NAT'L INST, OF STAND & TECH

lllllillllllllllll NI8T

A111D7 lE2T7b

PUBLICATIONS

NIST TN 1658

Impact of Sprinklers on the Fire Hazard in Dormitories:

Sleeping Room Fire Experiments

Daniel Madrzykowski

William D. Walton

FEMA

Sponsored in part by

Department of Homeland Security

Federal Emergency Management Agency

United States Fire Administration

Nisr

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

QC

100

.U5753

#1658

2010

C.2

NIST TN 1658

Impact of Sprinklers on the Fire Hazard in Dormitories:

Sleeping Room Fire Experiments

Daniel Madrzykowski

William D. Walton

Fire Research Division

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

National Institute ofStandards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8661

January 2010

-^^'^OFco^

'^AD '^V'^ FEMA

Department of Homeland Security

Janet Napolitano, Secretary

Federal Emergency Management Association

Craig Fugate, Administrator

United States Fire Administration

Kelvin J. Cochran, Assistant Administrator

*^4rES o*

'^

U.S. Department of Commerce

Gary Locke, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

Patrick Gallagher, Director

Impact of Sprinklers on the Fire Hazard in Dormitories:

Sleeping Room Fire Experiments

Daniel Madrzykowski and William D. Walton

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Abstract

As part of a U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) initiative to improve fire safety in college housing,

the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted two series of full-scale fire experiments in abandoned dormitory buildings. The objective of the study was to compare the

levels of hazard created by room fires in a dormitory building with and without automadc fire sprinklers in the room of fire origin.

Five experiments were conducted which included variables such as an open/closed door between

the room of origin and the corridor, and with/without sprinklers in the room of origin. Gas

temperatures and concentrations (oxygen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide) were measured

continuously in each experiment. This report contains analysis of the data collected and a

detailed discussion of the experimental conditions, such as fuel load in the room of origin,

geometry and construction of the room, and the locations of instrumentation. The results of this

study demonstrate the potential life safety benefits of smoke alarms, compartmentation, and

automatic fire sprinkler systems in college dormitories and similar occupancies. These

experiments were conducted by NIST in cooperation with the University of Arkansas and the

Fayetteville Fire Department.

The other series of experiments was conducted with the fires initiated in a day room area open to the corridor of the dormitory. These experiments were conducted by NIST in cooperation with

the Myrtle Beach Air Force Base Redevelopment Authority, the Myrtle Beach Fire Department,

and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The results of these experiments are presented in the report. Impact ofSprinklers on the Fire Hazard in Dormitories: Day Room Fire

Experiments, NISTIR 7120.

For further information on the USFA College Campus Fire Safety Program contact: www.usfa.dhs.gov/citizens/college/.

Key Words: corridor tests; dormitories; fire data; gas concentrations; heat flux; large scale fire tests; sprinklers; temperature measurements; tenability

ni
Disclaimer

Certain trade names or company products are mentioned in the text to specify adequately the

experimental procedure and equipment used. In no case does such identification imply

recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the equipment is the best available for the purpose.

Regarding Non-Metric Units: The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology

is to use metric units in all its published materials. To aid the understanding of this report, in

most cases, measurements are reported in both metric and U.S. customary units, in some cases

the conversion will have been rounded.

IV
Acknowledgements

The authors would Hke to thank the University of Arkansas, especially Mr. John Wichser,

Associate Director for Residential Facilities and the Fayetteville Fire Department, especially

Chief Terry Lawson, for supporting the conduct of the experiments and providing logistical and

fire fighting support. The authors would like to recognize Mr. Laurean DeLauter and Mr. Jay

McElroy of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory at NIST, Ms. Sarah Thompson and Mr.

William Twilley formerly with NIST and Mr. Scott Dillon formerly of the ATF Fire Research

Laboratory for the invaluable support that they provided during this series of experiments.

The authors also wish to thank Jonathan Kent for the application of his programming talents

which enabled improved data analysis capabilities and graph generation.

Finally, the authors express gratitude to the United States Fire Administration and Mr. Larry

Maruskin for their sponsorship and support of this important research program.
Table of Contents

Abstract iii Disclaimer iv

Acknowledgements v

Table of Contents vi

List of Figures viii

List of Tables xii

1 Introduction 1

2 Technical Approach 2

2.1 Experimental Arrangement 2

2.2 Dormitory Building 2

2.3 Room Contents 7

2.4 Instrumentation 13

2.5 Uncertainty Analysis 17

2.6 Experimental Procedure 18

3 Results 19

3.1 Experiment 1: Closed Door, Non-Sprinklered 19

3.1.1 Experiment Timeline 19

3.1.2 Smoke Alarm and Sprinkler Activation Times 20

3.1.3 Temperature Data 20

3.1.4 Gas Concentrations 24

3.1.5 Heat Flux Data 26

3.2 Experiment 2: Closed Door, Sprinklered 27

3.2.1 Experiment Timeline 27

3.2.2 Smoke Alarm and Sprinkler Activation Times 28

3.2.3 Temperature Data 29

3.2.4 Gas Concentrations 32

3.2.5 Heat Flux Data 34

3.3 Experiment 3: Open Door, Sprinklered 35

3.3.1 Experiment Timeline 35

3.3.2 Smoke Alarm and Sprinkler Activation Times 36

3.3.3 Temperature Data 37

3.3.4 Gas Concentrations 40

3.3.5 Heat Flux Data 42

3.4 Experiment 4: Open Door, Non-Sprinklered 43

3.4.1 Experiment Timeline 43

3.4.2 Smoke Alarm and Sprinkler Activation Times 44

vi
3.4.3 Temperature Data 45

3.4.4 Gas Concentrations 49

3.4.5 Heat Flux Data 51

3.5 Experiment 5: Open Door, Non-Sprinklered 52

3.5.1 Experiment Timeline 52

3.5.2 Smoke Alarm and Sprinkler Activation Times 53

3.5.3 Temperature Data 54

3.5.4 Gas Concentrations 58

3.5.5 Heat Flux Data 60

4 Discussion 62

4.1 Closed Door Experiments 62

4.2 Comparison of the Non-Sprinklered Experiments 66

4.3 Comparison of Open Door, Sprinklered versus Non-sprinklered

Experiments 72

4.4 Summary 78

5 Conclusions 81

6 References 82

Vll
List of Figures

Figure 2.2-1. Photograph of the outside of the northwest wing of the dormitory building, looking

southwest 3

Figure 2.2-2. Photograph of the instrumented corridor in the northwest wing of the dormitory

building, looking east 4

Figure 2.2-3. Floor plan of the northwest corridor 5

Figure 2.2-4. Floor plan of a typical dorm room used in the experiments 6

Figure 2.3-1. Furnishing arrangement of a typical dorm room used in the experiments 7

Figure 2.3-2. Photograph of fixed ftimishings composed of wood chest of drawers, wood

shelves and peg board cabinet closet doors 8

Figure 2.3-3. Photograph of the bed fuel package 9

Figure 2.3-4. Photograph of the desk fuel package 10

Figure 2.3-5. Photograph showing clothing and closet fuel load arrangement 1

1

Figure 2.3-6. Photograph of ignition fuel package positioned between the desk and the bed

closest to the window 12

Figure 2.4-1. Floor plan of dorm room with instrumentation locations 14

Figure 2.4-2. Floor plan of corridor with instrumentation locations 15

Figure 3.1-1. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 in Experiment 1, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 21

Figure 3.1-2. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 2 in Experiment 1, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 22

Figure 3.1-3. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 3 in Experiment 1, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 23

Figure 3.1-4. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 4 in Experiment 1, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 23

