NBSIR 77-1290

Combustion of Mattresses

Exposed to Flaming Ignition

Sources

Part I. Full-Scale Tests and

Hazard Analysis

IMBSIR 77-1290

Combustion of Mattresses

Exposed to Flaming Ignition

Sources

Part I. Full-Scale Tests and

Hazard Analysis

Vytenis Babrauskas

Center for Fire Research

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

September 1977

Final Report

Sponsored in part by

Department of Health, Education and Welfare

Veterans Administration

Department of Defense

Consumer Product Safety Commission

NBSIR 77-1290

COMBUSTION OF MATTRESSES

EXPOSED TO FLAMING IGNITION

SOURCES

PARTI. FULL-SCALE TESTS AND

HAZARD ANALYSIS

Vytenis Babrauskas

Center for Fire Research

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

September 1977

Final Report

Sponsored in part by

Department of Health, Education and Welfare

Veterans Administration

Department of Defense

Consumer Product Safety Commission

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. Juanlta M. Kreps. Secfetary

Dr. Sidney Harman, Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch. Assistant Secretary for Science and Technologf

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler. Acting Director

CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v

LIST OF FIGURES vii

LIST OF TABLES x

Abstract 1

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. REASON FOR STUDY 2

3. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS WORK 3

4. SCOPE OF WORK 10

5. DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION 11 5.1. Test Rooms 11 5.2. Instrumentation 12 y

6. TEST PROGRAM 14 6.1. Test Procedure 14 6.1.1. Bedding 15 6.1.2. Ignition Source 15 6.2. Test Mattresses 16

7. HAZARD ANALYSIS 17

7.1. Bases for Hazard Analysis 17 7.2. Dimensionality of Rating Variables 19 7.3. Specific Hazard Components 20

7.4. Location of Hazard 20 7.5. Role of Time in the Room of Origin 21

8. GENERAL FINDINGS 21 8.1. Observations 21 8.2. Weight Loss 22 8.3. Gas Temperatures 23

9. HEAT FLUXES 24 9.1. Criteria 24 9.1.1. Human Tenability 24 9.1.2. Fire Growth Potential 24

9.'2. Results of Measurements 25

10. SMOKE LEVELS 26 10.1. Criteria 26 10.2. Results of Measurements 27

11. GAS CONCENTRATION 27 11.1. Criteria 27 11.2. Results of Measurements 29 11.3. Effect of Measurement Location and Ventilation 29

lii
CONTENTS (continued)

Page

12. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 30 12.1. Replication and Precision 30 12.2. Comparison with Control 31 12.3. Evaluation of Mattresses 31 12.4. Effect of Fuel Load 32 12.5. Effect of Ticking 33 12.6. Effect of Ventilation 33

13. 'summary 34

14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 35

15. REFERENCES 36

APPENDIX - LOG OF OBSERVATIONS - FROM VIDEO TAPE 42

iv -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the past few years a number of serious, multiple life loss fires have occurred in

health care institutions, specifically nursing homes, and in prisons. In many of these cases mattresses have been the initial or main fuel items. A mattress cigarette ignition standard

(FF 4-72) has been in force since 1973, but case histories indicate that additional measures may be necessary. In response to this need the National Bureau of Standards initiated a mattress flammability test program. The first part of the work has consisted of a series of

full size room fire tests on institutional mattresses.

Two burn-rooms, simulating patient rooms, were used for making the tests. The rooms were set up so as to permit different ventilation conditions to be established. The rooms were instrumented for temperature, mattress weight loss, heat flux, smoke obscuration, gas

concentration, and flow velocity measurements. Ten mattresses and a fiberglass control

mattress were subjected to a total of 22 tests. Included was a mattress associated with a serious nursing home fire and one associated with a prison fire. Each mattress was tested

with a set of standard hospital bedding in an otherwise unfurnished room and ignited with a small trash-filled polyethylene wastebasket.

To evaluate the test results a hazard assessment methodology was developed that con- sidered the potential of a mattress alone for causing room flashover and the development of

untenable conditions within the room of fire origin. Three tenability variables were identified — heat flux, gas concentration, and smoke obscuration.

The main findings of the study were the following:

1) The evaluation revealed four distinct groups into which the test mattresses could be

placed, in order of safety:

a. Those that did not cause any of the tenability criteria to be exceeded for the

duration of the 30-minute test. This category included two cotton batting

mattresses

b. Those that did not exceed the flashover criterion or the heat flux and gas criteria, but exceeded the smoke obscuration criterion. This category included

two neoprene foam core mattresses.

c. Those that exceeded all the tenability criteria but did not lead to full room

involvement. This category included three polyurethane foam core mattresses

and one of mixed fibers construction. The best performing of the polyurethane

mattresses was associated with a multiple life loss prison fire.

d. Those that failed all criteria. This category included one latex foam core and

one polyurethane foam core mattress. The latex mattress was associated with a multiple life loss nursing home fire.

2) Mattress core material type and total fuel content were the main variables governing

rate of fire development.

V
Mattress ticking was not an important variable in determining performance, when a sustained flaming ignition source was used.

The main effect of an innerspring was to reduce the combustible content of the mattress.

Polyurethane and latex foam mattresses showed a tendency to burn vigorously in a molten

pool under the mattress. Thus, in testing, an ignition source should be used that can reveal this behavior.

Some mattresses showed a better performance than the control (which included the bedding

and the wastebasket) . This effect was interpreted as a possible quenching action, either

chemical or physical, of the mattress.

The effect of restricted ventilation within a given compartment was to lower the peak

burning rate but not the time to reach the peak. Increased carbon monoxide levels were

also developed.

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Burn-Room A Plan View 72

Figure 2. Burn-Room A Doorway Elevation 73

Figure 3. Burn-Room B Plan View 74

Figure 4. Burn-Room B Doorway Elevation 75

Figure 5. Corridor Plan View 76

figure 6. Corridor Elevation 77

Figure 7. Smoke Meter 78

Figure 8. View of Test Bed 79

Figure 9. Fire Development in Test 2-12 (Mattress - Control) 80

Figure 10. Fire Development in Test 2-3 (Mattress MOl) 81

Figure 11. Fire Development in Test 2-10 (Mattress M07) 82

Figure 12. Fire Development in Test 2-8 (Mattress M08) 83

Figure 13. Weight Loss for Polyurethane and Latex Core Specimens 84

Figure 14. Weight Loss for Cotton and Mixed Fiber Core Specimens 85

Figure 15. Weight Loss for Neoprene Core Specimens 86

Figure 16. Gas Temperatures for Control Mattress 87

Figure 17. Gas Temperatures for Mattress MOl "^88

Figure 18. Gas Temperatures for Mattress M02 89

Figure 19. Gas Temperatures for Mattress M03 90

Figure 20. Gas Temperatures for Mattress M04 91

Figure 21. Gas Temperatures for Mattress M05 92

Figure 22. Gas Temperatures for Mattress M06 93

Figure 23. Gas Temperatures for Mattress M07 94

Figure 24. Gas Temperatures for Mattress M08 95

Figure 25. Gas Temperatures for Mattress M09 96

Figure 26. Gas Temperatures for Mattress MIO 97

Figure 27. Vertical Temperature Profile for Control Mattress 98

Figure 28. Vertical Temperature Profile for Mattress MOl 98

Figure 29. Vertical Temperature Profile for Mattress M02 99

Figure 30. Vertical Temperature Profile for Mattress M03 99

vii
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Page

Figure 31. Vertical Temperature Profile for Mattress M04 .... 100

Figure 32. Vertical Temperature Profile for Mattress M05 100

Figure 33. Vertical Temperature Profile for Mattress M06 101

Figure 34. Vertical Temperature Profile for Mattress M07 101

Figure 35. Vertical Temperature Profile for Mattress M08 102

Figure 36. Vertical Temperature Profile for Mattress M09 102

Figure 37. Vertical Temperature Profile for Mattress MIO 103

Figure 38. Heat Fluxes for Control Mattress 103

Figure 39. Heat Fluxes for Mattress MOl , 104

Figure 40. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M02 105

Figure 41. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M03 106

Figure 42. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M04 107

Figure 43. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M05 108

Figure 44. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M06 109

Figure 45. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M07 110

Figure 46. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M08 Ill

Figure 47. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M09 112

Figure 48. Heat Fluxes for Mattress MIO 113

Figure 49. Smoke Levels for Control Mattress 114

Figure 50. Smoke Levels for Mattress MOl 115

Figure 51. Smoke Levels for Mattress M02 116

Figure 52. Smoke Levels for Mattress M03 117

Figure 53. Smoke Levels for Mattress M04 118

Figure 54. Smoke Levels for Mattress M05 119

Figure 55. Smoke Levels for Mattress M06 120

Figure 56. Smoke Levels for Mattress M07 121

Figure 57. Smoke Levels for Mattress M08 122

Figure 58. Smoke Levels for Mattress M09 123

Figure 59. Smoke Levels for Mattress MIO 124

Figure 60. Gas Concentrations for Control Mattress 125

viii
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Summary of Burn-Room Characteristics .... 48

Table 2. List of Instrumentation — Burn-Room A A9

Table 3. List of Instrumentation — Burn-Room B . . 51

Table A. Schedule of Tests 53

Table 5. Properties of Bedding 54

Table 6. Ignition Source 55

Table 7. Mattress Sizes and Weights 55

Table 8. Physical Properties of Mattresses 56

Table 9. Time of Ignition Events . 58

Table 10. Weight Loss Record 59

Table 11. Heat Flux Peak Values 60

Table 12. Time to Reach Critical Flux Values .61

Table 13. Peak Extinction Coefficients 62

Table 14. Time to Reach Critical Level of Extinction Coefficient 63

Table 15. 0 Minimums 64

2 Table 16. COj Concentrations 65

Table 17. CO Concentrations 66

Table 18. Computed COHb Levels at Different Times 67

Table 19. Time to Reach Critical Gas Concentrations 68

Table 20. Values for Replicate Tests 69

Table 21. Evaluation Criteria 70

Table 22. Mattress Evaluation Results 71

X
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Page

Figure 61. Gas Concentrations for Mattress MOl 126

Figure 62. Gas Concentrations for Mattress M02 127

Figure 63. Gas Concentrations for Mattress M03 128

Figure 64. Gas Concentrations for Mattress M04 129

Figure 65. Gas Concentrations for Mattress M05 130

Figure 66. Gas Concentrations for Mattress M06 131

Figure 67. Gas Concentrations for Mattress M07 132

Figure 68. Gas Concentrations for Mattress M08 133

Figure 69. Gas Concentrations for Mattress M09 134

Figure 70. Gas Concentrations for Mattress MIO 135

ix
COMBUSTION OF MATTRESSES EXPOSED TO

FLAMING IGNITION SOURCES PART I. FULL-SCALE TESTS AND HAZARD ANALYSIS

Vytenis Babrauskas

Abstract

, A test program was conducted to assess the hazards of institutional mattresses

when subjected to a sustained flaming ignition source. This report gives results

on full-scale room burns of ten different mattress types under several ventilation

conditions. Tenability and rapid flame spread potential criteria were applied in

a hazard assessment which showed a wide range of behavior among mattresses now being used in institutions. An extensive review of previous fire tests involving

mattresses is included.

Key words: Bedding; beds; compartment fires; firesafety engineering; fire tests; health care facilities; hospitals; mattresses; prisons.

1 . INTRODUCTION

The fire behavior of mattresses used in health care facilities and in penal institutions

has recently come to be of concern. To explore several facets of the potential hazards posed

by burning mattresses a mattress test program was formulated by the Center for Fire Research

at the National Bureau of Standards. Initial work was started in mid-1976. The present report

is the first of a series and contains some of the data gathered in full-scale room tests and. an analysis of potential mattress fire hazards.

The test program was sponsored in part by: — Department of Health, Education and Welfare, HEW/NBS

Life/Fire Safety Program, sponsored by the Public

Health Service — Veterans Administration, Department of Medicine and

\ Surgery — Department of Defense, Naval Facilities Engineering Command — Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bureau of

Engineering Sciences.

1
2. REASON FOR STUDY

A mattress ignition standard (FF 4-72) [1]^ exists to prevent cigarette ignition, but it Is not addressed to the burning behavior of mattresses after ignition by other sources. A

study of mattress hazard under flaming ignition conditions is considered important since

mattress and bedding fires account for about 35% of the fires originating in furniture,

furnishings or clothing [2]. Other data indicate [3] that in residential occupancies open

flame ignitions of furnishings account for 5% of total U.S. fire deaths (compared to 27% for

ignitions by smoldering smoking materials). Comparable figures for institutional occupancies

are not available.

Mattresses intended for use in institutions or other special hazard occupanices should

be evaluated differently for flaming hazards than those used in residences. Mobility and

potential for escape is quite different in a hospital or a prison than it is in a home.

Effective fire performance specifications are needed and these can only be established if a common quantitative basis for assessing mattress fire behavior exists. The present study is

intended to provide such a common basis, whereby the hazards of mattresses in institutional

occupancies can be evaluated.

Concern in institutional occupancies has been focused on multiple life loss fires.

Mattresses have been the initial or the main fuel items in many of these cases, particularly

in nursing homes and prisons. The rate of fire development was typically much greater than

had been anticipated by those involved. Three elements can be seen in these institutional

fires: (1) short time between discovery of fire and the development of untenable conditions;

(2) short total duration of the incident; and (3) catastrophic results.

Several instances exemplifying the concern can be cited. In 19 7A a fire started [4] in

a patient room at the Sac-Osage Hospital in Osceola, Missouri. The patient room had a low

fuel loading but the major part of which was a latex foam mattress. The fire is believed to have originated in the bedding. Fire spread was limited to the room of origin but seven of

nine patients in the wing of fire origin died.

A fire was started by a faulty electrical cord in 1976 at the Cermak House Nursing

Home [5] in Cicero, Illinois. Rapid flame spread and smoke evolution are believed to be

partially attributable to the involvement of the mattresses. The mattresses were examined

and found to be constructed of layers of polyurethane foam, cotton batting, and sisal pad.

The fire resulted in eight fatalities. .

Numbers in brackets refer to the literature references listed in Section 15 at the end

of this report. .
A fire occurred in 1976 at the Shenandoah Homes in Roanoke, Virginia, a residence for

the elderly, that claimed four lives [6]. Initial ignition was from cigarette smoking in

bed. Ignition of the polyurethane foam mattress may have occurred through intermediate

ignition of some bedding. The room of fire origin was burned out, with only smoke damage on

the rest of the floor. Three of the four fatalities were in rooms other than the one of fire

origin, pointing to a significant combustion rate and smoke generation problem.

Mattress fires in prisons have tended to be purposeful ignitions, often with the intent

of erfeating a disturbance rather than causing fatalities. Multiple fatality prison fires

have been common. A fire was set in the Seminole County Jail, San ford , Florida in 1975 [7], A pile of stored polyurethane foam mattresses was ignited with crumpled newspaper by a prisoner. The resulting fire in this otherwise largely fuel-free environment caused the

death of ten prisoners and one guard. All except one were in areas somewhat removed from

the fire origin cell.

A fire was set by prisoners in the Lycoming County Prison, Williamsport , Pennsylvania,

also in 1975 [8]. Several prisoners piled three polyurethane foam mattresses at the bottom

of a stairs and ignited them with a cigarette lighter. The fire progressed to such an extent between the time when first noticed and the guards' arrival near the area of origin, that they

could not attempt rescue or extinguishment. Three prisoners died in the fire.

Whether the incidents cited above could have been mitigated depends to a large extent

on knowledge of mattress burning characteristics. The purpose of the present study was to determine the comparative burning behavior of several currently available institutional

mattresses in a full-scale room test, using a sustained flaming ignition source. Succeeding

parts of this work will contain further analysis and a proposed small scale test methodology

which may be used as a general test protocol. It must be emphasized that no correlation is

known to exist between mattress behavior when exposed to flaming ignition sources, as explored

in this investigation, and mattress resistance to cigarette ignition, as measured in the

cigarette ignition standard [1].

3. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS WORK

Coricern over the potential for mattress flammability can be traced at least to the early

1950's. In 1954 Segal [9], from the California State Fire Marshal's Office, compared the

fire behavior of cotton and latex mattresses. He found the former more easily ignitable but , the latter more flammable once ignited. He considered ignitability more important and thus

assessed the hazard of latex mattresses to be lower. In 1963 Swanson and Adolph [10] decided

to re-examine the question with special emphasis on usage in hospitals. They subjected the

cotton mattresses, with and without innersprings , and a latex mattress to both glowing and

flaming ignition sources. With glowing sources the latex mattress core only melted but did

not flame or smolder. The cotton mattresses, by comparison, smoldered progressively after

3
glowing ignition. With open flame ignitions, the latex mattress ignited and flamed, while

those made of cotton again smoldered. Motivated partly by the superior hygienic and durability qualities of latex mattresses, Swanson and Adolph recommended that the latex mattresses

be considered as superior.

The Los Angeles Fire Department became interested in mattress safety and in 1965

Hammack [11] briefly reported some experimental work. He investigated some details of

cigarette combustion and then conducted cigarette Ignition tests on small mattress mockups

Only cotton mattress materials were studied. The recommendations urged more materials development and more use of flame retardants in tickings and in mattress pads.

The three above studies dealt with exposures to small ignition sources. In the early

1960 's concern over nuclear weapons effects prompted a program of large-scale fire testing

at the IIT Research Institute (IITRI) . As part of that work Vodvarka and Waterman [12]

reported a series of 80 tests on upholstered furniture and beds. "Typical" living room and

bedroom furniture arrangements were set up and ignited with a small amount of JP-4 fuel.

The main variable considered was time to flashover. In living rooms containing furniture

with cotton stuffing, flashover was reached in a median time of 17 min, while with latex

furniture the time dropped to 8.5 min. Bedrooms were tested with cotton mattresses and

either box springs or open springs. No latex mattresses were tested. With box springs the

median was 9 min, while with open springs no flashover was recorded.

Statistics on mattress fires were compiled in Canada in the early 1960 's. The large

number of fatalities attributable to smoking in bed led Sumi and Williams-Leir [13] to conduct a cotton mattress flammability study in 1969. The first part of their study con- sisted of some small scale mattress experiments with cigarette ignition. Vinyl sheeting was shown in these tests to be sufficient to prevent mattress ignition. The second part of the

study was a series of room fire experiments. A mattress was the only fuel and was ignited

with a cigarette. Experiments were conducted with the room completely sealed and with the

door ajar by 25 and 50 mm. Gas measurements were made for CO, CO2 , and O2, but a consistent

effect of ventilation was not observed. Temperature rise near the ceiling, however, increased

significantly with ventilation. The authors noted that automatic sprinklers, even with low

temperature (57 °C) heads would not have been effective due to the low temperatures associated with the predominantly smoldering combustion.

In the United States the 1967 amended Flammable Fabrics Act (81 Stat. 568) resulted in

the Office of Flammable Fabrics being es'tablished at NBS. It was determined that mattress

flammability was one area that needed to be investigated. Fire incidence and injury data

showed [14] that mattresses are commonly the first item to ignite and that smoking materials

are a frequent ignition source. Studies of mattress cigarette ignition were conducted from

1969 through 1972 and resulted in the 1972 Flammability Standard for Mattresses [1]. The

studies have not been published, but brief synopses are given in annual reports [15-17].

4
During the same period NBS also sponsored a fire study of mattresses and upholstered

chairs at Southwest Research Institute [18,19]. In that test series a succession of small

ignition sources — cigarettes, matches, methenamine pills — was used. The specimens were

located in a full-sized test room, where temperature, gas concentrations, and smoke obscuration were monitored. The test configuration involved an unusual feature of a dummy laid down

to depress the mattress. Several variables were explored: mattress core type, ticking type,

and bedding type. Neither the ticking nor the sheet type had a significant effect. A flame

retardant treated mattress cover alone was not effective, but when the sheets and blanket were

also retardant treated the combustion was significantly reduced (there was no sustained

ignition source) . It was further noted that laundered bedding did not perform as well as unlaundered bedding.

