1102 IMDbMM NBS

PUBLICATIONS

NBSIR 82-2564

An Assessment of Correlations

Between Laboratory and Full

Scale Experiments for the FAA

Aircraft Fire Safety Program,

Part 3: ASTM E 84

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Washington, DC 20234

August 1 982

Issued January 1983

Sponsored by;

U.S. Department of Transportation

federal Aviation Administration m w*’ 'echnical Center

Atlantic City Airport, NJ 08405

2564

2
3

I

1

/
/\ r.o1

NBSIR 82-2564

AN ASSESSMENT OF CORRELATIONS

BETWEEN LABORATORY AND FULL

SCALE EXPERIMENTS FOR THE FAA

AIRCRAFT FIRE SAFETY PROGRAM,

PART 3: ASTM E 84

W. J. Parker

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Washington, DC 20234

August 1 982

January 1 983

Sponsored by;

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Technical Center

Atlantic City Airport, NJ 08405

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Director
:3 §

f»

m

!•

hisdes-^8 mgjBH "

V. ;,3«piTAJl«fl0^qft TM3M3333aA

*" “-Jill a#»

,MAfi^OH'4 yi^^Aa' 3RI^ T'-i

I rii- i I II iSTRA^h —rfuratti^^ l^^lll imi

'*3 P

- ga.

•ST'S ; ^

tlOl'8>0<J«4 0Oi’»6t<^^ri3 ^ rtsitf w.

• ssoa.'oa, , 00^81?]^

m:

^y- a

::/ i3 is

*f-! - ,'r-^

- '^ /'V'

''" i

'4 % ’• ,.>;.

- •- - '

’ >:1

Bf «

^ n djloijsioimiiA:

I

'

-'i ^01^0 Lvt \iioqiiA V#SI dijfistjA \ 0'

,jA ... J-wk:

1 ^1 ' *f- M'.- -^A-SBcL

js;

rrr -,j,V^ \V^

:=:43ii^_

rsi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

List of Tables iv

List of Figures v

Nomenclature vi

! Abbreviations vii

f Abstract 1

1. Introduction 1

2. Comparison of ASTM E 84 Ratings with Room Fire Tests 4

2.1 Room Corner Tests at NBS 6

2.2 Room Fire Tests at Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 7 2.3 Room Fire Tests at NBS in Cooperation with the

National Research Council of Canada 8

2.4 Full-Scale Mobile Home Fire Program at NBS 10

2.4.1 Corridor Tests 10

2.4.2 Living Room and Bedroom Tests 11

3. Analysis 12

4. Summary 25

5. Acknowledgement 26

6. References 27

iil
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Comparison of Maximum Room Temperature with Laboratory

Fire Tests for Materials Located on Both Walls and

Ceiling in NBS Room Corner Tests

Comparison of Maximum Temperature with Laboratory Fire

Tests for Materials Mounted on Wall Only in NBS Room

Corner Tests

Comparison of ^ximum Room Temperature with Laboratory

Fire Tests for Various Wall Materials with an Acoustic Tile

Ceiling in NBS Room Corner Tests

Room Fire Tests at Underwriters Laboratories

Comparison of Times to Flashover in Room Fire Tests with

Laboratory Fire Tests in the NBS/NRCC Cooperative Program . .

Materials Used in the Mobile Home Fire Tests

Comparison of Maximum Temperature in Mobile Home Corridor Fire

Tests with ASTM E 84 Flame Spread Ratings

Comparison of Maximum Temperature and Maximum

Heat Flux to the Floor with ASTM E 84 Flame Spread

Classifications in the Mobile Home Living Room Fire Tests . .

Comparison of Calculated and Measured Flame Spread

Classifications for Materials Used in the Series

of Tests Run at Underwriters Laboratories' Inc

Page

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Plan view of the burn room showing locations of

test panels and wood crib, and arrangement of

. • Jo instrumentation

Figure 2.

39 Floor plan of mobile home used in corridor tests . .

Figure 3. Plan view of mobile home used in living room tests . ^

Figure 4. Material hazard matrices for moderate intensity

exposure fires in the living room and bedroom

(based on ASTM E 84 FSC)

Figure 5. Material hazard matrix for low intensity exposure

fire in living room (based on ASTM E 84 FSC) ....

Figure 6. Temperature distribution along exposed and

unexposed surfaces of AMB specimen

Figure 7. Incident heat flux distribution along an AMB

specimen

Figure 8. Temperatures Distribution along exposed and

unexposed surfaces of AMB specimen fully

bathed in flame

Figure 9. Incident heat flux distribution along an AMB

specimen fully covered with flame

Figure 10. Centerline air temperature profiles at various

distances in the tunnel for an ACB specimen at

10 minutes

Figure 11. Flame spread distance versus total methane flow

rate in auxiliary burner

Figure 12. Flame distance versus total heat release rate in

the tunnel

Figure 13. Average burning rate distribution along a type B

specimen

Figure 14. Decomposed depth versus distance for type B

specimen

Figure 15. Chart record of oxygen concentration on the floor

of the tunnel at 10 and 18 feet for a type B

specimen

V
NOMENCLATURE

Area of specimen covered by the exposure flame (m )

2 Area of specimen covered by flame during test (m )

2 Area of specimen being pyrolyzed (m )

Area under flame spread distance versus time curve in the E84

tunnel (m • s)

Heat capacity (kJ/kg • K)

Distance of flame spread (m)

Distance of maximum flame spread (m)

Distance to end of exposure flame (m)

Maximum flame spread rate (m/s)

2 Ratio of flame area to total rate of heat release by flame (m /kW)

Thermal conductivity (kW/m • K)

2 Average rate of heat release per unit area of the pyrolysing surface (kW/m )

2 Heat transfer from flame to surface (kW/m )

Total rate of heat release (kW)

Total rate of heat release per unit width

Time (s)

Time for flame to reach its maximum distance (s)

Time for flame to reach the end of the tunnel (s)

Time of test (s)

Temperature of pyrolyzing surface (K)

Temperature of surface ahead of the flame (K)

2 Areal rate of flame spread (m /s)

Width of tunnel (m)

Distance to end of burner flame (m)

Distance to end of flame in tunnel (m)

3 Density (kg/m )

Time required to heat material ahead of flame to the pyrolysis temperature (s)
ABBREVIATIONS

ACB Asbestos Cement Board

AMB Asbestos Mill Board

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

CEM Cubic feet per minute

E.R. Elame Retardant treated

ESC* Elame Spread Classification

ESI Elame Spread Index

GWL Present method of calculating ESC derived by George Williams-Leir

NBS National Bureau of Standards

NRCC National Research Council of Canada

U.L. Underwriters Laboratories

* ESC and ESI are used interchangably in this report. The flame spread

results in the tunnel were expressed as the ESC when much of the data

covered in this report was taken.

vii
4;^ 4. 0^ *

* ^ -* t

,;ac:.

.,... fyra^^

J,,

: /...,f.,.„^

f *:\i>i-fiH|ti^ •.-^i) ^ ' elfiliraJeMri-.bajE Sj,7tJ3»T^q3L^

,^lf

"

'

•

' f?>'*K;’’>" .^yg; ^

,

• . ** .

, 31

' 4 io 'borfad«

‘^' «r,.

,p .^^> %

'

,.. ’ : r>iA^) wf''r $i^*'r^l^ IvjU'.

• T% '-.'

. y' . . , ..* " ’1^,'"'^'^' .^3

ft. , I,fcpcuc0 'i^O^B^Vsa ^

.'t* .' , ^. '

' . ...i Ji B':9 >:, *. ' ®, . ’I^AST'

'

»5 .

Ma

' mo|

imi.

i)i*r

^

5, ^

' ‘^*

'J«l*

Ov^«r

^v.-'. jai$ «'.»}. "i l!"t ... -^..» '“-t

i'« ' < I 1 i!S€, JLij ^

‘ <

Q

r- : -ta-l t'H1.<>.< *’'S ' .')*-j.’H| fi-'Ts^<^ }W«M .

, '^SH '*

, jn,i' »'

, ,

‘ LjBdiqa atffiu*p-sdT ;, , 33d^tf ijMFtfi, iacu >1 A

' 0ifQqA B:}!^ ctfcJi^aTr^og;,' v

... ‘ 't^

.•"«yfb. t(]i.ltS SiVTO^'

im

t. , tSi^ (t^)

\

'

ti’ •

. T ' I'ttiiV#*' < ' t>vT-Gi Miji #*' '• V''"^

' i- .^'1

'y' '2

... 'S'!?;'.

.

'"E.

iiS

. |IS

|gk;vl, '^S:

X’-<.

^rjL

5Bf . :, j

' ra

.®, .,'

'

' '4
AN ASSESSMENT OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN LABORATORY AND FULL SCALE

EXPERIMENTS FOR THE FAA AIRCRAFT FIRE SAFETY PROGRAM,

PART 3: ASTM E 84

W. J. Parker

ABSTRACT

A comparison is presented between the room fire

performance in four different full-scale fire test

series and the flame spread classification obtained by

the ASTM E 84 tunnel test for a wide range of materials.

A good correlation is obtained only for conventional

interior finish materials. A flame spread hypothesis

is presented to account for the stopping of the flame

in the tunnel and the difference in the fire performance

of materials in the tunnel test and in the room fire

test.

Key Words: ASTM E 84; fire tests; flame spread; heat

release; room fire.