Figure 3.1-5. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 5 in Experiment 1, hsted

by distance below ceiling (BC) 24

Figure 3.1-6. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling point at 1.52 m above

the floor at location 1 in Experiment 1 25

Figure 3.1-7. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above the

floor at location 4 in Experiment 1 26

Figure 3.1-8. Heat flux versus time data for the heat flux gauges at locations 3, 4, and 5 in the

orientations up (vert) and sideways (horz) 27

Figure 3.2-1. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 in Experiment 2, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 30

Figure 3.2-2. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 2 in Experiment 2, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 30

Figure 3.2-3. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 3 in Experiment 2, hsted

by distance below ceiling (BC) 31

Figure 3.2-4. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 4 in Experiment 2, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 31

Figure 3.2-5. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 5 in Experiment 2, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 32

viii
Figure 3.2-6. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above the

floor at location 1 in Experiment 2 33

Figure 3.2-7. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1 .52 m above the

floor at location 4 in Experiment 2 34

Figure 3.2-8. Heat flux versus time data for the heat flux gauges at locations 3, 4, and 5 in the

orientations up (U) and sideways (S) in Experiment 2 35

Figure 3.3-1. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 in Experiment 3, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 37

Figure 3.3-2. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 2 in Experiment 3, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 38

Figure 3.3-3. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 3 in Experiment 3, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 39

Figure 3.3-4. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 4 in Experiment 3, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 39

Figure 3.3-5. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 5 in Experiment 3, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 40

Figure 3.3-6. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above the

floor at location 1 in Experiment 3 41

Figure 3.3-7. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above the

floor at location 4 in Experiment 3 42

Figure 3.3-8. Heat flux versus time data for the heat flux gauges at locations 3, 4, and 5 in the

orientations up (vert.) and sideways (horz.) in Experiment 3 43

Figure 3.4-1. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 in Experiment 4, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 46

Figure 3.4-2. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 2 in Experiment 4, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 46

Figure 3.4-3. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 3 in Experiment 4, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 47

Figure 3.4-4. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 4 in Experiment 4, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 48

Figure 3.4-5. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 5 in Experiment 4, listed

by distance below ceihng (BC) 48

Figure 3.4-6. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above the

floor at location 1 in Experiment 4 50

Figure 3.4-7. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above the

floor at location 4 in Experiment 4 51

Figure 3.4-8. Heat flux versus time data for the heat flux gauges at locations 3, 4, and 5 in the

orientations up (U) and sideways (S) in Experiment 4 52

Figure 3.5-1. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 in Experiment 5, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 55

Figure 3.5-2. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 2 in Experiment 5, listed

by distance below ceihng (BC) 55

IX
Figure 3.5-3. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 3 in Experiment 5, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 56

Figure 3.5-4. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 4 in Experiment 5, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 57

Figure 3.5-5. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 5 in Experiment 5, listed

by distance below ceiling (BC) 57

Figure 3.5-6. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above the

floor at location 1 in Experiment 5 59

Figure 3.5-7. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above the

floor at location 4 in Experiment 5 60

Figure 3.5-8. Heat flux versus time data for the heat flux gauges at locations 3, 4, and 5 in the

orientations up (vert.) and sideways (horz.) in Experiment 5 61

Figure 4.1-1. Post fire photographs of the dorm room for Experiment 1 (non-sprinklered) on the

left and Experiment 2 (sprinklered) on the right 63

Figure 4.1-2. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 from Experiment 1 and 2

at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 64

Figure 4.1-3. Oxygen concentrations versus time in the dorm room from Experiment 1 and 2 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 65

Figure 4.1-4. Carbon dioxide concentrations versus time in the dorm room from Experiment 1 and 2 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 65

Figure 4.1-5. Carbon monoxide concentrations versus time in the dorm room from Experiment 1 and 2 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 66

Figure 4.2-1. Post fire photographs of the dorm room for Experiment 1 (door closed) on the left and Experiment 5 (door open) on the right 66

Figure 4.2-2. Post fire photographs of the corridor for Experiment 1 (door closed) on the left and

Experiment 5 (door open) on the right 67

Figure 4.2-3. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 from Experiment 1, 4

and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 68

Figure 4.2-4. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 4 from Experiment 1, 4

and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 68

Figure 4.2-5. Oxygen concentrations versus time in the dorm room from Experiment 1, 4 and 5

at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 69

Figure 4.2-6. Oxygen concentrations versus time in the corridor from Experiment 1, 4 and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 70

Figure 4.2-7. Carbon dioxide concentrations versus time in the dorm room from Experiment 1, 4

and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 70

Figure 4.2-8. Carbon dioxide concentrations versus time in the corridor from Experiment 1, 4

and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 71

Figure 4.2-9. Carbon monoxide concentrations versus time in the dorm room from Experiment

1, 4 and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 71

Figure 4.2-10. Carbon monoxide concentrations versus time in the corridor from Experiment 1, 4 and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 72
Figure 4.3-1. Post fire photographs for Experiment 3 (sprinklered) on the left and Experiment 4

(non-sprinklered) on the right 73

Figure 4.3-2. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 from Experiment 3, 4

and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 74

Figure 4.3-3. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 4 from Experiment 3, 4

and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 74

Figure 4.3-4. Oxygen concentrations versus time in the dorm room from Experiment 3, 4 and 5

at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 75

Figure 4.3-5. Oxygen concentrations versus time in the corridor from Experiment 3, 4 and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 75

Figure 4.3-6. Carbon dioxide concentrations versus time in the dorm room from Experiment 3, 4

and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 76

Figure 4.3-7. Carbon dioxide concentrations versus time in the corridor from Experiment 3, 4

and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 76

Figure 4.3-8. Carbon monoxide concentrations versus time in the dorm room from Experiment

3, 4 and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 77

Figure 4.3-9. Carbon monoxide concentrations versus time in the corridor from Experiment 3, 4

and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor 77

XI
List of Tables

Table 2.3-1.

Table 2.3-2.

Table 2.3-3.

Table 2.3-4.

Table 2.3-5.

Table 2.6-1.

Table 3.1-1.

Table 3.1-2.

Table 3.1-3.

Table 3.2-1.

Table 3.2-2.

Table 3.2-3.

Table 3.3-1.

Table 3.3-2.

Table 3.3-3.

Table 3.4-1.

Table 3.4-2.

Table 3.4-3.

Table 3.5-1.

Table 3.5-2.

Table 3.5-3.

Table 4.4-1.

Table 4.4-2.

Fixed furnishings and interior finish 8

Bed fuel package 9

Desk fuel package 10

Clothing and closet contents 1

Ignition fuel package 12

Setup for the 5 experiments 18

Timeline for Experiment Number 1 19

Dorm Room Experiment 1, Smoke Alarm Activation Times 20

Dorm Room Experiment 1, Sprinkler Activation Times 20

Timeline for Experiment Number 2 28

Dorm Room Experiment 2, Smoke Alarm Activation Times 28

Dorm Room Experiment 2, Sprinkler Activation Times 28

Timeline for Experiment Number 3 36

Dorm Room Experiment 3, Smoke Alarm Activation Times 36

Dorm Room Experiment 3, Sprinkler Activation Times 36

Timeline for Experiment Number 4 44

Dorm Room Experiment 4, Smoke Alarm Activation Times 45

Dorm Room Experiment 4, Sprinkler Activation Times 45

Timeline for Experiment Number 5 53

Dorm Room Experiment 5, Smoke Alarm Activation Times 54

Dorm Room Experiment 5, Sprinkler Activation Times 54

Sprinkler and Smoke Alarm Activation Times and Temperatures at Those Devices

at the Time of Activation 79

Time to Reach Given Untenability Criteria (Red) or Most Significant Tenability

Risk Encountered (Blue) for the Dorm Room and Corridor 79

xn
1 Introduction

From 2003 through 2006 there was an estimated annual average of 3,370 structure fires in

dormitory or barracks occupancies in the United States. Of the reported structure fires in

dormitory properties, only 5% of the fires originated in the bedroom or sleeping room. However,

this small percentage of fires resulted in 62% of the civilian fire deaths and 26% of civilian fire injuries [1].