In the late 1960 's the U.S. Navy was presented by a manufacturer with a design for a fiberglass core mattress. It was intended to provide an improved fire performance over the

long-used neoprene core mattresses. NBS was asked to conduct comparative flammability tests. A program of small scale tests resulted. Flame spread was measured with the ASTM E-162

radiant panel, the potential heat was determined, and the NBS smoke chamber was used to determine both smoke density and five toxic gas species. This series marked the first

reported use of small scale standard tests for assessing post-ignition mattress fire performance. The proposed fiberglass mattress performed better than the neoprene in the flammability tests but was not adopted because of comfort and wear problems [20]

The effects of highly fire resistive materials were examined in a 1973 test series by

Battelle Columbus Laboratories [21]. Four bedroom tests were conducted. The mattresses

included a cotton batting type and three polyurethane foam specimens with various retardant

additives and improved tickings. The test rooms also had additional furnishings ,^which were

varied in the tests. The ignition source was a wastebasket filled with newspaper. Because

of the many fuel load variables that were simultaneously changed, a clear-cut assessment of

mattress flammability could not be made. It was found that the best performance was obtained

by using components of low intrinsic flammability, or retardant treated, or Intumescent coated.

Hilado reported in 1973 on a series of mattress tests [22] conducted at Union Carbide.

Two types of specimens were tested under a hood: small mattress mockups and full size mattresses. The' mockups were without bedding and were subjected to a progressive series of cigarette,

match, and methenamine pill ignitions. Mattresses tested were cotton, polyurethane, and

latex, with and without retardants. With cigarette ignitions it was found that, contrary to the results of Swanson and Adolph, the latex mattresses progressively smoldered while the cotton and urethane ones did not. With match and pill ignitions cotton and urethane specimens

could also be ignited. In the full-size mattress tests the effects of different pieces of

bedding were examined. The pillow type was found to be the major variable. Down and feather

pillows performed best, latex foam filled pillows worst, with polyester filled ones being

intermediate

5
A mattress evaluation project was conducted by Parker [23] at NBS for the Naval Ship

Engineering Center in 1973. A neoprene and two types of retardant treated polyurethane

mattresses with several types of ticking were burned in a full-size room under different

orientations and ventilation conditions. The mattresses all passed the FF-A-72 test. The

ignition source consisted of 500 ml of ethanol. The neoprene core mattress performed better

than the urethane ones. A retardant treated ticking was sufficient to significantly protect

the neoprene and one of the polyurethane mattresses against the ignition source used. The

mattresses burned more completely when positioned vertically, as they might be in storage,

than when in the normal horizontal position. In addition to the full-size room tests a variety of small scale tests were performed. These included ease of ignition, rate of heat

release, smoke, flame spread, and a scaled down geometric modeling. No specific criteria

were developed for minimum small scale performance.

In 1974 Stark [2A] reported a study on polyurethane cushions and mattress core material.

The main intent of this work was to measure toxic gases. Four urethane materials with

different formulations were covered with cotton ticking and subjected to a newspaper and cotton cloth fire from below. Oxides of nitrogen (NO^) values up to 900 ppm and hydrogen

cyanide (HCN) up to 2400 ppm were detected at the top of the room doorway in the worst case. Tolylene diisocyanate was also investigated because of its potential contribution to the

toxicity but was not observed above the detection level of 3 ppm. The fuel load of urethane

used ranged between 12.7 and 32.2 kg and was taken to represent two mattresses.

The Urethane Safety Group of the Society of the Plastics Industry sponsored a series of room fire experiments at the Southwest Research Institute in 1974. Armstrong [25] tested

both mattresses and other upholstered furniture in a room and corridor facility. The mattresses were tested without any bedding and were ignited with a gas pilot burner. A single

ticking type was used for all mattresses. Of the 19 test specimens, the latex foam ones performed poorly, cotton batting ones performed well and urethane ones, with the exception of two high-resiliency retardant treated formulations, generally performed poorly. The behavior

of the cotton and high-resiliency retardant treated urethane mattresses is difficult to interpret in view of the fact that, in the absence of bedding, the specimens had to be subjected to a continuous gas burner flame for the duration of the test to ensure that the fire

would not go out. A systematic ranking of specimens was attempted by evaluating the habitability threats (temperature, toxic gases) in percent of allowable exposure, as a function of

time. The above work has recently been summarized by Anyos [26].

In 1974 the Centre Scientifique et Technique du Batiment established an on-going mattress

test program. Two series [27,28] of tests have so far been completed. In the first series

four tests were conducted without bedding, while in the second an additional, eight tests explored some bedding variables. The test mattresses were burned in a small standardized

test chamber. The ignition source was a 100 g wood crib placed in contact with the edge of

the mattress at the head of the bed. The igniting crib burned for six to eight minutes.

Temperatures were measured inside the mattress, at the top of the mattress, and 0.2 m above
the mattress. Weight loss was recorded and converted to approximate heat release values.

Several types of mattresses were tested: "traditional" kapok innerspring specimens and three

polyester urethane foam units — 17 kg/m-^ hot-cured, 25 kg/m^ hot-cured, and 35 kg/m^ coldcured. Tickings examined included both plain and retardant treated fabrics. Two bedding

combinations used were a cotton/linen sheet with a wool blanket and a polyester/cotton sheet

with an acrylic/cotton blanket.

Of the bare mattresses, the kapok specimen burned the slowest; it smoldered without

flaming for 6.5 hours. The 17 kg/m^ foam specimen with non-retarded ticking burned very

rapidly and was consumed in 12 minutes. The 35 kg/m^ foam specimen with retarded ticking

burned more slowly (29 min) but showed slightly higher temperatures. The addition of bedding

to the kapok mattress did not significantly change its behavior. For the foam core mattresses

the cotton/linen and wool bedding reduced the burning rate in each case. The polyester/cotton

and acrylic/cotton bedding decreased the burning rate on the 35 kg/m^ retarded ticking

specimen but significantly increased the rate for the 17 kg/m^ non-retarded ticking mattress.

The above results seemed to point to the fact that the wood crib was not placed so as to assure a sustained source for ignition. To check this point a test which showed negligible

heat release was repeated with the crib placed at the foot of the bed, in contact with the

blanket. A greatly increased burning rate resulted.

The American Health Care Association [29] reported in 1975 on a number of fire tests of

nursing home rooms conducted in association with the IIT Research Institute. The investigation of furnishings was not the primary objective, but a series of five room tests for

exploring mattress flammability was included. The mattresses included four polyurethane and one cotton specimen and were ignited by a wastebasket fire. The rooms also included other

additional furnishings. None of the bed tests produced a serious fire. The reasons for this

limited burning were not investigated, even though prior IITRI testing [12] indicated the

possibility of serious bedroom fires.

The Fire Research Station, at Borehamwood, conducted during 1975-76 three separate but

related series of mattress tests [30-32]. In one series [30] the effects of bedding were

tested. The test room was otherwise unfurnished and ignition was with newspapers under the

bed. A woolen blanket was demonstrated to reduce fire intensities, while a retardant treated

acrylic blanket showed increased intensity, and unretarded acrylic, cotton and polypropylene

blankets gave greater intensities yet. In another series [31] rooms with additional furnishings were used, partly to explore the hazard increase from additional fuel. The involvement

of the additional fuel was seen to depend strongly on the type of mattress used, as well as on the mode of ignition. Newspapers placed under the bed gave rise to the smallest fires,

those ignited between the sheets produced larger fires, while the ignition of unmade heaped

up bedding gave the most severe fires. A mattress of cellulosic material with a woolen

blanket and feather pillow produced the least severe conditions and did not cause sustained

7
ignition of wooden furniture 0.25 m away. A latex mattress with acrylic blanket and polyi.irethane pLJ.low was sufficient to cause a rapid fire involving most of the combustibles in

the room. A "standard" polyurethane mattress performed similarly to the latex one but an "improved" one performed somewhat better, mainly in not igniting significant additional

fuels. In a third series [32] a larger number of mattresses was tested in an unfurnished

room. Generally newspaper ignition on top was used, but it was observed that bottom ignition

produced mote severe, although slower to develop, fires. A wool blanket was shown not to reduce the fire if the bedding was largely unmade. Hair and fiberglass interliners reduced

fire intensity considerably by inducing more smoldering and less flaming. Of the test mattresses, hair and cotton construction showed the best performance while polyurethane and

latex V7ere generally less satisfactory. The latex mattress produced the highest smoke con- centrations. Urethane mattresses where both the core and the cotton cover were fire retardant

treated showed considerably improved behavior over other urethane mattresses.

Mattresses were one of the major fuel items in a sequence of three bedroom tests [32-35]

conducted in 1973-75 by Factory Mutual Research Corporation and Harvard University. Only a single urethane mattress and a single ignition source was used. The objective of the tests was to analyze theoretically the resulting flow fields, rather than to compare furniture.

The work resulted in a detailed description [35,36] of mattress burning rates and a characterization of the flame spread behavior. The mass liberation rate was determined to be closely

approximatef.l an exponential growth. The flame spread velocity increased linearly with time

v;ithin several discontinuous segments, corresponding to different burning regimes. The

results showed a markedly non-one-dimensional spread; to what extent other types of mattresses

exhibit this burning behavior is unknown. This same aspect of flame spread points to difficulties that may be encountered if predictive modeling, based on thermophysical properties,

is attempted.

The National Bureau of Standards conducted in 1976 a test program for the Navy [37]

that included some explorations of mattress combustion. The study explored the effects of

wall lining materials, ventilation, and fuel configuration. In addition, quarter-scale

geometric models were tested and basic materials characterization tests conducted. The

standard Navy neoprene mattress [38] was the only mattress type tested, although a nylon

ticking variant was also included. The simulated bunk area had representative bedding and

other combustibles in addition to the mattresses. The results indicated that fire intensity

vjas strongly influenced by ventilation supply and by the degree of bunk enclosure.

Another study treating mattress flammability was conducted by the Southwest Research

Institute in 1976 under grant from the Products Research Committee [39]. A living room and

bedroom ware furnished with "traditional" and with "plastic" furniture. The two mattress

type? chosen were cotton batting and polyurethane foam. The furniture was ignited with a gas burner. The plastic- furnished rooms showed a faster developing and more severe fire.

8
The Naval Ship Engineering Center recently sponsored at NBS another study on neoprene

mattresses. Breese [40] investigated the usefulness of a ceramic or glass fiber interliner

to act as a fire barrier. Interliners of varying thicknesses were inserted under the ticking

of Navy neoprene mattresses and subjected to rate of heat release tests and small-scale

compartment burns. The interliners served to reduce the rate of heat release and the rate of

compartment temperature rise. While reducing the flaming combustion hazard they permitted

more heat buildup in the cores and induced smoldering which eventually consumed the mattress.

The thickness of interliner required to adequately reduce the flaming hazard was sufficient

to make the mattress uncomfortable from loss of resiliency. In view of that, and of the

remaining smoldering problem, the interliners were not recommended.

Finally, Saito [41] recently reported on a series of mattress burns at the Building

Research Institute of Japan. First, various ignition sources using newspapers in a wastebasket were investigated, varying the number of sheets, the tightness of the packing and the

wastebasket type. Too much variability was attributed to these sources, so a small pan of

ethanol was adopted as the ignition source. A cotton sleeping mat and four types of polyurethane mattresses were tested. Three of the urethanes were retardant treated. Preliminary

bunsen burner tests showed that the treated specimens burned slower and generally produced

less smoke per unit weight of material burned. In the full-scale tests the mattresses were

tested without bedding and in two configurations — bare and with a cotton ticking. The

burning rate of the untreated urethane mattress was reduced by more than a factor of two when

a ticking was added. The ignition source was weak enough so that the remaining specimens did not show significant flame spread in either configuration.

None of the available investigations represented a comprehensive examination of mattress

f lammability . By considering their results together, however, certain general concluffions

may be drawn. Prior to the adoption of the cigarette ignition standard most investigations

focussed on ignition by cigarettes or other small sources. It was found that unretarded

cotton batting mattresses will ignite and smolder, whereas synthetic foam mattresses will

not. Cotton batting resists cigarette ignition if properly retardant treated. Boric acid treatment is probably the most common. Mattress ticking is also an important variable in

determining cigarette ignition. Cotton cloth can be successfully retardant treated to resist

ignition, while many synthetic ticking materials do not need any treatment.

Once the Federal cigarette ignition standard was established attention began to be

focussed on other ignition sources. A reliable, realistic, sustained flaming ignition source

was somewhat difficult to produce, as can be seen from various contradictory and anomalous

results reported. Ignition with newspaper was shown to be quite unreliable in many configurations. Generally, mattress core or padding material was shown to be the dominant variable. Unretarded materials can be roughly grouped in the following order of decreasing performance: fiberglass, natural fibers (cotton, hair, kapok), neoprene, polyurethane , latex.

Ticking generally has little influence, except for some experimental highly retardant treated

9
materials. Some experimental f lame-retardant foams can also show Improved performance. If properly arranged, bedding and especially the pillow, will act as a continued source of

ignition. Interliners have some potential for reducing flame spread but may induce smoldering. Ventilation can have a strong effect on mattress performance, but the appropriate

variables have not been clarified. A detailed model of flame spread over one type of

mattress is available; it has not been applied to other types.

A qualitative understanding of the flammability properties of several mattress types

is available from the literature. With the exception of several of the NBS studies, however, none of the investigations have led to proposals for standardized small-scale tests. Instead,

the investigations were more in the nature of demonstrations or ad hoc tests.

A. SCOPE OF WORK

The work reported here consists of a series of mattress burns conducted in a full-scale

room. Several basic types of mattress construction were included to exemplify some of the

types in use in institutions. The study was primarily designed to provide a set of room burn

data to be used in developing small-scale flammability tests. It was also formulated to obtain information on several aspects of mattress flammability not available from earlier

studies:

° effects of corridor airflow on mattress combustion

° contribution to fire of the kind of bedding that is customarily used in health

care institutions. No box spring units were tested since these are normally

not used in health care institutions.

° an ignition source which was both realistic and sustained

^ ° extensive improved room instrumentation

° measurement of those variables needed for a consistent set of tenability criteria

° estimation of the effectiveness of detectors and sprinklers for institutional

mattress fires

° comparative testing of some specimens of types of mattresses implicated in

serious fires.

External fuel load variables were not examined — the burn rooms contained only a mattress

with appropriate bedding and a wastebasket ignition source.

10
The present report includes the main data and findings. A hazard analysis of the test mattresses is given and a performance evaluation is presented. Future reports will present

(1) a compartment heat and mass analysis, (2) a detector and sprinkler analysis, and (3) results of small-scale properties characterization tests and a comparison with full-scale

results. The eventual goal is the development of guidelines for institutional purchase

specifications that do not entail a need for full-scale testing.

5. DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION

5.1. Test Rooms

The mattresses were tested in two different burn rooms, allowing three different ventilation conditions to be explored. Burn-room "A" is shown in figures 1 and 2. It was 3.40 m

X 3.50 m X 2.44 m high (11.2 ft x 11.5 ft x 8.0 ft), and is described in table 1. The only

opening to the room was an open doorway 0.91 m wide by 2.13 m high (3.0 ft x 7.0 ft). The

doorway opened into another chamber, which connected to a corridor discharging into a hood

and exhaust chimney containing an afterburner for smoke abatement. The flows through the

doorway were essentially unobstructed in this arrangement and previous work [42] has determined

that the effect of the exhaust system on room temperatures and flow was negligible. The

ambient laboratory conditions during these tests were a temperature of 20 to 25 °C and a relative humidity of approximately 40%.

Wall and ceiling linings of both burn rooms consisted of 13 mm cement-asbestos board

(Atlas Asbestos Co. "Superbestos") . On the walls and ceiling this was applied over a 16-iTim layer of Type-X gypsum wallboard. The thermal properties of the cement asbestos board used are as follows [43,44].

Temperature

(°C)

30 183 433 721

Density (kg/m^) 658 626 600 557

Thermal conductivity (W/m-K) 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.14 Heat capacity (J/kg-K) 1060 1330 1340 1440

Emissivity was not measured but is estimated to be —0.9. Floor covering, which did not influence test results, was cement-asbestos board in burn- room "A" and asphalt time in

burn-room "B."

11
Burn-room "B" was located in a different building than room "A" and is shown in figures

3 and A. It was 3.35 m x A. 22 m x 2.AA m high (11.0 ft x 13.8 ft x 8.0 ft), and is described

in table 1. The only opening to the room was an open doorway 1.07 m wide by 2.03 m high

(3.5 ft X 6.7 ft). The burn-room was located on a corridor, with the doors of all adjoining

rooms closed. The corridor connected directly to a closed lobby at one end. A general plan

of the facility is shown in figures 5 and 6. Burn- room "B" was constructed to enable corridor ventilation effects to be studied and for later use in extinguishment and detection

studies for health care facilities.

Two ventilation conditions were provided in burn-room "B" tests. Under the first con- dition, termed "non-ventilated," all doors to the corridor and lobby were closed and no mechanical ventilation was provided. Only negligible leakage flow to the outside was present.

The air volume contained within the burn- room, corridor, and lobby was 259 m^. The non- ventilated mode was intended to simulate corridor conditions when the ventilating system is of such design that upon detection of fire, fire dampers close off all ventilation for a , given zone. Systems with this operation are commonly found in institutional buildings.

Under the second condition, termed "ventilated," a forced airflow down the corridor was established. An exhaust fan in the ceiling of the lobby provided the ventilation. Intake was through a 0.91 m wide by 1.98 m high doorway at the opposite end of the corridor. This

doorway opened into a chamber that had air intakes symmetrically located on opposite walls of

the building. The dual intake arrangement was chosen to minimize any wind influence. The

airflow in the corridor was measured (without a fire) by a nine-point velocity measurement at two locations using a hot wire anemometer. An average velocity of 0.275 m/s was obtained,

giving a flow of 1.6A m^/s. An additional check measurement was taken 50 mm below the fan

louvers. An average velocity of 3.28 m/s was obtained at nine points over a fan area of

0.A7 m^, giving a flow of 1.5A m^/s.

5.2. Instrumentation

The instrumentation used in these experiments is indicated in figures 1 and 2 and

table 2 for burn-room "A," and in figures 3 through 6 and table 3 for burn-room "B." A total of 88 transducers was used in room "A" tests and 83 in room "B" tests. The locations

are shown for thermocouples, heat flux meters, and fire detectors. Tell-tale sprinklers were

also located in each room. (These are sprinkler heads not charged with water but electrically monitored to record time of activation.) The results of their operation will be

described in a later report. The experiments were also recorded both on video film and with

still photographs. All instrument data were taken at 10-second intervals on a high speed

data acquisition system. -

a) Thermocouples. Chromel-alumel 30-gage (0.25 mm) thermocouples were located at

the points shown. These thermocouples were shielded with a metallic tube for most of their length except for the last 20-30 mm before the junction end.

12
This allowed fast response time but did not introduce problems of insulation

degradation, which can be troublesome with unshielded flexible thermocouples.

No radiation corrections have been made to the temperature data.

Heat flux meters. Gardon-foil type water-cooled radiometers and total heat

flux meters were used.

Xoad cell. The weighing arrangement consisted of a BLH model U3G1 load cell

mounted above the ceiling of the burn room. A cement-asbestos platform (1.22 m wide by 2.13 m long) was suspended by cable from the load cell. The test mattresses were placed on a thin bed-spring frame and suspended above the

platform. The top of the mattress was adjusted to be 0.61 m above the floor in

all cases. The cement-asbestos platform served to retain the wastebasket and

any molten material on the weighing system (figure 8)

Velocity probes . Bidirectional low-velocity probes were located in the doorway

as shown in figures 2 and 4. This type of probe was developed by Heskestad [45]

for obtaining accurate low-velocity flow measurements under fire conditions,

which can involve water condensation and flow reversal. McCaffrey and Heskestad

[46] have provided calibration techniques for these probes. The probes used were 12.7 mm in diameter, with construction details as given in the above

reference. The basic equation is

where AP = measured differential pressure, p = gas density (obtained from thermocouple reading adjacent to the probe), u = the gas velocity, and C(Re) is a constant which depends on the Reynolds number. For Reynolds numbers in the

range of interest the constant can be approximately taken as C = 1.08 according

to the recommendation of McCaffrey and Heskestad. Pressures were sensed with a Celesco P90D pressure transducer.