1. INTRODUCTION

The complete characterization of a room fire includes the temporal and

spatial distribution of the temperature, gas velocity, gas and smoke con- centrations, heat flux, etc. It also includes the boimdary and initial

conditions, such as the dimensions of the room (including the location and

size of the openings), the surface covered by the test material, the

materials covering the remainder of the room, the characteristics of the

ignition source, and the temperature and gas concentration of the incoming

air. The ranking of materials is dependent to some extent on these boundary

and initial conditions, as well as upon the particular criteria used to

1
evaluate the severity of the room fire. The correlation of the flame

spread index determined by the ASTM E 84 tunnel test [1]^ with full-scale

room fires is hampered by the fact that there is no unique ranking of

materials with respect to their hazard in a room fire. The ranking will

depend on the parameter selected for comparison. Some parameters which

have been used for this purpose are (1) the maximum gas temperature averaged

over a set of measurements obtained above some height in the room; (2) the

maximum gas temperature at a single point near the center of the ceiling or

the top of the doorway; (3) the maximum heat flux at the center of the

floor; (4) the time to flashover, variously defined by the attainment of some upper gas temperature, usually 600 °C (at a single thermocouple or

2 averaged over a set of thermocouples) by a radiant flux of 20 kW/m at

the center of the floor, by the Ignition of a combustible material

indicator located in the lower part of the room, or in some cases, by a rapid increase in the burning rate of the fire; (5) time to flameover,

defined as the first appearance of flame extending beyond the doorway;

and, (6) the maximum concentration of smoke or toxic gases, or the times

at which they exceed some specified threshold values.

Generally, we are concerned whether a material will lead to room

flashover and, if so, how long will it take. Since most combustible

materials will lead to flashover if the ignition conditions are severe enough, we would like to know just how severe these ignition conditions

must be (Is a burning wastebasket sufficient? A burning overstuffed

chair?). This necessitates running a series of tests with ignition

conditions of varying severity. Such tests are usually prohibitively

expensive. Therefore, we simply resort to testing all of the materials at

a fixed condition and ranking their performance. Since material performance

rankings will be somewhat dependent on the conditions, there may be a tendency to pick conditions which could move one material up or down in

relative ranking. Therefore, a room fire test is being proposed in ASTM in

Numbers in brackets refer to the literature references listed at the

end of this report.

2
which the conditions are standardized. The impact of some of the

variables in the room fire test is discussed in ASTM E 603 [2].

The ASTM E 84 tunnel test measures the flame spread of the specimen

material relative to that of asbestos cement board (ACB) and red oak

flooring under similar test conditions. A 0.51-m (20-in) wide and 7.3-m

(24-ft) long specimen forms the last 7.3 m (24 ft) of the ceiling of a 7.6-m (25-ft) long tunnel, which is 0.46 m (1.5 ft) wide and 0.31 m (1

ft) deep. The first 0.31 m (1 ft) of the ceiling at the fire end of the

tunnel is ACB. There are two gas burners, located 0.31 m (1 ft) from

this end, which produce a diffusion flame that extends 1.6 m (4.5 ft)

along the tunnel. Air is supplied at a rate of 170 L/s (360 CFM)

through a 76-mm (3-in) high opening at the fire end. One side of the

tunnel is equipped with viewing windows through which the distance

between the flame front and the burner flame can be continuously monitored

during the 10-minute test. The length of the burner flame, i.e., 1.6 m

(4.5 ft), is subtracted to get the flame spread distance for the specimen.

In plotting the flame spread distance versus time, any recession of the

flame front is ignored so that the curve monotonically increases (or

becomes flat). The area, A^, under this adjusted curve, is then used to

calculate the flame spread index (ESI)

.

If A^ ^ 1780 m • s (97.5 ft • min), then ESI = 0.0281 A^ (0.515 A^)

.

If Aj > 1780 m s (97.5 ft • min), then ESI = 89700

3560-A^

4900

195-A^ •

This calculational procedure is known as the GWL method. Note that the

ESI, formerly called ESC, does not indicate the flame spread rate. If

the flame spread distance to the end of the tunnel, 5.95 m (19.5 ft), is

achieved in 10 minutes due to a rather slow linear progression from zero

time, the ESI would be 50. If the flame were to spread half of that

distance in a few seconds (indicating a very great rate of flame spread)

and then stops, the ESI would also be 50.

3
Prior to 1976, the flame spread classification (FSC) was based on

the time required for the flame to travel to the end of the tunnel,

unless it stopped within the tunnel. In the latter case, it was based

strictly on the maximum distance reached. The present calculational

method was introduced to eliminate an important discontinuity. A

material which spread flame just to the end of the tunnel in a very

short time would have a very high rating for specimens for which the

flame just passed over the end, but very low ratings for those specimens

for which the flame stopped just short of the end. Otherwise, the new

method was designed to produce ratings similar to those obtained by the

old method.

Because of the low ratings achieved by some foam plastics in the

tunnel, in contrast to their rapid fire buildup in a room, the National

Research Council of Canada (NRCC) developed the formula

= 5550

where is the maximum flame spread distance in meters and t’ is the

time required to reach it in seconds.

This report presents a comparison of the ASTM E 84 tunnel test

results with those of the full-scale room fire tests involving the same materials. Data from the ASTM E 162 [3]

,

the NBS heat release rate

calorimeter [4], the ease of ignition test being developed at NBS [5],

and the quarter-scale room model [6] used at NBS have also been included

for comparison in some cases.

2. COMPARISON OF ASTM E 84 RATINGS WITH ROOM FIRE TESTS

In this section, the results of four separate projects in which E

84 ratings are compared with data from well-instrumented room fire tests are discussed. These include:

4
(1) a series of eight 9.5 x 10.5-foot room "corner fire" tests

conducted at NBS by Fang [7]» where the interior finish material

being tested lined one rear corner;

(2) a series of 8 x 12-foot fully lined room fire tests at Underwriters

Laboratories (UL) involving six materials, including four rigid foams [8];

(3) a cooperative project between CFR and the National Research Council

of Canada (NRCC) in which eight materials, including five rigid foams,

were evaluated in tunnel tests, room fire tests, corner tests, and

various laboratory fire tests [9]; and,

(4) an extensive project at NBS on the fire safety of mobile homes

where the interior finish materials were gypsum board, acoustic

tile, and fire retardant-treated and untreated plywood [10-13].

These four series of tests are well enough documented (and familiar

to the author) to serve as an adequate data base for assessing the

strengths and weaknesses of the E 84 tunnel test as an indicator of room

fire performance.

The tunnel test was designed for interior finish materials and, for

a considerable period of time, was assumed to be quite adequate for that

purpose. Because of the difference in exposure conditions between the

tunnel and a room fire and also between one room fire and another, it

could not be expected to rank the fire performance of materials exactly

with respect to their performance in a particular room fire; but, in a gross way, it could be expected to distinguish between classes of fire

performance. In particular, it should be able to identify any extraordinarily

hazardous material. It was apparently able to do this fairly well for

conventional materials. However, it was found to be deficient in the case of rigid plastic foams, some of which have a low FSC but still

result in rapid flashover of a room. Such cases are documented in this

section.

5
2.1 Room Corner Fire Tests at NBS

Two 1.2 X 2.4-m (4 x 8-ft) wall panels and one 1.2 x 2.4-m (4 x 8-

ft) ceiling panel lined one rear corner of a 2.9 x 3.1-m (9.5 x 10.5-ft)

room with a ceiling height of 2.4 m (7.9 ft) and a 0.90-m (35-in) wide

by 2.0-m (80-in) high open doorway, as shown in Figure 1 [7]. The

panels were attached to the structure with 19-mm (3/4-in) furring

strips, leaving an air space. Two 1.2 x 2.4-m (4 x 8-ft) ACB panels

were placed vertically between 1.2 and 2.4 m (4 and 8 ft) from the

corner along each wall. The remainder of the room was finished with 16- mm (5/8- in) thick Type X gypsum wallboard protected with an asbestos

fiber material. The ignition source was a 6.4-kg (14-lb) wood crib made

up of 0.051 X 0.051 X 0.356-m (2 x 2 x 14-in) sticks of hemlock and

located in the corner 0.051 m (2 in) away from each wall. The temperature

reported here is the average of those recorded by thirty-six 0.51-mm

(20-mil) chromel alumel thermocouples distributed over the upper half of

the room.

Table 1 gives a comparison of the maximum gas temperature averaged

over measurements in the upper half of the room with the results of the

ASTM E 84, the ASTM E 162, and the NBS rate of heat release (RHR)

calorimeter for five materials which were used for both the wall and the

celling specimen panels. The materials are listed in descending order

of the maximum temperature in the room. A good correlation is

achieved with the E 84 and the RHR calorimeter in the sense that the

ranking of the materials is the same as that for the maximum temperature.

In Table 2, the same comparison is made for eight materials where

the materials were used for the two wall specimen panels only. A gypsum

board ceiling was used for all of these tests. Since the contribution

of the gypsum board was minimal, the temperature rises were smaller.

Note that if only the materials listed in Table 1 are included, the

6
correlation with the E 84 is equally good. However, it breaks down when

fir and Lauan plywood are also included. If, instead, we use for the

correlation the broad classes utilized by the building codes.

Class A

Class B

Class C

Class D

. Class E

the correlation is again seen to be adequate for the intended purpose.

In another subset of these tests, the wall materials were varied

while the celling panel was always acoustic tile. As seen in Table 3,

there is very little correlation in this case, even for the broad classes

of materials. Obviously the complex problem of a combustible ceiling

and wall material does not lend itself to a simple evaluation criterion.