As part of the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) initiative to improve fire safety in college

housing, the Nafional Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted two series of full- scale fire experiments in abandoned dormitory buildings. The objective of the study was to compare the levels of hazard created by room fires in a dormitory building with and without

automatic fire sprinklers in the room of fire origin, hi addition, the effect of a closed door was

examined.

One series of experiments was designed with the fires starting in a day room or lounge area open

to the corridor of the dormitory. These experiments were conducted by NIST in cooperation

with the Myrtle Beach Air Force Base Redevelopment Authority, the Myrtle Beach Fire

Department, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The results of these

experiments are presented in the report, Impact ofSprinklers on the Fire Hazard in Dormitories:

Day Room Fire Experiments, NISTIR 7120 [2].

The series of experiments presented in this report were designed with the fires starting in a dormitory sleeping room. These experiments were conducted by NIST in cooperation with the

University of Arkansas and the Fayetteville, Arkansas Fire Department.

This paper documents experiments conducted to examine the fire development, the spread of hot

gases outside the fire room, and the effectiveness of an automatic sprinkler system in suppressing

the fire. Five fire experiments were conducted:

1) Fire room door closed, non-sprinklered

2) Fire room door closed, sprinklered

3) Fire room door open, sprinklered

4) Fire room door open, non-sprinklered

5) Fire room door open, non- sprinklered

The experiments were conducted in an abandoned college dormitory building located on the

University of Arkansas Campus in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
2 Technical Approach

Opportunities to conduct real scale fire experiments in a structure are rare. These experiments

are important, because they provide the nearest simulation of "real world" conditions, in terms of

geometry, materials and building elements, heat loss to the structure, ventilation, and volume.

Fire experiments were conducted in an unoccupied college dormitory building that was slated for

demolition.

Measurements were made to quantify and differentiate the level of hazard and the rate of hazard

development in both sprinklered and non-sprinklered student sleeping rooms and the adjacent

corridor. Temperature, oxygen, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide concentration

measurements were made in the sleeping rooms (room of fire origin) and in the corridor. Smoke

alarm activation and sprinkler activation times were also recorded. In addition, heat flux

measurements in the corridor were made to provide information on the thermal conditions to which fire fighters approaching the room of origin would be exposed. The experiments were

also recorded with video cameras.

Each sleeping room was furnished with similar furniture, computers and related equipment,

clothing and decorations representative of an actual dorm room. The fuel load was described,

weighed and documented for each room, as means to obtain a similar fuel load in each dorm

room. The experimental approach permitted the examination of the impact of an automatic fire sprinkler (suppression system) in a real-scale college dormitory building. The other key issue

examined was the impact of a closed door (compartmentation) on conditions inside the room of

fire origin as well as the spread of heat and combustion gases to the corridor. Commercially

available ionization smoke alarms were also installed in the sleeping rooms and in the corridor to measure the time to alarm. Each experiment involved the ignition of a small fire in one sleeping room.

2.1 Experimental Arrangement

With the cooperation of the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville and the Fayetteville Fire

Department, the experiments were conducted in an unoccupied dormitory building that was

constructed in the 1950s. The building was of fire resistive construction.

2.2 Dormitory Building

The building used for the experiments was a four-story, dormitory building. The floors and

ceilings of the building were poured concrete and the walls were made from concrete block with

brick covering the exterior. Each floor of the building had four residential wings, two on the

north side of the building and two on the south. The two wings on each of the north and the

south sides of the building were separated by an open air stairway. The north and south sides of

the building were joined by bathroom and shower facilities on the east and western portion of the
building with an open air walkway in between. The overall footprint of the building, including

the two courtyards, was approximately 95 m (310 ft) by 39 m (128 ft).

The first floor of the northwest wing of the building was chosen for the experiments based on the

pristine condition of the dorm rooms. Photographs of the exterior and interior of the northwest

wing are shown in Figure 2.2-1 and Figure 2.2-2. In Figure 2.2-2 the sleeping rooms are on the

left side of the corridor and a courtyard can be seen through the windows on the right.

The length of the corridor was 19.81 m (65.00 ft). The corridor was 2.54 m (8.33 ft) wide with a

ceiling height of 2.39 m (7.83 ft). The rooms were located on the north side of the corridor.

Windows comprised the upper portion of the south wall of the corridor. The single pane

windows were 1.33 m (4.38 ft) high with 0.83 m (2.70 ft) window sill height above the floor. A

door, 0.98 m (3.23 ft) wide and 2.02 m (6.63 ft) high, provided access to the corridor from the

east end of the corridor. This door was kept closed during the fire experiments. A smoke curtain

made of gypsum board was installed on the west end of the corridor to limit smoke flow into the

portion of the corridor that led to the shower rooms and connected the southwest corridor of the

building. An area 1.55 m (5.08 ft) wide and 1.07 m (3.5 ft) was left open under the smoke

curtain to prevent pressure increase in the corridor during the fire.

Figure 2.2-1. Photograph of the outside of the northwest wing of the dormitory building,

looking southwest.
Figure 2.2-2. Photograph of the instrumented corridor in the northwest wing of the

dormitory building, looking east.

Five rooms of identical size, Dorm Room 1 through Dorm Room 5, each connected to the

corridor, were used for the fire experiments (Figure 2.2-3). The inside dimensions of each room

were: 4.47 m (14.66 ft) deep, 3.45 m (1 1.33 ft) wide and 2.39 m (7.83 ft) high. The doorway to the corridor was 0.73 m (2.40 ft) wide by 2.03 m (6.65 ft) high.

The dorm room doors were solid core, wood doors, 35.00 mm (1.375 in) thick. Gaps between

the steel door frame and the door were 5 mm ± 2 mm, due in part to rubber bumpers mounted in

the door frames. There was no gasket of any kind used to seal the gap between the doors and the

door frames. There was a 12 mm (0.5 in) gap between the bottom of the door and the corridor

floor.

The single pane windows on the exterior wall of the dorm room were composed of three sections

of glass 0.84 m (2.77 ft) wide and 1.49 m (4.88 ft) high with a window sill height of

0.83 m (2.71 ft). The glass was mounted in an aluminum fi-ame. The floor plan of a dorm room

is given in Figure 2.2-4.
(U -a

Q.ou

Cil

OouooQ. E y

t5

Boo

(N

D oo

Pi \/

Q.O

u. ooo ^ o

Q. +^ceOu

X oo oou

4-» 10ococ

Q.OO

UO

rg

013

CUD
t.N

Window Sills - 0.83 m Above floor

Window Openings - 1 .49 m High

0.84 m^^—0.84 m^-—0.84 m

4.47 m

0.63 m—

Ceiling

2.39 mH

0.73 m—^0.73 m- 2.01 m

2.03 m H

3.45 m

Figure 2.2-4. Floor plan of a typical dorm room used in the experiments

6
2.3 Room Contents

Each room was furnished in a similar manner. The furnishings were typical of items found in

college dormitory sleeping rooms: twin beds, desks, computers, books, clothing, towels, posters,

carpeting, a television, and a radio. A complete list of the items in the rooms and a brief

description and the mass of each item is given in Table 2.3-1 through Table 2.3-5. The tables are categorized by the type or area of fuel load and include the fixed furnishings and interior finish

(Table 2.3-1), the bed fuel package (Table 2.3-2), the desk fuel package (Table 2.3-3), clothing

and closet contents (Table 2.3-4), and the ignifion fuel package (Table 2.3-5).