Gas sampling. Concentrations of CO, CO2, and O2 were measured at a single

location in the doorway of burn-room "A" (see figures 1 and 2). In burn-room "B" two doorway locations were sampled; an additional sampling location was established

at a point corresponding to the height of the head of a person lying in an adjacent

bed of the same room (see figures 3 and 4). Gas analysis for CO and CO2 in burn-room "A" was made with Beckman 315-B non-dispersive infra-red analyzers.

A Beckman OM-11 magnetic susceptibility analyzer was used for O2. Lira 303

= C(Re)

u

13
non-dispersive infra-red analyzers were used for monitoring CO and CO2 in burnroom "B" experiments. Bacharach electrolytic oxygen cells were used for making

O2 measurements. The sampling lines were fitted with a series of traps: a glass wool trap for removing particulates, a dry ice trap to remove water, and,

finally, another glass wool trap.

f) Smoke meters. Light paths were established horizontally and vertically in

the doorways at the locations shown in figures 2 and 4. In experiments at

^ burn-room "B" additional light paths were established at several locations

in the corridor. Smoke meter drawings for burn- room "A" tests are given in

figure 7. The smoke meters were specially constructed for room burn experiments.

The light sources consisted of a Sylvania DYH bulb (having a spectral output

approximating a black body at 3200 K) for the vertical light paths and a Sylvania R30/FL 75 watt reflector spot (2900 K) for the horizontal paths.

A collimated system was used since it has been shown [47] that in such case

the error due to scattered light is small. Calibration was achieved by placement of known optical density filters in the light path. A differently designed

smoke meter [48] was used for burn-room "B" tests, but one which gave same results

in the density range of interest.

g) Fire detectors. Burn-room "B" was equipped with numerous fire detectors. Their

descriptions are, not given here since analysis of the detection systems will be

the subject of a forthcoming report. The detectors were located at the points

shown in the room plans (figures 3 and 4)

6. TEST PROGRAM

6.1. Test Procedure

The mattresses were tested in the two burn rooms described above. The mattresses were

covered with a standard set of bedding and ignited with a standard ignition source. Figure

illustrates the made-up bed ready for test.

A total of 22 tests on ten mattresses were conducted. All mattresses, plus a control

and a replicate, were tested in burn-room "A." Four mattresses were also tested in each of the two ventilation configurations of burn-room "B." Table 4 gives a schedule of the tests

14
6.1.1. Bedding

Each mattress was tested with the following bedding: an institutional cotton drawsheet

,

two cotton/polyester sheets, a cotton/polyester bedspread, a cotton/polyester pillowcase,

and a pillow. The pillow consisted of shredded polyurethane foam filling in a cotton cover.

The drawsheet was placed on top of the bottom sheet and tucked under at each side. The bed

linens were all commercially available products purchased from a hospital supplier and are intended to be representative of a typical institutional bed. The properties of the bed

linens are listed in table 5. The bedding was not retardant treated and was not laundered.

The use of bedding was determined by preliminary tests to be necessary to ensure adequate sustained ignition. Furthermore, a review of prior work indicates that mattresses

vith marginal flammability characteristics might not exhibit continued flame spread without

bedding but might significantly increase in burning rate when typical bed linens are included.

The use of bedding was, thus, consonant with the test intent of inducing sustained ignition.

Figure 8 illustrates the configuration of the made-up bed. It should be noted that the

bedspread hangs loosely, rather than being tucked in, and that the covers are pulled back.

The loose draping of the bedspread served to ensure that a continuous flame propagation path

around the bed would be maintained. A non- combustible spring support was placed under the mattress.

6.1.2. Ignition Source

t\ small polyethylene wastebasket filled with trash was used as the ignition source. Table 6 gives a description of the wastebasket and its contents. The wastebasket was placed

flush against the edge of the mattress as indicated in figure 8. The wastebasket was located

on the side of the bed toward the wall and away from the doorway. This location served to direct flame across the bottom of the test mattress once the bedspread burned away. The top

of the wastebasket was 0.2 m below the top of the mattress. Each test was initiated by

touching a paper match to the contents of the wastebasket. The bed linens, being in contact

with the wastebasket, ignited in approximately 23 seconds. The wastebasket choice was motivated by a desire to utilize a source which, on the one hand, was strong enough to ignite

the test mattress and, on the other hand, was not strong enough to dominate the effects of

the bed fire. Crumpled newspaper sheets were judged not adequate in view of the problems

experienced by other laboratories [30]. Some characterization of wastebasket fires was already available [A9]. Wastebaskets also represent a realistic actual fire ignition source;

as a result the selection was considered appropriate.

15
6.2. Test Mattresses

A total of ten mattresses were subjected to the full-scale room experiments. The

mattresses were "twin" size, approximately 1.0 m x 1.9 m (39 in x 75 in). Individual measurements, along with other tabulated data, are given in table 7. Details of mattress con- struction are given in table 8. Sufficient specimens of each type were procured to enable

several full-scale experiments to be conducted for each type and additional bench-scale

measurements to be made.

The mattresses were analyzed for composition using infra-red spectrophotometry and

standard textile test methods. The presence of flame retardants was assumed if certain

elements were detected by X-ray fluorescence (for phosphorus, antimony, bromine and chlorine

compounds) and emission spectroscopy (for boron compounds).

Mattress MOl was a hospital mattress with solid foam core and retardant treated polyvinylcbloride ticking (the ticking is the outermost mattress layer, or cover). The polyurethane

core consisted of an inner layer and an outer enveloping layer. The inner core foam was retardant treated. The outer core material showed only slight retardants, not at an effective

level.

Mattress M02 was a hospital mattress with an innerspring construction and contained unregarded polyurethane foam padding, an unretarded polypropylene interfacing fabric, and a ticking identical to that of mattress MOl. ,

Mattress M03 was an innerspring hospital mattress with cotton felt padding, an interfacing

fabric same as in mattress M02 and a vinyl ticking identical to that in mattress MOl and M02

The cotton padding was retardant treated.

Mattress MOA used a latex foam core (unretarded) and a retardant treated vinyl cover. The

foam core was "pinned" by a regular pattern of holes. This mattress duplicates the mattress

used in an Osceola, Missouri, hospital which was implicated in a multiple-life loss fire in

1974 [A]. An earlier room experiment with this mattress is reported in reference [4].

Mattress M05 was a commonly available commercial mattress with a solid foam polyurethane

core. The ticking was composed of three layers — two rayon fabric layers with an intermediate layer of polyurethane foam. The mattress was asymmetrical in that the ticking

assembly on top was quilted while on the bottom it was not. None of the materials were

retardant treated.

16
Mattress M06 superficially resembled a cotton innerspring mattress in construction and

appearance, but the padding consisted of cotton/polyester felt and a pad comprised of cotton,

nylon and polyester fibers. A polyester ticking was used. None of the materials were retardant treated. (Note that, by comparison, an unretarded cotton batting mattress normally

cannot pass the cigarette ignition test. Mattress M06, of course, successfully passed the

cigarette ignition test.)

Mattress M07 was a prison mattress conforming to State of Connecticut specification 3748-M339 [50] for mattresses. This specification was issued by the State in 1976 after several

fires occurred, involving two fatalities [51,52]. The mattress was of innerspring construction, using boric acid treated cotton felt batting and a jute pad and covered with a retardant

treated cotton ticking conforming to Type II ticking of Federal Specification CCC-C-436 [53].

Mattress M08 was a mattress conforming to U.S. Navy specification MIL-M-18351 [38], Type III,

size 2. Core material was neoprene (polychloroprene) foam and conformed to specification

MIL-R-20092 [54]. The above specification references standard MIL-STD-1623 [55] which is

based on the ASTM E-162 radiant panel test. The neoprene performance is to be "Type II,

class 4," which requires a flame spread index not greater than 10 on the radiant panel test. The ticking was a retardant treated cotton fabric conforming to CCC-C-436. The core consisted of three layers of black neoprene foam of different thicknesses and slightly

different densities glued together. The foam was retardant treated.

Mattress M09 was a prison mattress which was tested because of implication in a recent prison fire [7] . It comprised a polyurethane core and vinyl ticking with nylon fabric

reinforcement. Only the ticking was retardant treated. ^

Mattress MIO was a prison mattress of current manufacture which used a black neoprene foam

similar to the one in MOB and was retardant treated. An unretarded vinyl ticking with nylon

fabric reinforcement was used.

Control Mattress consisted of a lOO-mm batt of fiberglass resting on a 12.7-mm cementasbestos board. The cement-asbestos board was determined to be necessary, since if it was

not used a significant airflow was established through the porous fiberglass. Such airflow

is not representative of the test mattresses.

\

7. HAZARD ANALYSIS

7.1. Bases for Hazard Analysis

An analysis of the fire hazard of a mattress, or any other kind of fuel load that does not form an integral part of a building structure, can be performed in three different ways,

giving rise to three different types of tests.

17
A fire test under standardized conditions that are not related to the end-use

condition. The scale of the test can be small or large. An example of such

approach would be the use of a Steiner Tunnel (ASTM E-84) [56] to determine a "fire hazard classification" for a piece of furnishing. The lack of validity

of testing that is not adequately related to end-use conditions has lately been

recognized [57].

"

A full-size fire test that models end-use conditions. The present series of

mattress tests falls into this category. There are two main difficulties associated with this approach. First, full-scale tests are costly. And, second, it

may be difficult to establish generalized test conditions covering all possible

end-use conditions for a product. Variations can come in two aspects: ignition

sequences may not be unique; also, the interaction between the product and the room

or other fuels within the room may occur in different ways for different rooms

sizes, wall materials, ventilation, or other properties. In the present series of tests it is believed that an adequately representative ignition method was used.

The mattresses were tested with a typical, realistic medium-size flaming ignition

source. (An established procedure [1], FF 4-72, is already available for testing

the effects of a small-sized ignition source, such as a cigarette, on a mattress).

A wastebasket was chosen as representing a common medium-size ignition source, once

it itself is ignited by a match or otherwise.

Interaction among several pieces of fuel is an important issue and should be

examined to construct a total hazard analysis. Such testing may be performed

at a later date but was not included in the present study. It must be noted that

this interaction, if present, would indicate hazard greater than for the isolated

mattresses. Therefore, any findings of hazard from this study can be viewed as minimum levels, subject to increase with the addition of more fuel.

The interaction between a mattress and the room was treated in the present study

by selecting a room configuration which would be generally typical of the enduse situation. Since ventilation is the most important room property to be

considered, two different doorway sizes and three different corridor flows (free,

forced, and non-ventilated) were considered.

A series of physical property tests, which are a de-coupled characterization of

product behavior and do not include any room effects. In this procedure a product constituting a piece of fuel would be tested to determine a series of

fundamental thermophysical and thermochemical properties that are characteristic

of the fuel and as independent as possible of the experimental apparatus or test environment. The actual hazard analysis would then be performed by using as

18
inputs the properties characterization test results for the fuel together with

known properties of the end-use room. An algorithm derived from a theoretical

understanding of a room fire development would be used as the tool for analysis. An analysis of this kind has not often been attempted in the past because an adequate room fire theory has not been available. An example of analysis based on

a theoretical model is the corridor test program [58-61] at NBS . Quintiere [62]

has recently presented a useful model for room fire growth and reviewed the

theoretical efforts. This third method of hazard analysis is the most desirable

' and can be expected to come into increasing use. Its main limitations are the

required homogeneity of the specimen and the idealized pattern of fire development.

In other words, the flame spread and material pyrolysis must be simple enough to be characterizable in terms of geometrical, heat flow, and fluid flow relationships.

The present test series was of Type 2. An attempt can be made to de-couple the behavior of

the mattresses from the enclosure. Such analysis will be presented in a forthcoming report.

7.2. Dimensionality of Rating Variables

For a meaningful analysis of results to be possible, the proper units of measurement

must be established. These units will differ, depending on the use of the test. For mandatory tests, such as the mattress f lammability standard [1], the results are usually reported

in go/no-go terms. This approach is not sufficient in those cases where an engineered firesafety design is desirable. The final evaluation of any firesafety system has to be performed

on a go/no-go basis, but the test results needed for that evaluation should be in appropriate

quantitative form. It has been well established that time is the most important variable for

life safety. Wilson [63] advocated the importance of time as the unifying variable in firesafety over a decade ago. More recently Benjamin [64] emphasized the importance of reporting

room burn results in units of time. Williamson [65] has found that the analysis of fullscale room burns can be systematically accomplished by the use of a state transition model.

Time is the primary variable in that model. Time was chosen in this report as the primary

variable for use in analysis of the hazard represented by the mattresses. It should be noted

that if Type 3 testing were done, the basic results would not be reported in units of time.

Units of time are applicable only when the product and the environment effects have been

combined. For a Type 3 analysis, material properties, such as heats of combustion and

gasification, thermal inertia, etc., would be reported in appropriate units. These properties would be combined with the room effects and the final calculated result reported in terms of the times at which critical values of dependent variables (e.g., temperature, smoke

obscuration, gas concentration) are reached.

19
7.3. Specific Hazard Components

The hazards contemplated fall into two categories — direct human hazard and fire growth

hazard. Fire growth hazard is not unrelated to human hazard. It is useful, however, to consider separately any factors that indicate tendencies for a fire to become threatening, even if this threat is fulfilled only under certain conditions of the external environment.

The human hazards consist of

o y • toxic gases

° high temperatures and heat fluxes

° visibility obscuration by smoke.

Each will be considered below in detail.

The fire growth hazard can be treated by considering all factors that shorten the time

interval between ignition and room flashover. Flashover of a room is not only an indication

that conditions have become untenable for life there, but also that the fire threat to other

building spaces, beyond the room of origin, has been markedly increased. The main indicator

of fire growth is the heat flux, thus the fire growth hazard will be considered in the

section under heat fluxes.

7.4. Location of Hazard

From the viewpoint of human survival a building can be divided into two areas — the room of fire origin, and all other spaces. The latter include escape routes and refuge

areas. The division is important because tenability criteria are applied in different ways

to the two areas. Within the room of origin an actual numeric value of available time for

escape can be computed insofar as the test room is "typical" and exact tenability criteria

are known. While a de-coupled characterization would be superior and would obviate the need

for a "typical" room, it is presumed that the test rooms selected are reasonably typical.

The choice of appropriate criteria is much less certain, but enough work exists to permit

some limits to be identified. A time for escape can then be calculated that is valid to the

extent that the criteria are realistic.

Quantitative times for escape cannot, on the other hand, be assigned to the corridor

environment. There is not any "typical" corridor or ventilating system. In consequence the

problem must perforce be de-coupled. The flow rates of smoke and gases into the corridor can be determined; these values have to then be combined with a characterization of the building

flows. Lacking this characterization for a specific building, only a relative ranking based

on output flows can be made.

20
7.5. The Role of Time in the Room of Origin

The process of fire growth is, by definition, not steady state. All physica] variables

change markedly with time. The criteria for tenability are, by contrast, usually based 011 a steady exposure for a given length of time. Neither cumulative nor averaged measures are entirely correct or appropriate for most of the variables considered. The approach taken to make the problem tractable was to define the critical time as the first instance at which a given limit value is exceeded in the room of origin. For those criteria which are dependent

on time of exposure the limit values selected are ones corresponding to a short exposure time

producing serious, but sub-lethal, symptoms. The time considered was on the order of 5 minutes, which should be sufficient to permit an ambulatory individual to move out from the room of origin into the presumed safe corridor environment. According to this scheme the

actual exposure to the limiting value is momentary, rather than 5-minute, thtreby justifying

limits associated with rather serious symptoms. These same criteria, obviously, would not be

used for assessing the corridor or escape route tenability.

8. GENERAL FINDINGS

8.1. Observations

The development of fire in all cases was generally similar because the ignition source was the same and the specimen geometry similar. Differences in behavior can be expressed as the times for different events to be reached and as the magnitude for various measured

variables. The visual observations for burn- room "A" tests are given in the Appendix. For burn-room "B" tests a table of ignition times is given in table 9. Corresponding values are not available for the "A" tests because photographic record was not made from the ignition

side of the bed. Time t = 0 starts with ignition of wastebasket contents. The 'visual

development of fire is indicated in figure 9 for the control specimen, figure 10 for speci- men MOl, figure 11 for specimen M07, and figure 12 for specimen M08.

The ignition wastebasket was placed right against the edge of the bedding, causing a rapid Ignition of the bed spread, average 23 s. The standard deviation is 8 seconds, indicating reasonable repeatability. Mattress ignition then occurred at a time which varied

significantly, depending on the mattress. The mattress ignition time does not appear to be

correlated to any of the measures of hazard that are explored in the following sections.

Pillow case ignition occurred generally some time after mattress ignition and the ignition of

the pillow itself followed shortly.

21
Mattress flame spread was initiated by bedspread flame travel. The flame front along

the bedspread sides generally moved out from the source in a circumferential manner, first

involving the near side, then the foot of the bed, and then the far side. The burning at the

head of the bed was largely controlled by pillow burning. On the top surface of the bed the

burning generally proceeded in a radial fashion, away from the source. For some urethane

mattresses flame spread over the top surface was preceded by a period of heavy pyrolyzing

without visible combustion.

The severity of mattress flaming was observed to be governed by one main variable —

whether or not the mattress had a tendency to melt and drip. The urethane and the latex

mattresses showed this tendency. These first ignited on the underside near the source. A

shower of flaming droplets ensued. Approximately a half to one minute after the ignition of

the underside a floor pool fire ignited. In all cases the pool fire occupied the whole

volume underneath the bed and produced significantly more flaming than on the topside of the same specimen. It must again be pointed out that no box spring units were tested. Thus

these observations refer only to beds with flat springs. Visibility dropped rapidly during

this period and peak burning rates were observed. This involvement lasted on the order of

about two minutes and was terminated by rapid fuel exhaustion. Only the urethane and latex

mattresses exhibited melting; none of the others burned significantly on the underside.

The location of the wastebasket was significant for establishing the pool burning condition. A fire using an ignition source on the top of the bed or one located where the hot combustion

products do not flow past the mattress underside would not be expected to reveal any pool

burning potential.

The weight loss record of the burning mattresses is shown in table 10. Table 10 shows

that in three control tests a range of 0 to 1.1 kg, with an average of 0.55 kg, of fuel source and bedding was left unburnt after the test. The actual burning rate of the source and the bedding would not necessarily be the same when used with the different mattresses;

but since it could not be determined separately, it will be assumed that in those cases where

the combustibles were not completely burned 0.55 kg of the weight remaining consisted of

bedding and source.

The weight remaining differed significantly for different types of mattress construction.

The following weights remaining were recorded at the end of 30 minutes.

8.2. Weight Loss

Basic Construction Percent Weight Remaining

Negligible

Negligible (from visual observation)

Polyurethane (MOl, M02 , M05 , M09)

Latex (M04)

Cotton (M03, M07) 78%, 85%

Necprene (M08, MIO)

Cotton/Nylon/Polyester (M06)

88%, 88%

7%

22
The weight loss behavior is seen to be divided into two distinct types — the polyurethane and the latex mattresses were almost totally consumed, while the cotton and neoprene

mattresses lost only about 15% of their weight. Mattress M06 contained stuffing of cotton,

nylon, and polyester and was almost totally consumed. The mattresses that were not totally

consumed at the end of 30 minutes continued to smolder but at a low weight loss rate.

The instantaneous mass loss rates for all the specimens are given in figures 13 to 15.

It was found that due to the large area of the mattress and platform a significant weighing

error, due to buoyancy was introduced. A buoyancy correction could be applied to the data

from burn-room "A." A similar correction could not be applied to burn-room "B" data because

temperature readings in the space above the mattress were not taken. The platform area is

2.6 m^ . The effective gas space height must be so chosen that after fuel exhaustion in any

test no further weight change be noted. An effective height of 0.9 m was found to be appropriate, giving a volume of 2.34 m^ whose buoyancy must be accounted for. The temperature was

taken as average of the readings at thermocouples 35, 36, and 40. The density of air is 1.20 kg/m^ at 20 °C. The relative importance of the correction can be judged by examining

the magnitude of the correction for a specimen that produced high gas temperatures. In the case of mattress MOl this correction amounted to 2.08 kg at peak burning compared to a total

fuel comprising 18 kg.