It still retains one Important safety feature, however. The Class B

material with the ESC of 33 did, in fact, produce a minimal temperature

rise.

The relative importance of the combustible ceiling compared to the

wall materials and the variability of the tests probably were responsibile

for the inconsistency with the earlier correlation.

2 . 2 Room Fire Tests at Underwriters Laboratories (UL)

Nine room fire tests were conducted at UL in a 2.4 x 3.7-m (8 x 12-

ft) room with a 2.4-m (8-ft) ceiling and a 0.76-m (30-in) wide and 2.1-m

(84-in) high doorway. The room was completely lined with the test

material. Six of the tests used a 9.1-kg (20- lb) wood crib in the rear

corner as an ignition source. The crib was made up of 0.051 x 0.051 x 0.38-m (2 X 2 X 15-in) white fir sticks. Although the temperatures also

were measured 25 mm (1 in) below the center of the ceiling and 25 mm (1

0 £ FSC j< 25

26 £ FSC £ 75

76 ^ FSC _< 200

201 ^ FSC £ 500

500 < FSC ,

7
in) from the ceiling and wall Intersection—2.4 m (8 ft) from the

ignition source, data were recorded on all six of these tests only at

the location 25 mm (1 in) down from the top of the doorway. Both the

maximum temperatures attained at the top of the doorway and the time to

reach full involvement provide consistent bases for ranking and are listed in Table 4. These two indicators of fire performance are compared

with the E 84 rating and, where they exist, with the E 162 and the NBS

rate of heat release calorimeter data. The code listed in the table is

that used in the UL report [8]. With these materials, a correlation

does not follow from the data. The two rigid polyisocyanurate foams

which had Class A ratings with ESC of 22 and 23, Implying good fire

safety performance, exhibited full involvement or flashover in times

short compared to that of plywood having a ESC of 178. Eurthermore, the

time to reach full involvement depended on the transient fire development

of the wood crib. It is noted that neither the E 162 or the heat

release rate calorimeter would have provided a clue to the behavior of

material A. Although the fire retardant-treated (E.R.) plywood was not

reported as having full celling involvement, as would be indicated by

flame out of the doorway, the amount of material destroyed and the

temperature reached at the top of the doorway (715°C) were Indicative of

flashover conditions. Indeed, the edge of the doorway ignited in 385

seconds. This material had an ESC of 25. Thus, the failure of the ESC

to denote materials that can lead to large fire development is not

limited to low density plastic foams.

2. 3 Room Eire Tests at NBS in Cooperation with NRCC

A series of room fire tests were then conducted at NBS with fiber

glass, a 65 percent mineral and 35 percent cellulosic fiber Insulating

board, and five rigid cellular plastics covering a large range of ESC

[9] in a 2.4 x 3.7-m (9.5 x 10-ft) room with a 0.74-m (29-in) wide and

1.9-m (76-ln) high doorway. These materials fully lined the test room. The tests were carried out as a part of a cooperative research program

with the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC) , who obtained the

ESC ratings on their ASTM E 84 tunnel. The ignition source was a

8
natural gas diffusion burner located in one rear corner of the room and

having a net heat release rate of 79 kW, which is equivalent to the

burner in the ASTM E 84 tunnel.

At NRCC, the materials were subjected to (1) standard E 84 tests,

(2) tunnel tests in which the material lined the rear wall and ceiling

to simulate flame spread along the wall/ceiling intersection in the room

fire, and (3) tunnel tests in which the material lined the ceiling only,

but aluminum foil was placed on the floor to increase the radiation

feedback. The ESC was calculated by three methods: the one specified

in the standard at the time of these tests, the GWL method (which is

used at the present time), and 5550 (which is now used in Canada

for cellular plastics).

The additional tests performed on these materials included canopied

corner tests and half-scale canopied corner tests at NRCC; and quarterscale room fire tests, rate of heat release, and ease of ignition tests

at NBS.

Table 5 provides a summary of the tests at NBS and the standard

tunnel tests at NRCC. The results of the standard E 84 tunnel tests and

the full- and reduced-scale corner tests eventually will be reported

separately by NRCC. Data from room fire tests on plywood and PVC

nitrile foam under similar conditions are included in this table for

comparison. Materials C and B-2 exhibit the main problem of concern. While these materials had ESC values of approximately 30 (based on their

short flame spread distances), putting them in the Class B category,

they experienced flashover in substantially under 1 minute. This may

have been expected from their observed rapid flame spread rate in the

tunnel, which is not reflected in their ESC. The actual flashover times

in these room fire tests are shorter than those for the foams in Table 4

because of the instantaneous constant fire exposure provided by the gas

burner in the present tests compared to the development time required by

the wood crib in the UL tests. It is seen that the new CWL method

9
presently in use does not improve the correlation. However, using 5550

d^,.„/t' is a decided improvement but the very rapid flashover compared to

MAX

plywood is still not predicted. When applying this method of calculation to material B-2 in three successive tunnel runs, a difficulty

with this particular method becomes apparent. Although high flame

spread rates were observed in the early part of the E 84 test for all

three runs, the maximum distance was approached slowly in the first

two—which resulted in uncharacteristically low values of 5550

While observation of the performance of these materials in the tunnel

indicates their hazardous nature, none of the present methods for the

calculation of ESC provide an adequate measure of this potential hazard.

It is noted that the best correlation of the times-to-f lashover in

the room is obtained with the quarter-scale model room tests.

2 . 4 Full-Scale Mobile Home Fire Program at NBS

Ninety full-scale fire tests were conducted in the kitchen, corridor,

bedroom, and living room areas of a single-wide mobile home, sponsored

by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) . Of interest

here are the tests in the last three areas.

2.4.1 Corridor Tests

The corridor in this series of tests [10] measured 5.2 m (17 ft) in

length, 0.76 m (2.5 ft) in width, and 2.1 m (6.9 ft) from floor to

ceiling. A portion of the kitchen area was blocked off as seen in

Figure 2, providing a small room which opened into the corridor. A 6.4-

kg (14-lb) wood crib consisting of 0.051 x 0.051 x 0.36-m (2 x 2 x 14-

in) sticks of hemlock was placed in one corner of the blocked-off area

as seen in the figure. Nine tests were conducted using the four wall

materials and three ceiling materials listed in Table 6. The maximum

gas temperatures, developed 0.25 m (10 in) below the celling of the

10
corridor at least 2.3 m (7.5 ft) from the wood crib, are compared with

the E 84 and E 162 ratings in Table 7. The table is laid out to show

the effect of varying the wall material while keeping the ceiling

material constant. Within each group, the wall material is listed in

order of decreasing ESC. It is seen that the ranking of the temperature

rise is the same as that of the ESC of the wall material. On the other

hand, when the wall material is maintained at an ESC of 194, the maximum

temperature rise correlates with the ESC of the ceiling material. The

correlation obtained with the E 162 test is not as good.

2.4.2 Living Room and Bedroom Tests

Elgure 3 shows the layout of the mobile home for the bedroom and

living room tests [11-13]. The exterior doors and the doors to bedrooms

2 and 3 and the bathroom were all closed during the test. The ignition

source, which was either a 6.4-kg (14- lb) wood crib or a 16-kg (35-lb)

upholstered chair, was located in a corner at the point labeled L for

the living room fire tests. The 16-kg (35-lb) upholstered chair was

also used as the ignition source in the bedroom fire tests. In that

case, it was located in the far corner of bedroom number 1.

The test results are summarized in the Material Hazard Matrices in

Eigures 4 and 5. The shaded area represents that combination of wall

and ceiling materials that lead to flashover in the particular room and

for the particular Ignition source specified. The time to flashover

does not vary enough between materials because of their similar densities,

to display any trend with the ESC. The maximum temperatures reached are not useful indicators for the fires that flash over, since extinguishment

occurs soon after. However, in the case of the living room tests with

the 6.4-kg (14- lb) wood crib and the gypsum board ceiling, flashover was

not reached for any of the wall materials. Hence, the maximum temperature

and heat flux to the floor can be compared with the E 84 rating in this case as shown in Table 8. It is noted that the maximum heat flux to the

11
floor and the maximum temperature 0.25 m (10 in) down from the center of

the ceiling correlates with both the old and the GWL method of calculation

and with the rate of heat release in the NBS heat release rate calorimeter

2 with an external radiant flux of 60 kW/m .

3. ANALYSIS

Perhaps the first interior measurements in the E 84 tunnel were

made by Quint iere and Raines [14] in the Hardwood Plywood Manufacturer's

Association (HPMA) tunnel. They measured the volumetric inflow of the

air with a bank of pitot tubes and found it to vary during the course of

the test. This has been corrected in the present standard by changing

the mode of control. They also measured the temperature and thus the

enthalpy flow with a bank of thermocouples at 4.6 and 7.3 m (15 and 24

ft) from the burner. These tests showed that approximately half of the

energy from the gas burner is lost by radiation and convection to the

bounding surfaces of the tunnel with an ACB specimen. The radiation

losses should increase significantly with a smoke-producing specimen.

The radiant heat flux was measured on the floor at 4.9 m (16 ft) using a radiometer with a sapphire window. The maximum radiant heat flux

measured was 21 kW/m during a standard test of a nylon carpet. This

peak occurred at 230 seconds. The distance of the flame tip was reported

to be 5.2 m (17 ft) at that time.

