom, R. M.. and

Grunfelder. C.. "Combustion of Poly(vinyl Chloride)

Studied by the Moving Wire Technique." Sixteenth

Symposium (International) on Combustion. The Comb.

Inst. (August 15-20. 1976).

48. Cline. D. D., von Riesemann, W. A.. and Chavez. J. M.,

Investigation of Twenty-Foot Separation Distance as a

Fire Protection Method as Specified in 10 CFR 50,

Appendix R. Sandia National Laboratories. NUREG/CR3192,

SAND83-0306, October 1983.

49. Nowlen. S. P.. Sandia National Laboratories. Heat

Release Rates During the Sandia/U.L. 20 Foot Separation

Tests. unpublished Letter Report to the USNRC. May 1984.

-49-
50. Chavez. J. M. and Klamerus. L. J.. "Cable Tray Fire

Experimentation." Proceedings of the CSNI Specialist

Meeting on Interaction of Fire and Explosion with

Ventilation System in Nuclear Facilities. CSNI report

no. 83. (April 25-28. 1983).

51. Dube. D. A.. Fire Protection Research Programs for the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1975-1981. Sandia

National Laboratories. NUREG/CR-2607, SAND82-0431,

April 1983.

52. Klamerus. L. J.. Fire Protection Research Program

Corner Effects Tests. Sandia National Laboratories.

NUREG/CR-0833. SAND79-0966. December 1979.

53. Chavez. J. M. and Lambert. L. D.. Evaluation of

Suppression Methods on Cable Tray Fires. Sandia

National Laboratories. NUREG/CR-3656. SAND86-2664. July

1986.

54. Schmidt. W. H. and Krause. F. R.. Burn Mode Analysis of

Horizontal Cable Tray Fires. Sandia National

Laboratories. NUREG/CR-2431. SAND81-0079. February 1982.

55. Alvares. N. J.. Lipska-Quinn. A. E.. and Hasegawa.

H. K.. Thermal Degradation of Cable and Wire

Insulations. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

UCRL86924. November 1982.

56. Sumitra. P. S., Categorization of Cable Flammability:

Intermediate-Scale Tests of Cable Tray Installations.

Factory Mutual Research Corp., EPRI NP-1881, August

1982.

57. Hill. J. P.. Fire Tests in Ventilated Rooms:

Extinguishment of Fires in Grouped Cable Trays. Factory

Mutual Research Corp.. EPRI NP-2660. December 1982.

58. Beyreis. J. R. et al.. "A Test Method for Measuring and

Classifying the Flame Spreading and Smoke Generating

Characteristics of Communications Cable." Proceedings

of the Twenty-Fifth International Wire and Cable

Symposium. pg 291 (1976).

59. Kaufman. S. and Yokum. M. M.. "The Behavior of Fire

Resistant Communications Cable in Large-scale Fire

Tests." Plastics and Rubber: Materials and

Applications. pg 149 (November 1979).

60. Williamson. R. B., Mowrer. F. W.. and Fisher, F. L..

Fire Safety of Electrical Cabinets." Lawrence Berkeley

Laboratory. January 1984.

-50-
61. Lawson. J. R.. Walton. W. D.. and Twilley. W. H., Fire

Performance of Furnishings as Measured in the NBS Furniture Calorimeter. Part I. National Bureau of

Standards, NBSIR 83-2787, January 1984.

62. Babrauskas. V.. "Upholstered Furniture Heat Release

Rates: Measurements and. Estimation." Jour. of Fire

Sciences Vol. 1 (1983).

63. Babrauskas. V. et al.. Upholstered Furniture Heat

Release Rates Measured With a Furniture Calorimeter.

National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 82-2604, December

1982.

64. Braun. E. et al., "Cigarette Ignition of Upholstered

Chairs." Jour. of Consumer Product Flammability Vol. 9

(December 1982).

65. Blinov, V. I. and Khudyakov. G. N.. "Diffusion Burning

of Liquids," Izd. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Moscow. 1961: Engl.

Transl. U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development

Laboratories, T-1490a-c. NTIS No. AD-296 762.

66. Zabetakis. M. G. and Burgess. D. S., Research on the

Hazards Associated with the Production and Handling of

Liquid Hydrogen (Philadelphia: Bureau of Mines.

R.I. 5707. 1961).

67. Babrauskas. V.. "Estimating Large Pool Fire Burning

Rates." Fire Tech. Vol. 19 No. 4 (1983).

68. Torrance. X. E. and Mahajan, R. L., "Fire Spread Over

Liquid Fuels: Liquid Phase Parameters." Fifteenth

Symposium (International) on Combustion, The Comb.

Inst. (1975).

69. Burgess, D. and Hertzburg, M., Radiation From Pool

Flames (Pittsburgh: U.S. Department of the Interior.

Bureau of Mines. Pittsburg Mining and Safety Research

Center).

70. Atallah, S.. and Allan. D. S.. "Safe Separation

Distances from Liquid Fuel Fires." Fire Tech. V:7.8

(1972).

71. Modak. A. T., Ignitability of High-Fire point Liquid

Spills. Factory Mutual Research Corp.. EPRI NP-1731,

Project 1165-1, March 1981.

72. Roberts. A. F. and Brookes. F. R., "Hydraulic Fluids:

An Approach to High Pressure Spray Flammability Testing

Based on Measurement of Heat Output." Fire and

Materials Vol. 5. No. 3. (1981).

-51-
73. Kanakia. M. D. et al.. Standardization of Flammability

Tests for Hydraulic Fluids. Southwest Research Inst..

San Antonio. TX. Army Fuels and Lubrication Resea-rch

Laboratory. AFLRL-181 DAAK70-83-C-0070. September 30.

1983.

74. Quintiere. J. G. and Harkleroad. M.. "New Concepts for

Measuring Flame Spread Properties.," Symposium on

Application of Fire Sciences to Fire Engineering.

American Society of Testing and Materials. ASTM-STP-882.

75. Von Volkinburg. D. R. et al., Towards a Standard

Ignition Source. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

LBL-8306. October 1978.

76. Nowlen. S. P.. Heat and Mass Release Rates for Some

Transient Fuel Source Fires: A Test Report. Sandia

National Laboratories. NUREG/CR-4680. SAND86-0312. June

1986.

77. Lee. B. T.. Effect of Ventilation on the Rates of Heat,

Smoke, and Carbon Monoxide Production in a Typical Jail

Cell Fire, National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 82-2469.

March 1982.

78. Woollerton. G. R.. "A Release Rate Data Mathematical

Model of Flame Spread Through Grouped Vertical Cables."

Jour. of Fire and Flamm. V:12 (1981).

79. Hunter. L. W., Models of Horizontal Electrical Cables

and Cable Trays Exposed to a Fire Plume, NUREG/CR-0376.

September 1978.

80. Hunter. L. W., Understanding Trends in Fire Spread Over

Cables and Cable Trays (Laurel: John Hopkins

University. Applied Physics Laboratory, January 1979).

81. Hunter. L. W., Upward Fire Propagation in a Vertical

Cable Tray I. Fire Propagation Over Central, Thermally

Thin Cables. John Hopkins University. FPP TR-39. March

1979.

82. Clarke, R. K.. Analytical Model for Cable Tray Fires.

Sandia National Laboratories. SAND75-0288. 1975.

-52-
HISTOGRAM FOR: OIL TYPICAL

30

251-

0

C- W

20[-

15[-

10

5

0 ',H 1 1 I - a - a - a. I - a

<1 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 50 75100 >100

BIN SIZE (UNITS: gal)

Figure 1: Histogram showing amounts of oil typically reported

as transient combustible fuels in NPP inspection

reports [Reference 3]

-53-
HISTOGRAM FOR: SOLVENTS TYPICAL

30

25

13

0 20

IL

7- 1

rd,

10

5

0

lpt 1 qt I gal 5 gal >5 gal

BIN SIZE

Figure 2: Histogram showing amounts of solvent typically

reported as transient combustible fuels in NPP

inspection reports (Reference 3]

-54-
HISTOGRAM FOR: PAPER/TRASH TYPICAL

30

25

0

0.

CO)

20

15

10

5

0

<5 <30 30 55 >55

BIN SIZE (UNITS: gal)

Figure 3: Histogram showing typical amounts of paper and/or

trash reported as transient combustible fuels in

NPP inspection reports (Reference 3]

-55-
HISTOGRAM FOR: PAINT TYPICAL

30

25

u.I i0

0.) UJ

W

20

15

10

I I a a

Is

0

I pt I qt I gal 5 gal >5 gal

BIN SIZE

Figure 4: Histogram showing typical amounts of paint reported

as transient combustible fuels in NPP inspection

reports [Reference 3]

-56-
700

~Sw

W500

44

200

100

0

TIME Isf

Figure 5: Comparison of heat release rate values obtained for

PMMA samples from a modified OSU Rate of Heat

Release Apparatus using oxygen consumption and

conventional calorimetry methods [Reference 24]

-57-
300

7w0

30

5M30

400

200

0 100 200 300 4W0 500 600

TIME Isl

Figure 6: Comparison of heat release rate data for PMMA

samples from a modified OSU apparatus and the

NBS--II apparatus at a nominal heat flux of 25

kW/m 2 based on oxygen consumption [Reference 24]

-58-
r4

0;

AK

.4

1.0 2.0

F~tem.ol Heat Flux (Cj) -Total Heat Loss toi')(Cal/cm2 sec)

* These Charring Materials Burn Rapidly At First And Then The Rate Declines As

Char Builds Up; These Results Are Based On Peak Rate. If An Average Rate Were

Used.Charring Materials Would Give Much Lower Values.

Figure 7: Mass burning rate per unit exposed surface area

versus net external heat flux for various polymers

[Reference 30]

-59-
700

600

.500

U

2400 -

100,-

01

Figure 8 :

External Heat Flux (QE)-Total Heat Loas(QL) (Cal/cm2 sec)

Mass burning rate per unit exposed surface area

versus net external heat flux for various organic fluids [Reference 30]

-60-
Table 1: Physical properties of cables used in FMRC smallscale characterization tests [Reference 31]

Insulation/Jacket

Number Materials

1 Low density PE

(MdPE), no jacket

Insulation/

Jacket Mate- Ii

Conductor Outer Cable rids (% of ri

No. Size Diameter total cable ii

(AWG) in. (m) weight

Polyethylene (PE)/No Jacket

1 14 0.128(0.003) 23.9

nsulation Jacket Materials

emaining as char (% of

nitial wt. of insulation/

acket materials)

IEEE-383

Rating

0.10

3 PE/PVC

4 PE/PVC

5 PE/PVC

6 PE/PVC

7 Pt/PVC

a PE.PP/CI°

(silicone

Polyethylene/Polyvinyl chloride (PE/PVC)

1 - 0.945(0.024) 15.6 21.9

1 12 0.164(0.004) 26.5 0.6

3 - 0.438(0.011) 49.9 20.8

5 - 0.748(0.019) 51.0 25.6

12 - 1.000(0.025) 57.8 24.4

Polyethylene. Polypropylene/Chlorosulfonated Polyethylene (PE, PP/Cl.S*PE)

S*PE 1 - 0.445(0.011) 23.2 41.6

coating) lm

9 PE,PP/FRCI-S-PE" 1 6 0.36B(0.009) 40.2 46.4

i1 PEPP/Cf.S.PE 1 12 0.192(0.005) 42.9 45.6

11 PEPP/Ct.S-PE 5 14 0.668(0.017) 77.1 48.3

12 PEPP/Ct-S.PE 2 16 0.426(0.011) 77.4 40.5

Cross-Linked Polyethylene/Cross-Linked Poyethylene (XPE/XPE)

11 XPE/FRXPEb 3 12 0.458(0.012) 61.4 44.9

14 XPE/XPE 2 14 0.377(0.010) 73.5 -

Cross-Linked Polyethylene/Chlorosulfonated Polyethylene (XPE/C1*S4PE)

15 FRXPE/CE'S.PE 4 16 0.368(0.009) 56.2 29.5

16 XPE/CL'S.PE 4 16 0.442(0.011) 62.1 31.0

Cross Linked Polyethylene/Neoprene (XPE/Neo)

17 XPE/Neo 3 16 0.369(0.009) 73.2 43.9

2 XPE/Neo 7 12 0.630(0.016) 53.6 -

Polyethylene, Nylon/Polyvinyl chloride, Nylon (PE, Ny/PVC, Ny)

19 PE, My/PVC, Ny 7 12 0.526(0.013) 39.9

19 PE, Ny/PVC, Ny 7 12 0.520(0.013) 43.5

Teflon

Fail

Fail

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

20 Teflon

21 Silicone, qlass

braid

22 Silicone, glass

braid/asbestos

34 - 0.516(0.013)

1 - 0.363(0.009)

9 14 0.875(O.0221

48.9

Silicone

34.0

3.9

70.5 59.4

0 Generic class as given by the suppliers. Cable samples belonging to similar generic class may not be

similar because of different types and amounts of unknown additives in the cable samples.

bP - with fire retardant chemical

-61-
Table 2: Heat of combustion values for cables tested in FMRC

small-scale apparatus including breakdown of

convective and radiative portions of heat release

[Reference 31]

AVERAGE PEAK VALUES OF HEAT OF COMBUSTION OF CABLE SAMPLES&

Cable Sample

ZdPE (granular)b

JdPE (01)

PE/PVC (#3)

PE, PP/C1*S-PE (#8)

XPE/FRXPE (013)

PE, PP/C-S-PE (*11)

PE/PVC (#4)

Silicone, glass braid (021)

Silicone, glass braid/asbestos (022)

PE/PVC (#5)

Nylon (granular)b

PE/PVC (#6)

PE/PVC (#7)

PE,PP/Cl-'S.P (010)

PE/25%CZ (granular)b

PE,PP/CL-S-PE (012)

FRXPE/Cl S-PE (015)

X)E/CI-S-PE (016)

XPE/Neo (#2)

XPE/XPE (014)

XPE/Neo (#17)

PE-Ny/PVC-Ny (018)

PE, Ny/PVC, Ny (019)

PE/364CL (granular) b

PE/48%CJL (granular) b

PVC (granular)b

Teflon (020)

Heat of Combustion

Actual Convective

32.1 11.2

31.3 11.6

30.8 18.3

29.6 15.8

28.3 12.3

26.8 17.0

25.1 11.1

25.0 17.5

24.0 20.0J

24.0 13.0

22.4 8.7

22.0 14.0

20.9 10.7

19.0 12.3

18.1 6.2

17.4 6.6

17.3 7.5

13.9 9.2

12.6 5.9

12.5 7.5

10.3 4.9

10.2 5.0

9.2 4.8

8.8 4.6

6.0 4.6

5.9 2.4

3.2 2.7

(kW/9)

Radiative

21.0

19.7

12.5

13.9

16.0

9.8

14.0

7.3

4.0

11.0

13.7

8.1.