8.3. Gas Temperatures

The temperature histories are shown in figures 16 through 26 for two locations — the

average upper gas space temperature was taken as TC09 for burn-room "A" and as TCOl for

burn-room "B." The adjacent patient point was TC07 for burn-room "A" and TC17 for burnroom "B." The upper gas space readings are not exactly at the same level. The vertical

temperature gradient in that region is very slight, however, and comparability is preserved.

Vertical temperature profiles, at the time of highest temperatures, are plotted in

figures 27 through 37. For burn-room "A" three locations are shown: center (thermocouples

25-30), east (thermocouples 05-10), and west (thermocouples 47-52). The room temperature

distributions are useful in establishing a fluid mechanical model of room fire development.

They are not central to the hazard assessment of the fuel except insofar as temperature is a complementary measure to heat flux for human habitability and to the extent that temperatures

can be used as an indication of flashover. HHgglund, et al. [66], found that flashover

occurs when the gas temperature about 0.10 m below the ceiling reaches 600 °C.

In the present series of tests the average of the temperatures at the east and the west measuring locations of burn-room "A" can be examined under HRgglund's criterion. (Data from

the center measuring location are somewhat influenced by the adjacent fire plume.) Only two specimens showed temperatures over 600 °C:

23
MOl =

M04 =

938 °C, at 460 s

1055 °C, at 670 s.

9. HEAT FLUXES

9.1. Criteria

^ 9.1.1. Human Tenability

Itigh levels of heat flux in a room can produce conditions untenable for life. Also,

if a potential for continued flame spread or ignitions exists, the flux levels required for

this spread of fire have to be determined. For human exposure a range of threshold values

for pain or burn can be found in the literature. Radiant fluxes which are tolerable for

extended periods of time, in excess of several minutes, have been reported to be as low as around 1.2 kW/m^ (Simms and Hinkley [67]; Derksen, Monahan, DeLhery [68]) and as high as around 2.5 kW/m^ (Dinman [69]; Parker and West [70]). The latter value corresponds to flux

from a black body at a temperature of 183 °C; the former to one at 110 °C. For the present

study a value of 2.5 kW/m^ was selected as the critical level. Since an instantaneous,

rather than sustained, level will be used, it is appropriate to take the higher value. For human exposure, the value of 2.5 kW/m^ radiant flux specified by Dinman, and by Parker and

West corresponds to a pain threshold for extended exposure. That flux-level could be viewed

as an upper limit for tenability. A lower value may be appropriate if concomitant stresses were considered, such as smoke obscuration or toxic gases. Such combined stresses will not be considered here since no simple way of describing their total action exists.

9.1.2. Fire Growth Potential

For limiting rapid spread of fire it is desirable to keep fluxes below such values as would ignite thin combustibles outside the region of the source flames. Newsprint can be

used as an indicator representative of cellulosic target fuels. Parker and Lee [71] have

suggested using a criterion level of 20 kW/m^ as the heat flux at floor level at which

cellulosic fuels in the lower part of a room are likely to igniteResults from other investigators are not much different. Waterman [72] adopted a criterion of 13 kW/m^ flux as an asymptotic value for ignition for times of heating greater

than about 10 minutes. Peak exposures from mattress fires are significantly shorter than 10

minutes, thus a higher flux level is appropriate. Fang [73] found in a series of room burns

that strips of newsprint placed at floor level ignited at fluxes of 17 to 25 kW/m^ while

6.4 mm thick fir plywood specimens ignited at 21 to 33 kW/m^. A range of materials has been

tested by Smith [74] for ignition times and fluxes. For some common materials the following

ignition fluxes are given for 60-second exposure:

24
Flux (kW/m^)

Piloted Unpiloted

Newspaper Want Ads 46 48 Box Cardboard 33 43

Polyurethane Foam 19

The unpiloted values are considered more appropriate for determining of full room involvement since ignition at considerable distance away from the flames is involved.

A value of 20 kW/m^ represents, in Smith's data, an unpiloted ignition time of approximately

180 s for box cardboard and is close to an ultimate asymptotic value. It is, therefore,

appropriate to consider that level as the ignition criterion.

The ignition flux level has a further implication. If sufficient combustibles are present in a room and if a large fraction of them ignites once a 20 kW/m^ flux is reached

,

2 then room flashover can follow shortly, as a consequence of the rapid fuel involvement. The

20 kW/m^ flux level can then be viewed as a necessary — although not sufficient —

condition for flashover. The additional requirements are for sufficient fuel and appropriate

window ventilation openings. After flashover the potential for occupant survival is

negligible.

The human tolerance and the ignition fluxes are sufficiently different that separate

critical times for reaching each should be considered. A value of 2.5 kW/m^ will denote

intolerable conditions within the room. After the flux exceeds 20 kW/m^ the room fire can present serious threat to the tenability of corridors and other rooms in the building.

9.2. Results of Measurements

The flux measurements as a function of time are given in figures 38 through 48. Peak

values are summarized in table 11. The location for determining the human exposure flux is

either at the place where an adjacent patient bed would be located or on the west wall.

2

' Flashover is defined as a change from localized burning to fully stirred burning in a room. Prior to flashover temperatures and heat fluxes are generally near-ambient except near localized zones of burning. After flashover essentially the entire room is filled with

flames and the fire is out of occupant control.

25
The flux level at the floor is used for determining flashover potential. The times to reach

untenable conditions are given in table 12. For the habitability criterion only total heat

flux levels are available from the burn-room "B" series; for burn-room "A" series both radiant

and total heat flux values are given. In those cases where markedly low readings for radiant

flux are noted, as a fraction of total flux, some caution needs to be exercised in interpretation. The window of the Gardon-type radiometers show a tendency to occasionally become

coated with soot and consequently produce erroneously low readings.

The results show that mattresses MOl, M02, M04, M05, M06 , and M09 were at some point in

a test bum associated with flux levels in excess of a habitability level. The control

specimen and mattresses M03, M07, M08, and MIO never reached that level. Furthermore,

mattresses MOl and M04 exceeded the general room ignition, or flashover, level. The above

two mattresses were the only two for which the newspaper target strips on the burn-room floor

ignited. These ignition times were 486 s for mattress MOl and 724 s for mattress M04. These

values compare very closely to the times required to exceed 20 kW/m^, which were 470 s and

720 s, respectively. The close agreement gives further substance to the validity of using 20

kW/m^ as the ignition criterion flux. The same two mattresses were also the only ones exceeding HMgglund's criterion, as discussed in section 8.3, confirming the equivalence of

these two flashover criteria.

10. SMOKE LEVELS

10.1. Criteria

As with most human behavior questions associated with fires, the smoke level that

precludes escape is not readily prescribed. Perhaps more than for other hazards, loss of

visibility involves strong psychologic factors in addition to basic physiologic responses.

In a test series, such as the present one, where no biologic responses were measured, only

the obscuration effect of smoke can be evaluated. The smoke evaluation can be divided into

two components: (1) determination of the visibility for a given amount of smoke density, and

(2) determination of the minimum needed visibility. The numerous investigations of Jin

[75,76] have led to an approximate equation

kV = 2

where k = extinction coefficient (m"''') and V = visibility (m) . Jin further observed desired

limits on k, based on not permitting the walking speed to decrease below the speed for a blindfolded subject in a smoke-free environment. For "non- irritating" smoke a limiting value of

k = 1.2 m ^ was obtained, while for "irritating" smoke k = 0.5 m

''" was the maximum.

26
The visibility needed for escape depends on the familiarity of the building occupants

with their surroundings and the particulars of the escape path. Rasbash [77] has summarized

the few studies available. In the present case for analyzing the smoke levels within the room of origin it will be assumed that the visibility in the corridor is sufficient once

escape from room of origin has been accomplished. In view of the short travel distance

involved before the corridor is reached, the limiting value of

k = 1.2 m"-"-

can be chosen, corresponding to a visibility distance of 1.67 m. The value can equlvalently

be expressed as optical density per meter (OD/m)

^^Z"' = 2303

=

10.2. Results of Measurements

Extinction coefficients in the doorway, taken vertically and horizontally at 0.30 m

below the top, are given as a function of time in figure 49 through 59. Peak values are listed in table 13. The times to reach a critical value of k - 1.2 m ^ are shown in table 14. The vertical measurement represents an average of both the smoky outflow region and the fresh

air inflow. The vertical densities are thus generally 1/2 to 3/4 of the outflow region

horizontal density. Under the non-ventilated condition, however, the fresh air supply

becomes vitiated. Comparative data are not available for most specimens because of Instrumentation difficulties (the smoke meters in the burn-room "B" series proved to be overly

temperature sensitive) . The burn-room "B" data for the control tests are believed to be

reliable and can serve as a basis for comparison. In the ventilated case the horizontal

extinction coefficient was about half of the vertical, while in the non-ventilated case the

two became equal.

11. GAS CONCENTRATIONS

^ 11.1. Criteria

Out of the hundreds of toxic species generated in the pyrolysis and combustion of

various materials only the two most common, CO and CO2 , and oxygen depletion were measured.

Additional products were not measured not because it was believed they were Insignificant,

but rather due to the costs and experimental uncertainties involved. Carbon monoxide and

carbon dioxide are the only species that are known to be generated in significant quantities

in all building fires. Thus, limit times based on their concentrations were used to indicate

maximum tenability times.

27
Definite criteria for CO, CO2 , and O2 levels are not readily arrived at. There are several reasons for this. These can be roughly grouped as population variations and exposure

uncertainties. For the first category the health of the exposed person must be considered.

Especially in any health care facility the healthiness of the individuals may vary greatly.

Thus any values established for a "normal," working population would hardly be applicable.

The second category involves consideration of exposure times, vertical and horizontal distribution of gases, and the activity of the person. Also, combined effects can be of

importance

y

/ Keeping in mind the above limitations, criteria can be found in the literature for

exposures likely to cause incipient incapacitation of a healthy person in a short time of

around 5 minutes. This time choice presumes that dangerous levels of the given species are present only in the room of origin, the corridor being a safe environment. Much lower con- centration values in the corridor, therefore, have to be assured by ventilation design,

otherwise the corridor atmosphere will become the limiting factor.

From Kimmerle's tabulation [78] a CO2 limit of 8% can be selected. Pryor and Yuill's

study [79] gives similar values for incipient incapacitation symptoms. From the same two studies a minimum oxygen concentration of 14% is established. The treatment of carbon

monoxide is a bit more complex. The main effect of carbon monoxide is the reduction of the

oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. The level of reduction can be measured by the carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) content of the blood. To enable an accurate assessment of CO toxicity to be made, the COHb rather than the CO concentration must be evaluated and limited. From

Kimmerle's study [78] it can be seen that a COHb level of 25% implies incipient incapacitation. To determine the COHb level from the CO concentration an uptake equation must be

used. The most applicable is the one developed by Stewart [80]. It is preferable to other

equations because Stewart derived his equation from experiments where human volunteers were

subjected to very high CO concentrations and their COHb levels measured. This equation is

only applicable for exposure times shorter than about a half-hour, beyond which saturation and

elimination can start taking effect. The relationship would also not hold beyond the time

that incapacitation results. Different equations [81] would be used for low concentration,

long duration exposures. The CO uptake is directly proportional to the ventilation (breathing)

rate, which is about 6.5 Ji/min for an individual at rest and increases with activity [82].

Another stimulation of breathing comes from CO2 exposure. A 4% CO2 concentration will more

than double [83] the ventilation rate. Since both these factors will likely be present in a fire, an elevated ventilation rate of 18 Jl/min was taken. This would be achieved alone by

either a 5% CO2 exposure or by light work. The resulting equation expressed in finite difference form is,

ACOHb% = 5.98 X

10"'' (At) [CO]

'^•^'^^

28
where At is time in minutes and [CO] is concentration in ppm. An initial value of

COHb = 0.75% is taken [82]. Values are only computed up to the time of incipient incapacitation, i.e., COHb = 25%. For the sake of completeness an additional limit must be specified.

If a CO concentration of 50,000 ppm Is exceeded there is danger of cardiac arrythmia [84],

independent of COHb level. This limit, of course, would hardly ever govern in room fires.

11.2. Results of Measurements

/ Gas concentrations, as a function of time, are given in figures 60 through 70. The

values shown are measured at 0.025 m below the top of the doorway for the burn-room "A" tests and at the adjacent patient location for burn-room "B." Peak values are listed in tables

15, 16, and 17. Computed COHb values are given in table 18. The COHb limit was exceeded in

only two cases, for mattresses MOl and M04 ; for these mattresses the CO2 and O2 limits were

also exceeded. Mattresses M03, M07, MIO and MOB did not exceed any of the gas concentration

criteria. Mattresses M02, M05, M06, and M09 exceeded either the CO2 or the O2 limits but not

the COHb limit. Times to reach the first limit value are given in table 19.

11.3. Effect of Measurement Location and Ventilation

Since layering of hot gases proceeds from the ceiling down, it is to be expected that

the highest gas concentrations and shortest time to peak concentration would occur at the

highest elevations. The time to reach peak value is generally similar in the burn-room "B"

series for both the ventilated and the unventilated experiments, if a definite peak was reached in both cases. Only specimen MOl showed a well-defined peak in both the ventilated

and unventilated conditions. Mattresses M02 and M05 showed a definite peak only in the

ventilated condition, while mattress M06 did not have one in either condition. Alf these

specimens exhibited a well-defined peak in the bum-room "A" series. From figure 61 it can be seen that in the case of MOl the time to reach the peak was approximately equal in the

ventilated and unventilated cases . Peak intensities were similar for CO2 and O2 but the CO

was, as expected, higher in the non-ventilated case. Gas concentrations were also, as expected, proportional to the height of the measuring point above the floor, and the peak

times shorter for higher measuring points. These data showed significant scatter, but

roughly followed

^0.51 ^ ^ ^1.90

^0.51 ~ ^^1.90

where C are the concentrations, t are peak times, and the subscripts denote distance below

top of door. The adjacent patient level measurements fell generally closer to readings near

29
the bottom than the top of the door. The mattress evaluations were based on the doorway

top readings, since a consistent set of measurements was only available at this location.

The effective safety factor incorporated by the use of this measuring location could be

reduced in future testing by standardizing on the adjacent patient location as the point of

measurement. Additional doorway top measurements would still be necessary, however, in order

to characterize the combustion products being released to the corridor. These same considerations are also applicable to smoke and heat flux measuring locations.

Comparison with the burn-room "A" series indicates that peak times were generally

delayed by a factor of about 1.5 in the "B" experiments. This delay applies to a comparison

of values at 0.025 and 0.51 m, respectively, below doorway top. Under equal burning conditions

a significant peak delay could not be attributed to this limited difference in measurement

location. A similar time shift can be seen in smoke, temperature, flux, and weight loss

data. An attempt at analysis will be made later.

12. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

12.1. Replication and Precision

Two tests of mattress M02 samples were run under identical conditions in the burn-room

"A" configuration to evaluate the repeatability of the test procedure. In room fire experiments a large amount of data scatter is customarily expected due to difficulties in replicating the ignition process. In the present test series the wastebasket placed in intimate contact with the bedding provided better than usual ignition constancy.

There are at least three ways that the test agreement for any given variable could be

compared: peak value, time to reach peak, and time to reach limit criteria. The three sets

of values are shown in table 20. Of the values tabulated only three show a difference in excess of 15%. The median difference is 5%. For heat fluxes and gas concentrations the

time to reach peaks or limit values shows closer agreement than the actual peak values themselves. The better agreement for times rather than peak values provides an additional justification for the desirability of using time as the main variable.

It is not difficult to see why time to reach a peak is better replicated than the

value of the peak. The behavior of most variables in many of the tests conformed to a pattern of gradual rise at first, then a rapid rise, rising to a sharp peak, and, finally,

a sharp decay. The peaks were sharp, rather than plateaus. The top portion of any peak

could fail to be registered since scanning was done only at 10 s intervals. The time to reach a peak did not change much, however; thus, the error associated with the time was

not much more than the +10 s precision implied by the scanning rate.

30
The above peak description does not apply to the cotton mattresses, M03 and M07, and

the neoprene mattresses, MIO and M08. Their burning was more nearly steady, without any

pronounced peaks. Thus, time to peak, while noted, was not a particularly meaningful variable

for those mattresses that showed a smoldering type burning. The time to limit value is, of course, still a valid measure.

12.2. Comparison with Control

The temperatures, heat fluxes, gas concentrations and smoke levels of the control test represent the severity of a fire of the bedding alone. None of the tenability limits were

exceeded for the control case. Many mattresses, as shown above, performed significantly worse than the control. It is interesting to observe that two mattresses performed better

than the control and two more were approximately comparable. Mattresses M03 and M07 performed

somewhat better than the control for all measured variables. Mattresses M08 and MIO performed

approximately comparably to the control except for smoke, where the behavior was significantly

worse. Based on the close agreement in the replication tests, these findings are considered

to have a physical basis and are not merely due to statistical variation. A mattress of low

flammability could improve the behavior of the bedding in two ways. In the absence of significant heat release from the mattress the higher thermal inertia of the mattress could act

as a heat sink for the bedding. Or, a gas-phase flame inhibition could be postulated, coming

from either specifically introduced flame retardants or from other unidentified components

that happen to have an inhibitive action. For a mattress of low flammability even the release

of its moisture could be sufficient to show some quenching effect.

12.3. Evaluation of Mattresses

The criteria used to evaluate the mattresses are summarized in table 21. Only the

effects within the room of fire origin have been considered. Burn-room "A" data only were

used in the evaluation because the burn-room "B" series was exploratory and not all samples were included. The procedure adopted was as follows. The greatest hazards are associated

with room flashover. Thus mattresses failing the full room involvement criterion were judged

potentially the most hazardous. For mattresses passing the full room involvement criterion

three tenability criteria were applied: gas concentration, heat flux, and smoke obscuration.

Some mattresses passing the full room involvement criteria failed all the tenability criteria

and were placed in the second lowest category. Some mattresses passed the full room involvement criterion and exceeded only the smoke obscuration criterion, these were next higher.

Finally, the mattresses that passed all criteria were judged to be the safest. The results

are given in table 22.

31
Group A. Two mattresses, M03 and M07 , did not fail any of the criteria and were ranked

equally as best performing. Both are of cotton innerspring construction.

Group B. The two neoprene mattresses, MIO and M08 passed the heat flux and gas concentration criteria but did not pass the visibility criterion. They were placed in

the second group.

Group C. Three of the polyurethane mattresses, M09, M05 , and M02 and the mixed fiber

mattress, M06 , exceeded all the tenability criteria but did not lead to room

flashover. The best performing urethane mattress was M09, the mattress associated

with the Seminole County Prison fire. These four mattresses were placed in the

third group.

Group D. The remaining two mattresses, MOA, a latex mattress, and MOl, a polyurethane

mattress, failed all the criteria and were placed in the lowest group.

Of the generic types tested here the cotton mattresses could be considered the best, the

neoprene acceptable, and the urethane and latex ones as presenting a high hazard. It is noteworthy that the performance of M06, a mixed fiber specimen, was significantly worse than

the performance of the cotton batting mattresses. The implication is that batting of mixed

cotton/thermoplastic fibers, may be more hazardous under flaming ignition conditions than

cotton batting.

12. A. Effect of Fuel Load

The fuel load of mattresses of a given type would be expected to correlate with the

heat flux and gas concentration measurements. Thus the fuel load of a mattress might be

expected to predict its performance, as compared to other mattresses of the same type and

construction, provided that smoke production characteristics were similar and no retardants

or barriers were used. The polyurethane construction mattress can best be used to illustrate

this point, in view of the number of samples available.

Time to Reach

Mattress Critical Radiant Heat Flux Combustible Weight

Is) (kg)

M09 670 3.2

M05 380 6 M02 '300 '6 MOl 230 14

32
A correlation of this kind does not imply that a polyurethane mattress could not be produced

which has improved burning characteristics for a given weight of mattress.