Measurements were made by Parker [15] of the heat flux, oxygen

concentration, temperature, velocity, and pressure in a series of

instrumented tunnel tests at the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) using

[1] standard length specimens, (2) 0.91-m (3-ft) long specimens, and (3) a reference specimen consisting of ACB and an auxiliary controlled

supply of methane. Five different flow rates of methane to the auxiliary

burner provided constant and known heat inputs simulating the gaseous

decomposition products from regular test specimens. Incident heat

fluxes on an inert specimen as high as 63 kW/m were measured within the

12
flame impingement zone with a water-cooled total heat flux meter 0.61 m

(2 ft) downstream from the burner.

The temperature of the lower exposed and upper unexposed surfaces

of a 13-mm (1/2- in) thick Asbestos Mill Board (AMB) specimen is plotted

as a function of distance after a 20-minute exposure in Figure 6. The

maximum exposed surface temperature of 650°C occurs 0.61 m (2 ft)

downstream from the burner. These temperatures were used along with the

thermal conductivity of the AMB to estimate the heat transfer versus distance in the tunnel, as shown in Figure 7. The air temperature 13 mm

(1 in) below the AMB surface is also recorded in Figure 6 and used to

estimate the gas phase heat transfer. Figures 8 and 9 show the temperatures

developed and the estimated heat fluxes for a full-length methane diffusion

flame exposure of the specimen. The vertical gas temperature profiles

for an ACB specimen are shown in Figure 10.

Figure 11 shows that the increase in the burner flame length was proportional to the increase in volume flow rate of the methane and thus

to its increase in total heat release rate. An attempt was made to see whether there was a universal relationship between the heat release rate

and the length of the flame, which applied to all materials. Specimens

0.91 m (3 ft) long of a number of materials and a full-length red oak

deck were tested, and the flame extent was compared with that of methane

in Figure 12. The best linear fit to the data points was d = 0.61 +

0.049 Q where d is in meters and Q in kW. The heat release rates were

determined using the oxygen consumption technique [16] by measuring the

concentration of oxygen in the exhaust duct. It is not clear how much

of the scatter of the data in Figure 12 is due to the absence of a welldefined relationship and how much due to the primitive nature of the

oxygen consumption technique in 1974.

In another experiment, the exposed surface of a red oak specimen

was instrumented with thermocouples so that the arrival of the 350 °C

isotherm, taken to be the location of the pyrolysis front, could be

13
measured and compared with the position of the flame tip. It was found

that flame extension led the pyrolysis zone by about 1.5 m (5 ft) over

the whole test until the flame extended beyond the end of the tunnel.

A full-length fire retardant-treated rigid polyurethane foam with a

3 3 density of 32 kg/m (2 Ibs/ft ) was tested for 5 minutes. The flame

spread for a maximum distance of 3.1 m (10 ft), which gave it an FSC of

28 using the calculation method which was in use at the time. This

maximum distance was reached very rapidly in the test. After the test,

the specimen was cut up into 0.3-m (1-ft) lengths and weighed. The

residual weight was subtracted from the original weight, which was

calculated from the average density of the specimen determined before

the test. This difference was divided by the test duration to yield an average rate of weight loss versus distance as displayed in Figure 13.

The peak value of the average burning rate occurred at about 0.46 m (1.5

2 ft) downstream of the burner with a magnitude of 3.6g/m • s (2.65

2 Ib/ft • h) . However, this is an average value over the 5-minute

interval, so the maximum was undoubtedly somewhat higher. Although the

burning rate dropped sharply at the maximum reported flame spread

distance, there was a significant amount of mass loss beyond it. This

additional mass loss was apparently not sufficient to produce a combustible

mixture and hence contributed only to the smoke production. The decomposed

depth was also measured and plotted in Figure 14 for each section. It

can be seen that a 5-minute exposure was not sufficient to consume the

whole depth of the 51-mm (2-in) specimen. Since the maximum distance was reached within a few seconds, the burnout of the specimen was not a reason for the flame failing to spread further.

Since oxygen depletion was often quoted as the reason for the flame

to stop spreading, oxygen concentration profiles were taken at various

distances and times for ACB and regular specimen tests. The drop in

oxygen concentration on the floor of the tunnel was very small, as seen

in Figure 15, for the above foam. This corresponds to the oxygen

14
concentration in the free stream away from the wall or under the ceiling

layer in a room fire. Hence oxygen depletion was not the reason for the

difference between the performance of this material in a room and in the

tunnel. It was also noted that varying the volumetric air flow rate

3

into the tunnel from 4 to 13 m /s had little impact on the maximum flame

spread distance, further evidence that oxygen depletion is not the

reason that the flame stopped at a particular distance.

The flame spread distances for the low FSC materials were nearly

the same for the 7.3-m (24-ft) and 0.91-m (3-ft) specimens even though

the leading edge of the flame was adjacent to an ACB surface in the

latter case, indicating that the local conditions near the flame front

were not controlling factors in the extent of the spread. It is clear

that the flame spread distance recorded in the tunnel is the extension

of the burner flame rather than a surface flame spread.

A hypothesis is advanced here in an attempt to explain why the

flame stops in the tunnel for some materials, and yet those same materials

may provide the conditions necessary for the rapid flashover of a room

when they are mounted on the wall or ceiling. Based on the experiments

in the tunnel with different flow rates of methane and the 0.91-m (3-ft)

specimens discussed above, the flame area (A_) is assumed to be proportional

• X to the total rate of heat production (Q) , so that

Af = fQ (1)

or, since the spread is one dimensional,

Xf = fQ’ (2)

2 where f is the constant of proportionality equal to 0.022 m /kW, is

the flame distance, and Q’ is the total heat release rate per unit width

2 of the specimen. The value of 0.022 m /kW for f was found by multiplying

15
the slope of the line in Figure 12 by the width of the tunnel. Since

the materials of concern here have essentially the same rate of heat

release per unit mass of oxygen consumed (13.1 MJ/kg) , the constancy of

f depends on the constancy of the oxygen supply rate per unit area normal to the surface, assuming that all of the oxygen entering the

flame zone is Immediately consumed and that the reaction goes completely

to water and carbon dioxide. For a smooth surface, the turbulent

4/5 boundary layer thickness grows as X . Since the amount of oxygen

ingested by the flame is proportional to the boundary layer thickness,

4/5 the total rate of heat release is proportional to X so that X. is

• 5/4 ^

^ proportional to (Q’) . The changes in the properties of the gases in

the boundary layer due to combustion are neglected and the effects of

externally induced turbulence by the floor, walls, and turbulence bricks

are Ignored in this calculation. Since it is difficult at the present

time to make an adequate theoretical model which will properly account

for all of the relevant factors, the empirical relationship displayed in

equation (1) will be used in the following analysis.

Consider the one-dimensional flame spread problem in general for

the underside of a surface assuming the linear relationship expressed by

equation (1). First, assume that the fuel comes only from the burning

specimen. Then

= fQ = fiAp, (3)

where A is the pyrolyzing area of the material and q is the average

P

heat release rate per unit area of the pyrolysis zone.

Since the flame must cover the pyrolyzing area to maintain the flow

of combustible volatiles, A^. > A . Hence, a material for which fq

is less than unity will not support a flame in the absence of external

fuel sources and can be labeled "self extinguishing". If fq > 1, then

A^ - Ap is the flame extension which heats up a new area to the pyrolysis

temperature in a time x . If the net heat flux from the flame to the

P

surface, q'^, is assumed to be constant and the material can be considered

16
to be thermally thick up to the time that its front surface reaches the

pyrolysis temperature T^, then which is equivalent to the time to

ignition can be determined from classical heat conduction theory [17]

:

o q'J T - T = -3_ ^

- , (4)

P ® A /KpC

where T is the surface temperature prior to the arrival of the flame, K

s is the thermal conductivity of the material, p is the density of the

material, and C is its heat capacity.

The pyrolyzing area will continue to increase at a rate given by

V

P

( f

.q -i .)A

p

(5)

It must be recognized that, in general, q depends on A^, since the heat

release rate per unit area varies over the pyrolyzing area.

The material can be considered to bg^self-propagating if fq > 1

and self-extinguishing if fq < 1, since is negative. In the latter

case Ap will shrink to a point and the flame will extinguish. If a material is self-propagating in the tunnel, it will be self-propagating

in a room fire because of the higher heat release rates due to higher

incident fluxes. Flashover will be inevitable if the room is lined with

this material since it has been observed that flashover has occured or

is imminent by the time that flames cover the upper part of the room and

extend to the doorway.

We are more concerned with those materials whose flames stop within

the tunnel, because it is some of these materials which were determined

to be safe by the E 84 but proved to be hazardous in a room fire. We

are trying to establish the reason here. If the burner in the tunnel

produces a flame area (A^) and the material has a pyrolyzing area (A ) with an average rate of heat release (q)

,

then the total flame area will

be

17
= A + fqA , f o ^ p

( 6 )

where fqA Is the additional flame area provided by the burning of the

P

volatile pyrolysis products from the specimen. It should be noted that

the pyrolyzing area A^ includes the area A^ covered by the burner flame.

Using equations (4) and (6), the rate of increase of the pyrolyzing area

is given by

^ = (A^ + (fq-l)A )/T

P

(7)

where is determined from equation (4) to be

X = ttKpC (T - T )^/4q"^.

p P s ^f ( 8 )

If fq > 1, the flame will continue to propagate indefinitely. If fq

< 1 the pyrolyzing area will continue to grow until

A = A /(1-fq).

p o

(9)

dA

Then = 0 and the flame ceases to propagate.

dA

Also, by equation (7), A^ = A^ when —^

= 0 so that

A^ = A^/(l-fq). ( 10 )

Assuming that q is a constant for a particular material, the integration

of equation (7) yields

iiir) (1 - exp (- (1-fq) t/Xp) )

.