10.2

6.7

11.9

10.8

9.8

4.7

6.7

5.0

5.5

5.2

4.4

4.2

1.4

3.5

0.4

'F-or combustion in normal air at 60 kW/m 2

bResearch samples, data taken from Ref. (6)

-62-
Table 3: Convective and radiative fractions of actual heat

release for FMRC small-scale cable fire tests

[Reference 31]

RATIOS OF HEAT OF COMBUSTION

Cable Sample HR/HAa HC/HAb

PE/25%Ct (granular)c 0.66 0.34

LdPE (granular)c 0.65 0.35

UdPE (01) 0.63 0.37

PE, PP/CI*SFPE (012) 0.62 0.38

Nylon (granular)c 0.61 0.39

PVC (granular)c 0.59 0.41

xPE/FRXPE (#13) 0.57 0.43

FRXPE/CfoSoPE (015) 0.57 0.43

PE/PVC (04) 0.56 0.44

XPE/Neoprene (02) 0.53 0.47

XPE/Neoprene (#17) 0.53 0.47

PE-Ny/PVC-Ny (M01) 0.51 0.49

PE/PVC (07) 0.49 0.51

PE/36%CL (granular)c 0.48 0.52

PE, Ny/PVC. Ny (019) 0.48 0.52

PE, PP/CL-S-PE (#8) 0.47 0.53

PE/PVC (03) 0.41 0.59

XPE/XPE (014) 0.40 0.60

PE/PVC (#6) 0.37 0.63

PE, PP/Cf.S*PE (011) 0.37 0.63

PE, PP/CL*S*PE (010) 0.35 0.65

XPE/CI-S.PE (016) 0.34 0.66

Silicone, glass braid (#21) 0.29 0.71

PE/48%Ct (granular)c 0.23 0.77

Silicone, glass braid/asbestos (#22) 0.17 0.83

Teflon (020) 0.13 0.88

% lRadiative Heat of Combustion; HA: Actual Heat of Combustion

bHC,: Convective Heat of Combustion

CResearch samples data taken from Ref. (9)

-63-
Table 4: Actual heat release rates from cable samples during

FMRC small-scale cable fire tests [Reference 31]

HEAT RMLEASE RATE PER UNIT AREA AND HEAT OF COMBUSTION R FLAMnG FIR

OF CABLE SAMPLES IN NORMAL AIR AT 60 kW/mA M

IEEE

383

Rating Acti

Heat Release Rate Per

Unit Area (kW/m2)

Cable Sample ual Convective Radiative

Ld PE (01)

PE/PVC (05)

XPE/FRXPE (013)

PE/PVC (04)

PE/PVC (06)

XPB/Neoprene (02)

PE,PP/C1-S*PE (012)

PE/PVC (#3)

XPE/Neoprene (017)

PE, PP/CL-S*PE (#8)

PE, PP/CjLS*PE (#11)

FRXPE/Ci.S.PE (#15)

PE, Nylon/PVC, Nylon (019)

PE, Nylon/PVC, Nylon ($18)

XPE/CE*S-PE (#16)

Silicone, glass braid, asbestos (#22)

XPE/XPE (#14)

PE,PP/Cl.S.PE (#10)

Silicone, glass braid (021)

Teflon (#20)

aAverage peak values NK - Not known

NK

Fail

Pass

Fail

NK

NB

Pass

NK

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

NK

NB

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass

NB

Pass

1071

589

475

395

359

354

345

312

302

299

271

258

231

218

204

182

178

177

128

98

398

325

207

175

228

166

131

185

144

160

172

112

120

107

135

152

107

114

89

82

673

264

268

220

131

188

214

127

158

139

99

146

110

111

69

30

71

62

39

16

Heat of Combustion (kJ/g)

Actual Convective Radiative

31.3 11.6 19.7

24.0 13.0 11.0

28.3 12.3 16.0

25.1 11.1 14.0

22.0 14.0 8.0

12.6 5.9 6.7

17.4 6.6 10.8

30.8 18.3 12.5

10.3 4.9 5.4

29.6 15.8 13.9

26.8 17.0 9.8

17.3 7.5 9.8

9.2 4.8 4.4

10.2 5.0 5.2

13.9 9.2 4.7

24.0 20.0 4.0

12.5 7.5 5.0

19.0 12.3 6.7

25.0 17.5 7.3

3.2 2.7 0.4

-64-
Table 5: Cable mass loss sensitivity values for FMRC

small-scale tests [Reference 31]

THE SENSITIVITY OF MASS LOSS RATE To EXTERNAL HEAT FLUX FOR THE

COMBUSTION OF CABLE SAMPLES IN NORMAL AIR

Cable Sample

PVC/Plasticizera

Pt (granular)a

PP (granular)a

XPE/CL-S.PE (#16)

PE/25%Cl (granular)a

PVC (granular)a

XlE/Weoprene (#17)

PE/36%C1 (granular)a

PE/48%Ct (granular) a

PE/PVC (04)

PE, PP/FRCL*S*PE (#9)

XPE/YRXPE (#13)

Silicone, glass braid/asbestos (422)

bLg/fj (g/Ll) b

0.60

0.57

0.49

0.47

0.47

0.41

0.38

0.34

0.33

0.22

0.17

0.17

0.10

aResearch samples data taken from Ref. (%)

Based on peak average value A" /A4" is defined as the sensitivity of man*

loss rate to external heat flux reasured for peak values.

-65-
Table 6: Generation rates of primary fire products during

FMRC small-scale cable fire tests (Reference 31]

YIELD O• , CO, AND GASEOUS HYDROCARBONS rROM THE2 _

COMBUSTION 4 CABLE SAMPLES IN NORMAL AIR AT 60 kW/.'

Cable Sample

LdPE (granular) d

I4PE (01)

PR/PVC (03)

PE, PP/CtIS-PE (08)

XPE/FRXPE (#13)

PE/PVC (#4)

PE, PP/CL*S°PE (11)

Nylon (granular)d

Silicone, glass braid (021)

Silicone, glass braid/asbestos (#22)

PE/PVC (06)

PE/25%CL (granular)d

PE/PVC (#7)

PE. PP/CL-SPE (010)

PE, PP/CL*S*PE (#12)

FRXPE/C-S.PE (015)

XPE/Ci-S-PE (016)

XPE/XPZ (014)

XPE/Neo (02)

PE/36%Ct (granular) d

XPE/Neo (017)

PR-Ny/PVC-Ny (018)

PE, Ny/PVC, Ny (019)

PVC (granular)c

PE/48%Ct (granular)d

Teflon (020)

YCO2

2.28

2.25

2.08

1.95

1.78

1.75

1.74

1.67

1.65

1.47

1.39

1.31

1.29

1.21

0.99

0.95

0.89

0.83

0.68

0.65

0.63

0.63

0.49

0.46

0.45

0.18

Yield (g/g)b

YCO

0.06

0.05

0.10

0.07

0.11

0.05

0.15

0.04

0.01

0.03

0.17

0.06

0.15"

0.07

0.18

0.12

0.12

0.10

0.12

0.05

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.06

0.05

0.09

YHC

0.02

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.001

0.0003

0.04

0.03

0.04

0.01

0.09

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.01

a

Average peak values ieald - mass generation rate of the product/mams loss rate

CHC - gaseous hydrocarbons (as C14)

d Research samples, data from Ref (9)

-66-
a

0

U

C

V

6~

)- I.

-- - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Combustion of Cable Samples in Normal Air, 60kW/mt -

o Cable Samples dP

0 Research Samples I(O

-- Nylon 4) 11• -

-- PE/26%Cl

-0•02 1 Slp - 0.065

-PE/48% C 0 Standard Deviation - 0.007

, , ,,t9

0 10.0 20.0 30.0

Actual Heat of Combustion (kJ/g)

40.0

Figure 9: Correlation between yield of CO2 and actual heat

of combusion for cable samples (Reference 31]

I I I I I I I I -

S 30

~20

1-Y

013

All

07

Alo

A12

0 PE/PVC (3 to 7)

A PE, PP/Cl S. PE 0 to 12)

0- XPE/XPE (13.14)

V XPE/CI.SPE 05,16)

f Il Ia I

tO 1 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Insulation/Jacket Materials (% of Total Cable Weiht)

Figure 10: Correlation between actual heat of combusion and

percentage of cable weight attributed to insulation

[Reference 31]

-67-
0151aLl I I I I I I I I

0.10

O PE/PVC (3 to 7)

A PE,PP/CI.S.PE (itol2)

E3 X PEX PE (13.14)

V XPE/CU.S.PE. (15,16) ,612

'JJ i L 030 17V 13AlII04 156 14

_o i ! I I I i !

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

kInsulation/Jacket Materials (% of Total Cable Weight)

Figure 11: Correlation between yield of unburned hydrocarbons

and percent of cable weight attributed to

insulation (Reference 31]

0.20

.2

.. 0.10

I I I I I I I I I

O FPE/PVC 0 to 7)

A FE, PP/CL.S.PE (8 to 12)

o XPE/XPE(13.14)

V XPE/CLS.PE (15,16)

I I II

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Insulation/Jacket Materials (% o Total Coble Weight)

Figure 12: Correlation between yield of carbon monoxide and

percent of cable weight attributed to insulation

(Reference 31]

-68-
Table 7: Total and actual heat of combustion values at

various external heat flux exposure levels for

various fuels [Reference 34]

Net heet of combustion (k JIg)

4; Complete

Polymer-Lfquid (kW/m 2

) Ol combustion Actuasi

0'

Liquids

Methanol

Aoston

Keptane Polymen

Celaulos

Plyozymethylene

PoXymethylmethacylate

Polypropylene

Nylon 616

Polyethyenem MPE)

PE

Pt foams

2

3

4

PE,-25 %,CI

PE-48%"I

Polyvinyl chloride

Aromatic-type fuels

Liquids

Sty rea

senwm

0 0.233

0 0.233

0 0.233

52.4 0.233

0 0.233

38.9 0.233

52.4 0.233

0 0.233

39.7 0.233

52.4 0.233

0 0.233

39.7 0.233

52.4 0.233

52.4 0.233

0 0.233

40,2 0.233

38.9 0.233

52.0 0.233

26.5 0.233

38.9 0.233

52.0 0.233

26.5 0.233

38.9 0.233

52.0 0.233

26.5 0.233

38.9 0.233

52.0 0.233

35.1 0.233

38.9 0.233

26.8 0.233

20.1 0.233

52.4 0.233

0 0.233

20.0 0.233

0 0.233

0 0.233

19.9%

28.49

44.56

16.48

15.48

15.48

15.48

25.20

25.20

25.20

43.38

43.38

43.38

30.79

43.47

43.47

41.21

41.21

40.84

40.84

40.84

40.84

40.84

40.84

40.84

40.84

40.84

31.59

31.59

26.28

20.63

16.44

19.82

23.71

30.75

11.80

11.69

12.03

11.83

21.85

17.89

17.89

32.62

25.12

29.46

22.42

31.39

32.12

21.85

28.23

32.26

29.40

28.59

29.83

28.59

26.14

30.22

28.59

22.83

19.59

18.04

8.83

6.00

5.89

Net beat of combuation

4; Compilte

Polyma-Liqwd (kW/m) Moo combustion Actuls

PolystyrnMe 0 0.233 39.17 23.77

32.5 0.233 39.17 15.35

38.9 0.233 39.17 16.18

39.7 0.233 39.17 18.17

Epoxy-PR-FFlb5Shs 38.9 0.233 29.83 15.21

47.0 0.233 29.83 13.81

52.4 0.233 29.83 15.45

0.279 29.83 14.41

0.334 29.83 13.96

Polyurethane foams

i.A-COCOs 0 0.233 17.11 11.69

10.0 0.233 17.11 11.93

20.1 0.233 17.11 10.93

26.4 0.233 17.11 10.61

38.9 0.233 17.11 1.53

45.2 0.233 17.11 11.16

52.3 0.233 17.11 10.97

59.8 0.233 17.11 11.40

GM.21 45.2 0.160 26.15 16.11

0.180 26.15 16.87

0.213 26.15 16.68

0.233 26.15 16.27

G-23-FR 45.2 0.167 27.15 16.70

0.233 27.15 16.62

0.273 27.I5 17.13

G0-25 26.4 0.207 24.64 15.20

0.214 24.64 16.16

0,233 24.64 15.72

0.301 24.64 15.01

31.8 0,233 24.64 14.29

38.9 0.233 24.64 14.27

52.4 0.233 24.64 14.41

59.8 0.233 24.64 14.71

GM-27-FR 31.8 0.233 23.18 12.38

38.9 0.233 23.18 12.05

52.4 0.233 23.18 12.01

GM-29 52.0 0.233 26.02 11.84

GM-31-FR 52.0 0.233 25.02 11.46

OFIm not fully V~treted. 34.86 22.30

34.86 16.38

40.51 22.28

40.14 21.23
Table 8: Actual, radiative, and convective fractions of total

heat of combustion for various fuels [Reference 34]

4;

polyma-w~uid (twim') M 2 X&CIUal leauw V414 P*/-m4iA 4; (kW/m2) MO2 xlcwal 1 eouv xlad

CDI

Aliphatic-type fuels

Liquids

Methano

Acetone

Heptume

Polymms Cceukm

polyoxymathylene

Polymethytmethaa•rylats

Polyinopyine

Nylon 6/6

Folyethylyeus (PE)

FE

PE foams

2

3

4

PFE-25%CI

PE-3•%C1

PE-485•C

Polyvinyl ""otlda

0

0

0

52.4

0

38.9

52.4

0

39.7

32.4

0

39.7

52.4

52.4

0

40.2

35.9

52.0

26.5

35.9

52.0

26.5

38.9

52.0

26.5

35.9

52.0

35.1

35.9

26.5

20.1

52.4

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.233

0.993 0.553 0.141

0.762 0.566 0.19%

0.690 0.374 0.316

0.716 0.351 0.365

0.755 0.601 0.148

0.777 0.560 0.217

0.764 0.542 0.222

0.567 0.622 0.245

0.710 0.340 0.360

0.710 0.410 0.300

0.752 0.548 0.204

0.593 0.233 0.360

0.679 0.267 0.413

0.728 0.253 0.445

0.722 0.536 0.190

0.739 0.257 0.402

0.700 0.570 0.130

0.655 0.485 0.200

0.790 0.640 0.150

0.720 0.510 0.210

0.700 0.480 0.220

0.730 0.520 0.210

0.700 0.480 0.220

0.640 0.440 0.200

0.740 0.590 0.150

0.700 0.460 0.240

0.559 0.460 0.099

0.620 0.159 0.461

0.571 0.196 0.375

0.336 0.176 0.160

0.291 0.221 0.070

0.357 0.145 0.209

Aro-60 fuels

Anillo

Strerne

Polytyrene

Epoxy-Fit-fltha /ai

Polynunthane foams

I-A-COCOS

GM-21

GM-23-.FR

GM-25

GM-27-FR

Gt-29

GM-31-FR

OFiI.e &ot hilly vastilad.

0 0.233

20.0 0.233

0 0.233

0 0.233

0 0.233

32.5 0.233

38.9 0.233

39.7 0.233

38.9 0.233

47.0 0.233

52.4 0.233

0.279

0.334

0 0.233

10.0 0.233

20.1 0.233

26.4 0.233

38.9 0.233

45.2 0.233

52.3 0.233

59.8 0.233

45.2 0.160

0.150

0.213

0.233

45.2 0.167

0.233

0.273

26.4 0.207

0.214

0,233

0.301

31.8 0.233

35.9 0.233

52.4 0.233

59.8 0.233

31.5 0.233

38.9 0.233

52.4 0.233

52.0 0.233

52.0 0.233

0.640 0.410 0.230

0.470 0.200 0.270

0.550 0.190 0.310

0.529 0.170 0.359

0.607 0.385 0.222

0.392 0.090 0.302

0.413 0.130 0.253

0.464 0.130 0.334

0.510 0.131 0.379

0.463 0.137 0.326

0.515 0.145 0.370

0.483 0.067 0.416

0.465 0.072 0.39

0.683 0.354 0.329

0.697 0.319 0.378

0.639 0.327 0.312

0.620 0.325 0.292

0.674 0.263 0.411

0.652 0.193 0.459

0.641 0.227 0.434

0.666 0.220 0.446

0.616 0.312 0.304

0.645 0.258 0.357

0.638 0.251 0.387

0.622 0.221 0.400

0.61S 0.194 0.421

0.612 0.167 0.445

0.631 0.151 0.450

0.617 0,310 0.307

0.656 0.315 0.341

0.638 . 0.249 0.359

0.609 0.171 0.438

0.550 0.178 0.402

0.579 0.201 0.378

0.585 0.181 0A04

0.597 0.219 0.378

0.534 0.212 0.322

0.520 0.215 0.305

0.518 0.135 0.333

0.455 0.141 0.307

0.45S 0.1a5 0.307
Table 9: Convective fraction of actual heat of combustion for

polymers [Reference 34]

Xconv/Xactuw Values for the Combustion of Polymers

at e 38.9 kW/m 2 in Normal Air

Polymer Xconv/xactual

Polyoxymethylene 0.715

Polymethylmethacrylate 0.528

Polypropylene 0.395

Nylon 6/6 0.389

Polyurethane foam (GM-27-FR) 0.389

Polyurethane foam (GM-21) 0.355

Polyethylene 0.348

Polyurethane foam (GM-2") 0.344

Polyurethane foam (I-A-CaCO 3) 0.343

Polyurethane foam (GM-3 1-FR) 0.330

Styrenea (4; . 0) 0.327

Polyurethane foam (GM-29) 0.325

BenzeneO (4, 0) 0.321

Polystyrene 0.275

Polyurethane foam (GM-23-FR) 0.273

Epoxy-FR-glass fibers 0.266

aLiquids.