The fuel load alone is not sufficient to make any comparisons between mattresses of

different types. The performance of mattress M03, Is, for example, better than that of M09,

despite the much higher fuel content. The fuel load can be expected to be an important

variable in determining corridor tenability, since it is associated with the total amount of

combustion products that can be released into the corridor. An analysis of corridor parameters will be presented in a later report.

12.5. Effect of Ticking

As noted in Section 3, some previous studies have reported significant or dominant

effects of mattress ticking on its performance. In those studies either cigarettes or small,

non-sustained flaming ignition sources were used. In the present study a sustained flaming

ignition source was used. That no significant performance dependence on ticking was found

can be seen by comparing the performance of mattresses MOl, M02, and M03. Each of these

specimens had an identical ticking, yet mattress M03 ranked in the first group while MOl

placed in the last group. Conversely, mattresses M03 and M07 can be compared. Their inner

construction was very similar but the tickings used were PVC in one case and cotton fabric in

the other. No significant difference was seen between the performance of these two mattresses.

None of the test specimens had an interliner for increasing flame resistance. Thus, the

potential merits of an interliner have not been evaluated and no conclusions may be drawn.

12.6. Effect of Ventilation

One ventilation condition was provided in burn-room "A" and two different conditions were established in burn-room "B." Sufficient systematic differences in room geometry,

mattress location, and instrumentation existed between the two burn-room series that a simple

general comparison cannot be made. A comparison can, however, be made by using an appropriate

theoretical model to de-couple the room effects, an analysis that will be given in a later

report.

\ Flashover potential is the most revealing comparison, and can be compared for mattress

MOl, which was tested in all three conditions. A definite flashover was recorded under the

fully ventilated burn-room "A" conditions. In burn-room "B" under the ventilated conditions

upper gas temperatures somewhat exceeded 600 °C, indicating marginally developing flashover.

Under the non-ventilated condition a peak of only around 400 °C was registered, a temperature

not sufficient for flashover. The oxygen minimums in the intake air were 19 and 16.5%,

respectively, for the two ventilation conditions. An oxygen level of 19% is only moderately

33
depressed and would not be expected to be a serious limit to combustion. A further reduction

to 16.5%, however, is significant and can account for the diminished burning in the non- ventilated condition.

Another effect of lowered ventilation has already been observed in Section 11.3. For mattresses M02 and M05 the gas concentration values showed a definite peak in the ventilated

case, but only a shallow plateau when non-ventilated. Heat flux data suggest a similar

pattern. For burn-room "B" data, no systematic time shift, however, was noted, as might be

caused, for example, by ignition difficulties. The time shift between burn-room "A" and "B" data is not yet fully explained.

13. SUMMARY

The following major conclusions emerge from the analysis of the data collected on ten different mattresses tested in full-scale burn-rooms.

1) The ignition source, which consisted of a polyethylene wastebasket filled with simulated

trash and placed against a set of hospital type bedding, was adequate. For a test of

post-ignition performance, the bedding must be viewed as the main ignition source and

must be so arranged as to reliably and reproducibly stay ignited. The source used was reproducible, sustained, and did not dominate the room fire.

2) Repeatability was good — measurements of heat flux, smoke, gas concentration and

temperature from two replicate tests differed by about 5%.

3) An evaluation methodology could be established based on time to reach untenable levels

for human exposure in the room of fire origin and time to reach heat flux levels sufficient to cause flashover.

A) Time to reach untenable conditions was determined by the smoke production tendency in

addition to those variables that determine the rate of fire development.

5) Mattress core material type and total fuel content were the main variables governing

rate of fire development.

6) The evaluation revealed four distinct groups into which the test mattresses could be

placed:

a. Those that did not cause any of the criteria to be exceeded for the

duration of the 30-minute test. The cotton batting mattresses were

in this group.

b. Those that did not exceed the flashover criterion and exceeded only the

smoke obscuration criterion. The neoprene foam core mattresses were in

3A
c. Those that exceeded all the tenability criteria but did not lead to full room

involvement. Three polyurethane foam core mattresses and one of mixed fibers

construction were in this group.

d. Those that failed all criteria. One latex foam core and one polyurethane

foam core mattress were in this group.

7) Mattress ticking was not an important variable in determining performance based on a sustained flaming ignition source.

8) ' The main effect of an innerspring was to reduce the combustible content of the mattress.

9) Polyurethane and latex foam mattresses showed a tendency to burn vigorously in a molten pool under the mattress. Thus, in testing, an ignition source should be used that can reveal this behavior,

10) Some mattresses showed a better performance than the control (which included the

bedding and the wastebasket) . The effect is interpreted as a quenching action,

either chemical or physical, of the mattress.

11) The effect of restricted ventilation within a given compartment was to lower the

peak burning rate but not the time to reach the peak. Increased carbon monoxide

levels were also developed.

14 . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

King-Mon Tu provided the original experiment formulation and conducted the tests in

burn-room "A." Warren Hayes conducted the tests in burn- room "B." Richard Peacock implemented computer routines for data reduction. Ronald Smith provided general experimental

support. Sample analysis was performed by Maya Paabo, James Brown, John Norris, and

C. D. Bostian.
15 . REFERENCES

Flannnability Standard for Mattresses, FF 4-72. 37 FR 11362, and amendments 38 FR 15095,

39 FR 1302, and 39 FR 4684.

Office of State Fire Marshal, Annual Statistical Report for the Calendar Year, Salem,

Oregon (1974, 1975).

Clarke, F. B. , III and Ottoson, J., Fire Death Scenarios and Firesafety Planning,

Fire Journal, Vol. 70, 20-2, 117 (May 1976).

Lathrop, J. K. , Harrison, G. A. and Custer, R. L. P., In Osceola a Matter of Contents,

Fire Journal, Vol. 69, 20-6, 91 (May 1975).

The Cermak House Fire, Fire Journal, Vol. 70, 18-21 (Sept. 1976).

Best, R. , The Shenandoah Homes Fire, Fire Journal, Vol. 70, 32-9 (Nov. 1976).

Best, R. , The Seminole County Jail Fire, Fire Journal, Vol. 70, 5-10,17 (Jan. 1976).

DiMeo, M. , Fire in a Pennsylvania Prison, Fire Journal, Vol. 70, 70-6 (May 1976).

Segal, L., Foam Rubber and Cotton Mattresses, NFPA Quarterly, Vol. 48, 119-122

(Oct. 1954).

Swanson, A. L. and Adolph, G. A., Comparing Mattresses for Flammability Potential,

Hospitals, J. of American Hospital Assn., Vol. 37, 37-40 (Sept. 1, 1963).

Hairanack, J. M. , Los Angeles Fire Department Tests - Cigarette Ignition of Bedding,

Fire Journal, Vol. 59, 9-11 (May 1965).

Vodvarka, F. J. and Waterman, T. E. , Fire Behavior Ignition to Flashover (Project

N'6059), IIT Research Institute, Chicago (1965).

Sumi, K. and Williams-Leir , G. , Lethal Effects of Mattress Fires, pp. 204-229,

Proceedings, Second Annual Meeting of the Information Council on Fabric Flammability,

New York (1968)

Frye, R. E. , Vickers , A. K. and Tyrrell, E. A., Analysis of Accident Data on Mattress Fires, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), unpublished NHS report 10820 (1972).

The Flammable Fabrics Program 1968-1969, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBS Technical Note 525

(1970) . The Flammable Fabrics Program 1970, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBS Technical Note 596

(1971) .

The Flaramble Fabrics Program 1971, Nat. Bur, Stand. (U.S.), NBS Technical Note 749

(1972) .

Hafer, C. A. and Yulll, C. H. , Characterization of Bedding and Upholstery Fires

(SwRI Project 3-2610, NBS-GCR 70-1). Prepared for National Bureau of Standards by

Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio (1970).

Yuill, C. H. , The Life Hazard of Bedding and Upholstery Fires, J. of Fire and Flamm.

,

Vol. 1, 312-323 (Oct. 1970).

36
[20] Wirtschaf ter, S., Final Report of Evaluation of PPG Industries, Inc. Fibrous Glass

Mattresses (CSP-26-2) , Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Report AD 893 260, Philadelphia,

Pa, (1972).

[21] Hillenbrand, L. J. and Wray, J. A. , A Full-Size Fire Program to Evaluate New

Furnishings and Textile Materials, Contract NASW-1948, Battelle Columbus

Laboratories, Columbus (1973).

[22] Hilado, C. J., Fire Studies of Bedding Materials, J. of Fire and Flamm, , Vol, 4,

235-277 (Oct. 1973).

[23] Parker, W. J. , Comparison of the Fire Performance of Neoprene and Flame Retardant

Urethane Mattresses, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBSIR 73-177 (1973).

[24] Stark, G. W. V., Field, P. and Pitt, A., The Hazard from Fires of Small Loads

of Flexible Polyurethane Foam, Fire Research Note 1017, Fire Research Station,

Borehamwood (1974).

[25] Armstrong, G. W. , The Life Hazards of Urethane Foams in Mattresses and Upholstered

Furniture, SwRI Project 03-3654, Prepared for the Urethane Safety Group, The

Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio

(1974).

[26] Anyos, T. , A Summary Report on Fire Tests of Types of Flexible Polyurethane Foam

and Other Materials for Bedding and Cushions, SRI Project PYC-4319, Prepared for

the Urethane Safety Group, The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., Stanford

Research Institute, Menlo Park (1976).

[27] Essais sur Matelas (CR74) , Service Feu, Division Recherche, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Batiment, Champs sur Marne (ca. 1974).

[28] Tourrette, J. C, Toyer, M. , Debit Calorifique en Fonction de la Nature de la

Geometrie du Combustible, Contract 75.60,110, Articles 1.3.2b, Service Feu,

Division Recherche, Centre Scientifique et Technique du Batiment, Champs sur Marne

(ca. 1975).

[29] Full-Scale Fire Tests in a Nursing Home Patient Room, Report 7463, prepared for

Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

by American Health Care Association, Washington (1975).

[30] Palmer, K. N. , Taylor, W. and Paul, K. T., Fire Hazards of Plastics in Furniture

and Furnishings: Characteristics of the Burning, CP 3/75, Building Research

Establishment, Borehamwood (1975).

[31] Palmer, K. N. , Taylor, W. and Paul, K. T. , Fire Hazards of Plastics in Furniture

and Furnishings: Fires in Furnished Rooms, CP 21/76, Building Research Establishment,

Borehamwood (1976).

[32] Woolley, W. D., et al., Fire Behaviour of Beds and Bedding Materials, Fire Research

Note 1038, Fire Research Station, Borehamwood (1975). Published in Fire and Materials,

Vol. 1, 63-73 (June 1976).
[33] Croce, P. A., ed., The Large-Scale Bedroom Fire Test, July 11, 1973, FMRC Serial

21011. A, Factory Mutual Research Corp., Norwood (1974).

[34] Croce, P. A., ed. , A Study of Room Fire Development: The Second Full-Scale

Bedroom Fire Test of the Home Fire Project, July 24, 1974, FMRC Serial 21011.4,

2 Volumes, Factory Mutual Research ' Corp .

, Norwood (1975).

[35] Alpert, R. L. , Modak, A. T. and Newman, J. S., The Third Full-Scale Bedroom Fire Test

of the Home Fire Project, July 30, 1975, Vol. 1, FMF.C Serial 21011.6 (1975),

A. T. Modak, ed. , Vol. 2, FMRC Serial 21011.7 (1976), Factory Mutual Research Corp.,

Norwood.

[36] Pagni, P. J., Clow, K. H. , Observations on the Burning of Urethane Mattresses,

(UCB-FRG-W 75-9), Fire Research Group, University of California, Berkeley (1975).

[37] Lee, B. T. and Parker, W. J., Naval Shipboard Fire Risk Criteria - Berthing Compartment

Fire Study and Fire Performance Guidelines, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBSIR 76-1052

(1976)

[38] Military Specification, Mattress Berth, Synthetic Sponge Rubber, Naval Shipboard

MIL-M-18351.

[39] Beitel, J. J., Ill, et al . , Evaluate the Life and Property Hazards of Plastic and

Traditional Furnishings of Completely Furnished Rooms, PR-75-1-45, Southwest Research

Institute, San Antonio (1976).

[40] Breese, J. N. , Tests on Insulative Barriers as a Method of Protecting Neoprene Core

Mattresses, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBSIR 77-1295 (1977).

[41] Saito, F. , Flammability Characteristics of Mattresses, Building Research Institute,

Tokyo, Japan (report in preparation).

[42] Tu, K-M. , The Calibration of a Burn Room for Fire Tests on Furnishings (report to be issued)

[43] Atlas Asbestos Co., Montreal, Form AA6-3237.

[44] Harmathy, T. Z. , Natural Research Council of Canada, personal communication.

[45] Heskestad, G. , Bidirectional Flow Tube for Fire-Induced Vent Flows. In: LargeScale Bedroom Fire Test, July 11, 1973,. P. A. Croce and H.W. Emmons, eds .

,

FMRC Serial 21011.4, pp. 140-5, Factory Mutual Research, Norwood (1974).

[46] McCaffrey, B. J. and Heskestad, G. , A Robust Bidirectional Low-Velocity Probe for Flame

and Fire Application, Comb, and Flame, Vol. 26, 125-7 (19 76).

[47] Jin, T. , Effects of Scattered Light on the Measurement of Smoke Density, Report of

Fire Research Institute of Japan, No. 34, 33-7 (1971).

38
[A8] Bukowski, R. W. , Standardized Measurements of Smoke in Large and Small Scale Fire Testing,

(report in preparation)

[49] Gross, D. and Fang, J. B. , The Definition of a Low Intensity Fire. In: Performance Concept in Buildings, Proceedings of the Joint RILEM-ASTM-CIB Symposium,

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBS SP-361, Vol. 1, pp. 677-686 (1972).

[50] Department of Finance and Control, Purchasing Division, State of Connecticut,

Standard Specification for Mattresses, Bed: Innerspring (3748-M-339)

[51] Oat, T. C. and Morin, D. , State Begins Replacing Hazardous Mattresses. In: Norwich

[Connecticut] Bulletin, Vol. 66, 1 (June 1, 1976).

[52] Oat, T. C. and Morin, D. , Open Flame Not Part of Mattress Tests. In: Norwich

[Connecticut] Bulletin, Vol. 66, 1 (June 2, 1976).

[53] Federal Specification, Cloth, Ticking Twill, Cotton, CCC-C-A36.

{54] Military Specification, Rubber Sheets and Molded Shapes, Cellular, Synthetic,

Open Cell (Foamed Latex), MIL-R-20092.

[55] Military Standard, Fire Performance Requirements and Approved Specifications for

Interior Finish Materials and Furnishings (Naval Shipboard Use), MIL-STD-1623

[56] Standard Method of Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials

(E-84) , American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

[57] Cellular Plastics Products — Disclosure of Combustion Characteristics in Marketing

and Certification, 40 FR 30842, Federal Trade Commission.

[58] Quintiere, J., Some Observations on Building Corridor Fires. In: Fifteenth Symposium

(International) on Combustion, 1974, pp. 163-174. The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh

(1975).

[59] Denyes , W. and Quintiere, J., Experimental and Analytical Studies of Floor-Covering

Flammability with a Model Corridor, J. Fire and Flamm. /Consumer Products Flammability

,

Vol. 1, 32-109 (March 1974).

[60] Quintiere, J. and Huggett, C, An Evaluation of Flame Spread Test Methods for Floor

Covering Materials. In: Fire Safety Research, Proceedings of a Symposium held at the

National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg , Md. on August 22, 1973, M.J. Butler and

J. A. Slater, eds .

, Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBS SP-411, pp. 59-89 (1974).

[61] Quintiere, J. , The Application and Interpretation of a Test Method to Determine the

Hazard of Floor Covering Fire Spread in Building Corridors. In: Fire Safety of

Combustible Materials, International Sjrmposium, pp. 355-366a, University of Edinburgh,

Edinburgh (1975).

[62] Quintiere, J., Growth of Fire in Building Compartments. In: Fire Standards and

Safety, A.F. Robertson, ed. , ASTM STP 614, pp. 131-167, American Society for

Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. (1977).

39
[63] Wilson, R. , Time — The Yardstick of Fire Control, NFPA Firemen, Vol. 29, 34-7

(Sept. 1963); 16-7, 26 (Nov. 1963); 16-7 (Dec. 1963).

[64] Benjamin, I. A., Development of a Room Fire Test. In: Fire Standards and Safety,

A.F. Robertson, ed. , ASTM STP 614, pp. 300-311, American Society for Testing and

Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. (1977).

[65] Williamson, R. B. , Quantitative Evaluation of the Fire Performance of Products Under

Controlled Full-Scale Test Conditions, Sixteenth Symposium (International) on Combustion, 1976, pp. 1357-71. The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh (1977).

[66] Hagglund, B. Jansson, R. and Onnermark, B. , Fire Development in Residential Rooms After

Ignit-.on from Nuclear Explosions, FOA C20016-D6 (A3), Forsvarets Forskningsanstalt

,

Stockholm (1974).

[67] Simms, D. L. and Hinkley, P. L., Protective Clothing Against Flames and Heat,

Fire Research Special Report 3, Joint Fire Research Organization, HMSO, London

(1960).

[68] Derksen, W. L., Monahan, T. I. and DeLhery , G. P., The Temperature Associated with

Radiant Energy Skin Burns. In: Temperature — Its Measurement and Control in Science

and Industry, Vol. 3, Part 3, 171-5, Reinhold , New York (1962).

[69] Dinman, B. D., Journal American Medical Association, Vol. 235, 2874-5 (June 28, 1976).

[70] Parker, J. F. , Jr. and West, V. R. , Bioastronautics Data Book, NASA SP-3006,

Scientific and Technical Information Office, NASA (1973).

[71] Parker, W. J. and Lee, B. T. , "Fire Build-up in Reduced Size Enclosures. In: Fire

Safety Research, Proceedings of a Symposium held at the National Bureau of Standards,

Gaithersburg , Md. on August 22, 1973, M.J. Butler and J. A. Slater, eds . Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBS SP-411, pp. 139-953 (1974).

[72] Waterman, T. E. , Room Flashover — Model Studies, Fire Technology, Vol. 8, 316-325

(Nov. 1972).

[73] Fang, J. B. , Fire Buildup in a Room and the Role of Interior Finish Materials,

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBS Technical Note 879 (June 1975).

[7A] Smith, W. K. , Naval Weapons Center, China Lake (unpublished reports) .

[75] Jin, T., Visibility Through Fire Smoke, Part 2, Report of Fire Research Institute

of Japan. No. 33, 31-48 (1971). Part 5, Report of Fire Research Institute of Japan,

No. 42, 12-18 (1975).

[76] Jin, T. , Visibility Through Fire Smoke. In: Main Reports on Production,

Movement and Control of Smoke in Buildings, pp. 100-153, Japanese Association of

Fire Science and Engineering (1974) .

40
[77] Rasbash, D. J., Sensitivity Criteria for Detectors Used to Protect Life. In: Tagungsbericht zum 7. Internationalen Vortragsseminar ilber Probleme der Automatischen

Brandentdeckung , pp. 137-154, Institut fUr Elecktrische Nachrichtentechnik, RheinischWestfalischen Technischen Hochschule, Aachen (1975).

[78] Kinnnerle, G. , Aspects and Methodology for the Evaluation of Toxicological Parameters

During Fire Exposure, J. of Fire and Flannn. /Combustion Toxicology, Vol. 1, 4-51

(Feb. 1974).

[79] Pryor, A. J. and Yuill, C. H. , Mass Fire Life Hazard, Prepared for the Office of Civil

Defense Under Contract N228 (62479)68665, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio,

Texas (1966).

[80] Stewart, R. D. , et al . , Experimental Human Exposure to High Concentrations of Carbon

Monoxide, Arch. Environ. Health, Vol. 26, 1-7 (Jan. 1973).