( 11 )

Combining equations (6) and (11)

,

(iV) (1 - fqexp(-(l-fq)t/Xp))

.

( 12 )

18
Since = WX^, where W is the width of the tunnel, the length of the

flame is given by

/ X \ _ X = I — I " fqexp(-(l-fq)t/T ))

\l-fq j

( 13 )

When t = 0, X^ = X = 1.37 m (4.5 ft), the length of the burner flame at

t o the beginning of the test. If fq is less than unity, the flame stops at

a distance X^ = X^/(l-fq). If fq is close to unity, X^ may exceed the

length of the tunnel. The flame spread distance in the tunnel is given

by

d = X^ - X =

f o

X fq

(1 - exp(-(l-fq)t/x )) . 1-fq P

(14)

When fq < 1, there is a maximum flame spread distance found by setting t

fqX

MAX

1-fq

(15)

For the flame to stop within the tunnel, d...^, must be less than 5.95 m

MAX

(19.5 ft) and therefore fq must be less than 0.81.

The flame spread classification (FSC) prior to 1977 was given by

FSC = 16.7 if Xj £ 5.5 m (18 ft), and (16a)

FSC = 50 + 4.63 d^, if X^ > 5.5 m (18 ft) (16b)

Hence

,

FSC =16.7 fqX^Z(l-fq), if X^ < 5.5 m (18 ft), and (17a)

FSC =50 + 4.63 fqX^/(l-fi), if X^ > 5.5 m (18 ft) (17b)

The quantities d^,^^ and X^ are expressed in meters.

19
For those materials for which the flame stopped in the tunnel,

there should be a correlation between the heat release rate and the FSC.

It is difficult to determine the proper external radiation level that

should be used in the heat release rate calorimeter to represent the

average exposure condition on the specimen in the tunnel. Furthermore,

it is not clear whether to take the maximum heat release rate or that

averaged over some time interval which would need to be determined.

2

Nevertheless, the peak heat release rates measured at a 30 kW/m external

radiant flux level in the NBS heat release rate calorimeter are recorded

in Table 9 for the materials used in the U.L. study [8]. The heat

release rates and measured flame spread classifications are taken from

Table 3 of reference [15]. Material Q, also listed in that table, was

not included because of the extreme variability in observed fire performance

from specimen to specimen. The actual value of q can be estimated for

-3 2 material B which had a burning rate in the tunnel of 2.0 x 10 kg/m *s

2 (1.47 Ib/ft «h) averaged over the 10-ft flame length for the first five

minutes of the test as seen in figure 13. The effective heat of combustion

of a similar FR polyurethane foam (GM-31 in the Products Research Committee

Materials bank [18]) was reported to be 11.5 MJ/kg, giving an approximate

2 _ value of 23 kW/m for q, which also happens to be the maximum heat

release rate of material B listed in Table 9. The calculated flame

spread distance from equation (15) was 1.37 m (4.5 ft), compared to the

measured flame spread distance of 1.68 m (5.5 ft).

The calculated values of fq, (equation 15), and the FSC for

those materials with fq < 1 (equation 17a) are also listed in Table 9

along with the measured distances and the FSC values determined from

- - 2 them. If fq < 1 or q

< 45 kW/m , the flames were confined to the tunnel.

If fq > 1, the flames passed out the end of the tunnel.

The imprecision of q makes a quantitative comparison impossible but

qualitatively the flame spread distance and FSC show a high dependence

on the heat release rate for those materials whose flames remain in the

20
cannfc.i as expectsd from the equations. The flame spread classifications

determined in the E 84 test are roughly ranked in the same order as the

reat release rates. It is natural to suppose that if the heat release

rates in a room fire are higher because of the greater expected heat

transfer rates, then the extent of the flame spread could be much larger.

In particurar, if fq becomes greater than unity, the flames would become

self-propagatrag and a fully developed fire would result. Furthermore,

if KpC were small, T would be small and the flame coverage would be

P

very rapid as seen from equation (12), which could be written

A _ _ A_ = (fqexp((fq-l)t/t )-l). (18)

fq - 1 P

The effect of external radiation on the flame spread distance was demonstrated at the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC) by

putting aluminum foil on the floor of the tunnel to reflect more of the

radiation back onto the specimen. The average flame spread distance of

an FR polyurethane foam (Material C in Table 5) was increased from 1.83

m (6 ft) to 2. '44 m (8 ft) when the foil was placed on the floor. This

result was based on an average of 3 specimens in each case.

If the flame passes out the end of the tunnel in time t*, the flame

spread classification prior to 1977 was given by

FSC = 33000/t*, if t* ^ 330 s, and (19a)

FSC = 50 + 16500/t* if t* > 330 s, (19b)

where t* is in seconds.

Putting - 7 . 32 m (24 ft) and = 1.37 m (4.5 ft) into equation

(13) and solving for t yields

t* = fq-1

In + 5.33 (fq - 1 ) fq ( 20 )

Values of t determined from the time of the first reported flame travel

in the tunnel are listed in Table 9 along with the calculated FSC for

materials with fq > 1 using equations (19a) and (20). The calculated

21
values are high, presumably due to the expected increase in and the

decrease in q with distance in the tunnel. These quantities are dependent

on the incident heat fluxes which decrease with distance in the tunnel

as illustrated in figure 9 for a specimen fully covered with flame. The

variation in x and q with distance are not accounted for in these

P

simple derivations. Nevertheless, there is a rough ordering of the

observed FSC with that calculated from equations 19a and 20. In particular,

there is an order of magnitude change in the FSC between materials H and

0, which have the same heat release rate but an order of magnitude

1

^5 0 0 / difference in x^. TheKpC is 1.85 x 10 and 1.35 x 10 kW *s/deg *m

for materials H and 0, respectively. For those materials which pass

flame out the end of the tunnel, the FSC was more dependent on x^ than

q. For those materials for which the flame stops in the tunnel, the FSC was independent of x^. For instance, material B has an order of magnitude

lower X than material J but one half as great a heat release rate and

P one half of the FSC.

At the present time, the flame spread index (FSI) is determined by

the GWL method which is based on the area under the flame spread distance

versus time curve, A^.

FSI = 0.0281 A^, if Aj, ^ 1780 m*s, and

89700

FSI = 3560 - » if > 1780 m*s.

(21a)

(21b)

The integral of equation (14) up to time t* plus the product of the

remaining time of the test and the maximum flame spread distance yields.

I (l-exp(-(l-fq)t /Tp) )

^ (1-fq)

+ 5.95 (t^-t*)

( 22 )

where X = 1.37 m.

o

For those cellular plastics with low flame spread classifications x^ and

fq are small so that equation (22) can be approximated by

22
(1-fq)

( 23 )

The maximum flame spread rate, d, found by differentiating equation

(14) and setting t=0, is given by

.2 (24)

4X fq

d = Xf5/T

° P tiKpC(T -T

P s While the maximum flame spread rate is inversely proportional to KpC

and thus very high for the low density foams, the thermal inertia only

appears as a small correction, through in the GWL formula presently

used in the E 84 standard. This new calculation, like its predecessor,

does not adequately reflect the rapid fire build up potential of these

materials.

This situation was remedied to some extent by a formula proposed by

D' Souza and McGuire [19] and adopted in Canada for foams. It is given

by

ESI = 5550 d^/t' (25)

where t' is the time in seconds to reach the maximum distance, in

meters. This index measures a flame spread rate for those materials

whose flames stop within the tunnel. However, as seen by equation (14),

the maximum distance is approached exponentially but never reached. The

asymptotic distance can easily be determined but assigning a time is

quite subjective. In practice, q may decrease slightly creating a maximum but it is still slowly approached so that flame spread rates

determined from equation (21) may be appreciably less than the maximum flame

spread rate indicated by equation (24). Nevertheless, equation (25)

provides a much better indication of the rapid fire buildup potential of

the low density foams than the GWL or the previous formula.

The foregoing equations were developed on the basis of a semiinfinite solid which continued burning at essentially the same rate

23
during the course of the test or at least until the flame had essentially

reached a maximum distance or passed out the end of the tunnel. This

approximation is probably adequate for most materials. However, thin

combustible facings, such as the paper on gypsum board or on fiber

glass, only burn for a short time. In the case of a material with high

thermal inertia, such as gypsum board, the paper is burned up before its

flame extension can heat the surface above it to the pyrolysis temperature.

In that case the maximum flame extension lasts only for a brief period

of time and is simply given by

d = fqX (26) MAX o

According to the GWL calculation method, the distance at a particular

time is equal to the maximum flame spread distance up to that time (i.e.

any flame recession is not taken into account) , and

''t - V’

where is the time to pyrolysis or ignition of the surface and t^ is

the time of the test. This is equivalent to the calculational procedure

used prior to 1977 in which the FSC was equal to 16.6 ignoring any

recession.

In the case of paper faced fiber glass, the low thermal inertia

allows the material above the flame extention to be heated quickly to

its pyrolysis temperature and the flame spreads rapidly to the end of

the tunnel resulting in the highest reported flame spread classification

in Table 9 (FSC = 2540)

.