-71-
IJ

Table 10: Mean .distribution of carbon in the combustion

products of liquids and polymers [Reference 34]

Mean Distribution of Carbon in the Combustion Products of Liquids and Polymersa

Gases, fj x 100 Pyrolyzate, fgx 100 Chemical formula from

Liquid-Polymer elemental composition CO 2 CO HC Pyrb Pyr-fc (Pyrliqud,

Methanol CH 40 99.3 0.1 0 0.6 0 0.6

Polymethylmethacrylate CHt. 6O0 .4 78.6 0.8 0.1 20.5 4.0 16.5

Polyoxymethylene CH 20 76.5 0.2 0.1 23.2 - -

Acetone CH 2 00. 3 3 76.2 0.1 0 23.7 - -

Cellulose CHo.s 300 .

3 3 71.6 0.5 0.1 27.8 - -

Nylon 6/6 CHI t. 3Oo., 1 No.17 71.5 2.6 2.1 23.8 21.8 2.0

Polyethylenes CH 2 68.5 2.0 1.2 28.3 13.0 15.3

Heptane CH 2 .2 9 66.8 3.8 5.7 23.7 - -

Polyurethane fo&m-CaCO 3 (I-A) CHI. 910 0.26 No.0 6 65.6 0.6 0.1 33.7 30.0 3.7

Polypropylene CH 2 64.4 1.8 2.3 31.5 - -

Polyurethane foam (GM-21) CH,.S0Oo. 29No.os 60.8 0.7 0.4 38.1 31.6 6.5

Polyurethane foam (GM-25) CHI.7 5 00o 32N0 .

07 59.4 2.3 0.7 37.6 31.0 6.6

Polyurethane foam (GM-23-FR) Cli, .6Oo.3 5No.0 6 59.0 2.1 0.6 38.3 32.9 5.4

Polyethylene-25%Ci CH,*81.Ce.0 3 57.1 3.8 2.4 36.7 39.3 0

Styrene CH 54.0 3.0 2.2 40.8 39.7 1.1

Polystyrene CH 51.9 2.9 2.8 42.4 19.0 23.4

Polyurethane foam (GM-27/FR) CHI.,,Oo1.3No.os 51.7 4.0 1.6 42.7 36.6 6.1

Polystyrene foam (GM-47) CH,. 0

o 48.2 2.7 1.0 48.1 26.8 21.3

Benzene CH . 47.1 5.4 3.3 44.2 - -

Styrene-Butadiene CH 1.0 1 47.1 2.3 1.1 49.5 31.4 18.1

Aniline CHI.I1 No.t7 46.3 2.7 1.2 49.8 - -

Epoxy-FR-flberglasi CHI. 32 No.1 2 45.4 2.3 0.6 51.7 13.6 38.1

Polyurethane foam (GM-31-FR) CH. 11 0

o0. 22No.1 0 40.7 5.1 1.9 52.3 51.2 1.1

Polyurethane foam (GM-29) CHt.1sOo 2. 3No.1o 40.1 5.4 1.5 53.0 32.6 20.4

Polyvinyl chloride CHI.sCIo.s 32.7 6.3 5.5 55.5 55.5 0

Polyethylene-36%Cl CH1.7 8C10 .2 2 31.6 3.9 2.7 61.8 63.6 0

Polyethylene-48%CI CH t.65 C10 .3 6 26.8 4.6 2.9 65.7 - -

'Fires not fuUy ventilated. bTotal pyrolyzate calculated from Eq. (2S).

CPyr-fpyrolyzate fraction colected on the filter paper consisting of low.vapor preuure liquids and solid compounds.

d(Pyr)iiquid.I: high-vapor-pteaaure liquids in the pyrolyzate which cannot be collected on the filter paper calculated from Eq&. (2S) and (26).
Table 11: Heat generation values for use in oxygen consumption

and carbon dioxide generation calorimetry methods

for liquids and polymers [Reference 34]

FadJli) (UJ/9)

Granulax polymers

ralymethylinethacrylate

polystyrene

Polypropylene

Polyethylene (FE)

ME36%aI

FE.-48%CI

Polyvintyl chloride

Nylon 616

Styrnen-btauldent

polyoxymelhylene

Mean

IaS--ard deviation

Linear

UM

MD1M

MD2M

Cyclica

DIS

Mean

Standard deviation

13.2

12.7

12.6

12.7 12.'7

12.8

12.3

12.3

12.3

11.3

13.3

14.3

12.9

0A5

16.2

1S.S

13.7

ISA

14.2

14.7

14.6

14.6

14.9

0.30

Foamed polymers

Polyusethanea

GM-21

GM-23-FR

GM-25

GM-27-FR

GM-29

GM-31

GlM-37

Polyaaocyanurates

GM-41

GM-43

Polymtyrenei

GM-47

GM-49

Polystyrenes

GM-31

GM-53

Phenolic Foam

GM-S5

Polyethylenes

2

3

4

S

Liquids

Pentane

Hexant

Heptane

fleniene

Toluene

¢cuzaldehyde

Aniline

Styrene

Methyl alcohol

Ethyl alcohol

P1ropyl alcohol

Acetone

Acetaldchyde

Formaldehyde

11.6

13.0

11.3

10.4

11.5

11.0

11.8

11.3

9.8

12.3

12.4

11.6

12.3

(16.8)

12.1

11.8

12.0

12.0

Mean 11.7

tandard deviation 0.77

11.5

11.6

13.9

13.9

13.4

12.9

12.9

12.3

11.7

13.2

12.2

10.6

12-5

1.08

20.6

20.4

18.5

19.5

20.6

21.4

21.3

21.3

20.5

1.01

11.5

12.5

11.1

10.3

10.7

10.2

11.2

10.4

8.9

11.3

11.4

10.8

11.3

14.1

13.2

13.1

13.0

13.0

11.6

1.33

14.5

144

14.5

11.9

12.1

11.0

12.3

12.0

14.5

14.0

13.9

12.5

12.4

10.6

12.9

1.38

12.5

12.7

12.7

13.0

12.9

13.2

11.6

13.1

13.3

12.8

12.7

12.9

13.6

14.5

13.0

0.64

mean

Standard deviation

"M (CH 3) 3S10.5 . D I (CM ,)3310-

-73-
1.5

1.2

6 0.9

0.9

0.6o U

• 0.3

0

2.0

1.6

E

.~1.2

!0.8

W 2.

U

0,

0I

2

U

0

U

1.

0.

3.

15.t

12.

9.

6.

4 (a) I I I

8 U

2-

6-

0-

0-

0-

0-

0o

'2

E

3.0

2.4

1.8

1.2

0.6

0

8.0

6.4

4.8

3.2

1.6

0

l._( ) II I I

I I I

" (b) ._

0 30 60 90 120 150

0.4

0

I

-.j

U

U

0'

C

a

C

100 (c)"

so -

60

40

20

0

E

E

"a

I

3.

0 30 60 90 120

Time (sac)

Times to fuel contribution to Neoprene showing (a) the outside diameter and (W)

decreasing mass.

Time (sec)

Rubber test result showing (a) increasing outside diameter and (M) decreasing

0 30 60 90 120 cable mass.

Time (sac)

Times to fuel contribution for PVC

as a function of (a) decrease in outside diameter, (b) decrease in ma", and (W) percentage of

insulating material and the time to ignition.

Figure 13: Time to ignition of cable samples [Reference 43]
Table 12: High temperature degradation products for PVC

formulations [Reference 43]

Pyrolysis products of PVC materials generated at high temperature, separated on the

Carbowax-20M and SE-54 columns.

To

Insulation (rmin)

Virgin PVC 3.7

4.8

6.5

7.4

10.0

11.1

1i.,

11.9

14.0

14.5

17.6

19.1

22.0

24.1

24.7

26.4

rVC-3 3.6

4.4

5.1

9.6

10.5

11.9

12.1

12.2

15.3

15.5

15.9

15.7

20.4

PVC-78 7.9

10.4

11.4

11.9

14.4

/VC-104 3.5

3.9

4.1

9.5

10.9

12.1

18.6

Carbowax-20M

1-methyl-.lethylbenzene

mM-Methylstymene

styrene

5-methylindene

Naphthalene

1-methylnaphlhalene

biphenyl

23-dimethyinaphthalene

2-ethylnaphthalene

allylnaphthalene

fluorene

phenanthrene

4-methyl phenanthrene

1,L23.4-tetrahydcofluoranthene

dioctylphthalate

fluoranthene

S,.-benzo-7-phenylbicyclo 12.2.1) hept-2-ene

xylene

p-ethyltoluene

isopropyl benzyl heptane

naphthalene

I-methylnaphthalene

l-ethylnaphthalene

phenol

biphenyl

phthalic anhydride

2-hydroy-4- methoey-6-methylbenzaldehyde

ethylene glycol dibenzoate

dibutyl phthalate

4-methylphenanthrene

I-phenyl-l,2-popandione

Naphthalene

1-methylnaphthalene

biphenyl

1.2-dinnethylnaphthalene

phthalic acid

o-xylene

isopropylbenzene

styrlne

Naphthalene

I-methylnaphthalene

phenol

anthracene of phenanthrene

To

ftrin)

3.2

3.7

4.0

43

4.j

S.'

3.5

6.4

6.6

7.1

82

SA

9.9

14.1

16.2

4.1

4.9

4L4

7.1

5.9

9.6

16.5

4,5

7.1

6.'7

9.0

10.0

17.4

3.1

&7

3.9

4.1

4.9

3.6

11.4

16.7

SE-54

6-dimethylfulvene

phenylacetaldehyde

uethyltoluene

2.2,4-trimet hylheptane

.- methylstyrene

LS-dimethylheptane

2-methylindane

methylallylbenzene

1.2-dihydronaphthalene

a2ulene

3.-methyl-1.2-dihydronaphthalene

2-methylnaphthalene

1-meihylnaphthalene

acenaphthene

phenanthrene

2-methyl anthracene

ethyltoluene

propenylbenzene

ollyltoluene

naphthalene

methylnaphthalene

phthalic acid

butyl phthalate

isooctyl alcohol

azulene

benzoic acid

1-methylnaphthalene

pbthalic anhydride

di-(2-etbylhexyl) phthalate

6.6-dimethyl fulvene

phenylacetaldehyde

bn.zyl ester

isopropylbenzene

.ethylstyrene

o-allyttoluene

2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methyl phenol

stearic acid

-75-
Table 13: High temperature degradation products for Neoprene

formulations [Reference 43]

Pyrolysis products of Neoprene generated at high temperature and separated on the

Carbowax-20M and SE-S4 columns.

Tt

Insulation frainm

Virgin Neoprene 3.6

3.7

4.0

4.9

5.6

6.0

6.6

8.3

9.7

11.3

Neoprene-007 3.3

4.8

L.7

6.4

6.3

5.0

9.1

9.9

10.3

12.I

21.1

Carbowax-20h4 Wmn) SE-54

rn-xYlem.

chlorobenzene

1-mnethyl-3-ethylbeniene

M-chlorotolsaene

mm-methylalyrene

o-chloroethylbenmzen

4-chlero-sa-xylene

1i-methyl-IH-indene

Naphthalene

1-methyl Naphthalene

O-Kylene

umethylbenzoate

in-chlorotoluene

indam.

o-chloroethylbenzene

4-amethylindane

I-owthyl-1.H-inden.

chlolroprene dimer

naphthalene

2-methylntaphthalene

phenyl I1-naphthylauaine

x-xylene

1-methyl-3-ethylbenzene

benzothiaiole

phenol

a-creagi

phthalic anhydride

dioctylphthalate

i-Xylem.e

1-methyl-3-ethylbetizene

benzyl chloride

3-maethylstyrene

methylphenylacetyleme

u-Methylifdane,

Methyll-I-indene

chloroprmet dime"

naphthalene

Methylamphthalese

ethyloaphthalene

acesaphihent

1-allyinaphthalese

3.1 6A-dimethylfulvene

3.9 n-proplybenzene

4.6 acetophenone

4.9 propenylbenmene

5.6 e-chloro-o-sylene

6.1 2-phenylpropanol

6.4 7-methylbenzolf)furan

7.9 benzoyl chloride and others

3.1 a-butyl chloroacetate

3.3 2-nonynic acid

3.7 benzyl chloride

3.8 n-propylbenzene

4.0 2-(1-phenylethylthiol phenol

4.4 3-methyl-1,4-heptadiene

4.7 indane

5.0 0-chloroethylbenzene

5.4 -- and p-ethylstyrene

6.3 methylindane

3.7 methylnaphthalene

12.3 allylnaphthalene

12.3 diphenylmethane

15.2 8-hydroxymethylquinoline

9.5 2-1-diunethyl-l.2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene

25 di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

3.1 6.6-dimethyl fulvene

3.8 benzyl chloride

3.9 n-propyl benzene

4.1 benzyl benzoate

4.8 indane

6.4 5-methylindane

7.1 avulene

12.6 allylnaphthalene

Neopreme-94

Neopretae-435

3.7

4.6

12.

12.7

13.3

1S.

29.3

3.9

4.4

5.3

5.9

7.2

7.6

3-7

9.3

13.1

11.4

124

14.1

13.4

-76-
Table 14: High temperature degradation products for rubber

formulations (Reference 43]

Pyrolysis products of rubber generated at high temperature and separated on the

Carbowax-20M and SE-54 columns.

To Ta

Insulation (nin) Carbowax-20M (rin) SE-54

Rubber-12 4.3 styrene 7.1 azulene

5.2

5.4

6.7

8.0

9.A

11.2

12-2

12.5

14.1

3.3

4.3

L.2

&A

9.6

10.9

12.0

12.2

5.9

lphenylacetylene

a-Methyistyrene

1-dtloroindave

wethyl-1.jndene

naphth~alene

2-methyinaphihalene

biphenyl

p..aopmopenylaeetophenone

biphenylene

111.01 di-N-amylphthalate

Rubber-134 Othylbenzente

wethyl.1.indene

hsobutylphenone

sapthalene

1.Methylnaphthalene

phenol

biphenyl

benzoic acid

3.1

4.1

5.4

9.6

27.7

1.2-dimethyl-3-ethylbenzene

I-phenyl-1-nitroethane

1..chloroheptadecant

phthalic anhydride

hutylmethyl phthalate

Rubber-138 3.3 1,2-dimethylbenzene

4.3 benzocyclobutane

4.6 allylbenzene-l-phen

5.7 phenylcyclopropane

7.1 benzaldehyde

LI 1-methyl-IH-indene

&S acetophenone

9.2 azulene

9.6 naphthalene

10.0 D-phenylethyl ateut

11.3 methylnaphehalene

11.3 benzothaozole

12.0 phenol

12.3 biphenyl

13.- D-phenylethyllormat

14.1 biphenylene

14.9 1,3-diphenylpropane

15.9 1.2-benzolonybutane

21.7 palmitic acid

kubber-1132 4.8 syrene

9.0 1-phenyl-l,2-propan

10.0 naphthalene

11.3 methylnaphthalene

12.3 phenol

15.5 Pbthalic anhydride

16.0 benzoic add

20.7 3-cyciopentyl-r.4'-d

24.7 methyl-3-(2.3-dimetJ

26A. butyl phtha•ate

Iubber-1138 3.4 xylene

3.7 1,.2.34-tetramethylbei

4.3 stymene

6.0 cyclopropylbenzene

7.1 benzaldehyde

L6 inethylphenylheptan.