[81] Coburn, R. F. , Forster, R. E. and Cane, P. B. , Considerations of the Physiological

Variables that Determine the Blood Carboxyhemoglobin Concentrations in Man,

J. of Clinical Investigation, Vol. 44, 1899-1910 (1965).

[82] Alarie, Y. and Zullo, P., Predicting Carboxyhemoglobin for Different Patterns

of Carbon Monoxide Exposure, Industrial Health Foundation Symposium on Carbon

Monoxide, pp. 18-46, Pittsburgh, Pa. (1974).

[83] Parker, J. F. , Jr. and West, V, R., Bioastronautics Data Book, NASA SP-3006,

Chapter II, Scientific and Technical Information Office, NASA (1973).

[84] Stewart, R. D. , The Effect of Carbon Monoxide on Man, J. of Fire and Flamm./

Combustion Toxicology, Vol. 1, 167-176 (1974).

41
APPENDIX

LOG OF OBSERVATIONS — FROM VIDEO TAPE

Test 2-3

Mattress MOl

Time (s)

10 Flames just above bed, about pillow height

125 Bedspread burning

190 Smoke begins to obscure

23A No target visibility

281 Increased flame height

285 Pillow case aflame

330 Far side of bedspread Involved; total smoke obscuration

486 Paper test strips Ignite

507 Smoke begins to clear; mattress burning less but vigorous

burning of droppings on pan

600 Smoke cleared more

662 Only local burning on mattress

690 Fire dying out

746 All active flaming out

Mattress M02

Time (s)

27 Flames just above bed

88 Not much change

100 Start of bedding Involvement

120 Black smoke

165 Pillow heavily Involved, bedspread burning rapidly

220 Significant pyrolyzing from mattress

242 Mattress drippings burn

272 Ignition side all Involved

298 Total Involvement; obscuration; heavy under-bed fire

425 Fire dying down

487 Small fires; one at end of bed, one at Ignition source

630 No change

735 Only source burning

*2
Test 2-9

Mattress M02

Time (s)

26 Flames just above bed

122 Pillow burning

130 Flaming droplets at side

170 Active flaming of bedspread

222 Black smoke from underneath of bed

/ 240 Start of fire underneath

252 Very large involvement of pillow side area

295 Bed totally involved - underneath and on top

303 Negligible visibility

450 Flaming decreasing due to fuel exhaustion

500 Only foot of bed and source areas buimlng

510 Smoke somewhat clears

720 Flames out except for source and one flamelet at foot of bed

Mattress M03

Time (s)

23 Flames just above bed

140 Bedding ignited

165 Large fire on side of bed

230 Dying down; smoke Increasing

305 Pillow case ignited

360 Pillow burning slowly; bedspread slowly flaming at foot of bed

420 1/4 pillow Involved

448 Top of bedspread ignites from pillow

520 Smoke clearing (never was dark)

575 Some slow burning

620 Other side of bed involved; flaming starts underneath

675 Flaming underneath diminishes

782 Bedspread and ticking 3/4 consumed

920 Pillow flares up and is all (not part) engulfed in flames; otherwise very little

flaming

1046 No change

1530 Pillow burned out; only small flamelets remain on bed

43
Test 2-14

Mattress M04

Time (s )

7 Flames Just above bed

100 Very little flaming

168 Bedspread burning

190 Localized smoke

233 Increased burning and smoking

275 Flame spread to foot of bed

320 Smoke smoke obscuration; pillow case involved

^ 345 Active pillow area flaming

397 Largish pool fire from mattress drippings; heavy smoke

446 Half of underneath of bed involved

465 Flames lapping vigorously over sides

478 All of underneath Involved

489 Loss of visibility

724 Paper test strips ignite

Test 2-13

Mattress M05

Time (s)

21 Flames just above bed

120 Light smoke in room

195 Bedspread begins to burn vigorously

245 Underneath of bed pyrolyzing heavily

260 Significant flaming underneath

330 Large pool fire engulfing bed; underneath and above bed

385 Intense totally Involved burning of bed accompanied by melting of urethane

590 Flaming decreasing; bed burning out

626 Localized burning; good visibility

670 Pillow burning strongly; limited bed flaming

710 Pillow more smoldering than flaming

730 No more mattress flaming

740 No more pillow flaming; only source still burning

44
Test 2-11

Mattress M06

Time

17 Flames just above bed

125 Active flaming of bedspread

188 Visibility decreasing

280 Bedspread flaming at end of bed

300 Bedspread involved on both sides

AOO Top of bed Involved in small flames

492 Rapid increase In flaming, starting at the foot of the bed

496 All top of bed involved in tall flames

520 Further decrease in visibility

550 Vigorous burning topside; slight pyrolysis underneath

613 Small flaming of underneath begins

800 Burning subsiding

827 Burning begins to be localized

870 Flames at head and foot; also source still flaming

1040 Small flamelets at foot

1070 Only source still burning

Test 2-10

Mattress M07

Time (s)

34 Flames just above bed

146 Active flaming of bedspread

245 Involvement of pillow

310 Fire concentrated at pillow

405 Flaming of bedspread at foot of bed

460 Foot of bed actively flaming; but flames only about 5 cm above bed

590 Flaming of bedspread increases

620 Bedspread burning out on sides and foot

672 Pillow flaming increases

740 Pillow flaming actively; rest of bed flaming sporadically

880 Pillow burning decreasing

960 No vigorous flaming; but fairly steady pyrolysis and smolder

1092 Flames localized to pillow; mattress still smoldering

1524 Flames out

45
Test 2-8

Mattress M08

Time (s)

16 Flames just above bed

138 Active flaming of bedspread

206 Whole side of bed flaming; visibility decreasing

280 Significant smoke generation

370 No change; only side burning but much smoke

480 Bedspread burning at foot of bed

620 Bedspread burning intensifies; involved on all sides

650 Pillow fully involved in flames

699 Slight flaming underneath at foot; bedspread flaming actively

780 Small flames over top surface

1145 Only pillow area actively flaming; rest of bed still pyrolyzing; occasional flamelets

1295 Pillow area slightly flaming less but producing black smoke

1390 Large amounts of smoke, both black and white

1780 No more flaming but still active smoldering

Test 2-6

Mattress M09

Time (s)

25 Flames just above bed

100 Not much flaming but black smoke being emitted

170 Active flaming of bedspread

225 Increase of bedspread burning

261 3/4 of side of bed involved; taller flames , 298 Whole side of bed involved

320 Rapid smoke build-up; large soot streamers

350 Soot streamers diminish

418 Small fire underneath bed at head of bed

440 Flame involvement of other side of bed

473 Fire on underneath of mattress; mostly under pillow

500 Most of top of bed involved

570 Flames on other side of bed burning slowly • 605 Rapidly increasing fire underneath

625 Violent fire underneath

650 Whole bed involved in flames, both top and underneath

675 Negligible visibility

760 Flames decreasing; some visibility regained; pillow charred and no longer burning

810 Fire mainly at foot of bed; also source and pillow melt

845 Visibility quite good

920 No change

1029 Fire out at foot of bed

46
Test 2-5

Mattress MIO

Time (s)

9 Flames just above bed

132 Active flaming of bedspread

196 Most of side of bed involved

240 Flames at foot of bed

280 Flames decreasing

356 Small flames at side and foot of bed

^420 White smoke from pillow area

615 Half of pillow flaming

677 Pillow all involved in flames

800 Pillow and source actively flaming; no flames elsewhere on bed

94S Pillow decreases in flaming but puts out more black smoke

104 7 SiTioke turning white

1440 Fire essentially out; but still significant pyrolysis

I s-s L 2-] 2

Contrc]

9 Flames just above bed

153 Active flaming of bedspread

183 Pillow area involvement

332 Bedding at head of bed burning

5 70 Pillow mostly involved in flame

665 Foot of bed wholly involved

773 Flame involvement of other side; pillow dying down

860 Most of bedding charred; flaming subsides except at source and pillow

1015 Pillow out 1200 Only very tiny flickers of flame left at source and bedding

47
Table 1.

Summary of Burn-Room Characteristics

Room "A" Room "B"

Height/width/depth (m) 2.44/3.40/3.50 2.44/4.22/3.35

Floor area (m^) 11.90 14.14

Doorway height (m) 2.13 2.03

Doorway width (m) 0.91 1.07

Doorway area (m^) 1.94 2.17

5/2

Doorway k /h (m ) 2.83

*

1 /2

Doorway A /h /surface area (m ) 0.0649

3.09

Soffit depth (m) 0.31 0.41

Surface area (excluding floor and

doorway) (m^) 43.63 49.91

Doorway area/surface area 0.0445 0.0444

0.0632

* Distance from ceiling to top of door.

48
Table 2.

List of Instrumentation — Burn-Room A

Number Thermocouples

01 On E wall, 1.22 m from S wall, 1.83 m from ceiling

02 On unexposed wall surface, behind TC 01

03 On E wall, 1.22 m from S wall, 0.61 m from ceiling

04 On unexposed wall surface, behind TC 03

05 On floor, 0.92 m from E wall, 2.75 m from S wall

06 0.92 m from E wall, 2.75 m from S wall, 2.14 m from ceiling

07 0.92 m from E wall, 2.75 m from S wall, 1.53 m from ceiling

08 0.92 m from E wall, 2.75 m from S wall, 0.92 m from ceiling

09 0.92 m from E wall, 2.75 m from S wall, 0.31 m from ceiling

10 On ceiling, 0.92 m from E wall, 2.75 m from S wall

11 On unexposed wall surface, behind TC 10 12 On S wall, 0.92 m from E wall, on floor

13 On S wall, 0.92 m from E wall, 2.14 m from ceiling

14 On S wall, 0.92 m from E wall, 1.83 m from ceiling

15 On S wall, 0.92 m from E wall, 1.53 m from ceiling

16 On S wall, 0.92 m from E wall, 1.22 m from ceiling

17 On S wall, 0.92 m from E wall, 0.92 m from ceiling

18 On S wall, 0.92 m from E wall, 0.61 m from ceiling

19 On S wall, 0.92 m from E wall, 0.31 m from ceiling

20 On S wall, 0.92 m from E wall, 0.15 m from ceiling

21 On S wall, 0.92 m from E wall, 0.08 m from ceiling

22 On S wall, 0.92 m from E wall, on ceiling

23 On N wall, 1.22 m from E wall, 1.83 m from ceiling

24 On unexposed wall surface, behind TC 23

25 Center of room, on floor

26 Center of room, 2.14 m from ceiling

27 Center of room, 1.53 m from ceiling

28 Center of room, 0.92 m from ceiling

29 Center of room, 0.31 m from ceiling

30 Adjacent to tell-tale sprinklers

31 On unexposed ceiling surface, center of ceiling

35 1.83 m from E wall, 0.92 m from S wall, 0.92 m from ceiling

36 1.83 m from E wall, 0.92 m from S wall, 0.31 m from ceiling

37 On ceiling, 1.83 m from E wall, 0.92 m from S wall

38 On unexposed ceiling surface, behind TC 37 39 1.83 m from E wall, 0.15 m from S wall, 2.14 m from ceiling

40 1.83 m from E wall, 0.15 m from S wall, 1.53 m from ceiling

41 1.83 m from E wall, 0.15 m from S wall, 0.92 m from ceiling

42 1.83 m from E wall, 0.15 m from S wall, 0.31 m from ceiling

43 On N wall, 2.44 m from E wall, 0.61 m from ceiling

44 On unexposed wall surface, behind TC 43

45 On S wall, 2.44 m from E wall, 1.83 m from ceiling

46 On S wall, 2.44 m from E wall, 0.61 m from ceiling

47 On S wall, on floor, 2.44 m from E wall

48 2.75 m from E wall, 2.75 m from S wall, 2.14 m from ceiling

49 2.75 m from E wall, 2.75 m from S wall, 1.53 m from ceiling

50 ' 2.75 m from E wall, 2.75 m from S wall, 0.92 m from ceiling

51 2.75 m from E wall, 2.75 m from S wall, 0.31 m from ceiling

52 On ceiling, 2.75 m from E wall, 2.75 m from S wall

53 On unexposed ceiling surface, behind TC 52

54 2.75 m from E wall, 0.92 m from S wall, 2.14 m from ceiling

55 2.75 m from E wall, 0.92 m from S wall, 1.53 m from ceiling

56 2.75 m from E wall, 0.92 m from S wall, 0.92 m from ceiling

57 2.75 m from E wall, 0.92 m from S wall, 0.31 m from ceiling

58 At doorway centerline, 0.13 m below top

59 At doorway centerline, 0.31 m below top

60 At doorway centerline, 0.66 m below top

61 At doorway centerline, 1.07 m below top

49
Table 2. (continued)

Number Thermocouples

62 At doorway centerllne, 1,37 m below top

63 At doorway centerline, 1.91 m below top

64 At doorway centerllne, 0.A6 m below top

65 At doorway centerline, 0.92 m below top

66 At doorway centerline, 1.68 m below top

67 On W wall, 0.61 m from S wall, 0.61 m from ceiling

68 On ceiling, 1.70 m from S wall, 2.89 m from E wall

69 On floor, 1.70 m from S wall, 2.59 m from E wall

Smoke Meters

90' Horizontal in doorway, 0.31 m from ceiling (1.0 m light path)

91 Horizontal in doorway, 0.91 m from ceiling (1.0 m light path)

92 Horizontal in doorway, 1.52 m from ceiling (1.0 m light path)

93 Vertical in doorway centerline (2.44 m light path)

Velocity Probes

94 At doorway centerline, 1.91 m below top

95 At doorway centerline, 1.37 m below top

96 At doorway centerline, 1.07 m below top

97 At doorway centerline, 0.66 m below top

98 At doorway centerline, 0.31 m below top

99 At doorway centerline, 0.13 m below top

Heat Flux Meters

100 Radiometer, on W wall, 0.61 m from S wall, 0.61 m from celling

101 • Total heat flux meter, same location as HFMIOO

102 Radiometer, on floor, 1.70 m from S wall, 2.58 m from E wall

103 Total heat flux meter, same location as HFM102

104 Radiometer, on ceiling, 1.70 m from S wall, 2.89 from E wall

105 Total heat flux meter, same location as HFM104

106 Radiometer, on ceiling, center of room

107 Total heat flux meter, same location as HFM106

Load Cell

108 Load cell

Gas Concentration Probes

112 Carbon dioxide, at doorway centerline, 0.025 m below top

113 Carbon monoxide, at doorway centerllne, 0.025 m below top

114 Oxygen, at doorway centerline, 0.025 m below top

50
Table 3.

List of Instrumentation — Burn-Room "B"

Number Thermocouples

00 Center of Room, 0.05 m from ceiling

01 Ceiling air, average of 8 TC's, 0.05 m from ceiling

02 Wastebasket plume, average of 9 TC's (0.30 m circle), 0.05 m from ceiling

03 On E wall, 1.82 m from S wall, 0.31 m from ceiling

04 On N wall, 2.12 m from W wall, 0.31 m from ceiling

05 On W wall, 1.82 m from S wall, 0.31 m from ceiling

06 On S wall, 2.12 m from W wall, 0.31 m from ceiling

07 Adjacent to tell-tale sprinkler 1 08 Adjacent to tell-tale sprinkler 2 09 Adjacent to tell-tale sprinkler 3

' 10 At doorway centerline, 0.05 m below top

11 3.25 m from E wall, 1.68 m from S wall, 0.05 m from ceiling

12 3.25 m from E wall, 1.68 m from S wall, 0.15 m from ceiling

13 3.25 m from E wall, 1.68 m from S wall, 0.31 m from ceiling

14 3 . 25 m from E wall, 1.68 m from S wall, 0.61 m from ceiling

15 3.25 m from E wall, 1.68 m from S wall, 0.91 m from ceiling

16 3.25 m from E wall, 1.68 m from S wall, 1.22 m from ceiling

17 3.25 m from E wall, 1.68 m from S wall, 1.53 m from ceiling

18 At doorway centerline, 1.19 m below top

19 At doorway centerline, 1.63 m below top

20 At doorway centerline, 0.13 m below top

21 At doorway centerline, 0.30 m below top

22 At doorway centerline, 0.66 m below top

23 At doorway centerline, 1.02 m below top

25 At doorway centerline, 1.37 m below top

26 At doorway centerline, 1.91 m below top

27 Corridor station B, 0.13 m from ceiling

28 Corridor station C, 0.13 m from ceiling

29 Corridor station A, 0.91 m from ceiling

30 Corridor station D, 0.13 m from ceiling

31 Corridor station E, 0.13 m from ceiling

32 Corridor station C, 0.05 m from ceiling

33 At doorway centerline, 0.48 m below top

34 Corridor station C, 0.46 m from ceiling

35 Corridor station C, 0.76 m from ceiling

36 Corridor station C, 1.07 m from ceiling

37 Corridor station C, 1.37 m from ceiling

38 Corridor station C, 1.68 m from celling

39 Corridor station C, 1.98 m from ceiling

40 Corridor station C, 2.29 m from ceiling

41 Corridor station D, 0.05 m from ceiling

42 At doorway centerline, 0.84 m below top

43 Corridor station D, 0.46 m from ceiling

44 Corridor station D, 0.76 m from ceiling

45 Corridor station D, 1.07 m from ceiling

46 ' Corridor station D, 1.37 m from ceiling

47 Corridor station D, 1.68 m from ceiling

48 Corridor station D, 1.98 m from ceiling

Load Cell

50 Load cell

51
Table 3. (continued)

Number Gas Concentration Probes

51 Carbon monoxide, at doorway centerline, 1.90 m below top

52 Carbon dioxide, at doorway centerline, 1.90 m below top

53 Carbon monoxide, 1.12 m from W wall, 0.36 m from S wall, 0.89 m from floor

54 Carbon dioxide, 1.12 m from W wall, 0.36 m from S wall, 0.89 m from floor

55 Carbon monoxide at doorway centerline, 0.51 m below top

56 Carbon dioxide, at doorway centerline, 0.51 m below top

57 Oxygen, at doorway centerline, 1.90 m below top

58 Oxygen, 1.12 m from W wall, 0.36 m from S wall, 0.89 m from floor

59 Oxygen, at doorway centerline, 0.51 m below top

79 Carbon monoxide, lobby, 1.55 m from E wall, 3.58 m from S wall

Velocity Probes

60 At doorway centerline, 0.13 m below top

61 At doorway centerline, 0 . 30 m below top

62 At doorway centerline, 0.66 m below top

63 At doorway centerline, 1.02 m below top

64 At doorway centerline, 1.37 m below top

65 At doorway centerline, 1.91 m below top

66 Corridor station B, 0.13 m from ceiling

67 Corridor station C, 0.13 m from ceiling

68 Corridor station D, 0.13 m from ceiling

69 Corridor station E, 0.13 m from celling

Smoke Meters

70 Horizontal in doorway, 0.13 m below top (1.219 m light path)

71 Horizontal in doorway, 0.30 m below top (1.219 m light path)

72 Horizontal in doorway, 0.66 m below top (1.219 m light path)

73 Horizontal in doorway, 1.02 m below top (1.219 m light path)

74 Horizontal, corridor station C, 0.06 m from celling (1.219 m light path)

75 Horizontal, corridor station C, 0.91 m from celling (1.219 m light path)

76 Horizontal, corridor station D, 0.06 m from celling (1.219 m light path)

77 Horizontal, corridor station D, 0.91 m from celling (1.219 m light path)

78 Horizontal, corridor station E, 0.06 m from celling (1.219 m light path)

82 Vertical in doorway centerline, (1.772 m light path)

83 Horizontal, lobby station F, 0.91 m from celling (1.219 m light path)

84 Horizontal, corridor station B, 0.06 m from celling (1.219 m light path)

Heat Flux Meters

80 Total heat flux meter, facing up, 1.12 m from W wall, 1.19 m from S wall, 0.74 m

from floor

81 Total heat flux meter, facing horizontally toward burn-room, on doorway

centerline, 2.44 m N from doorway, 1.02 m from floor

Detector Board

At ceiling, 1.52 m from W wall, 1.80 m from S wall

At ceiling, corridor center, 5.10 m E from doorway center

At ceiling, corridor center, 5.10 m W from doorway center

Tell-Tale Sprinklers

At ceiling, 1.92 m from W wall, 1.22 m from S wall

52
pa ed a XJ o cd iH o CM o iH .H ON 1 iH iH 1 1 1 1 Pi •H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 z z z c c

l-l (U 3 >

T3

u CQ ,0) 01 4-1 Xi e « 0 o 3 o H r") Z 1 c

001

r—t1 1 i 11 1 1 11 11 11 11 c z z z z z m u

<u 3 1 H PQ

Non

B0O

OS CM 1 1-H o 1 < .-1 CNI l-( iH 1-H 1-H iH CO vO ir\ c 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l-l CNI CN CN CM CN CM CN CM CM CM CM 3 1 oa CM