The above simplified treatment of flame spread in the tunnel provides

a qualitative explanation of why materials with low heat release rates

provide flames which extend some distance down the tunnel and then

remain relatively stationary for the remainder of the test thus

receiving a low flame spread classification. The strong dependence of

24
the flame spread distance on the average heat release rate of the

material, which in turn depends on the heat transfer to the surface,

suggests that materials whose flames stop within the tunnel may propagate flames much farther in a room fire where the external radiation

levels are expected to be much higher. In fact, materials which are "self extinguishing" in the tunnel (fq < 1) may become self-propagating

(fq > 1) in a room fire.

According to Table 4, materials S and A had flame spread classifications of 22 and 23 which corresponded to average flame spread

distances in the tunnel of 4.3 and 4.5 feet, yet led to full Involvement

of an 8 X 12-ft room in 80 and 100 seconds. A large part of this time

was due to the fire buildup time of the wood crib. Material C in table

5 which had an FSC of 30, or a flame spread distance in the tunnel of 6

feet, flashed over a 10 x 10-ft room in 18 seconds when the exposure

flame was provided by a gas burner. The high flame spread rates for

these foam plastics were also observed in the tunnel but were not

reflected in their flame spread classifications. The size of the

exposure flame (A^) provided by the burner or by a piece of furnishing

in an actual room fire is also an Important factor in the extent of the

flame spread as seen by equation (15).

4 . SUMMARY

A comparison was presented between the room fire performance in

four different full-scale fire test series and the flame spread classification obtained by the ASTM E 84 tunnel test for a wide range of

materials. The fire performance in the room was measured in terms of

maximum upper air temperature reached and the time to flashover.

Although a reasonably good correlation in terms of rank order was

obtained for the conventional interior finish materials, this correlation

broke down when low density materials were included in the comparison.

While the E 84 tunnel serves a useful function for the control of

conventional building materials by the building codes , it should not be

used to evaluate innovative materials for which no documented fire

experience exists.

25
A flame spread hypothesis was presented which can account for the

stopping of the flame in the tunnel for low heat release rate materials

and for the difference in the performance of a material in the E 84 tunnel

test and a room fire test. A self-extinguishing material can be defined

as one whose rate of fuel production when exposed only to its own flame

is insufficient to maintain that flame. If such a the total rate of

heat production by the specimen. The total flame area

can be expressed by

where A^ is the area of the exposing flame, q is the specimen's average

heat release rate per unit area over it's total flame exposed area, and

f is the ratio of the flame area to the total rate of heat release by

the flame. The value of f is assumed to be a constant, equal to 0.022

2 m /kW for this hypothesis, although it may be material and orientation

dependent. If fq ^ 1 the flame will continue to propagate indefinitely.

The flame area is a strong function of q, which depends on the incident

heat flux (which has been observed to be considerably higher on the

average in the room than in the E 84 tunnel). Thus, a material with a low flame spread rating by the E 84 test may spread flame rapidly over the

entire upper surface of a room and produce flashover in a few seconds,

as was the case for material C in Table 5.

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported by the Federal Aviation Administration as part of a more comprehensive review of the correlation between fullscale tests and laboratory fire test results. Mr. Richard Hill was the

contract monitor.

26
6. REFERENCES

[1] ANSI/ASTM E 84-80, 1980 Annual Book of Standards, Part 18, American Society

for Testing and Materials, pp. 795-808.

[2] ANSI/ASTM E 603-77, 1980 Annual Book of Standards, Part 18, American Society

for Testing and Materials, pp. 1158-1180.

[3] ANSI/ASTM E 162-79, 1980 Annual Book of Standards, Part 18, American Society

for Testing and Materials, pp. 902-913.

[4] Parker, W. J. and Long, M. E. , "Development of a Heat Release Rate Calorimeter

at NBS," Ignition, Heat Release, and Noncombustibility of Materials, ASTM

STP 502, American Society for Testing and Materials (1972), pp. 135-151.

[5] Lawson, J. R. and Parker, W. J., "Development of an Ease of Ignition Test

Using a Flame Exposure," NBSIR 82-2503 (June 1982).

[6] Parker, W. J. and Lee, B. T., "A Small-Scale Enclosure for Characterizing

the Fire Buildup Potential of a Room," NBSIR 75-710 (June 1975).

[7] Fang, J. B., "Fire Buildup in a Room and the Role of Interior Finish Materials,"

TN 879, National Bureau of Standards (1975).

[8] Castino, G. T. , Beyreis, J. R., and Metes, W. S., "Flammability Studies of

Cellular Plastics and Other Building Materials Used for Interior Finishes,"

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., Northbrook, Illinois (1975).

[9] Parker, W. J. , "Comparison of Selected Room Fire Tests with ASTM E 84 and

Other Laboratory Fire Tests", NBSIR (to be published).

[10] Budnlck, E. K. , "Fire Spread Along a Mobile Home Corridor," Nat. Bur. Stand.

(U.S.), NBSIR 76-1021 (July 1976).

[11] Budnick, E. K and Klein, D. P., "Mobile Home Fire Studies: Summary and

Recommendations," NBSIR 79-1720 (March 1979).

[12] Budnick, E. K. , "Mobile Home Living Room Fire Studies: The Role of Interior

Finish," Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBSIR 78-1530 (September 1978).

[13] Budnick, E. K. , Klein, D. P., and O'Laughlin, R. J., "Mobile Home Bedroom

Fire Studies: The Role of Interior Finish," Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.),

NBSIR 78-1531 (September 1978).

[14] Quintlere, J. G. and Raines, J. W., "Thermal and Flow Characteristics of

the ASTM E 84 Tunnel Test Method," Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), NBSIR 75-705

(September 1975).

[15] Parker, W. J., "An Investigation of the Fire Environment in the ASTM E 84

Tunnel Test, NBS Technical Note 945 (August 1978).

[16] Parker, W.J., "Calculations of the Heat Release Rate by Oxygen

Consumption for Various Applications," NBSIR 81-2427-1 (March 1982).

27
[17] Carslaw, H.S. and Jaeger, J.C., Conduction of Heat In Solids, 2nd Edition,

Oxford University Press, 1959» p. 75.

[18] Lyons, John W. , Chairman, "Fire Research on Cellular PlasticsiThe Final

Report of the Products Research Committee", Vol. 2, "Materials Bank ' Compendium of Fire Property Data", Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), February 1980. |

[19] D’Souza, M.V. and McGuire, J.H. , "ASTM E 84 and the Flammability of Foamed

Thermosetting Plastics", Fire Technology, Vol. 13, No. 2, May 1977.
Table 1. Comparison of Maximum Room Temperature with Laboratory Fire Tests for

Materials Located on Both Walls and Ceiling in NBS Room Corner Tests

Wall

Material

Maximxam Upper

Gas Temperature

(“C)

E 84

FSC

E 162

FSI

Maximum

Heat Release

2 Rate at 602kW/m

(kW/m^)

Melamine Hardboard 803 226 117 520

Particleboard 719 153 118 210

Acoustic Tile 537 101 60 120

Gypsum Board 129 24 8 74*

Asbestos Cement Board 107 0 0 0

*Short duration pulse due to burning of the paper

29
Table 2. Comparison of Maximum Room Temperature with Laboratory Fire Tests

for Materials Mounted on Wall Only in NBS Room Corner Tests

Wall

Material*

Maximum Upper

Gas Temperature

("c)

E 84

FSC Class

E 162

FSI

Maximum

Heat Release

2

Rate at OO^kW/m

(kW/m )

Melamine Hardboard** 662 226 D 117 520

Fir Plywood 571 103 C 135 160

Particleboard** 549 153 C 118 210

Lauan Plywood 439 167 C 141 170

Acoustic Tile** 390 101 C 60 120

Coated Acoustic Tile 299 70 B 6 60

Vinyl/Gypsum Board 147 33 B 23 60

Gypsum Board** 129 24 A 8 74 ***

*Gypsum board ceiling

**Materials also included in Table 1

***Short duration heat pulse due to burning of paper

30
Table 3. Comparison of Maximum Room Temperature with Laboratory Fire Tests for

Various Wall Materials with an Acoustic Tile Ceiling in NBS Room Cornfer Tests

Wall

Material

Maximum

Upper Gas

Temperature

(°C)

E 84

FSC

Class E 162

FSI

Maximum

Heat Release

^ Rate at 60„kW/m

(kW/m )

Particleboard* 705 153 C 118 210

Melamine Hardboard* 701 226 D 117 520

Fir Plywood 683 103 C 135 160

Acoustic Tile* 537 101 C 60 120

Lauan Plywood 508 167 C 141 170

Vinyl-Coated

Gypsum Board 153 33 B 23 60

*Material included in Table 1

31
Table

4.

Room

Fire

Tests

at

Underwriters

Laboratories

0) CO

Pi

e3.CSJ o B

to

(U PC

to Pi

csvD

CO W

CJ

'O' 00 u

CO W

(Un

B 3

3 4-t z-' B to CJ

•H Vj o X tU to a

c

0) o >

•P iHo

0) >

CM

CTn tH

-O'

fOCO

CM<N

m

CO

CT\

o00

4CCO

00

CO

CO

CM

f"

CMo^

o

o

oCM

COV

o

00

y£i M5

oo

ovO

CM

CO

CM

m

rH

P'.

o

COV

CO

PQ

CM CO

CO

'OCO

'O' oCM

Pi

X

3

C. (U <u 3 3

I—

1

P Cn P Ip M- P fa

to to C_) to U 1 3 U

•H U Pl, P Ph 1— P fa P 3 3 o 33 O *r‘ 3

(U 3 CO 3 <T> •H 3 •H C 3 CO 3 JaS P to • 3 • 35 p 35 fa 3 • 3 O

CO So CM >^rP T5 P 3 P So CM 3 O

s o a 3 3 o P P

T3 o T3 O P TJ • P T3 • o CO

0) CO 3 CO 3 O G H O G C 3 P o

U •H CJ *H 3 O •H O •H •r •H m t3 pH

cO Ss B 3 B M S • B ^ i P P t—

1

to P iH 3 P >:r Pi CM 3 P 3 P 3 00

ti o o 3 0 0 3 P 1—t <— O O O O • P3 CP 3) fP fa 3) fa i-H fa fa iH fa fa fa CQ I-H

32

*Same

as R

with

foil

removed
Table

5.