N

Plastic

Storage Crates

Figure 2.3-1. Furnishing arrangement of a typical dorm room used in the experiments

7
Table 2.3-1 contains the portion of the fuel load that was composed of interior finish materials,

wall hangings and the wooden fixed furniture which lined one side of each of the dorm rooms. A photograph of the wooden chest of drawers, closet and shelves is provided in Figure 2.3-5.

Table 2.3-1. Fixed furnishings and interior finish

Item # Materials

Dimensions (m) Individual

Mass (kg)

Total

W(m) L(m) H(m) Mass (kg)

Padding 1 Urethane foam 12.55 (area m==) 0.012 7.1 7.1

Carpeting 1 88% olefin, 12% nylon, "26

oz", 14 tuft, 5200 density

12.55 (area m^) 0.008 25.0 25.0

Bulletin board 1 Cork Board w/ Aluminum

Frame

0.610 0.914 0.013 1.75 3.5

Posters 4

2 - poster board

2 - poster paper

0.3

Chests 2 Pine 0.514 0.775 0.464 26.5 53.0

Closet doors 4 Peg board (hard board) 0.927 0.006 1.962 6.4 25.6

Center shelving 1 Pine 0.305 4.775 0.025 12.4 12.4

Upper shelf 2 Pine 0.292 1.753 0.018 6.0 12.0

Lower shelf 2 Pine 0.387 1.753 0.018 4.5 9.0 Upper slider 4 Peg board (hard board) 0.318 1.219 0.006 2.6 10.4

Roll-up blind 1 Vinyl 9.5 mm slat 2.667 1.829 4.4 4.4

Total 162.7

Figure 2.3-2. Photograph of fixed furnishings composed of wood chest of drawers, wood

shelves and peg board cabinet closet doors

8
Table 2.3-2 lists all of the materials that made up the fuel load of the bed and items that were

placed on the bed. A photograph of the bed fuel load is provided in Figure 2.3-3.

Table 2.3-2. Bed fuel package

Item # Materials

Dimensions Individual

Mass (kg)

Total

W(m) L(m) H(m) Mass (kg)

Mattress 2

Resin Treated Textile clippings - 58% Urethane foam - 42% 0.97 1.9 0.63 16.2 32.4

Bed Pad 2 100% polyurethane foam 0.86 1.83 0.03 0.7 1.4 Bedding, Flat Sheet, Fitted Sheet, Pillow

Case

2 100% Cotton Twin bed size 1.2 2.4

Pillows 4

Cover - 50% Cotton, 50%

polyurethane Stuffed with 100%

polyester fiber

0.5 0.71 0.75 3.0

Stuffed animals 5 Polyester filled 2.6

Backpacks 2 Nylon 0.4 0.8

Bed Cover 2 100% Polyester 1.3 2.6

Total 45.2

Figure 2.3-3. Photograph of the bed fuel package
Table 2.3-3 lists the materials that made up the desk fuel package, which included the desk chair,

computer equipment, plastic crate shelving with notebooks and paper products. Figure 2.3-4

shows the desk fuel package.

Table 2.3-3. Desk fuel package

Item # Description / Materials

Dimensions Individual

Mass (kg)

Total

W(m) L(m) H(m) Mass (kg)

Desk Chair

Back cushion

Seat cushion

2

Plastic Shell - PP Seat Cover - Olefin 40%, Acrylic 40%, Nylon

20% Pad - Polyurethane Foam

100%

0.53

0.46

0.53

0.58

0.41

0.46

0.91

0.08

0.09

10.7 21.4

Desk 2 Laminated particle board 1.21 0.62 0.72 39.0 78.0

Desk lamp 2 Polystyrene 0.58 0.23 0.25 0.7 1.4

Monitor 2

15 in. monitor / FR ABS Plastic

Monitor Case

0.36 0.39 0.3 12.9 25.8

Keyboard 2 Plastic 0.45 0.2 0.04 1.5 3.0 Computer 2 Plastic front, steel shell 0.4 0.38 0.1 7.8 15.6

Printer 1 Plastic case 0.48 0.46 0.22 20.2 20.2

File crates 8 Self stacking /HOPE 0.44 0.36 0.29 1.0 8.0 Stationary Notebooks, paper etc 107.2 107.2

Telephones 2 Plastic Shell, Metal Base 0.6 1.2 Total 281.8

Figure 2.3-4. Photograph of the desk fuel package

10
Table 2.3-4 provides a list of clothing materials which were located in the closet, in the laundry

hampers and, in the case of shoes on the floor, next to the bed. The radio, television, towels and

toiletries were located on the wooden fixed furnishings as shown in Figure 8. Smaller items such

as the shampoos and lotions are not included in Table 2.3-4.

Table 2.3-4. Clothing and closet contents

Item # Materials

Dimensions Individual

Mass (kg)

Total

W(m) L(m) H(m) Mass (kg)

Radio/CD Player 1 Plastics 0.362 0.21 0.15 2.3 2.3

Clothing 1 Cotton, polyester 90.0 90.0

Shoes (pair) 6 Fabric, plastics 0.48 2.9

Handbags 4 Fabric & vinyl 0.48 1.9 Plastic Hangers 1 5 Hard plastic, metal hooks 0.41 0.04 0.2

Plastic Hangers 2 10 Flexible round plastic 0.41 0.04 0.4

Television 1 Plastic Case 0.510 0.460 0.510 17.6 17.6

Towels 2 100% Cotton 0.762 1.38 0.5 1.0 Laundry Basket 1 Polypropylene 0.457 (dia) 0.33 0.5 0.5

Clothes Hamper 1 Polypropylene w/cover 0.406 (dia) 0.66 1.4 1.4 Plastic Storage Box 1 Polypropylene 0.5 1 0.15 2.8 2.8

Bed cover in storage

box

1 1 00% Polyester Twin bed size 1.3 1.3

Total 122.3

Figure 2.3-5. Photograph showing clothing and closet fuel load arrangement

11
The final fuel package, Table 2.3-5, was the waste basket and contents where ignition took place.

The ignition fuel package was intended to represent a small trash container and its contents. The

ignition fiiel package was located between the desk and the bed on the window side of the room. A small flaming source was used to ignite the ftiel package. Figure 2.3-6 shows the ignition fuel

package. An electric match, as described in Table 2.3-5, was used to ignite the fuel package.

Figure 2.3-6. Photograph of ignition fuel package positioned between the desk and the bed

closest to the window

Table 2.3-5. Ignition fuel package

Item Materials

Dimensions Mass

W(m) L(m) H(m) (kg)

Waste Basket Wicker 0.25-0.20 (dia) 0.2 0.2 Newspaper Newsprint 0.3 0.4 1.0 Notebook paper Paper sheets, crumpled & straight 0.22 0.28 0.2

2- Plastic "sports" drink bottles, no lids .592 L (20 oz) size

PETE 0.08 (dia) 0.2 0.1

Electric Match Paper matchbook with 20 matches,

with ni-chrome wire coil 0.04 0.05 0.01

Total 1.5

The total mass of fuel in each dorm room was approximately 614 kg (1350 lbs). Dividing the mass by the area of the room, 15.4 m^ (166 ft^), yields an averaged fuel load of nearly

40kgW(8.1 lbs/ft^).