<u

4-1 n c

4J o c (73 tn o •H

•H 4-1 l-l 4-1 .-H 1-H 3 P-i D. '—

to CO

U

-H I-l >-( tH iH •w •H •H 0)

>-i o « CO CO CO CJ

U 4-1 1-H

O l-l 4-1 4-1 4J iH IH l-l

O

Od

U5u •H •H •H

O HI (U 01

d o

0) c a. D. (U c •H 03 Q o w 03 0} u c > E •iH o o 0 _o CO o o o CO 01 l-l V ^ as o u o Z e

•H V4

l-l 0) p. 4-1 10 m

l-l 00 0) t)0 (U c B

01 c 1-1H

a c l-l o IH >> 0-1 On H 0) cn

<u l-l IDC c M 0)

01 c d <u c o •H <u

d

l-l cn

w (0 c CO i-H l-l c CO o 0) x; J= c >N a c -d u CO 4-1 4-1 M 4J z <n M 4-1 <u H (U (11 (U u d 0) c

W) t-lw Vj c 0) c 01 l-l 0)

l-l 3 3 o X 3 o c o Vj 3 l-l dJ >> 4-1 <u 4J c 4J a >^ o. ^ 1-H 4-1 4-1 1-H 4-) 1-H 4-1 o 1-H o

•H o o o <0

O o o 01

O 01

D-i

u .-J CL. o CJ z P- z c

.-1 E o

•H l-l o 4-1 0) c 1-H CNI cn 00 ON o

a. o o o o o o o O o O rH

(/3

u s: X. s S

53
Mc

•HT3

•D

(1) ca

M-lo

<u r-t U)

QJ •H

H iJ

Vj

01O.o

)-l

00

•Ha) ^ 3 60

Q. 60

•H e C 60

0) ^ oO

OO

00 U-1 O CN

Oo

-a-

.-H O o

ONo O 00

r-| o

-a- o

a) •a

•H c O <r o 0 iri .—1 o in

•H <u iH

4-1 c j:

•H

C

C cd o c

CO o dJ o Q) o 01 O 4-1 4J ij 4-1 4-1 >^ 4-1 4-1 a 4-1 U) 4-1 CD 0) c 4J 03 E c O cu o 01 u c •H o 01 O o CJ >^ >^ 0 o o >>

XJ

H >> 4-1 r-l iJ 6~5 O ^^ o 1-1 4-1 6^ o o O eu o o o O o LO 00 u 0- in

ON ON ON .-1 vD vO t-^ vD ON O CN O O o X X X X X X I m CN ro m o 00 ON iri in in

tH .-1 rH

OOO

010) J= 03 T3

03 4-1 to 3 0) OJ

nj OJ (J

i-i a. Q C/3 C/3

60 Vj c O

•H

U 4-1 .H OJ U

.H > 01 -H o 4-1 0)

U-l o O 03

I-l 1 1 u 3 3 3 o o O

I-l l-{ iH

iH rH .-H •H •H

Cu Cu

5A
Table 6. Ignition Source

Wastebasket — polyethylene wastebasket

Size: 2A8 mm x 178 mm x 25A mm high

Weight: 282 g Trash contents, in order of stacking

1 — Polyethylene liner

16 — Sheets of newspaper

1 — Paper cup, 3 oz. , crumpled

2 — Sheets of writing paper

3 — Tissues, paper handkerchief, crumpled

1 — Cigarette pack, crumpled

1 — Milk carton, 8-oz.

2 — Paper cup, 3-oz. , crumpled

1 — Cigarette pack, crumpled

1 — Sheet of writing paper, crumpled

2 — Tissues, paper handkerchief, crumpled

Total weight of contents: AA3 g

Combined weight, wastebasket and contents: 725 g

Table 7. Mattress Sizes and Weights

Mattress

Size (over-all)

Total

Weight

(kg)

Weight

of

Combustibles

(kg)

Weight

of

Innerspring

(kg)

Width

(m) Length(m) Thickness(m)

MOl 0.89 2.03 0.17 lA lA

MO 2 0.89 2.03 0.17 15 6 9

MO 3 0.89 2.03 0.17 20 11 9

MO A 0.92 2.11 0.11 19 19

MO 5 0.95 1.88 0.13 6 6

M06 0.99 1.91 0.18 20 12 8

MO 7 0.99 1.91 0.18 25 13 12

MO 8 0.88 1.93 0.15 18 18

MO 9 0.66 1.8A 0.08 3.2 3.2

MIO 0.66 1.8A 0.08 6 6

55
56
Q)3

C

00a

T-{«

CO

4-1 a

e T3 cn CO o CO CO CO o o 01

CO w 01 0> c OJ 0) 0) c c 01 .-1 CO >^ >^ >^

01 a:

CM o 00 CM 00 -3- <

a o \D 00 in 00 00 m iH m -a- CM * CNI 00

a. oo • • • • o • • • • o i-H O o o iH o m —

•H S o 00 o o 1

o CN o o

to iri CM OS CM u-i 1—

O

0) ^ rH Q ^

CO

CO

01c ^ rH yO • CM g

-a- • •a- <• CM cn CM • U B • 00 • • m • • •H ^ o <n O 1-1 o o

H

4J 4J

1-( iH 3 S

o cu 0) O

•o I-l ^—

T3 MH C iH p OJ iH O « 1.1 4.1 H 1.1 4J CU •H C O o c >^ O o c c

4.1 01 i-( iH 4.1 iH (U 0) •H J= 1.1 s 0) W e u

CO 4-1 o. CJ X3 01 c 1.1 o U2 cu Q. O i-l o CO CJ CO 0) CO CJ O

D. <U M 1—1 CU I-l 4= I-H cw ).l e CU T3 O 0 4J 4J >^ 0 o

o CO iH C C cu OJ c C <4H iH c c O. c J= iH O c ^ >^ iH O c

o o o O > 1—1 1-1 D 1—1 > i-H iH o

4J 4J 0) 4-1 Q) o >< 01 4J u 4-1 4.1 1-1 1-1 c u 1-1 iH B »-l I-H O O D O o o o 0 O o a •-3 u

CO bC 60 00 00 60 c c c c c

0) •H 1-1 •H 1-1 01 1-1 0) iH 01 ^ T5 T3 t.1 u .2^

CO a •O •o u o o o O o J -H CO CO 1-1 o iH CJ iH H &4 H H

CO00c

•H

l-l D.

CO Q

>-i c B B

eucc

l-(

CO

CO

OJ

Vj 1

00 0^ O

4J O o O iH

Mat s s S

57
Table 9. Time of Ignition Events

Bed Spread Mattress Pillow Case Pillow

Mattress Test Ignition Ignition Ignition Ignition

(s) (s) (s) (s)

Control N-8 25 — N.A. N.A. N-11 25 300 390

MOl N-13 31 17/. N-10 23 255 N.A. N.A.

MO 2 N-5 15 95 255 357

N-9 AO 120 N.A. 390

M05 N-7 lA 85 1A5 180

N-14 15 165 350 A05

M06 N-6 20 195 105 215

N-12 17 150 N.A. 2A5

Mean 23 155 276 351

Standard

Deviation 8 56 155 1A3

N.A. - not available

58
Table 10. Weight Loss Record

Mattress Bedding Total Weight

Mattress Test Combustible and Source Combustible Remaining

Weight Weight Weight After Test

(kg) (kg) (kg) (kg)

Control 2-12 ^0 4.2 . 4.2 0 N-8 ==0 4.5 4.5 N.A. N-11 =;0 4.3 4.3 1.1

MOl 2-3 13.6 4.4 18.0 N.A. N-13 13.

4.3 17.9 0 N-10 14.5 4.2 16.7 N.A.

MO2 2-2 5.5 4.5 10.0 N.A.

2-9 5 .

4 .10 .0 0 N-5 6.4 4.3 10.7 2.5

N-9 6.4 4.4 10.8 1.6

MO 3 2-1 11.4 4.3 15.7 10.2

MOA 2-14 18.6 4.3 22.9 N.A.

M05 2-13 5.9 4.6 10.5 0 N-7 6.4 4.3 10.7 1.1 N-IA 6.4 4.3 10.7 1.2

M06 2-11 11.2 4.4 15.6 0 N-6 11.8 4.4 16.2 0 N-12 12.7 4.4 17.1 3.0

MO 7 2-10 12.7 4.4 17.1 10.5

MO 8 2-8 18.2 4.5 22.7 16.6

M09 2-6 3.2 4.2 7.4 0

MIO 2-5 6.4 4.3 10.7 6.2

N.A. - Not Available

59
J2

CO

QJ o o o o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 E ^ o> CO o 00 <r ON <r 0 •H W in

nj E-* Oo uC CO ^j"

m 0 CO X e 00 CO ' * * 0 m CO 3

TO TD 1—1 3 o CM o 0 CM

C

U-i ^ 1

0) CsJ »-l CM CM .-H 00 -Jci3 ><; B ON CO •"^ CM * in c O t1 00 ON CM rH 1 1 CM

iit c o o o O o o 0 On m CO

CM vD in co C vD CO ro ON

CO * 0 0 in 00

'O 1—1 3 o 0 1—

0 n3 t—

cc: 00c

•H ON i-H 00 00 CM <r

t—r-I .-( 0 in CM o 1—f 3 o H .—1 o o o O O 0 0 0 0 ON On to o> 0 *^ <T in in

j-i c

ltn

O 0 0On o U-l rit o 00 O O 1-H in 0 0 CM 0 CN 0 0 0 00 CO in in

1—1 rO CN

O in CM ON 0 0 in 0 <T o o O o 0 0 0 0 ON CM 0 un vD in CM CM

E- ^ »H c

IT) \0 1—

<r in 0 * * * • * w cS O 1—

m 0 0 m 0

CJ

r-t CM X E • CM CM ON in i-H 00 iJ <- vD vC rH in CM o O O CO en H ^ 1—

CM * * • o o o O < 0 < 00 • in

uC

u

00 CO tn CO 2 vO Z

0) 1—

u QJ n3 -H >

-r-j 4-1 rg in

»— o CO 00 • CO • < P- O —1 s < <

00 tn o <: iH <

1—cn

CM 1—

m o iH CM

to

QJ I—1 CO 1—

1—

1

CNJ ON U~i 1 1 1

CT* rH •-H r-. 1—f—1 \0 rH 1 00 in

rsj CM 2 1 "Z. 1 CM 1 CNJ 1 1 1 CM 2 2S 1 1 i 2 z 1 CM 1 CM 1 CM 1 CM

</) u;(U o u rH CM

m <r in r-- 00 c^ 0 o O o o o 0 0 0 0 (-H co

s: T. 2: 2: 2: 2: o

60
Table 12. Time to Reach Critical Flux Values

Habitability Level

2.5 kW/m2

20 kW/m^

Adjacent

Patient Level

(Total Flux)

Time

(s)

West Wall

Mattress Test (Radiant Flux)

Time

(s)

(Total Flux)

Time

(s)

Floor Level

(Total Flux)

Time

(s)

Control 2-12

N-8

N-11

Mri « AA • , N.A.

* *

MOl 2-3

N-13

N-10

o / u 610

230 N.A. 470

MO 2 2-2

2-9 N-5

N-9

330

490

310

290

N.A. 240

*

*

MO 3 2-1 * * *

M04 2-14 460 420 720

M05 2-13

N-7

N-14

290

N.A.

380 350 *

MO 6 2-11

N-6

N-12

420

N.A.

500 460 *

MO 7 2-10 * * *

MO 8 2-8 * * *

MO 9 2-6 670 630 *

MIO 2-5 * * *

Not Reached

Not Available

61
Table 13. Peak Extinction Coefficients

Corridor

Doorway Horizontal

Doorway Horizontal Station D Vertical 0.30 m be low Top 1.52 m from Floor

Mattress Test k Time k Time k Time

(s) (m ) (s) (s)

Control 2-12 0.39 320 0.58 300

N-8 1.82 970 1.80 1710 1.13 630

N-11 1.01 940 1.96 920 0.48 790

MOl 2-3 2.58 370 5.55 350

N-13 2.30 600 N.A. N.A. 3.29 670

N-10 3.57 640 5.41 570 3.73 610

MO 2 2-2 2.44 360 4.54 330

2-9 * 330 4.77 310

N-5 3.50 340 3.87 280 2.58 370

N-9 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.

MO 3 2-1 0-58 790 1.20 790

MO 4 2-14 * 480 6.68 480

MO5 2-13 2.21 430 2.76 430

N-7 N.A. N.A. 1.66 690 0.99 430

N-14 2.42 1040 2.19 500 1.17 670

MO 6 2-11 2.99 550 4.26 560

N-6 3.06 590 2.63 570 N.A. N.A. N-12 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 2.16 670

MO 7 2-10 >0.46 >1900 0.88 >1890

MO 8 2-8 1.66 1390 3.13 1260

M09 2-6 * 680 4.47 710

MIO 2-5 1.38 710 2.40 758

* Exceeds range of instrument

N.A. - not available.

62
Table 14. Time to Reach Critical Level of Extinction Coefficient

_1

Time to Reach k = 1.2 m

J. CO L

Control 2-12 N,R.

IN" O N-ll 740

MOl 2-3 300

N-13 250

N-IO 240

MO 2 2-2 200

2-9 260

N-5 200

N-9 300

MO 3 2-1 N.R.

MO4 2-14 370

MO5 2-13 380

N-7 310 N-IA 390

M06 2-11 470

N-6 180

N-12 360

MO 7 2-10 N.R.

MO 8 2-8 280

M09 2-6 450

MIO 2-5 630

N.R. - Not Reached

63
aoH3

>>O

PSoO E Q O

0) ^B 03 • o o o O 00

CNl 00

«£O < O Z CM

in o < • • O Z CM < • OH

>sO

CO i-l oO B Q

t-l

•S CO o o O 00

O

O

00 VO

OO

\D 00 < < z z c ^

0\ ON Z o

i-l 00 VD < < z z

0.oH oO B Q

to

OO iH 00O

00 o

00 vO O rn ON

1-1

O

O

00

01

4-1 > C 01

0) ^ u

(0

•T-l < o o

o. o

00 oo o o

r-l r-l O. 00 • o o o

00 00

cn 00 z o

u-1 u-1 0\ ON

CM 00

CM

O < • Z r-l

00 < • • ON Z r-l

CM On in ON I I I I CM csi 2 z I I z z

r-l vO 1-H I I I CM Z Z I o

CMo ov3- o o o

00 CJN o o o s s s:

64
a. O o o o

0 aj ^ <; o o o o CO CJN o in H B tn .-1 -a- CM in 00 o ON

•H —

ON o> VO z* rH 3 H

O

CO 1-1 ?

<u u

o

Xi o a Q • <T sr CN O • v£) rH CM CM o CO ^ < tH fH CM CO <! VO CO 00

•

'—

O Cm f—

iH Z rH O CM o

t—

a.oH E '~- o o O O O o O < O o

-H in 00 CT. in -a- 00 vD CM 3 H ^ 00 •a- m 00 z vO o

to iH

(U uo

o e o CO < I—

rH in

i-H CO N

• CM CM I < CO

• • • " * * *

* — 1—

o iH CM z m CO O

CLoH o O o o o o O o o o o o

E /—V 00 iH o CO nO

•H CO <• -a- CM vO m CM r~ CM

>-, o H ^

CO r-((U

1-1 X> o

o B Q v£) 00 m 00 .H i-l O rH <3N CM C^^

(Si CO x-^ CM rH CM CM CO o • o c^ * ' * *

* c- — 1—

iH iH rH CM rH rH rH ON rH

a> O O

i-i E ^ O < o O o <c m <d CJN <

c H 03 iH vO rH o

(U •H 00 Ov 00 ON z* rH z 1-1 z

u

CO Ph 1-1

JJ >

c

(U J

ffl i-( 00 O CM rH to < vD CN in <e a- < O

< Cm ^— CO

o CO z

\

<N f—o CO CM m t-l (30 ro CN <yi m ON rH rH rH vD

1 rH »r>

1 1 rH

1 rH

1 oo1 in

1 f1 CM

1 z1 z

1 1 «NJ Z z

1 <N|1 CM Z z

1 CM

1 CM

1 1 CM Z z Z z CM CM CM CM

cc .H

cy O u u rH CM CO -3- m 00 ON O

4-1 C O o O O o O O O O

o X S X X S X

o

oz

65
oH

n) o 2 "a! o ^ oQ e

(U Ck.

PL, - o o o vO

vD

O o o CM v£>

OO CM in

cr> vo o o CM -ar~- 00 o o

u-i csi o o o o o o so d O O O CN o o uavocoo

J2

(0 H

aoH o ^ oo emo

0) •H 05

OO

CM CM o o

00 CT> o o

-a- u-i o oCM

-3- 00 ^ B

<u a.

pLi o o

00 00 m CM o o O 00 o o

•a- -H O m o o

-3- CM oH3

>^O

CO t-l 2^OO 0 O

CM o o

-a- o o .-I vo ^ -a- o

00

-aCD O.

cj a. o

-a- ooNX) o o

CM 00

00 v£> ooo

CM

O

-a oO o o o o f-i m r-~ -^r -a a^ CM o <-{ -a- iH

CO

4J > C 01 <u ^ o

CO T3<

01 o o v£> -a

00 -a- o o

00 <Ti o o O -H o o

vO 00 o oin CM

J!

B

CO

a

01

a o o

CJ^ OS

O

O inO CT\

OO

CMm o o en

OO

CMm

\D CM

01 H

•-I 00 .-( I I I <N Z Z

CM cr\

m cjN I I r I CM CM Z Z I i z z

rH vr> iH I I I CM Z Z

00I I O o o o mo O

r- 00 C7> o o o S S S

66
Table 18. Computed COHb Levels at Different Times

L XiUc L U Reach

Mattress Test 300 s 600 s 900 s 1200 s 1500 s 1800 s COHb =25%

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (b)

Control 2-12 1.7 3.5 5.8 7.9

N-8 0.8 1.4 2.5 3.6 4.8 6.1 —

N-11 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7

MOl 2-3 1.9 >25.0 >25.0 480

Li" ± J 1 9 A4 f, . D X ^ . / 18 .

24 .4 >25 .0 1530

In— xU u . o 1 n RO . 1X 8 .

8.5

MO 2 2-2 2.8 17.3 18.8

/—

y

X . o 1 ft R .Li. . U

In- 3

rt fi U . o

ftO.J 1 A 9 N-9 0.8 1.7 4.4 4.9 5.1 5.2 —

MOB 2-1 1.9 4.0 6.2 8.7 11.8 14.8

MO 4 2-14 1.4 >25.0 >25.0 >25.0 >25.0 >25.0 600

MO 5 2-13 1.5 6.6 8.5

N-7 0.8 1.5 3.0 5.2 7.8 10.3

N-14 0.9 1.0 1.6 2.1 2.3 2.5 —

MO 6 2-11 1.9 7.1 14.9 20.1

N-6 0.8 1.0 2.6 7.0 12.7

N-12 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.2 2.9 3.2

MO 7 2-10 1.6 4.1 8.0 12.9 18.1 23.4

MO 8 2-8 1.9 4.4 7.3 10.2 13.4 15.0

MO 9 2-6 1.3 3.8 10.6 12.1

MIO 2-5 1.7 3.8 6.8 8.6 9.7 10.6

Data for bum-room "A" tests taken 0.025 m below top of doorway

Data for burn-room "B" tests taken at adjacent patient level

Calculations based on Stewart's Equation

67
Table 19. Time to Reach Critical Gas Concentrations

Mattress Toe fCritical Concentration

0.025 m below Top

of Doorway

(s)

O A n e>

Control 2-12 N.R.