Comparison

of

Times

to

Flashover

in

Room

Fire

Tests

with

Laboratory

Fire

Tests

in

the

NBS/NRCC

Cooperative

Program

o

•u

QJe

'HH

d

o

•H 00

I—

I

00

• • CN a^ CM CN CD 8 8

I

6

•HX Pi

cn

CO ^

0) CM H o e

(U CM §

cO

(U 33

<2

o

4J

T3 O CM CM O 00 CO 00 o vD <N CD O o CM

FSC 550 m m iH 1—

1

CO rH r—H

U~l

LTl CM oCO

W

i-J §

o

<r

1—

I

CM

CO CO <r iH <! CM

CO CO CO CO CM

00 cn m

'D O o o fH rH 00 00 o o m m Ml O CO CO CO CO CN CM CM rH iH

CO CM rH

1—

I

c (U •H TJO

O }-l IS

4-* 0)> 00 o^ CM m

Q) o tH cn —

1

iH CO ON 00 B CCJ '

t—1 •tH CO CJ H cd CO rH 1 Pm

1—

i

to over a

O

Q ^ CO 00 CN vD 00

CU Xi Pi cn tH 1—

1

iH LO vD a cn •H CC H tH

Pm

in ( tH CO

0) T3O

CJ

PQ U

CM

I W

•H C H O CU CU CU

CU -H c d d

4-1 4-1 cc3 cc) CO

CCJ Dr Xi X rd O

S -H 4-1 4-1 Ml > P4 CU (U QJ Pm CU a P4 P4 P4 tH

CO X) T3 3 ra 3 X) •H

<u •H a •H a •H a •H a CjO tH CCj 00 rH CO 60 rH CO 60 4-1 •H O o •H O O •H 0 O •H •H

Pi P-( Pm Pi Pm Pm Pi P4 Pm Pi 2

a

cOO

Pm

K o Pi Pm CJ5

CU (U

4-1 4-1 cO CO P4 P4 CU 3 3 cn d d tH o XJ cn CO XI CO cO t—

1

P4 cn Po CU pH PM 3 CO cO u CJ o CU r-H O t—

1

X3 o CO o d t—

1

PQ O

O CO CH cn •H CU O •H 1 •H s u P4 Pm po a rH pH a (U (U rH CO •H t—1 cO X X rH o o O o o m m •H •H

PH PM Pm Pm Ph Pm vO CO Pm Pm 33

**When

the

gas

flow

to

the

burner

was

increased

by

50%,

flashover

occurred

in

53
Table 6. Materials Used in the Mobile Home Fire Tests

Material

Designated

Description Symbol

Thickness

(mm) (in)

E 84

FSC

E 162

FSI

Printed, paper-overlaid,

embossed, grooved gypsum

board

W-1 7.92 5/16 24 27

Prefinished, paperoverlaid, grooved lauan

plywood

W-2 6.35 1/4 109 103

Prefinished, printed,

grooved lauan plywood;

intumescent coating

W-3 4.00 5/32 55 2

Prefinished, printed,

grooved lauan plywood

W-4 4.00 5/32 194 149

Prefinished lauan plywood W-5 4.00 5/32 202 159

Prefinished lauan plywood W-9 6.00 1/4 151 198

Prefinished lauan plywood;

intumescent coating

W-10 4.00 5/32 54 9

Prefinished lauan plywood;

fire retardant vinyl

coating

W-11 4.00 5/32 62 56

Vinyl latex prefinished

(12 X 12 in) mineral

f iberboard

C-1 10.30 1/2 19 2

Printed, grooved fiberboard; back surface

exposed

C-2 10.30 1/2 81 152

Prefinished f iberboard

tile (12 X 12 in)

C-3 10.30 1/2 122 80

34
Table 7. Comparison of Maximum Temperatures in Mobile Home

Corridor Fire Tests with ASTM E 84 Flame Spread Ratings

Material

Ceiling Wall

Maximum

Temperature

in Corridor

• (°C)

E 84

FSC

Ceiling Wall

E 162

FSI

Ceiling Wall

C-1 W-4 694 19 194 2 149

C-1 W-2 505 19 109 2 103

C-1 W-3 259 19 55 2 2

C-1 W-1 225 19 24 2 27

C-2 W-4 763 81 194 152 149

C-2 W-3 320 81 55 152 2

C-3 W-4 804 122 194 80 149

C-3 W-4/1* 750 122 — 80 —

C-3 W-1 261 122 24 80 27

W-4 was backed with W-1

35
Table

8.

Comparison

of

Maximum

Temperature

and

Maximum

Heat

Flux

to

the

Floor

with

the

ASTM

E

84

Classifications

in

the

Mobile

Home

Living

Room

Fire

Tests

4-1 QtM

CO 4J

<u CO p3 3rN B 0 0 0 0 0

B CU vO CM m

3 cn 0 IS rH I—

1

rH rH B cO vO

•H (U X 4-1 CO (U CO Pi

CMvO M <3\ 00 vD C3^

1—

1

cn m CT^ 'X) CM

rH rH w

CO

CO

CO 0 C-3 PQ PP <3 rHu

CM 0 vO r-H •O' s <X> vO m 'O' CM

'O' 0 0 rH rH 00 cn

Pl4 w

XI CM rH CN| *0- 'O'

4-1 0 m vO m CM

cn CM rH

X

£ 3 (U /—V 3 rH 33 e 4-1 0 B 0 'O' 00 00 f'' •H 0 m m rH X 4-1 3 rH

is cO 0 3-1 s cu 33

u /—

s

PO

‘H 0 s 3

< 0 g 0 •iH vO 0 CM CJ\ 0 N—

rH I—

1

CM cn 'O' m

U m (U •H 'O' 'O' <r CO rH

0) 0> (N pp CU &. >-l 0

a 3

4-1 B

cO

)-i 60 3 CU § 3

Q &. 0 *rH rH 0 CO \0

•H Q 0 rH rH 00 v£> iH rH rH X <U m CU •iH cn cn cn CM rH

is H CN pp CU 0

rH

CO *H (U r—

i

0

3 X m <Ti r^ rH 1—1 CU 0 1 1 1 1 4-1 CJ S S s s s

CO s

36
Table 9. Comparison of calculated and measured flame spread,

classifications for materials used in the series of

fire tests run at Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

Measured Calculated Measured

Material Code

T P

(s)

_*

2 (kW/m )

fq ** ‘Wx

(ft)

FSC FSC

**

(ft)

Gypsum Wallboard W 39 < 3 < 0.07 < 0.3 < 2 13 2.5

F.R. Particle Board T 71 < 3 < 0.07 < 0.3 < 2 18 3.5

F.R. Wood Fiber Board I 61 < 3 < 0.07 < 0.3 < 2 18 3.5

Unfaced Fiber Glass E 43 < 3 < 0.07 < 0.3 < 2 18 3.5

FR Pl3wood G 39 < 3 < 0.07 < 0.3 < 2 23 4.5

FR Polyisocyanurate A 5 8 0.18 1.0 5 22 4.3

Foil Faced FR

Polyisocyanurate R 20 < 3 < 0.07 < 0.3 < 2 26 5.1

FR Polyisocyanurate S 4 23 0.51 4.5 23 28 5.5

FR Polyurethane C 5 23 0.51 4.5 23 28 5.5

FR Polyurethane B 4 23 0.51 4.5 23 28 5.5

Wood Fiberboard J 31 40 0.88 33 168 54 11

Red Oak AE 49 94 2.1 CO 625 100 00

Particle Board U 47 110 2.4 00 780 156 00

Lauan Plywood H 39 120 2.6 00 1040 178 00

F.R. Polyurethane 0 4 120 2.6 00 10100 1738 CO

Paper Faced Fiber Glass F 9 130 2.9 00 5180 2540 oo

Glass Reinforced

Polyester M - 140 3.1 00 - 367 00

F.R. Polyurethane D - 190 4.2 00 - 925 00

•k _ Since q could not be measured

2 directly , the values of the maximum heat release rates at an external heat flux of 30 kW/m in the NBS heat release rate calorimeter were used instead.

** Feet are used instead of meters since feet is the unit of measurement in the test.

37
O Vertical smoke meter o Radiometer

A Pitot tubes

^ Horizontal smoke meter

A Gas sampling location ® Indicator specimens

X Thermocouple placed at Ml m below the ceiling

0 2 Thermocouples, respectively at 0.025 and 1.22 m below the ceiling

® 5 Thermocouples, at 0.025, 0.25, 0.81, 1.22 & 1.83 m below the ceiling

B 9 Thermocouples at the doorway

Figure 1. Plan view of the burn room showing locations of test panels

and wood crib, and arrangement of instrumentation.