9.6 naphthalene

11.2 methylnaphthalene

12.0 phenol

12.w biphenyl

14.9 1.3-diphenylpropane

yI.1..itroethane

3.2

3.5

3.8

3.9

4.2

4.4

4.9

5.1

6.6

7.1

9.1

9.9

13.2

17.6

30.0

e

dione

i-methylphenone

hybenzoyl) butanoate

cyclotefracene

isopropylbentene

phenylacetaldehyde

1-mnethyl.2-ethylbentzene

isopropylbenzene

.iethylotyrene

propenylbenzene

chlorindene

1,7-ethene-spito-(2.6)mono4A8-diene.2,11-lactone

naphthalene

D-phenylethyl acetate

acenaphthene

2,3-diphenylpmopane

dioctylphthalate

di-4.2-ethylhexylkphthalate

6,6-dimethylfulvene

ethyltoluene

allylbenzene

azulene

phihalic anhydride

d-n-amyl phithalate

amyl phthalate

iaobutyl-e-phthaiate

isopropyl phthalate

styrene

isopropylbenzene

phenylacetaldehyde

alpha-nuethylstyrene

allylbenzene

a-butylbenzene

a-phenylbenzene

1.S..diphenylpropane

n-butyl-o-phithalate

3.2

3.9

4.9

7.1

9.0

17.7

20.0

22.6

25.4

3.2

3.4

3.8

4.2

4.8

5.2

6.6

13.2

18.5

nzene

e

-77-
Table 15: High temperature degradation products for

Polyethylene formulations [Reference 43]

Pyrolysis products of polyethylene generated at

high temperature and separated on the Carbowax-20M

column.

T,

Insulation (rain) Carbowaz-20M

Virgin polyethylene 5.3 1,3-dimethyl-4-cyclopentane

7.2 1-hexadecene

? naphthalene

? 1-methyl-2-cyclohexylcydahexane

10.4 x-methylnaphthalene

10.6 o-nenthane

11.4 phenylbentene

11.6 methyldicyclohexylmeihane

12.4 amenapht hene

13.2 biphenytene

13.6 1.1-dicyclohenylpentane

22.9 dihexyldiacetylene

23.0 dioctylphthalate

ollyethytene-77 3.7 Styrene

6.1 1.methylphenylacetylene

1.9 naphthalene

10.2 hezahydrofarneool and methylnaphthalene

10.5 3-oethylpentine

Polyethylene-9" 3.1 undecanol-1

4.1 oct-l-ene

5.3 acetic acid

6.4 4A,-trimethylnonene-1

7.7 2.2-dinmethyl- -acetylcyclopentane

7.8 1-hexadecene

-78-
.1

Table 16: Physical characteristics of cables tested by LLNL in

small-scale radiant exposure chamber [Reference 44]

I

_j

Physical characteristics of cables (46 cm long) tested in small-scale radiant panel tests,

1984.

Jacket

Jacket Insulation Conductor Cable o.d. Total wt thickness

Cable (% Wt) (% wt) (% wt) (rm) (kg/m) (mim)

Rg-214u PVC Polyethylene Copper 10.9 0.18 1.59

coaxial (21.4) (17.9) (60.7)

PVC PVC Polypropylene Copper 21.0 0.60 1.59

multiconductor (25.5) (4.1) (70.4)

Polyethylene Polyethylene Polypropylene Copper 22.2 0.48 2.5

multiconductor (22.6) (17.4) (60.0)

Rubber power. Neoprene Rubber Copper 21.8 0.73 3.05

mnulticonductor (35) (27) (38)

Rubber Rubber None Copper 21.2 1.25 3.85

(Presto. W.C.) (22.4) (77.6)

Diesel loc. EP Rubber None Copper 18.8 0.85 4.37

2/0 cable (29) (71)

Diesel loc. Hypalon/rubber None Copper 23 1.37 3.97

Hatfield 4/0 (22) (76)
1.5

I

1.0

S

U.

0.5 "

0-

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Flux (W/cm 2)

Rate of flame spread vs input flux for various types of cables tested.

Figure 14: Rate of flame spread versus exposure heat flux for

LLNL small-scale radiant exposure tests (Reference

44]

-80-
PiMA - Radiant Flux at 1.7 W/cm2

1AS

8.40

4-n2

1.15

E

TUC AUR I•RJCLTION Is) T1E AMlR IRAROATON IQi

r

is

12

8j

It

U3

lb

PUMA - Radiant Flux at 4 W1cm2

,0% oxyge

--. 40% Brnoi

o" " .e ,

41 t4 2 5 if 120 144 1i

PE - R•ad iant aFxTIaNtW/m

PE - Radiant Flux at 4 Wlcon'

PIdI•A - Radiant Flux at 4 WlcmI I m

.1-M

24

WMMA - Radiant Flux at 4 W/cm2

t

----------

- 11% oxygen

10% Oxygen

20% Oxygen

40% Oxygen

24 41 72 u 120 M 144

TIME AFTER IAD~ITION Is)

PE - Radiant Flux at 4 W/cm2

161

.115

. I~l

-10% $SVEN

----- Oyge 4% 

K

410

X•4

2&1

II

I6

24 41 12 ts I"0 H44 us

SKI ArTER IRADIATION Isi

24 41 12 06 120

TIMtaiE AFEsRn~ IsRDAID11

44

Figure 15: Influence of oxygen concentraion on surface mass

loss flux and surface temperature for nonflaming

PMMA and PE [Reference 45]
M2 -.

WO0 -

75

50

W inM/s

.2 w MM/i

10.

5-

I

I

£

0

a

I

CO

700

3d

ci

I I

1000 1500 2000 60 100 200 300

Dependence of burning rate of PMMA threads on thread diameter; I (E)-up.

ward, 2 (O)-horizontal; 3 (&)-downward.

Burning rate of PE coatings on copper wires as a function of the outer diameter of specimens, d - d$ + 26; 1 -vertically upward burning; 2-downwaid burning;

3-horizontally burning; O-d, - 400 umr; -d, a 500 urn; O-d, a 800 urm.

Figure 16: Effect of wire diameter and wire orientation on

flame propogation rate for PMMA and PE threadd

[Reference 46]
900

800

"• 700

"• 600

S500

D 400

, 300

200

100

0 I I I I I I I I

0 4 8 12 16 20

Time (MIN)

4 expt 2 9 - eipt 3 1 a lost I 0 C test 2

Figure 17: Estimated heat release rates for heptane pool

experiments and heptane pool - cable tray tests

from SNL/UL fire tests [Reference 49]

-83-
PRE-EEE-383 CABLE THRESHOLDS EE33CBETRSOD FJEE-383 CABLE THRESHOLD3

1800

1800

1400

1200

*~1000

400

200

0

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

6OW

400

200

n 0 200 400 800 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

FUEL NTERNAL TEMP CPF)

v

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

FLEL EdTERNAL TEMP (F)

Figure 18: Burn mode analysis threshold diagrams with example

data from actual fire tests included; time

increases clockwise around plotted data [Reference

54]

-84-
(TC -- .coW§,I

Figure 19: Experimental apparatus used in LLNL

fire tests [Reference 54]

vertical cable

~4 caw"n

100% pack

50% pack

2S% pftk

Figure 20: End view of cable installations illustrating

packing densities; note that slats are used to

separate layers but no cable trays as such are used

[Reference 43]

-85-
Table 17: Physical characteristics of cables used in LLNL

vertical cable tests through FY83 [Reference 43]

Test

1.2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Jacket mat'l

(wt %)

Hypalon

16.2

Neoprene

23.5

PVC

18.9

PVC

18.9

PVC

18.9

Neoprene/rubber

31.0

Neoprenelrubber

31.0

Neoprene/rubber

31.0

PVC

27

PVC

27

PVC

27

Neoprene

30.3

Neoprene

30.3

Neoprene

30.3

Rubber

22.35

Rubber

22.35

Rubber

22.35

Rubber/Hypalon

(22.05L)

Aubber/Hypalon

(22.O5)

Nylon/PVC

(10.34)

Nylon/PVC

(10.34)

Nylon/PVC

(10.34)

Insulation

(wt %)

None

None

R.E

32.1

R.E.

32.1

P.E.

32.1

None

None

None

PVC-multi

16

PVC-multi

16

PVC-multi

16

Rubber-multi

26.5

Rubber-multi

26.5

Rubber-multi

26.5

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

Conductor

(wt %)

Copper

83.8

Copper

76.5

Copper

49.0

Copper

49.0

Copper

49.0

Copper

69.0

Copper

69.0

Copper

69.0

Copper

57

Copper

57

Copper

57

Copper

43.0

Copper

43.0

Copper

43.0

Copper

77.52

Copper

77.52

Copper

77.52

Copper

(77.95)

Copper

(77.95)

Copper

(89.66)

Copper

(89.66)

Copper

(89.66)

Cable

o.d. (mm)

19.1

19.1

2535

25.5

25.5

23.6

23.6

23.6

17.5

17.5

17.5

20.6

20.6

20.6

21.2

21.2

21.2

24.2

24.2

22.5

22.3

22.5

Total wt

(kg/m)

1.15

1.29

1.12

1.12

1.12

1.39

1.39

1.39

0.58

0.58

0.58

0.21

0.21

0.21

1.26

1.26

1.26

2.66

2.66

1.3

1.8

1.8

%

packing

100

100

100

so

25

100

5o

25

100

5o

25

50

25

100

5o

25

100

50

25

100

5o

100

-86-
Table 18: Tabulated summary of LLNL vertical cable fire tests

conducted through FY83 [Reference 43]

I

..j

I

Max Average Total Flamespread

hrre Time hrr flamespread rate

Test (kW) (S) (kW) (M) (m/Min)

7 65.00 400 20.00 0.3 0.05

8 42.00 400 11.00 1.22 0.06

9 4.0 600 2.5 1.22 0.13

10 100.00 930 37.5 1.82 0.52

11 300.00 660 53.2 1.82 0.44

12 80.00 660 31.3 1.82 0.5

13 2.5 Average 2.2 0.3 -

14 9.75 Average 9.75 0.3

15 4.0 Average 2.5 0.3 -

16 75.7 400 19.95 0.61 0.03

17 43.75 300 12.12 0.61 0.06

18 5.29 1000 2.72 0.00 -

19 100.00 960 37.5 0.00 -

20 9.3 1000 6.9 0.61 0.18

21 5.3 1000 4.2 0.30 0.14

22 16.8 1000 8.9 0.61 0.06

23 2.9 500 1.4 0.30 0.04

a Heat-release rate.
(a)

H

R

R

K

W

H

R

R

K

w

0 2 0 4U 0 F0;?C 0 1 0 14 C16 0 1 -:c02 0

TIME (SEC) X 10

450-

4530-

200-

150-

113i5

MASS LOSS

OXYGEN DEPL

I

v

0 2•E 46 60 86 1003 120 140 160

TIME (SEC) X 10

Figure 21: Comparison of mass loss based and oxygen

consumption based heat release rates for LLNL tests

(a) VCAB-2 (Hypalon) and (b) VCAB-5 (PVC)

(Reference 43]

-88-
Table 19: (a) Physical characteristics of cables tested by

LLNL in FY84 and summary of test results for FY84

tests (b) without and (c) with radiant heat exposure

panels [Reference 44]

Physical characteristics of cables tested in FY 64.

Jacket Insulation Conductor Cable o.d. Total wt jacket

Test No. 4% weight) (% weight) M% weight) (mm) (kg/m) thickness

84-1 EP rubber None Copper 22.2 1.32 4.37

4-2 (25.5) 474.5)

84-3 Hypalon None Copper 20.2 1.30 3.05

4-4 (172.) 02.5)

84-5 Polyethylene Polyethylene Copper 22.2 0.41 1.59

14-6 417.6) (61.6) 420.8)

84-7 PVC polypropylene Copper 21.0 0.60 1.59

a4" (5.5) 44.1) V70.4)

64-9 Rubber (Presto.) None Copper 21.2 12.5 3.85

84-10 (22.41 (77.6)

84-IC Polyethylene Polyethylene Alum./copper 12.7 0.16 1.59

84-2C (29.1) 418.8) 452.1) 12.7 0.16 1.$9

64-3C

84-4C Polyethylene Polypropylene Copper 22.2 0.48 2.S

64-SC MA2.61 (17.4) 460.0

1984 vertical cable burn summary of tests without 0.S W/cm1 radiant paneL

Time to

Tn IPeak mh Peak HIR peak HRR Avg. HRR FSR

Test No. is) (p/s) (kW) (9) WkW) (nt/mini Cable type

84-1C 105 30.2 1316 550 257 0.36 FE/PE coaxial

84-2C0 65 35.6 1S44 $50 295 0.51 PE/PE coaxial

64-4C 125 21.3 923 650 IS 0.19 WE/PP multicond.

84-1 990 14.3 646 1800 106 0.34 EP rubber

84-4 No ignition - - - - Hypalon

84-6 160 18.7 110 850 M5 0.29 PE/PE coaxial

844 265 10.5 489 1250 92 0.1S rVC/P]? multicond.

64-10 350 7.9 356 1150 55 0.25 Rubber (Presto.)

I PE - polyethylene PVC - polyvinylchloride

P1 - polypropylene EP - ethylene propylene

b Performance influenced by small diameter 412.7 mm) and large surface to volume ratio. Therefore their results cannot be

compared to the rest of the cable types.

1984 vertical cable burn summary with 0.S W/cm2 radiant panel.

Time to

T'I Peak sh Peak HRR peak HRR Avg. HRR FSR

Test No. 4s) (g/is (kW) (5) (kW) (m/min) Cable type

64-SC 125 41.9 1820 lo0 251 0.37 PE/PP multicond.

84-2 470 14.2 642 2350 87 0.32 EP rubber

04-3 No ignition - - - - Hypalon

04-5 150 22.7 987 1300 116 0.39 PE/PE coaxial

64-7 156 25. 1168 11S0 299 0.40 PVC/PP multicond.

84-9 180 13.4 606 1600 Iw 0.33 Rubber (Presto.)

-89-
Open Web

Steel Joists

W

N

E

Influx

-Exterior Framework.

50mm a 150mm Lumber (2"x 6")

spaced 0.61 m on center with

Sheetrock nailed to interior •

Dimensions in units of meters

Figure 22: Three-dimensional view of test enclosure used for

FMRC/EPRI cable tray fire tests [Reference 56. 57]

-90-
II Dimensions in units of meters I j-~- -I-TN •046 *2. Arrows Indicate direction of _T cable weaving between vertical

and horizontal trays.

-Ladder Type -Open Trays

-Dashed Lines indicate Ignition Pan Location.