12
2.4 Instrumentation

Five main instrument positions were used for each experiment. Two positions (1 and 2) were

located in the room of fire origin as shown in Figure 2.4-1. The other three positions (3 through

5) were located in the corridor and remained the same for all five of the experiments, see Figure

2.4-2. Each position had a vertical array of 0.5 1 mm (0.02 in) nominal diameter bare bead, Type

K thermocouples. In each array a thermocouple was located 25 mm, 0.305 m, 0.610 m, 0.910 m,

1.22 m, 1.52 m, 1.83 m, and 2.13m (1 in, 1 ft, 2 ft, 3ft, 4 ft, 5 ft, 6 ft, and 7 ft) below the ceiling.

Thermocouple arrays in the corridor were along the centerline of corridor. Thermocouples were

also installed adjacent to the sprinkler and smoke alarm located in the dorm rooms.

Gas concentrations were sampled at two different positions. In each experiment, the sampling

line inlets were located adjacent to TC Array 1 and TC Array 4 at 1.52 m (5.0 ft) above the floor. The sampling lines were connected to calibrated vacuum pumps which moved the gas samples

through a conditioning system, which removed particulate and moisture from the gas sample.

The conditioning system consisted of two filtered cold traps inline to remove soot particles and

moisture from the gas sample. The sampling line had a nominal internal diameter of 9.5 mm.

The cold traps were approximately 190 mm long with an internal diameter of 60 mm for an approximate volume of 500 cm for each trap. The sampling system volume was minimized to avoid damping out important peak values in the gas concentration measurements. The volume of

each cold trap was reduced by approximately 70 % with the addition of glass wool and glass

beads [3].

The dry gas samples were then drawn through a series of gas analyzers, which were installed in

the room next to "Dorm Room 2". This room was sealed and protected from thermal and fire gas infiltration. In all of the experiments, oxygen was measured using paramagnetic analyzers

and carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide were measured using non-dispersive infrared (NDIR)

analyzers. The exhaust line from the analyzers discharged outside of the building.

The length of the sample lines and the conditioning system resulted in some delay in the

measurements. The delay times were determined by discharging carbon dioxide near the entry to the sample line and measuring the time from discharge until the response from the oxygen and

carbon dioxide instruments were observed. These delay times are accounted for in the data

presented in this report.

13
N

4.47 m

TC Array 1 ®

Ceiling

2.39 mH

Ignition

-

(^^ 1.43 mGas Sample

1.52 m above floor

h 1.52 m2.13 m

TC Array 2

t

1.43 m1.07 m

""^^Hi^i

[SA

^s) Automatic Sprinkler

C!3 Camera

fl Gas Sampling Port (s^ Smoke Alarm

^ Thermocouple Array

3.45 m

Figure 2.4-1. Floor plan of dorm room with instrumentation locations

14
i-) C3 u

t" U

i o 3X)

ex 00 3

o

00F

SA >' « rr\ E 3 < "rvi a r/1

ti- o

f= Cfl es o (1) 3 ftl nj (L> t-i ^

< U o K 00 h-

— >— o

©OG>©i®

Eil>

. . '

<\J r)

_-o

r-^

"in ^^3

o

E o O

s_O

O E D. / ^_ n 0^E

ri

i

•pi E oil 'C o

ao

>/^ c

"oj U '^ s t 8- <U1— 0® ~ n ^D

E E

'^ '/-I E 6 -*' r-j 8- a' ^ \ ^ ©®a©

n\ / > en

B E § ^ E c

rn ~i n

p-D

0®

6

r^ o „ s o <

csJ

/

S

E 1 \ 8- - fjJ

p!i '

u

o

S

on

(/) co

(0u

c

o

n>C

01E

3L. 4^

I/) c

o

a

o

u

*^O

c

Q.

k.O

O

O)3

15
Three pairs of Schmidt Boelter total heat flux gauges were installed near the TC arrays

positioned in the corridor. The heat flux gauges that were located next to TC Array 4, the center

position of the corridor, had a design heat flux range up to 227 kW/m^ (20 Btu/ft^-s). The pair of

heat flux gauges located next to TC Array 3, the west side of the corridor, had a design heat flux

7 7 range up to 1 14 kW/m (10 Btu/ft -s). The pair of heat flux gauges, installed next to TC array 5,

the east side of the corridor, had a design heat flux range up to 57 kW/m^ (5 Btu/ft^-s).

Each pair of gauges consisted of one gauge facing the ceiling with another gauge facing the room

of fire origin. The height of the gauges facing the ceiling was approximately 0.91 m (3 ft) above

the corridor floor or 1.48 m (4.85 ft) below the ceiling. The height of the gauges positioned

horizontally toward the fire were approximately 0.86 m (2.83 ft) above the corridor floor or

1.53 m (5 ft) below the ceiling.

Commercially available, battery powered, single station, ionization smoke alarms were used. A

smoke alarm was mounted on the wall of each dorm room, as shown in Figure 2.4-1. The center

of the alarm case was located 150 mm (6 in) below the ceiling. The alarms in the corridor were mounted under the ceiling at the locations shown in Figure 2.4-2. Each alarm was separately

connected to the data acquisition system. The voltage change, as measured across the battery

terminals at its alarm point, served as the data marker for the alarm time. New smoke alarms were used for each experiment.

Commercially available quick response sprinklers with a listed activation temperature of

74 °C (165 °F) were installed in each of the dorm rooms and in the center of the corridor adjacent

to TC array 4. In the non-sprinklered experiments, (Experiments 1, 4, and 5), sprinklers were

installed only as a means of obtaining an activation time. In these experiments, the nominal

12.7 mm (1/2 in) diameter, 152 mm (6 in) long drop nipple was filled with water and then the

pipe was capped with an air pressure fitting. A 6 mm (0.25 in) outer diameter copper tube

connected the sprinkler pipe to an air pressure sensor, which was connected to the data

acquisition system. A valved tee fitting in the air line allowed the line to be pressurized to approximately 20 psi. When the line was pressurized, the valve to the high pressure source was

closed. In this system, once the thermal element fused, the air pressure would drop and the

voltage signal fi"om the pressure sensor would also decrease. The time of this decrease was

recorded as the sprinkler activation time.

In the sprinklered experiments, (Experiments 2 and 3), the sprinklers were connected to a water

supply and allowed to operate normally. In the sprinklered experiments, the nominal 12.7 mm

(Yi in) pipe drops were connected via a nominal 1 inch pipe to a nominal 1 Vi single jacket hose

line supplied by a fire engine. An in-line flow meter was located in the hose line. This flow

meter was read manually during the experiments and the flow rates noted. Prior to installation in

the building, the "sprinkler system" was calibrated for flow with an open sprinkler. This allowed

the pump operator to pre-set the pump control to provide the desired flow rate, which was

approximately 1.3 L/s (20 gpm).

16
2.5 Uncertainty Analysis

There are different components of uncertainty in the length, temperature, heat flux, gas

concentrations, mass and flow rate provided in this report. Uncertainties are grouped into two

categories according to the method used to estimate them. Type A uncertainties are those which

are evaluated by statistical methods, and Type B are those which are evaluated by other means

[4]. Type B analysis of systematic uncertainties involves estimating the upper (+ a) and lower

(- a) limits for the quantity in question such that the probability that the value would be in the

interval (± a) is very close to 100 %. For some of these components, such as the zero and

calibration elements, uncertainties are derived from instrument specifications. Here uncertainty

is reported as the expanded relative uncertainty with an expansion factor of 2 (i.e. 2a).