38
183. m|60

’| E —

r* CM

cr>

—

n

M

M

w

4-1 CO

0) 4-1

5-i o

T3

•H

>-i ou

CO c o

•H 4-1 CO

0)

CU

CO CO 3 CC3

0) ,G B

4J

O

r! &

(1) T3

r—1

OJ •H 3

CU

O > B o

CJ

4-1 4i o CO CCJ C O 3 O -Q 3 *H I—1 4-1 a. 3 U (U u a O CO CU o1—1 o

[J4 1 <

CNI

GJUD

bO

•H

t4-l

C9 1

39

Draft

curtain

extended

down

20

cm

from

ceiling
40
LIVING

ROOM

BEOROOM

Moderate

Intensity

Exposure

Fire

Moderate

Intensity

Exposure

Fire

(Upholstered

chair

or

sofa)

(Upholstered

chair)

X sivmaivM nvM

cj: c/o

(i0) <T o

a. 2: X hOJ in<

>>

Ui c

•H

O

WC 'V

<D <U XJ (fi C

•H ^

0) 4^

B

CO

O

u o

O)

u

T3 -O o 0> B J2

1-4 'TD C C

U-i CT3 E

<U

C o c

•H

U

uu tiC CO C E >

ro

JCON'

O

fO -C 4.J c

CO TEC

Qj 0> 4-» U

CO T- <

01u30£

41
LIVING

ROOM

Low

Intensity

Exposure

Fire

[Standardized

wood

crib)

<u>k*03 o to 03 A > o k.03

4-» C/> o JO c o

03>o o03

4->

</> >o

JZ 03

to (/3 JS CO

Ll_ Li42

Figure

5.

Material

hazard

matrix

for

low

intensity

exposure

fire

in

living

room

(based

on

ASTM E

84

FSC)
1700

(Do) 3dfUVd3dl^31 o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o O

a> 00 E- to lO M" rO cvj oo

<T>

00 5o_JUJ

QDEE

in ijj 00^ < a:

u<

u.

cr3

cn

rj

UJCOo

CLX

u

<r

Li. o:a

to

too

CLX

t£> m -

ro -

CM

00

CJ

toCM

CM

CM

CM

OO o o o o o o o o o o o o O

O o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o O o t£) m fO CM — o CD 00 CD If) ro CM

T3C

CO

—

CM XI

<u

COo

CL 3 o « 3

CM 0) e

•H bO O C cu o CL QD

0> cO

CO

0) CQ u. C s o

£T •H CD

4-1 4-1 UJ 3 o 2 lD cr •H CO z> L4 0) 00 •u o

CO •H 3

4-1 o

X) 3P

cr OJ CO u. Li CM UJ 3

4J

X

OJ o CO CO Li o < QJ CL h- CL X

g

co S

0)

cuc

C2>

H 3

to

00

0)

L43

00

•H CD

(do) 3dniVd3<dlM31

43
DISTANCE FROM BURNER (m)

2 4 6 50

40

30

20

10

Figure 7. Incident heat flux distribution along an AMB specimen.

44

HEAT

FLUX

(kW/m^)
TEMPERATURE

(*F)

2100 2

DISTANCE (m)

4 6

2000

1900

1800

1700

1600

1500

1400

1300

1200

1100

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

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

DISTANCE (Feet)

Figure 8. Temperatures distribution along exposed and unexposed

surfaces of AMB specimen fully bathed in flame

- 1000

-900

-800

700

-600

-500

-400

-300

J200

45

TEMPERATURE

(°C)
DISTANCE (m)

60

50

40

30

20

10

Figure 9. Incident heat flux distribution along an AMB

specimen fully covered with flame.

46

HEAT

FLUX

(kW/m*)
TEMPERATURE

|°C|

|um>l 1H9I3H

47

Figure

10.

Centerline

air

temperature

profiles

at

various

distances

in

the

tunnel

for

an

ACB

specimen

at

10

minutes.
TOTAL

FLOW

RATE

(L/s)

|ui) 33NV1SI0

|)33L) 33NV1SIQ

48

Figure

11.

Flame

spread

distance

versus

total

methane

flow

rate

in
TOTAL RATE OF HEAT RELEASE (kW)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 „O

TOTAL RATE OF HEAT RELEASE (Btu/sec)

Figure 12. Flame distance versus total heat release rate in

the tunnel

49

FLAME

EXTENSION

(m)
DISTANCE

(mj

(s zui/3] 2m mnm 3Dvu3av

- zU/sqi) im mmm bdvdbav

M

50

Figure

13.

Average

burning

rate

distribution

along

a

type
DISTANCE

FROM

BURNER

(meters)

(luiuj Hld3Q aaSOdNODlQ

( U!| Hld3Q Q3S0dN033a

51

Figure

14.

Decomposed

depth

versus

distance

for

type

B

specimen.
(}U33J3d| 133J 81 IV N0I1VU1N33N03 N33AX0

(;u33J3d| 133J 01 IV N0liVUiN33N03 N39AX0

5 .

52

i

;

It

Figure

15.

Chart

record

of

oxygen

concentration

on

the

floor

of

the

tunnel

at

10

and

18

feet

for

a

type

B

specimen

(1

foot

=

0.305

meters)
NBS-114A (REV. 8-78)

\ ^ -'w «>N^V' :V

V.' '" . it

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 82-2564

Z* ftecifjtfertt's A<ic0$i?joi4 No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

An Assessment of Correlations Between Laboratory and Full

Scale Experiments for the FAA Aircraft Fire Safety Program,

Part 3: ASTM E 84

5. Publicaiion Daie January 1983

Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

W. J. Parker

8. Performing Organ. Report No. DOT/FAA/CT-82/133

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

iC, Ptoject/Tdak/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS City, S/^ie, zjp)

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Technical Center

Atlantic City Airport. NJ 08405

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

Ll

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS SofUvsre Si’mmary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200~word or less factual summary of most sign* fi ant inforcAiaiion, If document includes a significant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here,) A comparison is presented between the i^ooui fire performance in four

different full scale fire test series and the. flame spread classification

obtained by the ASTM E 84 tunnel test r a vide range of materials.

A good correlation is obtained only for coDventional interior finish

materials. A flame spread hypothesis is presented to account for the

stopping of the flame in the tunnel end the difference in the fire

performance of materials in the tunnel te.^t and in the room fire test.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitef^xe orty the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons)

ASTM E 84; fire tests; flame spread; heat release; room fires

18. AVAILABILITY HUnlimited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

I 1 Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, V^'cshington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Sonngfield, VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

57

22. Price

$ 9.00

USCOMM-DC
y.^^ -•-• .V^|tVJkVlr4%»*l .9R‘^t}iCW3f fJO^W .t. ”

. f* ^ ! ATAdSJ'M'IAUOOl — - Ad£S-S§ ataftH i 7 a3Hf - —- - --- —— - *

. - - - uTtraua oiw'ajTiT-#'!

ifiy!|,J>du ^o3*iri^aJ <^>awifik3 aaoi^sJtsTrttO %6 ^n»ifliit*a«A IJA I'l&toTiH hAH a^3

A$ a «r^A

#%

zQftAaMT' ^0 liiiiauiua 3:3i93«M03 Id TH3«»7»A#a

. Utos paJforawl^w ^

jr344«o''c«/^'i|<M»- W>|TA5^H<LiW 4

1' > “ *

' nj.**

'^- oot3ikJ*x6^aaBiT 2aa*:»*l»qiw

iml3ft'X3 ainla£A. a ^ i tsM'lj JLfcajgJfbS

23TOK I >» ATldg

g^j

1^ «T!»yj..‘ -I i'nSTVnq •« 6 aaCl|K>fli> tt>^r^>oC f^. v

r»i> =*•! w te\w»-

; ftfo) ni ^:7njBanrii^^Sf<» i>Ti* naawfiod ba^/zaa&nrq ^ ^

Wg;i|l bnaaqa a*:;s - f);f f v»B eai rt® 3pt»3 ;5Tii IlijuJjinsisSiil?

. 3a»; byjtnw>> »Vii 3 KTRA ,

ct »

5?I«J^«5£aa lo i (ftf tHWarlft:tcJd j

iaL^5*^li^3n.t..i5 ..i*) '^ia j b^iAjda »> rroti’el’^rfifei hoot 4

l...

03 • \% ttE«,i<3<<q':if“trfe^’rq& ^JLT!l ‘'r, alalia “ ^ i’t i^nw-t^ $A‘3 ul v«8i‘$ ad3 -

'’ri> r»i! kdf. 3? ^ ^

»if» .•* aItJ7ia3R<n "5o

tf* '^2 1

lT»

•'.'•••'ll 13 3; 01 1* M011¥iUN35«f6j JI39AX0

1

«<ciM< «w«* • s--!k“ <r»» •!<* '••>»< te^Vi •<<• ri$ v««VV ’ ' •) •‘•1 V3J1 *Vt

'» •tV%3»Mt*<'^ .*»«•*!»•* •a^l *0031 nSia^lsr* tuaii ;b«9Tqe ;d3oa3 ;A?*^ Hl^ZA

e? ' yi|

a

,-i^ , 1lp v>a.l\

-1* Ti

"S^AJolTInu^rir

fril0^3« tjM )

15u^ M

(SOAqirtfr.

(i l»n«5t3U5»»0

VTU»AJ»AVA,

iJTK tt iHiMhDI } 44t «a t«*Q, isatliO Q

S

20 ,r*ai| vw rV . /jtnO inking lesKWHVi^ *t.U ,.y«0 l<t ,du2 i#b)0 1. J t, -{a(WDrtf .»ji^ ^ J

? ^ r

js _. HIM. .Ay-,-

>0 -4<vty>*j»^

Tf. si'^

'i

I

i