Enclosure

Ceiling •i / / /

T

0.77 0~~-.46 4 -- 1 _

2.44 II

q 2.j q

0.761-

ki-1.r 0.1 (Clearance

.I .I 7 between all 12

i horizontal trays)

gJ L..h 1 .08 deep

• --- £r-0.10 oL---,!,--,,> "-

SIDE

(Vertical trays

not illustrated)

ELEVATION

Figure 23: Cable tray arrangement used in Test 3 of second

series of FMRC/EPRI cable tray fire tests

(Reference 57]

-91-
1IJ

U)

4

5.

4.

3.

2(

u J ' I I I I I ' I ' I

Test 3 PE/PVC Cable

)-- Test 2. PE/PVC Cable

I O A- a - -

(2) -

I. Numbers in parenthesis refer to on

0 2. Dashed lines indicate how the cable fire

would hove developed it sprinklers were not

providedI I , I II I * I I

I.C

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

TIME, t (s)

Figure 24: Estimated actual heat release rate versus time for

FMRC/EPRI Tests 2 and 3 of the second series

[Reference 57]

-92-
28

24

150

Test number Indicated

for each datum point

Ole

w

z

z

20

16

12

a 05 06

0

Figure 25 :

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

TRAY SURFACE AREA (W 2 )

Mass release rate versus area of involvement for

first series of FMRC/EPRI PE/PVC extinguishment fire tests [Reference 21]

-93-
BURNT AREA (m)

-&

00

Urt a

:3 m

9:, m

W. 0

mr90

m m

:3 3

m Ph

rt 0)

t~r? "

m3 mc t (D vO

m) 52

mg

~) 0 

0
In

Wu

0)

0

V

CU

in

0-4

Ln

0 10 20 30 40 50 so

Exposure Heat Flux (kW/m^2)

Figure 27: Mass flux versus exposure heat flux for PE/PVC

cable 45 based on data of Tewaron [31] and Lee [32]

-95-
? 1i X 15

1?

5 8

CU

E

x

0

M

0.

xL

CS)

CS)

W-4

xf

I I I

18 28 30

Area of Involvement (m^2)

40

Figure 28: Calculated exposure heat flux versus area of

involvement for FMRC/EPRI cable tray fire tests

involving PE/PVC cables

-96-
10

E3

Id

0)

a)

4-,

6

4 !to

-4

!

2

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time (min)

Figure 29: Heat release rate versus time for the FMRC/EPRI

free-burn PE/PVC cable fire tests based on mass

release rate and heat of combusion
18 i5 •'MKC Test Numbers

/

4/ ~

7\

4.,1

00 4-)\ I 7

f/ .

0 18 28 38 48 58

Time (min)

Figure 30: Heat release rate versus time for the FMRC/EPRI

extinguishment PE/PVC cable fire tests based on

mass release and heat of combustion
Ov

Table 20: Comparison of peak heat release rates reported by

Sumitra [56] and those calculated in the present

work based on mass loss rates reported by Sumitra

[56] and heat of combustion values reported by

Tewarson [31] for the FMRC/EPRI cable tray fire tests

Peak Values Based on Mass

Peak Values Reported By Sumitra Loss Rates and Small Scale

I Test Data

Test Cable Type/

I.D. Arranqement

Radiative

HRR (KW)

Convective

HRR (KW)

Total HRR (1(W) Radiative HRR (K(W) Convective

RRR (1(w) Total RRR (ieWl

%D!

u)

I

I. FREEBURN TESTS

1 P/P-TS 1409 2282 3691 1082 1278 2360

3 P/P-TS 2626 3334 5960 3334 3946 7280

4 P/P-ET 1954 1928 3882 2510 2970 5480

2 S/A1-TS 886 1024 1910 - - 2205

10 E/H-ET 228 145 373 - - -

11 E/H-L 488 81 569 - - -

12 E/H-LS 1211 1427 1638 1107 1886 2993

II. EXTINGUISHMENT TESTS

5 P/P-ET 435 612 1047 1502 1778 3280

6 P/P-ET 618 759 1477 1520 1800 3320

7 P/P-ET 1844 1114 2958 2931 3469 6400

8 P/P-ET 2507 1665 4172 3004 3556 6560

9 S/A2-ET 93 80 173 - - -

13 E/H-LS 732 593 1325 1091 1857 2948

14 E/H-LS 303 181 484 - - -

III. MIXED TRAYS -

EXTINGUISHMENT TESTS

15 P/P-ET 2509 - - 4800 5680 110,480

16 P/P-ET 1856 - - 3939 4661 8600

17 P/P-ET 2766 - - 4159 4921 9080
Table 21: PVC compound formulations of cables used in Bell

Labs fire tests [Reference 59]

Parts by weight

128 132 J28 J32

Resin

PVC homopolymer 100 100 100 100

Plasticizers

Diisononyl phthalate 27 - - -

Diisodecyl phthalate - 30 - -

6,8. 10 or 7.9. 11 mixed alkyl phthalate - 45 40

Processing aid

Diphenyl phthalate 5 - -

Flama-retardants

Antimony trioxide - 2 3 3

Hydrated alumina, 1 m particles -- - 30

Stabilizers

Dibasic lead phthalate 7- --

Tribasic lead sulphate - 7 5 -

Coated tribasic lead sulphate -- -5

Lubricants

Dibasic lead stearate 0.4 0-4 0-5 -

N,N '-ethylene bis stearamide. 0-4 0.4 0-5 -

Petroleum wax 0-5 0.5

Partially oxidized polyethylene -- 0.2

Filler

Calcium carbonate, 5pm particles 35 -

A

Table 22: Physical characteristics and heat content of cables

used in Bell Labs fire tests (Reference 59]

Cable Approximate Approximate Approximate Approximate fuel content

size outer insulation jacket

diameter thickness thickness Insulation Jacket Complete

cable

in mil mil BTU/ft BTU/ft BTU/ft

6 pair 0.24 6 25 31 (22%) 108 (78%) 139

25 pair 0-38 6 30 126 (39%) 198(61%) 324

100 pair 0.68 6 35 504 (57%) 387 (43%) 891

-100-
Figure 31:

IsE 14':

I.A

A4'/

Flame spread results for

Bell Labs Steiner Tunnel

fire tests for various PVC

cables; note that the

J32 jacket material had

"improved fire retardancy"

over the the J28 material

[Reference 59]

8PAM INSIC WRITIG CABUI

A SULATICN 1111 MCKII 322

ItPIC Al *Fwi V0F F I$ PAI. CAGII

.. I.P .~ as ai MAIAI

25 PAIR INSIDE WIRING CABLE

MINSULATION I 28 JACKET J 32

WOO PANINSW510 WIRIN0 CAILLS

IN*SULATION 1 20 JACKET 122

A 9 To 12 Ii IA is 20

RAFTED TIME EMMIIEUIS) 2 4 0 S tO 12 E 16 A Is 20

ELAPSED TIME IMINUTIES)

-101-
'00

0~

200

850

0 20 s 2

TIME

(MI NUTES)

Figure 32: Heat release rate based on oxygen consumption for

exposure source fire used in UCBILBL cabinet fire

testing (Reference 60]

-102-
6s0

SO0

4w0

400

F aso F

0

2W

200

160

100

1 10 6 16 20 2S

TIME

(MINUTES)

Figure 33: Heat release rate based on oxygen consumption for

February 14, 1983 UCB/LBL cabinet fire test

[Reference 60]

-103-
Table 23: Description of chairs tested by Lawson [Reference 61]

0

Test 47 - This chair had a metal frome with an adjustable back. The seat

and back cushions were filled with solid polyurethane foam and a layer of

polyester fiber. The back and seat cushions were both supported by 16 m

particle board. The two arm rests were made of wood and the chairss mass was

20.82 kg. (See figure 26.)

Test 50 - This chair had a metal frame with a vegetable fiber and coLton

layered seat and back cushion. The chair was covered with a plastic coated

fabric. The arm rests were made of thermosetting plastic and the chair's mass

was 16.52 ks. (See figure 31.)

Test 5I - This chair was a one-piece molded glass fiber construction with

metal legs attached to the bottom. No padding or cushions were used in this

chair and it's wes was 5.28 kg. (See figure 34.)

Test 52 - This chair was a specially designed one-piece molded ther-oplastic chair for use in psychiatric hospital wards. It was believed to be

molded from polyethylene plastic. The chair could be used as either a rocking

chair or a fixed chair. This was determined by which end of the vertical axis

was placed on the floor and the chair's mass was 11.26 kg. (See figure 38.)

Test 53 - This chair had a metal fraem with pasded seat and back

cushions. The cushions mere filled with solid poiyurethane totm sad mere

attached to 12.7 ma plywood. The cushions vare covered with a plastic coated

fabric and the chair's total mass was 15.54 ks. (See figure 43.)

Test 55 - This chair consisted of a metal fro"ae with a body form piywood

seat and beck. The seat and back ware paaded with thin isjers of poiyueethane

foam and coveted with a synthetic fiber fabric. The chair wae designed for

use with a metal, fraae capable of supporting mee•ial chairs in a gtoup and

it's msa was 6.08 kg. (See figure 48.)

Test 56 - This chair was constructed with a wood frae. The iseat nd

back were constructed a'ouid 14 La piywood. The seat culnion wue made of VOZ

latex foam rubber with 101 cotton telt. The back cusniOn consisted of 1001

latex foam rubber. The cushion covers waer pisetic coeaed fabric ala the

chair's mess was 11.20 kg. (See figure 53.)

Test 75 - These chairs were built with metal frames capable of being

nested together for stacking. The seats and backs were lightly padded with

polyurethane foam and covered with a plastic coated fabric. The seats and

back cushions were attached to plywood boards and each chair's uss was

7.49 kg. (See figure 58.)
. I,

Table 24: Summary of fire test data reported by Lawson

[Reference 61]

Test Results on Waiting Room and Patient Chairs

IU,

Heat Release Average Smoke Peak arotal Peak

Rate (kU) Peak Mass Heat of Peak Target Particulate Smoke Carbon

Test Specimen Initial Secondary Total Heat Loss Rate Combustion Irradiance Conversion Produced Monoxide

Item No. Mass (kg) Peak Peak Release (NJ) (g/s) (NJ/kg) (kW/N 2 ) (M) (F) (g/8)

Adjustable Back,

Metal Frame 47 20.82 240 110 36 10.2 21.8 6.0 5.3 48 0.4

Patient Chair

Metal Frame, 50 16.52 3 N < 0.1 (1) (1) (2) (1) (1) 0.0

linimum Cushion

Molded Fiberglass, 51 5.28 30 30 2 1.3 26.2 1.9(2) (3) (3) 0.3

No Cushion

Molded Plastic

Patient Chair 52 11.26 140 790 350 25.2 34.1 12.3 9.1 40! 0.5

No Cushion

Metal Frame vith 53 15.54 270 290 41 13.1 21.4 1.7 6.5 101 1.1

Foam Cushions

Group Chair,

Metal Frame, 55 6.08 10 10 1 0.6 19.2 0.2 2.9 1.0 0.0

Foam Cushion

Wood Frame, 56 11.20 80 50 12 3.1 16.5 0.6 14.3 48 0.3

Latex Foam Cushion

Metal Frame,

Chairs. Stacked 75 29.94 160 N 191 7.2 18.7 4.7 4.3 116 0.3

4 High

N - No second peak.

(1) - Data not available

(2) - Exposure flame was

(3) - Data not available

because moss loss, irradiance and smoke were

burning during time peak was measured.

as a result of instr. nt failure.

too small to measure.
B 129 240 38 4B OW 729 840 WO 180 1200

TIME C-3.

flUWlhN CALORMETER

Figure 35: Rate of heat release plot for aolded fiberglass chair, Test 51

a

5

7

4

S

a 129 240 380 400 8MB 720 649 9RO 106 1206

TIME C-..)

Figure 36: Rat. of nae lose plot for oldeod fiberglass chair. Test 51

--0.64m -0.1

IT

Hl,4m

FRONT SIDE

Figure 34. Photograph and dimensions of solded fiberglass chair. test 51

Figure 34: Test results for molded fiberglass chair tested by Lawson [Reference 61]

-106-
Is

40

39

20

'*~~ JII 4 ~ ...i.. ..I. * 300 00e "00 12 1500 100 2100 240 2700 3000

FTITME CCLeecC)

Figure 54: Rate of heat release plot for chair with latex foam

cushions. Test 56

0.tMFRONT

IT K.64m- I0.76m I

SIDE

a 300 00 000 1200 IS"0 1000 210 2400 270 3000

TIMEil~ C- ,I

TuRITTUIC 

LL

Figure 55: Rate of sss loss plot for chair with latex fosa

cushions. Test 56

Figure 53. Photograph and dimensions of chair with latex foam

cushions, test 56

I osdIo

Figure 35: Test results for wood

[Reference 61]

frame chair tested by Lawson

-107-
Produc 1(am RUst availe.&O , copy. 'ýVý

Fisure 59: late of bsat r*lsaeo plot for metal fraem stackable

cthsirs. Test 73

S 30 4 ae n 900 12 TIMt " 1 1 C-a) 6 I s "0 21 90 24 " 2 M 300

f~vThE CALDWMM

Figure 60: late of "as- toI- plot for metal fros, staCkable chaIrs. test 75

FRONT SIDE

Figure 58. Photograph and dimensions of metal frame stackable

chairs, test 75

Figure 36: Test results for set of four stackable metal frame

chairs tested by Lawson [Reference 611

-108-
Q•peak ; (mass factor) X (frame factor) X (style factor)

X (padding factor) X (fabric factor)

The factors are computed as follows:

Mass Factor = 64. X (total mass, kg)

Frame Factor =

Style Factor =

Padding Factor =

Fabric Factor =

1.0 for wood

0.6 for (rigid) polyurethane foam

2.0 for (thermoplastic) polypropylene foam

1.0 for plain, primarily rectilinear construction

1.5 for ornate, convoluted shapes, with

intermediate values for intermediate shapes

1.0 for polyurethane foam, ordinary or California

0.4 for cotton batting

1.0 for mixed materials filling

0.4 for polychloroprene foam*

1.0 for thermoplastic fabrics (fabrics which melt

prior to burning)

0.4 for cellulosic fabrics (cotton; also rayon,

line, etc.)

0.25 for PVCIPU type coverings"

*Estimate based on extrapolation from earlier work. This value would also be ap- plicable to the best available highly retardant treated polyurethane foams but in practice this distinction cannot be made without detailed testing. "This is an extension based on recent unpublished work. Into this group of coverings are placed those which have a thick layer of polyvinylchloride (PVCI or polyurethane EPU} material supported on a fabric scrim. The construction is often found in washable waiting room chairs and in imitation leather chairs.

Figure 37: Description of predictive correlation for

determining peak heat release rate (in kilowatts)

for upholstered chairs similar to those tested by

Babrauskas [Reference 62]

-109-
3000

~2000

P,

"1000

0~

a

/

* -.

*1

a 0,

*~ a a

Id'~

-S

0 1000 2000 3000

ACTUAL d (kWI

Figure 38: Comparison of peak heat release rate using

correlation described in Figure 37 and actual test

results [Reference 62]
b

Tractor

k~erosine Gasoiine

I120

E 2

S10

.0

z 5~

ArpvrwO Reyno~ds numrber scale

(based on, cold -va Dour viscosity of aout 0a01 cetitipoise)

20 E

ICL

2

1* Diesel o,

1- Solr oN

00.troleumlJ

Lornina: A flow regime Transition Turbulentt flow regime . . . I I . . '. , I 1 , . . . . I

0.004

0.01

2 34 68

0.1

0.2 0.3 CA060A 2 34 6

1

do container diameter (metres)

Figure 39: Linear fuel consumption rate and flame height to

pan diameter ratio versus container diameter for

liquid fuel fires [Reference 19]
Burning rates for pools ivth D > 0.2 m can be estimated on the basis of

the equations

S -- " (1 -- -1).

and

h -h'-A

with appropriate values taken from the table. The largest causes of uncertainty are believed to stem from effects of wind and of lip height. In the

worst case this can introduce an uncertainty of the order of a factor of 2. Additional investigations are needed to provide better estimates in these

areas.