Each length measurement was taken carefully. Length measurements such as the room

dimensions, instrumentation array locations and furniture placement were made with steel tape measures with a resolution of ± 0.5 mm (0.02 in). However, conditions affecting the

measurement, such as levelness or tautness of the device, yield an estimated uncertainty of

± 0.5 % for measurements in the 0.0 m (0 ft) to 3.0 m (9.8 ft) range. Some issues, such as "soft"

edges on the upholstered furniture, or longer distances in excess of 3.0 m (9.8 ft) result in an

estimated total expanded uncertainty of ± 1.0 %.

The standard uncertainty in temperature of the thermocouple wire itself is ± 2.2 °C at 277 °C

and increases to ± 9.5 °C at 871 °C as determined by the wire manufacturer [5]. The variation of

the temperature in the environment surrounding the thermocouple is known to be much greater

than that of the wire uncertainty [6, 7]. Small diameter thermocouples were used to limit the

impact of radiative heating and cooling. The estimated total expanded uncertainty for

temperature in these experiments is ± 15 %.

In this study, total heat flux measurements were made with water-cooled Schimidt-Bolter

gauges. The manufacturer reports a ± 3 % calibration expanded uncertainty for these devices

[8]. Results from an international study on total heat flux gauge calibration and response

demonstrated that the expanded uncertainty of a Schmidt-Boelter gauge is typically ± 8 % [9].

The gas measurement instruments and sampling system used in this series of experiments have

demonstrated an expanded relative uncertainty of ± 1 % when compared with calibration span

gas volume fractions [3, 10]. Given the limited set of sampling points in these experiments, an

estimated uncertainty of ± 10 % is applied to the results.

Water flow rate was measured with a spring and piston type inline flow meter with a range from

L/s to 6.3 L/s (0 gpm to 100 gpm) The measuring accuracy per the manufacturer is 2.5 % full scale at mid range and 4.0 % of full scale over the entire scale range and repeatability of 1 % of

frill scale [11].

The load cell used to weigh the fiiels prior to the experiments had a range of kg (0 lbs) to 200 kg (440 lbs) with a resolution of a 0.05 kg (0.1 1 lb) and a calibration uncertainty within 1 %

[12]. The expanded uncertainty is estimated to be ± 5 %.

17
In the following sections, the measurements are presented in graphic and tabular form. In the

graphs, an error bar represents the estimated expanded uncertainty of the measurement.

2.6 Experimental Procedure

Prior to ignition in each experiment, a computerized data acquisition system was started to collect the temperature, gas concentration, heat flux and smoke alarm data. Data were collected

from each instrument every 2 s. Video cameras recording the experiment were also started at this time.

After at least 60 s of background data were collected, a resistance heated book of matches was

used to ignite the materials in the waste basket between the bed closest to the window and the

adjacent desk. The fire growth was observed via monitors connected to the video cameras.

After the experimental objectives were met, fire fighters entered the corridor from the door on

the east end and suppressed the fire as needed.

Four different experimental conditions were used as shown in the table below. Three

experiments did not have active sprinklers installed. Experiment 1 had the door between the

dorm room and the corridor closed, while Experiment 4 and Experiment 5 had the door fully

open. Experiment 2 and Experiment 3 used sprinklers with a water supply. Experiment 2 had

the door between the dorm room and the corridor closed, while Experiment 3 had the door ftiUy

opened.

Table 2.6-1. Setup for the 5 experiments

Experiment Door Position Sprinkler Status

1 Closed Non-Sprinklered

2 Closed Sprinklered

3 Open Sprinklered

4 Open Non-Sprinklered

5 Open Non-Sprinklered

18
3 Results

The results of the experiments include experiment timelines based on observations, smoke alarm

and sprinkler activation times, temperature measurements, gas concentrations, heat flux

measurements, photographs and videos.

3.1 Experiment 1: Closed Door, Non-Sprinklered

The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the impact that a closed door would have on the

fire and the level of hazard developed in the room of origin and in the adjoining corridor.

3.1.1 Experiment Timeline

The timeline was developed from observations made during the experiment, review of the video

of the experiment, and review of the data. Table 3.1-1 describes the level of fire development in

the room. This can be compared with other measurements presented in following sections, such

as changes in temperature, gas concentration or fire protection system response.

Table 3.1-1. Timeline for Experiment Number 1

Time (s) Observations

Ignition

24 Smoke Alarm in fire room activated

35 Flames attached to bedding

40 Flames extended to pillow

45 Flames extended to desk chair

90 Smoke layer started to form

120 Tell-tale sprinkler activated

130 Blinds began to melt

150 Smoke layer approx. 1m below ceiling

160 Flames attached to desk

165 Plastic bookshelf melted and fell 205 Blinds fell 210 Flame size decreased

270 Smoke layer descended to floor 275 Flames no longer visible 345 Thermal plume no longer visible on IR Camera

555 Power off in room

610 Door open, Firefighters in 640 Fan in room ON

19
3.1.2 Smoke Alarm and Sprinkler Activation Times

The smoke alarm activation and sprinkler activation times are given in Table 3.1-2 and Table

3.1-3, respectively. The smoke alarm located in the dorm room activated at 24 s, while the fire was limited to the materials in the waste basket. The temperature at the thermocouple located near the smoke alarm indicated 52 °C (126 °F) at the time of activation. Even with the door

between the dorm room and the corridor closed, enough smoke leaked into the corridor to activate all three of the smoke alarms over the course of 5 minutes following the activation of the

alarm in the dorm room.

The fire generated enough heat to activate the sprinkler in the dorm room prior to the first smoke

alarm in the corridor activating. The temperature measured adjacent to the sprinkler at the time

of thermal activation was approximately 1 18 °C (244 °F). The sprinkler in this experiment did

not have a water supply; it was pressurized with air. This time was documented to demonstrate

when the sprinkler would have begun to have impact; however, this was a non-sprinklered

experiment. The sprinkler installed in the center of the corridor, adjacent to TC array 4 did not

activate.

Table 3.1-2. Dorm Room Experiment 1, Smoke Alarm Ac

Smoke Alarm Location Time (s) Temperature (°C)

1 Dorm Room 24 52

2 West Corridor 160 27

3 Center Corridor 216 27

4 East Corridor 316 27

Table 3.1-3. Dorm Room Experiment 1, Sprinkler Activation Times

Sprinkler Activation Location Time (s) Temperature (°C)

1 Dorm Room 120 118

2 Corridor Did not activate

3.1.3 Temperature Data

Temperatures from the 5 thermocouple arrays located in the dorm room (TC arrays 1 and 2) and

in the corridor (TC arrays 3 through 5) are presented in Table 3.1-1 through Figure 3.1-5. Refer

to Figure 2.4-1 for locations of the TC arrays.

Figure 3.1-1 shows the temperature data from the thermocouple array, in location 1, which was

adjacent to the bed and closest to the source of ignition. The temperature 0.03 m (1 in) below the

ceiling peaked at approximately 250 °C (480 °F), approximately 220 s after ignition. At this

point in time, the flames had begun to decrease in size. After this point, all of the temperatures

recorded at location 1 began to decrease. During this same period, the smoke layer extended to floor level and the flames were no longer visible in the room. At approximately 280 s after

ignition, the temperatures at location 1 leveled off and remained constant for approximately 60 s. At 345 s, the thermal plume was no longer visible in the IR camera. After this point the

temperatures continued to decrease. The small and abrupt temperature increase of the lower

20
three thermocouples in the array at approximately 165 s after ignition was caused by the flames

extending to the plastic crate book shelf on the desk, followed by the collapse of the book shelf

and materials to the floor in the vicinity of the TC array 1

Room smoke alarm activated

Thermocouple Array Location 1 n 0.03m BC X 1.22m BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

OoV

3

nso

a.E

o

662

572

482

392

302

212

122

re

Q.