MOl 2-3 360 02

M02 2-2 350 02

2-9 340 02

M03 2-1 N.R.

M04 2-14 490 02

M05 2-13 410 CO2

M06 2-11 540 O2

M07 2-10 N.R.

M08 2-8 N.R.

M09 2-6 710 CO2, O2

MIO 2-5 N.R.

N.R. - not reached

68
Table 20. Values for Replicate Tests

Quantity Test

2-2 Test

2-9

Difference

% of Mean

Heat Flux

Peak, total, west wall

Peak, radiant, west wall

Peak, total, floor

Peak, radiant, floor

Peak, total, ceiling center

Peak, radiant, ceiling center

Peak, total, ceiling near

doorway

Peak, radiant, ceiling near doorway

Time, peak, west wall

Time, peak, floor

Time, peak, ceiling center

X XUiC 5 ^ C d IN. y ^C-LXXllg LICCIL doorway

kW/m2

kW/m2

kW/m^

Kw/ HI kW/m2

kW/m2

kW/m2

kW/m^

ss

s

N.A. 7.55

13.2

0 . DO 38.1

9.57

28.3

5.31

390

390

390

380

19.3

7.16

12.4

10 ^ ±\J • J 36.7

13.5

19.6

31.2

340

350

340

340

2.7

3.1

1.9

17.0

18,2

42.6

6.9

5.4

6.9

5.6

Smoke

Peak, vertical

Peak, doorway, horizontal

Time, peak, vertical

Time, peak, doorway, horizontal

Time, limit, doorway,

horizontal

-1 m

s

s

s

2.44

4.54

360

330

200

4.77

330

310

260

2.5

4.4

3.1

13.0

Gas Concentration

CO, peak

CO2 , peak

O2 , minimum

CO, time, peak

CO2, time, peak

O2, time, minimum

Time, O2, limit

ppm

/o%

ss

s

s

8260

8.08

410

410

410

350

6850

1 • R0 7.36

460

400

380

340

9.3

4.7

5.7

1.2

3.8

1.4

Temperature

Peak, TC09

Peak, TC51

Time, peak

C

C

s

554

511

400

614

529

350

5.1

1.7

6.7

N.A. - Not available

69
Table 21. Evaluation Criteria

Flame Spread Potential Criterion

Heat Flux < 20 kW/m^ at Floor

Tenability Criteria (levels at which incipient incapacitation can be expected

for occupants within the room of fire origin)

A. Heat Flux

Exposure < 2.5 kW/m^

B. Gas Concentrations

CO^ < 8%

O2 > 1A%

COHb level < 25% (subject to an instantaneous ceiling for CO of 50,000 ppm)

C. Smoke Obscuration

Extinction Coefficient < 1.2

70
r

o

COat

m CO B <u •H 3«

I >

I I-(

eg CO •H o

•H p

1-1 o

u

^ CO ^

O l-i CO

CO o

C >-l

CO Pb

CO CO

a:

pi Pi o O O O O O

CO O CX3 O 1 z z z vO CO -3-

(J 4)O

c

oo

o o

m

o

<X3 oo

0) o

a; >c

O M

E

01 o

E O

•H Ci H

3

PiZ

o

32

•H

4-1 o; u u

<U CO c -u C CO oo

.H C o o

C CO H -H B M

CU P-i

cyj

<u

o

cuc

CO

)-< 3

>> iHO

P^

iH U Z 4J

CD c <u o

•U O

O P-i C_)

(Uc

CO ccd

4-1 cu3

o o

O 00

-H O o O o o

cu

CJ

cd

(U OS

71
05,10,11

06,07, 08,09

,23,24

N

.43,44

52,53

48,49,

50,51

MATTRESS

12,13,14,15, 016,17,18,19,

20,21,22 —WASTEBASKET

3.50

25,31 26,27, 9»28,29,

106,107 ^

45,46,47

'102,103

'104,105

58, 59,60,

112,115-^61,62,63,

114 "*^64,65,66,

67

0.91 w

100,101

SYMBOLS

+ LOAD CELL • THERMOCOUPLE -GAS

O THERMOCOUPLE- SURFACE

HEAT FLUX METER

-6- GAS PROBE

ALL DIMENSIONS IN METERS

Figure 1, Burn-Room A Plan View

72
43,44

2.13

10,1 ^ ^S2.53

^09,51 • 901

911

^08,50

921

^07,49

•06,48

^05

93

104,10-, 106,107 ^

»29

37,3«

^36, 57 99^58

98 ^<

97^

^642860

k65 96^61

•27

95r^62

066 • 26

94^63

c

^25,69

|35,56

k55

-42

2.44

,01,02

.54

^40.

22

2120

19

18,46

17

16

14,45

3

1

0.61

12.0.151

102,103 T

ALL DIMENSIONS IN METERS

SYMBOLS • THERMOCOUPLE -GAS

O THERMOCOUPLE- SURFACE

HEAT FLUX METER

V VELOCITY PROBE

-^m SI40KE METER LIGHT PATH

GAS PROBE

\

Figure 2. Burn-Room A Doorway Elevation

73
3.35

s

4.22

"06 T

Q74

TC02

(circle) /'

.03

-1.12-

^01

\

1.19

WASTEBASKET -MATTRESS

.00

n07,08,09

®

PLATFORM

^01

.01

.53,54,58

.01

ISO

11,12,13,14,

> 15,16,17

fcOl 04

51,52,55, 56,57,59

10,18,19,20 00 21,22,23,24 ^

25,33,42

SYMBOLS

4- LOAD CELL • THERMOCOUPLE -GAS

O THERMOCOUPLE- SURFACE

HEAT FLUX METER

O- GAS PROBE

(5) DETECTORS

(D TELL-TALE SPRINKLERS

1.07N

ALL DIMENSIONS IN METERS

Figure 3. Burn-Room B Plan View

74
^03

#01

"^TCOZ

0.61

•01

701

711

721

731

82.

oo# (gpr.oe,® •01,11 ^

09 ^ #12

^04,06 ^13

•01

60^20

61^1

5S^6,59q^33

62-^22 •^^ 63^23

64 25

J9

.51,52,57

65 26

05^

J4

.16

17 53,54,58-^

80

2.03

2.44

ALL DIMENSIONS IN METERS

SYMBOLS • Thermocouple-gas

O thermocouple- SURFACE

HEAT FLUX METER

V VELOCITY PROBE

<^ SMOKE METER LIGHT PATH

-e- GAS PROBE

(5) DETECTORS

(D TELL-TALE SPRINKLERS

Figure 4. Burn-Room B Doorway Elevation
76
-V77
78
79
Time =

Figure 9.

270 s Time = 600

Fire Development in Test 2-12 (Mattress - Control)

80

s
81
Time 270 s

' Time = 480 s

Figure 11. Fire Development in Test 2-10 (Mattress M07)

82
Figure 12. Fire Development in Test 2-8 (Mattress M08)

83
Mottress ' CONTROL

MOI

M02

M04

M05

M09

200 400 600 800 1000

TIME (s)

1200 1400 1600 1800

Figure 13. Weight Loss for Polyurethane and Latex Core Specimens

84
Figure 14. Weight Loss for Cotton and Mixed Fiber Core Specimens

85
Figure 15. Weight Loss for Neoprene Core Specimens

86
1100

1000

900

800

700

600

500

o

UJ

ac

Z)<

S 400

Q.

LlI 300

UG-Upper Gas Space

AP-Adjacent Patient

MATTRESS: CONTROL

TEST 212

TEST N-ll TEST N-8

200

100

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TIME (s) 1200 1400 1600 1800

Figure 16. Gas Temperatures for Control Mattress

87
Figure 17. Gas Temperatures for Mattress MOl

88
1100

200 400 600 800 1000

TIME (s) 1800

Figure 18. Gas Temperatures for Mattress M02

89
1100 n \ T"

UG-Upper Gas Space

AP-Adjacent Patient

MATTRESS M03

TEST 2-01

1000

' 900

800

700

600

500

o

lU

tr3

<

£ 400

Q.

300

200

100

I 200 400 600 800 1000

TIME (s) 1200 1400 1600 1800

Figure 19. Gas Temperatures

90

for Mattress M03
TIME (s)

Figure 20. Gas Temperatures for Mattress M04

91
UG- Upper Gas Space

AP-Adjacent Patient

000— MATTRESSM05

TEST 2-13 - TEST N-14

TEST N-7

900-

800-

700-

600-

-J \ I 1 L I \

I I 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

TIME (s)

Figure 21. Gas Temperatures for Mattress M05

92
100

1000

900

800

700

600

500

cr. 3

I-<

£ 400

Q.

UJ 300

200-

100

"T 1 1—

UG- Upper Gas Space

A P-Adjacent Patient

MATTRESS: M06

TEST 2-11 TEST N-12 TEST N-6

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

TIME (s)

Figure 22. Gas Temperatures for Mattress M06

93
1100

1000

UG-Upper Gas Space

AP-Adjacent Patient

MATTRESS M07

TEST 2-10

O

UJ3

900

800

700

600

500

<

£ 400

CL

UJ 300

200

100

200 400 600 800 1000

TIME (s) 1200 1400 1600 1800

Figure 23. Gas Temperatures

94

for Mattress M07
1100

1000

UG- Upper Gas Space

AP-Adjacent Patient

MATTRESS: M08

TEST 2-8

900

800

700

600

500

<

5 400

300

200

100

0 200 400 600 800 1000

TIME (s) 1200 1400 1600 1800

Figure 2A. Gas Temperatures for Mattress M08

95
1100

1000

n 1 UG- Upper Gas Spoce

AP-Adjacent Patient

MATTRESS' M09

TEST 2-6

900

800

700

600

500

o

UJ

q:3

<

£ 400

LU 300

200

100-

200 400 600 800 1000

TIME (s) 1200 1400 1600 1800

Figure 25. Gas Temperatures for Mattress M09

96
lU

(r. 3

1100

1000

900

800

700

600

500

UG- Upper Gas Space

AP-Adjacent Patient

MATTRESS: MIO

TEST 2-5

<

2 4001-

Cl

UJ 300-

200

100

200 400 600 800 1000

TIME (s) 1200 1400 1600' 1800

Figure 26. Gas Temperatures for Mattress MIO

97
o2 9 M II UJUJ UJ ^ ~ = a)

</)v>m

v) UJ UJ UJ - < z <o

w

O UJ » 4«B o

UJ

I-<

CCUJ

O ^ o^ I- o o

0)3

4J

cd CO u m

(U (U a. vi

EH to

to tH y o

•H

J-l

u

)-> c

01 o > u

0)

t>0
ou

(UM

3

4-1 a

u

<u

O (1) •H JJ M -l-i lU CO > S

om

(U3

a> a> K OOo 2 0«0 N O

<J- lO m *

II II II *

1^ Uj uj UJ

O C^CM Z Z

as »- 1- w u uj ui iij w I- 1— V- k- Z CO CO O UJ »

o

O

O - O

O)O

O03O

o

o

o


 o

oin

o o

[^) 1H9I3H

UJ

CE3

t-<

CCu

Q.

«-lO

Ph

0)u

3

4-1

(fl CM

1-1 O

E to

01 CO H <U

O (S •H S J-l

>-< tJ

(1) o > 14-1

CM

3

60

99
cvi —

(UJ) iHOGH

100
T

o

II o 2

o:*^ z«>«> hi- w<a

<23

o

LJ

(T3

<

LlI

<4-l o

<uM

3

4J

a) r~-

1-1 O

<U S o.B 0)

(U CO H (U

>-l u

<u o > vw

en«

3

60

("J) 1H9I3H

101
(U rH

riIWOu

0)

l-l 3

4J

nj o> ^ 2 eH

iH

COU

•HU

U

(U

O > iM

l-( 3

bC •A o

II OD ^ O S

CO OD

U)

O

UJ

to

UJO UJ *

1»— o

00

q

(li') 1H9I3H

102

Ooooo

a>oo00ooOoCOooIT) CL o 2 o'3- I- ooo

CM o

UJ

cr<

cr ouu3

4-1 m 00 M o

<u S

O-U CO •H 2 4-1

01 o > «-l
o

o

CO 22

cno

UJ I q: cj

<X UJ

a:UJ5 tow

O Ld *

o

cvj O

(UJ) 1H9I3H

103

O

o

o

o

o

(T> OOCDo

o

o

o

o

oIf) o

o

o

CM

U

UJ

cr<

cru

UJ

u-io

>-l

3

4-1 CO O 1-1 01 X

o.E CO

01 w H Q)

)-i i-H JJ

CO 4J u to •H S

01 O

U

a

•H
Figure 39. Heat Fluxes for Mattress MOl

104
800 1000

TIME (s)

1800

Figure AO. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M02

105
Figure Al. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M03

106
TIME (s)

Figure 42. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M04

107
TIME (s)

Figure A3. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M05

108
WW- West Wall

FL - Floor

AP- Adjacent Patient

Mattress- M06

Test 2-1

Test N-6

200 400 600 800 1000

TIME (s)

1200 1400 1600 1800

Figure 44. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M06

109
\ I I I I i r WW- West Wall

FL - Floor

MattressMO?

Test 2-10

2-

10'-

8-

6-

4-

TIME (s)

Figure A5. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M07

110
Figure 46. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M08

111
Figure A7. Heat Fluxes for Mattress M09

112
WW- West Wall

FL - Floor

Mattress M 10

Test 2-5

2-

I0<-

8

-

6

-

^ TIME(s)

Figure A8. Heat Fluxes for Mattress MIO

113
6 Or

5 5

50

4 5

4.0 —

e 3.5

o

u.

u.

UJo

o

O

o

X

UJ

30

2.5

!

1 1 H = Horizontal Q3m below

doorway top

V=Vertical in doorway

Mattre88= CONTROL — Test 2-12

Test N-ll Test N-8

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

TIME (s)

Figure A9Smoke Levels

114

for Control Mattress
H^Horizontol 0.3m below

doorway top

V=Vertical in doorwoy

Mattress MOI — Test 2-3 — Test N-IO

Test N-13

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

TIME (s)

Figure 50. Smoke Levels for Mattress MOl

115
TIME (8)

Figure 51. Smoke Levels for Mattress M02

116
6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

e 3.5

z

111 5 3.0

u.b.

lU8 2.5

o

o 2.0

z

I-X

1.5

1.0

0.5

H= Horizontal 03 m below

doorway top

V=Vertical in doorway

Mattress M03

Test 2-h

H

200 400 600 800 1000

TIME Is)

1200 1400 1600 1800

Figure 52. Smoke Levels for Mattress M03

117
6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

i 3.5

Iz

UJo 3.0

u.

u.

UJ8 2.5

z

o

o 2.0

X

UJ

0.5

PEAK = 6.68'

AT 480 •

T r

H = Horizontal 0.3m below

doorway top

V=Vertical in doorway

Mattress M04

Test 2-14

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

TIME (s)

Figure 53. Smoke Levels for Mattress M04

118
6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

E 3.5

3.0

UJo

u

o

z

X

UJ

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

H = Horizontal Q3m below

doorway top

V=Verticai in doorway

Mattress^ M05 — Test 2-13 — Test N-14 — Test N

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

TIME (s)

Figure 5A. Smoke Levels for Mattress M05

119
6.0 T

H=Korizontal Ct3m below

doorway top

V=Vertical indoorwoy

Mattr«st=M06

Test 2-11 Test N-6

TIME (8)

5.5-

5.0 -

4.5 -

Figure 55. Smoke Levels for Mattress M06

120
Figure 56. Smoke Levels for Mattress M07

121
6.0

5.5-

5.0

4.5

4.0

E 3.5

t-z

UJo 3.0

u.u.

UJ8 2.5

z

o

o 2.0

z

h-X

1.5

1.0

0.5

Horizontal 0.3m below

doorwoy top

V=Vertical in doorway

Mattress M08

Test 2-8

200 400 600 800 1000

TIME (s)

1200 1400 1600 1800

Figure 57. Smoke Levels for Mattress M08

122
H = Horizontal Q3m below

doorway top

V=Vertical in doorway

Mattress M09

Test 2-6

200 400 600 800 1000

TIME (s)

1200 1400 1600 1800

Figure 58. Smoke Levels for Mattress M09

123
6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

E 3.5

UJo 3.0

UJ8 2.5

o

o 2.0

X

UJ 1.5

1.0

0.5

H = Horizontal 0.3 m below

doorwoy top

V=Vertical in doorway

Mattress MIO

Test 2-5

200 400 600 800 1000

TIME (s)

1200 1400 1600 1800

Figure 59. Smoke Levels for Mattress MIO

124
20-

16 -

14-

12-

10

Matt re8S= CONTROL

Test 2-12

TestN-ll

Test N-8

10,000

- 9000

- 8000

-7000

E

6000 3

5000 2

UJo

4000 g

o

o

o

3000

- 2000

1000

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

TIME (s)

1400 1600 1800

Figure 60. Gas Concentrations

125

for Control Mattress
TIME (s)

Figure 61. Gas Concentrations for Mattress MOl

126
TIME (s)

Figure 62. Gas Concentrations

127

for Mattress M02
1 I I I I I I r

i

Mottress= M03 -]8000

Test 2-01

- 7000

Q.

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 ISOO

TIME (s)

Figure 63. Gas Concentrations for Mattress M03

128
10,000

9000

8000

-7000

E

H6000 3

z

o

f- 5000 2

4000

- 3000

- 2000

1000

UJo

z

o

o

o

o

200 400 600 800 000 1200

TIME (s)

1600 1800

Figure 64. Gas Concentrations for Mattress M04

129
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

TIME (s)

Figure 65. Gas Concentrations

130

for Mattress M05
TIME (s)

Figure 65. Gas Concentrations for Mattress M06

131
20

18

16

14

<

E 10

2-

Mattres8= M07

Test 2-10

10,000

- 9000

8000

7000

200 400 600

E

6000 3

z

g

5000 2

z

UJo

4000 g

o

o

o

3000

2000

1000

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

TIME (8)

Figure 67. Gas Concentrations for Mattress M07

132
16

12

Mattress^ M08

Test 2-8

200 400 600

10,000

9000

8000

7000

E

6000 3

5000 S

4000

3000

2000

!000

UJo

2

o

o

o

o

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

TIME (s)

Figure 68. Gas Concentrations

133

for Mattress M08
TIME (s)

Figure 69. Gas Concentrations for Mattress M09

134
02

Mattres8= MIO

Test 2-5

200 400 600 800 000 1200

TIME (s)

10,000

9000

8000

7000

E

6000 3

5000 S

O

4000 I

o

o

o

3000

2000

1000

1400 1600 1800

Figure 70. Gas Concentrations for Mattress MIO

NBS-1 14A (REV. 7-73)

U .S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 77-1290

2. Gov't Accession

No.

3. Recipient's Accession No.

4, lllLh AND bUblilLh

COMBUSTION OF MATTRESSES EXPOSED TO FLAMING IGNITION SOURCES

PART I. FULL-SCALE TESTS AND HAZARD ANALYSIS

5. Publication Date September 1977

o, Hertorming Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

Vytenis Babrauskas

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASnlNGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Pro|ect/Task/Work Unit No. A927373

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, Stale, ZIP)

Department of Health, Education and Welfare

Veterans Administration

Department of Defense > Consumer Product Safety Commission

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most si^ilicant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) A test program was conducted to assess the hazards of institutional mattresses

when subjected to a sustained flaming ignition source. This report gives results

on full-scale room burns of ten different mattress types under several ventilation

conditions. Tenability and rapid flame spread potential criteria were applied in

a hazard assessment which showed a wide range of behavior among mattresses now being used in institutions. An extensive review of previous fire tests involving

mattresses is included.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons) Bedding; beds ; Compartment fires; firesafety engineering;

fire tests; health care facilities; hospitals; mattresses; prisons.

18. AVAILABILITY [xS Unlimited

1

' Foe Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

1

1 Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office

Wa-ihlnpron, D.C. 70407. SD Cat. No. CU

[Xj Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

145

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

22. Price

$7.25

ilSCOMM-OC 29042-P74

;j.U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEi 1 977-2 6 1 - 238/376