NOMENCLATURE

A = pool area (ml

d = lip height (in)

D = pool diameter (m), = vr4A for noncircular pools

uA. = lower heat of combustion (kJ per kg)

A. = total heat of vaporization or gasification JkJ per kg)

k = extinction coefficient (m")

Am" = pool mass loss rate (kg per m' per s)

rh = = infinite-diameter pool mass loss rate (kg per m' per s)

if = convective heat flux (kW per m)

•. = -- miscellaneous heat loss flux (kW per cm)

4 =" = re-radiant heat flux (kW per mi

T, = flame temperature (K)

u = wind speed (meters per second)

s = second

0 = mean beam length corrector (-)

a = Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67 X 10-" kW per m2 K}

Figure 40: Correlation for estimation of large pool fire tuei

mass consumption rate (Reference 67]

-1.12-
Table 25: Parameter values recommended by Babrauskas for use

in correlation described in Figure 40 (note that

nomenclature matches that of Figure 40) [Reference

67]

Data for Large Pool Buing Rate Estimates

Density Ah. AA. ;,o " A T,

Material Ogtgml &JAW~ 04J/kgo &kghm'-s (m-1 (M-1 (K)

Cryogenics

Liquid H,. 700 442 120.0 0.169 I0.006) 6.1 1±0.4) - 1600

LNG (mostly CHI.) 415 619 50.0 0.078 M0.018) 1.1 1±0.81 0.5 1500

LPG (mostly CaH.) 585 426 46.0 0.099 l±0.009) 1.4 1±0.51 0.4 -

Aklohols

Methanol (CHOH) 796 1230 20.0 0.017 4±0.001) - 1300

Ethanol ICa.HOH 794 1000 26.8 0.015 N0.001) 0.4 1490

Simple Organic Fels

Butane (C.H,.) 573 370 45.7 0.0781±0.0031 2.7 1±0.3) - -

Benzene rCH.l 874 500 40.1 0.085 1±0.0021 2.7 (:0.31 4.0 1460

Hexane (C.H.J 650 450 44.7 0.074 1±0.005) 1.9 (±0.4) - 1300

Heptane (C.H.J 675 505 44.6 0.101 (M0.0091 1.1 (M0.31 - -

Xylene (C"H.. 870 655 40.8 0.090 (±0.0071 1.4 (±0.31 - -

Acetone (C.H.1O 791 570 25.8 0.041 (±0.003) 1.9 (10.3) 0.8 -

Dioxane IC.HiO,) 1035 530 26.2 0.018" 6.4' - -

Diethyl ether IC.HO, 714 385 34.2 0.085 4±0.018M 0.7 (M0.3) - -

Petroleum Products

Benzine 740 - 44.7 0.048 1±0.002) 3.6 (±0.4) - -

Gasoline 740 330 43.7 0.055(±M0.0021 2.1 (±0.3) 2.0 1450

Keroene 820 670 43.2 0.039 (±0.003) 3.5 (±0.81 2.6 1480

JP-4 760 - 43.5 0.051 4±0.0021 3.6 MI0.1' - 1220

JP-6 810 700 43.0 0.054 M10.0021 1.6 (±0.3) 0.5 1250

Transformer oil.

hydrocarbon 760 - 46.4 0.039" 0.7' - 1500

Fuel oil, heavy 940-1000 - 39.7 0.035 M10.003) 1.7 (M0.6) - -

Crude oil 630-880 - 42.5-42.7 0.022-0.045 2.8 (±0.41 - -

PolymethylmIethacrylate 1184 1611 24.9 0.020 1±0.002) 3.3(±0.8) 1.3 1260

* Value independent of diameter in turbulent regime

* Only two data points available

* Data from 1141 excludedL otherwise m:,- 0.064 (±0.010) and All - 5.3 M6.0)

-113-
0200

MOO

0.050

.3

0.020

0.010

O.20O

0.100

02 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10 20

POOL D IAMETER IMI

Gasoline pool burning rotes.

6~4

U-'ft hi

.3

0.050

0.020

0.010

02 05 1.0 2J 5.0 10 20

POOL DULME (ml

LINO pool burning rate&

Figure 41: Comparison of experimental data and predictive

correlation of Figure 40 for gasoline and LNG pool

fires [Reference 67]

-114-
Table 26: Critical fire temperatures for hydrocarbon liquids

and ignition times for deep pools exposed to 1.2

meter diameter heptane pool fire [Reference 71]

Flash

Liquid Point

#2 Fuel Oil 397

16 Residual Oil 419

Mobil DTE-797 480

Pennzoil 30-HD 489

Fyrquel 220 530

Fire

Point

(KW

402

450

497

514

586

AutoIgnition

Temp, (K)

533

605

639

650

639

Ignition

Time

(s)

150

120

255

162

130*

*The fire plume was tilted over the Fyrquel 220

(see plan view, Figure 2-1)

Table 27: Unconfined spill depths for hydrocarbon liquids on

epoxy-coated concrete and steel [Reference 71]

Liquid

#2 Fuel oil

#6 Residual oil

Mobil DTE 797

Pennzoil 30-HD

Fyrquel 220

Spill Depth (em)

0.22

NA

0.34

0.75

0.64

-115-
ELEVATION

Heptone Pool Fire

Diam. = 1220mm

All Dimensions

in mm Scale 1:20

Free Standing Oil of

Depth 50mm

Floor

N

206

Pennzoil

30-HD

152

-. _..__ 1 '"--2-- Mobil DTE 797

PLAN VIEW -

T 4 5 yrquel 220

of Fire Plume

*6 Residual

Oil

Schematic of large-scale experiment using a heptane

source fire of diameter 1.2 m. Cylinders containing the high-fire-point liquids are placed

noncontiguous with, but adjacent to, the heptane

source fire [Reference 71]

Figure 42:

-116-
Table 28: Results of liquid fuel spray fire tests (Reference

72]

Fluid

type

Mineral oil

I

Water-in-oil

emulsion

Phosphate

ester

Water-glycol A

Water-glycol Be

Fluid

temperature

(OC)

30

35

40

40

40

50

65

30

30

40

60

65

65

35

40

40

40

50

55

60

40.

Spraying

rate

(g s-')

3.6

3.7

3.6

4.0

4.0

3.3

3.5

4.5

4.6

4.4

4.0

3.7

3.8

5.8

5.8

5.8

5.2

5.3

4.3

4.3

4.9

Total

heat

output

(kJ g-1)

23.9

25.2

26.4

30. 5

31.5

26.9

32.9

18.7

18.9

16.3

17.2

18.5

17.8

19.8

19.5

18.9

18.7

18.0

20.6

20.0

5.3

Radiative

contribution

(%)

34

37

39

44

46

36

44

33

32

26

26

25

23

47

40

42

52

44

49

46

13

Air

consumption

(kg per kg

of fluid)

13.6

13.4

13.5

14.7

14.2

14.8

14.8

7.8

9.3

8.5

6.0

8.0

8.8

7.8

6.5

6.0

7.6

7.8

7.9

6.6

2.7

' This fluid had too low a heat output for accurate measurement.
Table 29: Summary of results from Table 28 for fluids at 400C

(Reference 72]

Air

Heat Radiative consumption

output contribution (kg per kg

(kJ g- 1) (%) of fluid)

Mineral oil'

Water-in-oil emulsion

Phosphate ester6

Water-glycol (A in Fig. 2)

* Averages of 3 values.

29.1

16.3

19.0

5.3

43

26

45

13

14.1

8.5

6.7

2.7

Table 30: Comparison of actual heat of combustion from high

pressure spray fire to total heat of combustion from

calorimeter testing (Reference 72]

Fluid type

Mineral oil

Water-in-oil

emulsion

Phosphate ester

Water-glycol

A

Calorific value

(gross)

(kJ g-1)

44.9

25.7

30.8

14.7

B

Total heal

output from

Table 1

(kJ g-2)

27.8

17.9

19.4

5.3

Ratio

B/A

0.62

0.70

0.63

0.36

4 .

-118-
maw

400 -

t WTUIM ME. 34 '

3m. 3 I OL4LA 1~ 4

3 IOUS ML 134

S pt . V41b

I.pMQ1t su IM O 131 P•-1

5 I msT•oA*M MUD ICOM1

U Sl0,4M. irt [o Ma

04"TrI1AL 18. a

. AoDICA s. M~ R ¶

100

11ID oWtqts .11 0. 

IOI

404

I WHmIM PL 34

3 014LA3 Pa 34

4 11 NO00. I* IAI 34

S MWOOD. sin 0P3 t PU.t .' 3h1 o

WJ@0. PAMCRFACID

I UIGAM . TL OILU I A I

130

II

2H , 30 00 400 SO0 600 100 00 300 3000

Figure 43: Peak and first one-minute average heat release

rates versus material density for wood-based

materials [Reference 18]

-119-
I

S

as

US

M'

M.

w.

t munin NE. 2 -I UUfM It E. 24 RS¶I

a IOWA PR 4 a ISOM &It.W aW32 

aL R1ftYw 3

-OM i.iui

ftBV MFg"U4S

019a m I 6U

-a ACsAmmzA TA

I ACDTWM ThE a

a MUOO No1 OMNI OweidaSM3 I 

UTM AMAGI

89

I I.

S

L•

I - I __ a I I 1 -1 1 - . SJ. 

08=. .,.2

I

S

I

S

FU TN WIJT! AWERAU

uau - VI -1 lda U

NA -

ml - -

- ~ ~SlIr ** 4M1 p * rn

S -

I * * t I I I I *

U

9 M aM M ON M Mu w Mu muN

uWpont L W03

Figure 44: First five-minute and first ten-minute average heat

release rates versus material density for woodbased materials [Reference 18]

-120-
Table 31: Effect of external heat flux on heat release rate and time to ignition behavior of wood-based

materials [Reference 18]

1.I

I

r T1 to to M ,0 I ola Total

?pto 0,. j 5. 0412 =eg h P" U 04 p h, 31.1 u• 5 431. o.4 331. U V.in .!L!Lt to L. 34.115 (Ii,, I oI 1

) 04*~ wo, ig.d oftto 60u~ wo WM

•ats $ 3 19 190 133 390 "M0e• 104 309t 390 39007.09) 

plai 6? T IS 3 7 IS6 NO 1 94 0 47 Is Me ("At.0) 33 2 213 a47 3 41 115 392 8 0 4 3 3 U 97 33 9007.47) s SI 40 45 1its 102 111 Is 0 a IN WO 640 (4I.f1) 4 INS 3 37 PS 317 1 2 93 1 41 30 1" 4 So (517.0)3 30

"le,1i" f 14 390 40 300 124 300 M 200 It 10 395" (43.8) 390 timb. 1t, 1 2 100 10 27" 7" 43 9 0 31 30 1735(I9.T5) 65 Is$ 113 3 74 354 .1 " 9 7' 97 71 42 47 30 35 10" (14.76) 34 3 30 5 4,4 to 111 104 04 0 0 30 43 IM0 (33.04) 17 SO 3 $ 34 30 70 51 70 1 1 64 GO if 3940 (40.10 9O

assumed 0 9 11 0 10 IeS 110 se0 9 1006 71 14" 3373 (33.07) I"0 mer. 27 T I lie 1 36 335 105? 9 7 0 S 5 1370 (33.129) 3 is6 35 A 24 lie 5 330 It 94 24 is 36 54 ING0(23.17) $1 40 3 33 442 "10 44 94 e 31 32 42 6 3400 (27.25) 72 3 50 3 47 20 1a0 I4 74 G I5 9 53 I900 (22.9s) 0?

Pestes W 132 100 17 100 11 lee 0 t00 79 1" 340 0(30.04) in 19132' pAY. 21 T 1 140 1163 MSo 019 94 at 0 • 35 7 2100 (21.-5) 53 40 3 61 Is2 41 "7 132 317 0 0 53 76 300 (34.07) U 50 2 4 30 22 120 .91 79 U 47 39 54 30" (34.41) 39

m.I"1 fit 0 1 34 100 3t 100 300 10 t4 100 It 100 1430(34.011 300 19/132ply.. 40 3 0 - 30 53 29 4 4 23 31 30 14 (e1.92) 74 cr eat e0 s o 43 is 364 It 45 23 01 20 77 3140 (32.95) 53

Aces" le 60 S 10 100 o 2 10 1 04 100 10 too 41 100 -- tale - A ? 3 I3AN ' 130 210 4 67 0 0 31 13 - 23 2 22 220 43 49 74 77 24 134 4 74 - 40 3 30 380 34 94 74 77 29 43 71 54 -- %O 6 . 40 54 57 64 67 42 4 10 52 1 -- 

met lest3 60 1 9 100 41 100 100 100 13 100 63 300 t- tile - 9 26 0 3 37 163 36 04 is 5 32 39 47 72 - 2 30 is) 60 344 5? i7 37 62 .... .0 4 44 34 93 74 •6 50 40 45 74

OT pilot Uplet10 flow at top of ample S . pit" Smatess tim at bett" of ample
Table 32: Effects of fire retardant

rate and time to ignition

lumber [Reference 18]

treatment on heat release

behavior of Douglas fir

Tim to Tim to Mean HRR kW/*. 10-sin Total

Io. of Ignition Peak MIR First 1-ian First 5-ulm Heat selease

Material Tests Sac Sec Peak Averjise Averuits itu/ft 2 (•J/m2

)

Southern pin* lmber, 2 x 8 5 17 60 134 96 109 SO0 (57.69)

Douglas fir lumber, 2 x 6

Untreated

(I of Southern pine)

4 15

(88)

26

(47)

96 59

(73) (61)

78

(72)

3990 (45.31)

(79)

C'- Treated - A 4 -30 565 32 7 13 940 (10.67)

(Z of untreated) ()200) (2089) (33) (12) (17) (24)

(I of Southern pine) (,176) (975) (24) (7) (12) (19) ----- ---- --- - - - ------- ------------------

Douglas fir plrywood, 19132"

Untreated

(Z of Southern pine)

2 13

(76)

17

(28)

115 90

(86) (94)

70

(64)

3420 (3.s54)

(67)

Treated - B 2 14 19 s0 26 26 1410 (16.01)

(2 of untreated) (108) (112) (70) (29) (37) (41)

(Z of Southern pine) (82) (32) (60) (27) (24) (28)

Douglas fir plywood, 1/2"

Treated - A 1 i5 21 91 39 31 1720 (19.53)

(2 of Southern pine) (88) (151 (68) (41) (28) (34)
LAJ I

Table 33: Summary of heat release rate behavior of wood-based

materials [Reference 18]

Mt, We'+ t,,,,•

Ifen Ties to ?trot I-•et First 5-012 Total Most

Density Peak WI!. Peak Averagea Aver&" stwift 2 (PUIR2 Ha Il.rtn1 kt.I., 3 S,. a1, -- p*-, c"*-

Lumber

Southern pife 2 x 8 540 36 187 20 192 19 127 ' '

8 1 5 b(. 0 4 , 6

Douglas fir 2 2 8 490 - 2 0 9 b 20 119 0 105 12 5022 (57.03) 11€

Douglas fir 2 z 6 450 12 217 19 152 23 116 11 5710 (64.84) 10

Redwood 2 1z 380 15 221 12 113 17 81 12 950 (6".86) 11

Ply40od Douglas fir

19,3t 540 27 251 18 141 9 117 17 5280 (59.96) 19

510 44 211 26 133 23 94 7 4870 (55.30) 7

Treated

Douglas fir lubet 2 x 6 540 528 119 14 18 20 28 20 1710 (19.42) 35

Douglas fir plywd 12.7um(1/2in) 56C 27 107 14 51 12 44 13 1980 (22.48) 6

Doug. fir plwd 15.1mm(19/32in) 540 21 182 6 49 32 34 36 1780 (20.21) 41

Particleboard 5t8" 750 57 250 18 126 31 153 14 7100 (80.63) 17

Acoustical tile A 12. 7m(l/21n) 290 21 142 26 84 20 71 26 2760 (31.34) 38

Acoustical tile B 12.7T(1/2tn) 300 24 201 8 115 25 87 26 3760 (42.70) 31

*dbd paper-faced il.lmi(7/161n) 720 30 375 10 157 4 158 3 7330 (83.24) 7

flardbd, emboesed 9.5m(3.81n) 870 276 269 16 119 37 161 17 -

aCoefficient of variation, percent

bFEstimated from WIS-I calorimeter values and NES-T R versus WIS-I

c Standard deviation from regression as percent of estimate mean

regression in Table 9
Table 34: Summary of heat release rate and time to ignition

behavior of wood-based materials [Reference 18]

I

N) .ta.