E

o

32

100 200 300 400 500

Time (s)

Figure 3.1-1. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 in Experiment 1,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

As shown in Figure 3.1-2, the temperatures recorded at thermocouple array 2 had a very similar

trend as those from thermocouple array 1 . The temperature measurement at array 2 was

approximately 50 °C (122 °F) less that the corresponding thermocouple in array 1, except for the

thermocouple closest to the ceiling, which was somewhat lower in temperature.

21
Room smoke alarm activated

300

250

oo 200

0)^

3*•• re 150 ^

o

a.E 100

0) I- 50

Thermocouple Array Location 2 n 0.03m BC X 1.22m BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

A 0.61m BC V 1.83m BC

+ 0.91m BC S 2.13m BC

572

482

u. 39?

0)

I.3

30?

*•> re

I-(UQ.

212 E

o

1- 122

32

100 200 300

Time (s)

400 500

Figure 3.1-2. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 2 in Experiment 1,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

The temperature time histories from the three vertical thermocouple arrays located along the

center line of the corridor are given in Figure 3.1-3 through Figure 3.1-5. The closed door to the

dorm room limited the flow of hot gases into the corridor. As a result, the temperatures in the

corridor did not change significantly during the course of the experiment.

22
Room smoke alarm activated

oo

5

o

a

E

o

I35

30

25

20

15

10

5

v

Thermocouple Array Location 3 O 0.03m BC X 1.22m BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

A 0.61m BC V 1.83m BC

-\- 0.91m BC El 2.13m BC

95

86

% 77

68

59

50

41

32

100 200 300

Time (s)

400 500

Figure 3.1-3. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 3 in Experiment 1,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

Room smoke alarm activated

35

ooO

3^^

<Q

i_

0)Q.

E

o

20

15

10

5

2_

Thermocouple Array Location 4 D 0.03m BC X 1.22m BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

A 0.61m BC V 1.83m BC

+ 0.91m BC S 2.13m BC

95

86

77

68

59

50

41

32

100 200 300

Time (s)

400 500

Figure 3.1-4. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 4 in Experiment 1,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

3+-•

QiQ.

E

0)

3*.»

Q.

E

oH

23
Room smoke alarm activated

oo

<D

(0O

Q.

E

o

I35

30

25

20

15

10 •

5

T

Thermocouple Array Location 5 D 0.03m BC X 1.22m BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

A 0,61m BC V 1.83m BC

+ 0.91m BC El 2.13m BC

95

86

77

68

59

H 50

41

o

3

(0

Q.

E

0)

32

100 200 300

Time (s)

400 500

Figure 3.1-5. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 5 in Experiment 1,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

3.1.4 Gas Concentrations

The gas concentrations were sampled in two locations, one in the dorm room adjacent to TC

array 1 and one centered in the corridor adjacent to TC array 4. Both of the sample locations were positioned 1.52 m (5.0 ft) above the floor. Figure 3.1-6 shows the oxygen and carbon

dioxide levels on the upper graph with a range of % to 25 % by volume and the carbon

monoxide is shown on the lower graph which has a range of % to 1 % by volume. At

approximately 350 s, the oxygen concentration dropped below 15 %. It was around this same

time that the thermal plume was no longer visible in IR camera view. Based on the temperature

data presented above and the information from the IR camera, it is estimated that the flaming fire self-extinguished at approximately 350 s. The level of carbon monoxide continued to increase

after the flaming combustion appeared to cease.

Figure 3.1-7 shows the gas concentration data from the corridor sampling location. Again, due

to the closed door between the room of fire origin and the corridor, no significant changes in the

oxygen, carbon dioxide, or carbon monoxide levels were measured.

24
Room smoke alarm activated

0)E

3

O

>

c

_o

'<? (0

*•• c

0)u

co

o

V)

(Q o

25

20

15 t

10

5

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

O 02% Room

A C02% Room

n C0% Room

100 200 300 400 500

Time (s)

Figure 3.1-6. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling point at 1.52 m

above the floor at location 1 in Experiment 1

25
fl) E

3

O

>

c

o

0)U

c

o

o

(0m

25

20

15

10

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Room smoke alarm activated

1r

_L

O 02% Corridor A C02% Corridor

<7 . " -

P C0% Corridor

sz^^ .B. 100 200 300 400 500

Time (s)

Figure 3.1-7. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above

the floor at location 4 in Experiment 1

3.1.5 Heat Flux Data

The heat flux data from the three sets of gauges in the corridor is shown in Figure 3.1-8.

Adjacent to each thermocouple array in the corridor there were two total heat flux gauges, one aimed at the ceiling (Vertical) and one aimed toward the fire room (Horizontal). The heat flux

from the pair of gauges located near array 4, as well as those closest to the room of origin,

increased to approximately 0.5 kW/m^. As a point of reference, the heat flux from the sun on a sunny day at ground level is approximately 1 kW/m .

26
0.7

0.6

E

1

0.5

0.4

3

U. 0.3

*•> n

o

X

0.2

0.1

0.0

Room smoke alarm activated

n Loc. 3 vert. O Loc. 3 horz A Loc. 4 vert.

-f- Loc. 4 horz X Loc. 5 vert. C> Loc. 5 horz

ssa«fe1^^aAM^^M^ia/^r^^y^l^x^r^mJf^^^^^'^,

100 200 300 400 500

Time (s)

Figure 3.1-8. Heat flux versus time data for the heat flux gauges at locations 3, 4, and 5 in the

orientations up (vert) and sideways (horz)

3.2 Experiment 2: Closed Door, Sprinklered

The objective of this experiment was to examine the impact of an automatic sprinkler on a fire in a dorm room with a closed door. This experiment enables direct comparison between the results

from Experiment 1 and Experiment 2.

3.2.1 Experiment Timeline

The timeline was developed from observations made during the experiment, review of the video

of the experiment, and review of the data. Table 3.2-1 provides a reference to the level of fire development in the room. This can be compared with other measurements presented in

following sections, such as changes in temperature, gas concentration or fire protection system

response.

27
Table 3.2-1. Timeline for Experiment Number 2

Time (s) Observations

Ignition

12 Smoke Alarm in fire room activated

16 Flames attached to bedding

31 Flames extended to pillow

60 Smoke layer began to form

90 Flames extended to desk

105 Sprinkler activated

125 Flames extinguished

3.2.2 Smoke Alarm and Sprinkler Activation Times

The smoke alarm activation and sprinkler activation times are given in Table 3.2-2 and Table

3.2-3, respectively. The smoke alarm located in the dorm room activated at 12 s, while the fire was limited to the materials in the waste basket. The temperature at the thermocouple located near the smoke alarm indicated 32 "C (90 T) at the time of activation. Due to the door being

closed in this test and the rapid reduction of the fire hazard by the sprinkler, not enough smoke

leaked into the corridor to activate the three remaining smoke alarms.

The fire generated enough heat to activate the sprinkler in the dorm room at 105 s after ignition.

At this point the temperature adjacent to the sprinkler was approximately 1 19 °C (246 °F). hi

this experiment, the sprinkler did have a water supply and was flowing water at approximately

1.3 L/s (20 gpm). Within 30 s after activation of the sprinkler, the fire was almost completely

extinguished as indicated by the video and temperature records.

The sprinkler located in the corridor was not exposed to enough thermal energy to activate. This

was due to the door between the dorm room and the corridor being closed, just as in Experiment

1.