Tim to Time to Mean _4XR 10-ein. Total Ignition P Peakak First 1-mm. Avs. First 5-eln. Avg. Heat 1161649

No. of 1 CV . .Z-o-f Z of of I " Io of I tu/ft 2 I of

Material Tests Sec. SPF Sec. SP kW/U 2 SP kW/a,2 SP / k/u 2 SF I (MJ/02) Sp

Southern pine, 2%8 lbr. 5 17 100 60 100 134 100 96 100 109 100 5080 (57.69) 100

Dougise fir, 2. 8 lbr. 3 14 79 40 67 124 93 89 93 ?9 72 3860 (43.83) 76

Douglae fir, 2x6 lbr. 4 is 88 26 47 98 73 59 61 78 72 3990 (45.31) 79

Redwood, 2x8 lbr. 9 11 65 20 33 118 88 95 99 71 65 3352 (38.07) 66

Douglas fir, 19/32" ply. 2 12 71 17 28 115 86 90 94 70 64 3420 (38.84) 67

Douglas fir, 3/4" ply. 3 8 47 19 32 119 89 98 102 82 75 3820 (43.38) 75

Particleboard, 5/8" 3 26 153 104 173 132 99 95 99 109 100 5180 (58.82) 102

Acouetical tile - A 5 10 59 62 103 96 72 68 71 61 56 ....

Acouetical tile - a5 9 53 41 68 100 75 83 86 65 60 ....

Hardboard, 7/16" m.d.,

peper-faced 4 25 141 29 48 355 265 150 156 118 108 ....

Hardboard, 3/8" m.d.,

embossed 3 21 124 197 328 158 118 94 98 120 110 ..

Hardboard, 5132" h.d. 3 33 194 153 255 380 284 112 117 . ......

*SF - Southern pine
v-1/ - to -" $ x)

where

7(t) - 1 - x ýtof h,

and where V - flame spread velocity

c - specific heat

C - flame spread parameter.

h - heat loss coefficient

k - thermal conductivity

qo0ig - critical flux for ignition

4"(x) - external radiant flux

b - parameter in equation

t - time

tm - characteristic equilibrium time

P - density

Use of F(t) accounted for the transient heating of the solid.

Figure 45: Correlation for predicting flame spread velocity of

wood surfaces as recommended by Quintiere and

Harkleroad and presented by Lee (Reference 213

-125-
Table 35: Parameters for use in correlation presented in

Figure 45 as recommended by Quintiere and Harkleroad

and presented by Lee [Reference 21]

Critical

flux

for spread

(q vs (wlcM2

C

l1/212

Iý; !ýl

Critical flux

for Ignition

(1)

q."Ig 0 2

(W/cM)

(2) *

q(,ig 0 2 Material (W/cU)

b

(- 1/2

t

(a)

Plywood, Plain (0.635cm)

Plywood. Plain (1.27cm)

Hardboard (6.35=)

Bardboard (3.175m)

Hardboard S159H

Particle Board (1.27cm

stock)

Douglas Fir Particle Board

(1.27cm)

Chipboard (S118U)

Wood Panel (S178M)

Fiberboard, lor density

(Sll%4)

-1/2

0.4

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.1

0.9

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.1

1.8

1.5

5.8

2.2

1.8

3.2

2.0

2.2

1.1

1.3

1.2

1.4

1.0

1.3

1.5

1.7

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.2

1.6

1.6

1.0

1.4

1.8

1.6

0.07

0.07

0.03

0.05

0.05

0.05

190.

225.

1190.

420.

342.

395.

*from intersect of V vs q F(t)

0
U

1..

S

S

1000-

900

000O

700

Soo500

40C

300

200

t00ot ..... .... . ....... . ... .. .. ..

0 , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

T..e. gra.)

3

4

S2

250

225

20,0 :IT

125

Soo7-75

550-

25

28

lor

E

..... . ~ .... "... ...

4 a7 9 to

.. .... .... .........

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9

T,mq Irn I

0( i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Tim (emit)

-I

6.6

This ignition source consists of a 6.6 liter model

#2952 Rubbermaid wastebasket, which contains twelve

.98 t. (I quart) milkcartons. The wastebasket is made

of high density polyethylene and weighs 0.23 kg. (1.5 lb.)

The mild cartons are of cardboard construction and have

a low molecular weight polyethylene coating. The total

weight of the milk cartons is 0.45 kg. (1.0 lb.).

The cartons are obtained in their folded condition.

Half of the 12 cartons are opened to formh open tubes

and are placed upright In the wastebasket. The

remaining six 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.

Ignition of this source is accomplished by ignitir;

one of the torn pieces of a milk carton and dropping

it into the centermost upright carton. Fire then

spreads radially outward, igniting the remaining milk

cartons.

For the first three minutes combustion takes place

mostly among the milk cartons. During the four to

Figure 46 (a) - (i): Descrij

summary of test i

Fire Tests rRefet

Liter Wastebasket

(1.75 gallon)

seven minute period both the wastebasket and the milk

cartons burn. After seven minutes the milk cartons have

been entirely consumed leaving only the remaining polyethylene to contribute to the fire.

Time Ceiling Flame Ht Cumulative Rel.rate

min. Temp.*C meters Heat Kcal Kcal/min.

0-1 60.0 0.99 230 230

1-2 65.0 0.78 441 211

2-4 95.0 0.99 1566 703

4-6 85.0 1.04 2251 415

6-8 55.0 0.88 3567 911

8-10 45.0 0.53 4579 506

ption of test fuel sources and

:esults for UCB/LBL Ignition Source

:ence 75]
.2 4C

I

6

S

29,50c)

250'

225~

200

/5

9

~ar /''\~

~7~- I0\ ~6L ia * V

- 2 3 'C I 2 3 4 5 6 ? a 9 iO

121 Liter Wastebasket

(32 gallons)

H

co

I

This ignition source is similar to the 6.6 Z.

waste can in nature. It is made from a Loma

Corporation model #364 121 Z. (32 gal.) polyethylene waste container with 72, .95 Z. milk

cartons. The filling and ignition procedure are

similar to the 6.6 L. (1.75 gal.) container in

every respect. Half of the containers are opened

to form tubes and the other half are torn in

half and inserted into the open tubes. The last

half container is used as the igniter and placed

in the center of the waste can. Fire then spreads

radially outward from the point of ignition.

Time Ceiling Flame HtCumulative, Rel.rate

min. Temp.*C meters Heat Kcal Kcal/min.

0-1 370 2.43 1734 1734

1-2 330 2.43 9184 7450

2-4 840 2.43 23135 8754

.4-6 840 2.43 29300 6165

6-8 670 1.82

8-10 400 1.52

Figure 46-b.
I000

900

mo!o

7 700

* 600

o500

400

300

200

t00 A

F -

4

3

20.0k

I

2251-

[4 3 4 5 6 10 Tie ran

2 5 0 r

ITS

150C

12.5

t00

75

5.0

2.5

I2

IC

9

2

I

13

12

I

* III,,.... n A :1-E 9l l l g • • • I ...... IT .......

•IBIIIIIII 0 1 2 34 56

T..g (..I)

7 8 g 10 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Time (mmw) 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

Time (miN.)

1 Aircraft Trash Bag

IThis ignition source consists of the following

components:

1 Polyethylene bag 0.038 kg.

12 Polystyrene cups 0.159 kg.

17 Paper cups 0.068 kg.

Paper towels 0.907 kg.

Total 1.172 kg.

.084 lbs.

.35 lbs.

.15 lbs.

1.99 lbs.

2.57 lbs.

This ignition source is assembled by fluffing the

paper towels and then adding the towels and the cups

to the bag so that the cups are evenly dispersed. The

bag is then placed against the material and secured

in place using a wire loop around the center of the

bag. Ignition of the source is accomplished by igniting one of the paper towels on top of the open bag. The fire then spreads radially outward to

include the entire top surface of the bag.

Time Ceiling Flame Ht Cumulative Rel.rate

min. Temp.*C meters Heat Kcal Kcal/min.

0-1 315 1.29 1990 1990

1-2 160 1.65 4275 2285

2-4 160 1.04 5291 754

4-6 85 .46 5606 105

6-8 75 .31 5816 105

8-10 50 .31 6026 105

The maximum total heat flux .914 m (3 ft.) from the

floor and .356 m (14 in.) from the corner was 0.99

w/cm2 and at 1.83 m (6 ft.) it was 1.55 w/cm2 .

Figure 46-c.
•J

o000

900

00

700

,,600

500

400

300

200

100

4.

I

250

225

200-

10 I75

10

.50

3 25i

S75

;50

25

0~*

* - *1

* I

2

*0

9

a

6

5

4 .g0~

I

3 I

d

I 0. .. *#~ *0~

C.

0123454 1,0. Imiei)

i

a

I

S

i

50%

I ~

!

I 7 - 5. _ 9. 0. 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IC T.ro (mm)I

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 TM4,-~n) ? a 9 10

2 Aircraft Trash Bags

I

0,

This ignition source is composed of 2 aircraft

trash bags as described previously. Each bag

is identical to the single trash bag ignition

source.

The maximum total heat flux at .914 m (3 ft.) from

the floor and .356 m (14 in.) from the corner was

2.44 w/cm2 and at 1.83 m (6 ft.) from the floor was

2.77 w/cm2 .

Time Ceiling Flame Ht Cumulative Rel.rate

min. Temp.°C meters Heat Kcal Kcal/min.

0-1 290 1.83 2661 2661

1-2 390 1.83 6918 4254

2-4 370 1 0 9954 2096

4-6 190 .61 11159 1048

6-8 125 .46 11368 105

8-10 90 .25 11578 105

Figure 46-d.
1

I

E

I1000

900

S00

700

500

400

300

200

100

4

3

I

I

S

25.0. 2 22I"-

20.0 -

CCI

- I

I ~

/

-I

.1

1

I TS

15.0

2.5

0.0

75

50

2.5

10,

----- C

* a-

- / * /

:1

:1

/

L/

/

a;

U

5

4

3

2

7

"\_

{J r u I I I I I I i i I 0 i (2345678 Timt lm•f) 9 10 0 12 3 4 5 6 7

Time (min)

8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Time (miO)

7 a 9 to 0 1 2 3 4 5 ' 7 9 9 10

Time (Wm)

3 Aircraft Trash Bags

IThis ignition source is composed of 3 aircraft

trash bags as described previously. Each bag

is identical to the single trash bag ignition

source.

The maximum total heat flux at .914 m (3 ft.) from

the floor and .356 m (14 in.) form the corner was

4.2 w/cm2 and at 1.83 m (6 ft.) from the floor it

was 3.76 w/cm2 .

Time Ceiling Flame Ht Cumulative Rel.rate

min. Temp.*C meters Heat Kcal Kcal/min.

0-1 330 1.37 5029. 5029

1-2 380 2.29 9744 4715

2-4 320 2.07 14721 3353

4-6 190 1.37 16607 943

6-8 175 .61 17446 577

8-10 135 .25 17812 209

Figure 46-e.
I0O00 4

9001-

80ao

700 .

* 600

*400

2

E 2

250

22a

200

I?5

_ ISO

125

z '00

75

z 50

25

0,

L

-'s--s...

/~

-

7-V

2

Z

10

9

8

5

4

3

2

i

F

/ 300

200

100 I m..J•l ulmlmmmmmmmm

0' 2 3 4 5 6 Tme (mA) 78e9 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 T;me (..m) 7 89 0 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 9 0

T,.. (-na)

Rubbish Bag

I.a The contents of this ignition source are as follows:

Straw and grass cuttings

Eucalyptus duff

Polyethylene bag

1.55 kg.

2.47 kg.

0.04 kg.

3.45 lbs.

5.42 lbs.

.13 lbs.

Total 4.08 kg. 9.00 lbs.

This ignition source was assembled by placing

approximately equal volumes of straw, grass cuttings,

and Eucalyptus duff in a Mobil Kordite polyethylene

125 t. (32 gal.) trash bag. The contents are thoroughly mixed before being placed in the bag in a

loose manner, so as to produce a pessimized burning

situation. The bag is then placed in the corner,

against the specimen and ignited with a small propane

torch. The top center of the bag is the area ignited.

The flames spread rapidly outward from the point of

ignition. The bag burns fairly uniformly from top to

bottom. The straw and grass along with Eucalyptus

leaves burn first leaving the small twigs and sticks

to burn more slowly.

The data presented is the average of three tests.

The maximum heat flux at .752 m (2.5 ft.) from the

floor and .20 m (8 in.) from the corner was 7.44 w/cm2

and at 1.52 m (5 ft.) from the floor it was 6.13 w/cm2 .

Time Ceiling Flame Ht Cumulative Rel.rate

min. Temp.*C meters Heat Kcal Kcal/min.

0-1 163 1.77 2866 2866

1-2 217 2.07 7779 4913

2-4 217 1.92 15469 4868

4-6 102 1.22 18835 1956

6-8 21429 1411

8-10 23431 1046

Figure 46-f.
I000

Soo

Boo

700

* 600

500

400

300

200

t oo

rC4

3

II

25.0 r

Is

1

17.5

I 5,.0

J25

0.0

7ý5

5.0

25

t

Or2251-

t00-

/

/ S. .S

0~

~.0~

26e

-5

24

2

*,,//

A.

Sa~.-oU! - O'lllllil] 0• ' ' I I I

0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 Tim (min,) 1O 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 Ttme (met) 0 12 3 45 67B 9 10 Time (imm)

0 I 2 3 4 5 6 70 B i0

Time (min.)

6.36 Kg. Wood Crib

I (14 pounds)

This ignition source has a dry wood weight of 6.36 kg.

(14 lbs.). It is fabricated from 28, 38mm x 38mm

x 355nm (1 1/4" x 1 1/4" x 14") pieces of Douglas Fir

which are arranged in eight layers. The two bottom

layers consist of four sticks while the six upper

layers consist of four sticks each. The finished

dimensions of this crib are 355mm x 305mm (14" x 14"

x 12"). Ignition of the crib is accomplished by

igniting 100 cc (.95 quarts) of JP-4 contained in a

254mm square pan located beneath the crib.

The maximum heat flux at .762 m (2.5 ft.) from the

floor and .20 m (8 in.) form the corner was 7.09 w/cm2

and at 1.52 m (5.0 ft.) form the floor it was 3.03

w/cm2 .

Time Ceiling Flame Ht Cumulative Rel.rate

mrin. Temp.OC meters Heat Kcal Kcal/min.

0-1 242 .61 1336 1336

1-2 230 1.22 4008 2672

2-4 248 1.22 7348 1782

4-6 248 .91 11356 2004

6-8 226 .91 14473 1559

8-10 269 .91 17590 1559

Figure 46-g.
,o1 1000r

9001-

8001-

U

3e

7001 4P

6001-

S001- 0

250

225

200

175

!50

125

100

75

50

25

n.

,0'

3

.3

/

p

1

10O

9

U2S

400

300

200

00

- ~ -. ~

- ~.0'

p

.1

.~-... .4-.

*p-- -o~~ ~*-*~~ 'o..-* C- -4

s!

n U . . . . . j i l l I

0 2 2 3 4 4 5 I 6 7 8 . 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1T-4. (mm) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Time (.m, ) 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 T

-4 (mIm) 7 1 9 10

9 Kg. Wood Crib

(20 pounds)

I

L•

I

This ignition source has a dry wood weight of 9 kg. (20 lbs.). It is fabricated from 40, 38mm x 38mm

x381mm pieces of Douglas Fir which are arranged in

eight layers with five pieces per layer. The finished

dimensions of this crib are 381mm x 381mm x 305mm

(15" x 15" x 12"). Ignition of the crib is accomplished

by igniting 100cc of JP-4 contained in a 254mm (10"0

square pan placed beneath the crib.

The maximum heat flux at .762 m (2.5 ft.) from the

floor and .20 m (8 in.) from the corner was 8.9 w/cm2

and at 1.52 m (5.0 ft.) from the floor It was 5.05

w/cm2 .

Time Ceiling Flame Ht Cumulative Rel.rate

min. Temp.*C meters Heat Kcal Kcal/min.

0-1 171 1.07 891 891

1-2 220 1.22 3562 2671

2-4 304 1.29 9352 3118

4-6 278 1.22 15364 3118

6-8 295 1.22 21153 3117

8-10 347 1.37 26752 2895

Figure 46-h.
4 9000

900

B00

700

So

4 00

3

.1

S 0 -.. .... ,..9 .o....o •,.. I .. 0 . .0.. , 

250

225

200-

7.5

:25-r

0"

c; 10

9

,a2

Ti,. ),m).

so

20

'0

P .. ......

(0 " "

O0

0 I 2 3 4 6 1 7 S 9 10 Time (m.)

I

d

I I...........[

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Time (mift) 9 Ic 01 23r4 ;6 1r 59 Time Imn)l

13.64 Kg. Wood Crib

(30 pounds)

UI

This ignition source has a dry wood weightof 13.65 kg.

(30 lbs.). It is fabricated from 60, 38mm x 38mm

x381mm (1 1/4" x 1 1/4" xi15") pieces of White Fir.

The finished dimensions of this crib are 381 mm x 381mm x 457 mu (15" x 15" x 18"). The final moisture

content of the crib is about 8%. The crib is placed

against the test specimen and is supported on bricks to

provide a 76rn (3 in.) space between the bottom of the

crib and the compartment floor. .45 kg. (1 lb.) of

shredded, fluffed wood excelsior is distributed

beneath the crib and covers an area of approximately

533mm x 533mm (21" x 21"). The wood excelsior is

soaked with .118 t. (.008 qt.) of absolute ethyl

alcohol prior to the start of the test. At the start

of the test the outside corner of the wood excelsior

is ignited which in turn ignites the alcohol and

provides uniform ignition of the wood crib.

Time Ceiling Flame Ht Cumulative Rel.rate

min. Temp.,C meters Heat Kcal Kcal/min.

0-1 206 1.52 233 233

1-2 370 2.44 466 233

2-4 370 2.44 6491 3346

4-6 328 2.44 13854 3793

6-8 476 2.44 23322 4239

8-10 604 2.44 30811 4685

Figure 46-i.
I0

9

U)

0

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

00

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

a

0

0

- 0

0'

00 *..0 .... ,0 e .. ,,O .

0 *OQ*

0 0 0-s 1.0--

0--

0v

0 I 2 3 4

Time

a,,,,,,, 6.61. waste container

C ,,,,,,,,,,,, 121t. waste container

5 6 7

(min.)

IV J '~a

O - . - • -

8 9 10

Rubbish bag

6.4kg. wood crib

9kg. wood crib

13.6kg. wood crib 0

0

a I a n 0 - -•|

i trash bag

2 trash bags

3 trash bags

Figure 47: Summary of UCB/LBL Ignition Source Fire Test heat

release rates [Reference 75]

-136-
Table 36: Description of fuel sources tested during SNL

Ignition Source Fire Tests (Reference 48]

In Experiments 1 and 2 the fuel was 18.9 liters (5 gallons) of

heptane. The heptane was contained in a steel pan .3 m (I ft)

wide, 1.5 m (5 ft) long, and .25 m (10 in) deep. The pan was

placed on the fire platform adjacent to the wall and filled to

a depth of .11 m (4.5 in) with water before adding the

heptane. In Experiments 6, 7, and 8 the fuel was 3.8 liters

(1 gallon) of heptane. The same pan and the same amount of

water used in Experiments 1 and 2 was used in Experiments 6,

7, and 8. The approximate potential heat of combustion for

the 18.9 liters (5 gallons) of heptane was calculated to be

613 MJ; for the 3.8 liters (1 gallon), it was calculated to be

123 MJ, these values are shown in Table B-1.

The fuel source in Experiments 4 and 11 was simulated plant

trash. The trash consisted of 11.4 kg (25 lb) of rags, 7.7 kg

(17 lb) of paper towels, 5.9 kg (13 lb) of plastic products

(gloves and tape), and 7.5 liters (2 gallons) ( 5.9 kg) of

methyl alcohol evenly mixed and placed in two plastic trash

bags (approximately 40 gallon size). The two bags of simulated

plant trash were placed on the fire platform adjacent to the

wall. The approximate potential heat of combustion of the

simulated plant trash was approximately equal to that of 18.9

liters (5 gallons) of heptane.

In Experiment 3 the fuel was 9.1 kg (20 lb) of computer

paper. The computer paper was crumpled up and divided into

two plastic trash bags. The two bags of paper were placed on

the fire platform adjacent to the wall. The approximate

potential heat of combustion of the computer paper was about

equal to 25% that of 18.9 liters (5 gallons) of heptane.

The fuel in Experiment 9 was 36.4 kg (80 lb) of computer

paper. The computer paper was divided into two plastic bags

with 2.3 kg (5.50 lb) crumpled up-and 15.9 kg (34.95 lb)

folded in each bag. The two bags of paper were placed on the

fire platform adjacent to the wall. The approximate potential

heat of combustion of the computer paper was approximately

equal to that of 18.9 liters (5 gallons) of heptane.

In Experiments 5, 10, and 12 the fuel was 13.6 kg (30 lb) of

computer paper and two large (approximately 50 gallon) plastic

trash cans weighing 7.5 kg (16.5 lb) each. The computer paper

was crumpled up and divided into the two plastic trash cans.

The two plastic trash cans were placed on the fire platform

adjacent to the wall. The approximate potential heat of

combustion of the computer paper and plastic trash cans was

about 75% of that of 18.9 liters (5 gallons) of heptane.

In Experiment 12, two vertical cable trays were placed between

one of the trash cans and the wall. The two trays were six

inches out from the wall, one with 43 IEEE-383 qualified

cables (12.5% fill) (same type as used in the UL 20-ft tests)

and the other was empty. One of the trash cans was centered

between them. The cable tray was a steel ladder type tray 3 m

(10 ft) long, .5 m (18 in) wide, and .1 m (4 in) deep.

-137-
50

~40

30 7 .J

IL

iUj 203

)-.,I"

CO z

< 10

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TIME, minutes

Figure 48: Measured radiative heat flux delivered to a target

4 feet from the fuel source during the SNL Ignition

Source Fire Tests described in Table 36 [Reference

48]
E

C4) .

0

0

CM)

co

w

C,)

.-

w. 

4

4-)

I (a,

>0

> 

ý44

.r4

-~4 4-)

.- 4 

"Ia

tý7

V0

44 (D

41 jo a,

cc w.

tO r4

rzj

.r4-

0

0

0 0

co

0 r%.

0 0

to

0 0 04)

0

c4j

0

•,,

0 0

z W/M)I ' xfliU 

-139-

IV3H
Table 37: Summary of SNL Trash Fire Test source fuel

configurations and test results

Trash Fire Tests 1 and 2

Fuel: 1 qt. acetone in polyethylene wash bottle

16 oz. box of *Kimwipes"

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

Trash Fire Tests 7 and 8

Fuel: 5 gal polyethylene trash can

plastic liner

1 lb of cotton clean room rags

3/4 lb of crumpled paper

Burn duration:

Peak time:

Peak HRR:

Cmmnents:

30 min

3.5 min

110 kw

Essentially all of the fuel was consumed by the

fire. The two tests show very good repeatability.

Burn duration: Peak time:

Peak HRRR:

Comments:

69 min 12 min

28 kW

The rags and crumpled paper were mixed evenly into

the trash can. Most of the fuel was consumed. A

significant amount of plastic did remain following fire burn out.

0

Trash Fire Tests 3 and 4

Fuel: 1 qt. acetone in polyethylene wash bottle

16 oz. box of -Kimwipes"

2.5 gal. polyethylene bucket

Trash Fire Test 9

Fuel: 30 gal. polyethylene trash can (8.5 lbs.)

plastic liner

3.3 lbs. of crumpled paper

2.8 lbs. of cotton clean room rags

Burn duration:

Peak time:

Peak HRR:

Ccaouaits:

48 min

4 and 35 min

30 kW (typical) 129 kW (test 3)

In test 3 the acetone was observed to spill from

the bucket causing a sudden surge in the heat

release rate not observed during other similar

tests. Other tests show good repeatability.

Burn duration: Peak time:

Peed HRR:

89 min 30 min and 50 min

115 kW

The fire developed quickly in the paper and rags

causing melting of the plastic trash can. Once

the plastic had melted a plastic pool fire

resulted. The first peak was due to burning of the

plastic primarily on the side of the paper/cotton

residue nearest the barrier. The second peak

occured as the flames move around to the othe side

of the residue thus finding a large supply of

unburned fuel.

Trash Fire Tests 5 and 6

Fuel: 12"x16"x12" cardboard box

15 lbs of folded white canputer paper

1-1/2 lbs of crumpled paper

Burn duration:

Peak time:

Peak I4R:

Comments:

15 win 2 win

26 kW

In each case a moderate fire developed in the

crumpled paper. Very little of the folded paper was consumed leaving a large percentage of the fuel

unburned after the test. The two tests do show

excellent repeatability.
120

110

100

90

II

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

TIME (MIN)

35 40 45 50 55 60

Figure 50 (a): SNL Trash Fire Tests 1 anC 2.

Figures 50 (a) - (e): Heat release rates for SNL Trash Fire

Tests described in Table 37.
120

110

100

90

86

76

66

50

40

30

20

10

0

I

•J

I

I

0 5 16 15 26 25

TIME (MIN)

30 35 46 45 56

Figure 50 (b): S'NL Trash Fire Tests 3 and 4.
120

110

106-

90

so

70

50

30

16

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

TIME (MIN)

Figure 50 (c): SNL Trash Fire Tests 5 and 6.
x

I

120

60

70

60

50

40

30

20

le

a

I

.I

0 10 20 30 40 so so 70 so

TIME (MIN)

Figure 50 (d) : S11L Trash Fire Ttsts 7 and 8.

a•
120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

I, n

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

TIME (MIN)

Figure 50 (e): SNL Trash Fire Test 9.
3O0

400 -

6.81

.10

C4

300 - Ouc R

OUC A2

UC A1O

2001- OUC A3

1001-

NBS-CCp

N 0 ;3- ASNI 5,10 0

SNLI 411

I I I I I I I

00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

EFFECTIVE

0.5 0.6

DIAMETER Wm)

0.7 0.8 0.9

1- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 .1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

EFFECTIVE DIAMETER (ft)

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

Figure 51: Correlation between peak heat release rate per unit

exposed surface area versus effective fire diameter

for trash fires [Reference 21]

-146-
600

500

400

Packing density (kg/m 3 )

Indicated beside each datumn

0 About 30 kg/m3

* About 100 kg/m3 10 kg/rm3

ic

Iw

UC R

035 A3

29

300 UC A2,

200

100

0o

0

L

0

-100 kgrm3

INL 5.10

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

EFFECTIVE DIAMETER Wm)

0 0

0.2 0.4

I I I I I I I 1

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

EFFECTIVE DIAMETER (ft)

1 1

2.2 2.4

I

2.6

Figure 52: Correlation between peak heat release rate of trash

fires and effective fire diameter as a function of

packing density [Reference 21]

-147-
"0

w

CO,

w

-J

ILl

0

w

I-

(6/A)Poak

0I

-rfo 

,\

Min value of 40 kW/m 2

a I I I I I i I I I I -.II II I I I I I I I I I I

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

TIME (min)

Figure 53: Envelope observed by Lee to encompass behavior of trash fires (Reference 21]

A.
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 11I

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

-149-
Grinnell Fire Protection Co.

Attn: Joe Priest

10 Dorrance Street

Providence, RI 02903

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. Dietmar Hosser

Koning und Heunisch

Letzter Hasenpfach 21

6000 Frankfurt/Main 70,

FRG

NUPEC

No. 2 Akiyama Building

Attn: Kenji Takumi

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

M. 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

U.S. Department of Energy

Attn: Carl A. Caves

Walter W. Maybee

Mail Stop EH-34

Washington, DC 20545

(2)

U.S. Department of Energy

Attn: Justin T. Zamirowski

9800 S. Cass Avenue

Argonne, TL 60439

3141

3151

6400

6410

6417

6420

6440

6442

6447

6448

6447

6447

6447

6448

6448

8024

S.

W.

D.

N.

D.

J.

D.

W.

H.

D.

D.

V.

S.

B.

W.

P.

A. Landenberger (5)

L. Garner

J. McCloskey

R. Ortiz

D. Carlson

V. Walker

A. Dahlgren

A. von Riesemann

J. Jacobus

L. Berry

King

Nicolette

P. Nowlen (25)

L. Spletzer

T. Wheelis

W. Dean

-150-
NFRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I REPORT NUMBER (A-9,gnedbv TIOC add Vol No. ,env)

81024 NUREG/CR-4679 NRCM I tO?,

3201.3202 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET SAND86-0311

SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE

2 TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3 LEAVE BLANK

Quantitative Data on the Fire Behavior of

Combustible Materials Found in Nuclear Power

Plants: A Literature Review A DATE REPORT COMPLETED

MONTH YEAR

s AUTHOR(S) February 1987

6 DATE REPORT ISSUED

Steven P. Nowlen MONTH YEAR

StevenP._Nowlen_ February 1987

? PERFORMING ORGANIZAT ION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (flciude 1 Code; 8 PROJECT TASK WORK UNIT NUMBER

Sandia National Laboratories

PO Box 5800 P FINOR GRANT NUMBER

Albuquerque, NM 87185 A1010

10 SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS f(Imtlude ZI Cod.) I la TYPE OF REPORT

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Electrical Engineering Branch

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research b PERIODCOVEREDO,,... .,

Washington, DC 20555

12 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

13 ABSTRACT (20 wOrdsOor.IIs)

This report presents the findings of a task in which currently available

fire research literature was reviewed for quantitative data on the

burning characteristics of combustible materials that are found in

nuclear power plants. The materials considered for which quantitative

data were available include cable insulation materials, flammable

liquids, furniture, trash and general refuse, and wood and wood products.

A total of 90 figures and tables, taken primarily from the referenced

works, which summarize the available quantitative fire characterization

information for these materials is presented.

14 DOCUMENT ANALYSIS -. KEYWORDSODESCRIPTORS

Fire

b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN.ENDED TERMS

Nuclear Power

Fire Characterization

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1987-773-049/41039
°-- I. . .. -