Table 3.2-2. Dorm Room Experiment 2, Smoke Alarm Activation Times

Smoke Alarm Location Time (s) Temperature (°C)

1 Dorm Room 12 32

2 West Corridor Did not activate

3 Center Corridor Did not activate

4 East Corridor Did not activate

Table 3.2-3. Dorm Room Experiment 2, Sprinkler Activation Times

Sprinkler Activation Location Time (s) Temperature (°C)

1 Dorm Room 105 119

2 Corridor Did not activate

28
3.2.3 Temperature Data

Temperatures from the 5 thermocouple arrays located in the dorm room (TC arrays 1 and 2) and

in the corridor (TC arrays 3 through 5) are presented in Figure 3.2-1 through Figure 3.2-5.

Figure 3.2-1 shows the temperature data from the thermocouple array in location 1, which was

adjacent to the bed and closest to the source of ignition. The temperature 0.03 m (1 in) below the

ceiling peaked at approximately 175 °C (347 °F), approximately 108 s after ignition. At this

point in time, the sprinkler in the dorm room had activated and water began to suppress the fire. After this point, all of the temperatures recorded at location 1 rapidly decreased over a span of

about 20 s. During this same period, the thermal plume diminished until it was no longer visible

with the IR camera. Within 60 s of sprinkler activation, the temperatures throughout the dorm

room equalized at approximately 30 °C (86 °F).

Figure 3.2-2 shows the temperature data for the thermocouple array in location 2, which was

adjacent to the other bed and closest to the corridor door. This TC array was also in the fire room, thus the trends were consistent with that of TC array 1, excluding the maximum

temperature. At approximately 108 s after ignition, the maximum temperature at thermocouple

array 2 was 118 °C (244 °F).

The temperature time histories from the three vertical thermocouple arrays located along the

center line of the corridor are given in Figure 3.2-3 through Figure 3.2-5. The closed door to the

dorm room limited the flow of hot gases into the corridor. As a result, the temperatures in the

corridor do not change significantly during the course of the experiment.

29
Room snioke alarm ^^'^^}^,.m\er activated

210

180

uD 150

2

3 120

01o

Q.

E

0)

90

60

30

30

Thermocouple Array Location 1 0.03m BC X 1.22m BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

A 0.61m BC V 1.83m BC

+ 0.91m BC B 2.13m BC

1 410

356

302

248

194

140

86

32

60 90 120 150

Time (s)

180 210 240 270

Figure 3.2-1. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 in Experiment 2,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

o

3*-• (0a

Ev

IRoom snioke alarm acfr'ated^^

.^^,^^ 3,^^,3,30

140

120

100

3 80

cs

Urn 0)Q.

E

0)

60

40

20

284

248

212

176

140

0)3<->

104

E

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Time (s)

Figure 3.2-2. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 2 in Experiment 2,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

30
0)3

COo

a.E

0)

Room sn^oke alarm act>vated^^

.^^^^^ ^^,,3ted

15

10

5

y^

Thermocouple Array Location D 0.03m BC X 1.22m BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

A 0.61m BC V 1.83m BC

+ 0.91m BC B 2.13m BC,.

30 60 90 180 210 240

95

86

77

68

59

50

41

32

120 150 270

Time (s)

Figure 3.2-3. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 3 in Experiment 2,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

(U

o

a

E

0)

Oo

0)3

a

o

a

E

0)

ROC. smoke alarm ^-^^^^,,,Mer activated

35 ^

15 [

10

5 [ i_

Thermocouple Array Location 4 D 0.03m BC X 1.22m BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52im BC

A 0.61m BC V 1.83m BC

-I- 0.91m BC Bl 2.13m BC

30 60 90 120 150

Time (s)

180 210

95

86

77 o

0) 68 3+j

ro

L. 59 0)F

50 (0 1- 41

32

240 270

Figure 3.2-4. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 4 in Experiment 2,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

31
o

3*•• (0o

Q.

E

0)

poom smoke alarm acUv^^^^^^^.p^^Wer activated

Thermocouple Array Location 5 P 0.03m BC

O 0.30m BC

A 0.61m BC

+ 0.91m BC

X 1.22m BC

O 1.52m BC

V 1.83m BC

2.13m BC

30 60 90 180 210 240

95

86

77

68

59

50

41

32

120 150 270

Time (s)

Figure 3.2-5. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 5 in Experiment 2,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

(D3+j

(0

k_0>a.E

a>

3.2.4 Gas Concentrations

The gas concentrations were sampled in two locations, one in the dorm room adjacent to thermocouple array 1 and one centered in the corridor adjacent to thermocouple array 4. Both of

the sample locations were positioned 1.52 m (5.0 ft) above the floor. Figure 3.2-6 shows the

oxygen and carbon dioxide levels on the upper graph with a range of % to 25 % by volume and

the carbon monoxide is shown on the lower graph which has a range of % to 1 % by volume.

The oxygen concentration in the dorm room remained above 19 % throughout the experiment.

The decrease began at approximately 110 s. This was approximately the same time that the

thermal plume was no longer visible in the IR camera and shortly after the automatic sprinkler in

the dorm room activated. This may be due to the mixing and descent of combustion products

which were above the inlet level of the gas sample line at the time of sprinkler activation. The

carbon dioxide concentration at this location was related inversely with the concentration of

oxygen, increasing from % to just below 2 %. The carbon monoxide concentration remained at % until approximately 180 s, where it increased to about 0.05 %.

The gas concentrations measured from the center of the corridor were consistent with each other

in that they did not change. There was no significant change in any of the three gas

concentrations because the fire hazard did not impact the conditions in the corridor due to the

door to the dorm room being closed.

32
0)E

3

O

>

c

o

<0

*-• c

o

o

c

o

o

V)

RS o

25

20

Room smoKe alarm ^-^^^^^^me. activated

X

15

10

O 02% Room

A C02% Room

1.0

0.8 \

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Y

^ • ^^

Ep C0% Room

^y ^

""^ ' '^ «v

^,a±

^

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Time (s)

Figure 3.2-6. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above

the floor at location 1 in Experiment 2

33
0)E

O

>

c

_o

'^

(0

i_

4-1 c

0)uc

o

o

<n O

Room smoKe aia.n. adWated^^

.^^,^^ ^,,„3ted

25 N

20

15

10

5

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4 ^

0.2

0.0

2-.

i

O 02% Corridor A C02% Corridor

^v A - - A. -A

D C0% Corridor

^V -^ 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Time (s)

Figure 3.2-7. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above

the floor at location 4 in Experiment 2

3.2.5 Heat Flux Data

The heat flux data from the three sets of gauges in the corridor is shown in Figure 3.2-8. Overall,

the heat flux throughout the corridor was similar and did not drift far from 0.0 kW/m .

34
Room smoke alarn. ^^'oom sprinWer activated

0.14

0.12

CME

g

0.10

0.08

X

-> 0.06

*-" 0.04

0.02

0.00

a Loc. 3 vert. Loc. 3 horz. A Loc. 4 vert. + Loc. 4 horz. X Loc. 5 vert Loc. 5 horz.

30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Time (s)

Figure 3.2-8. Heat flux versus time data for the heat flux gauges at locations 3, 4, and 5 in the

orientations up (U) and sideways (S) in Experiment 2

3.3 Experiment 3: Open Door, Sprinklered

The objective of this experiment was to examine the impact of the automatic sprinkler alone on a

fire in the dorm room without the benefit of the closed door between the dorm room and the

corridor. The effect of the closed door is examined later in this report by direct comparison

between Experiment 2 and 3.

3.3.1 Experiment Timeline

The timeline was developed from observations made during the experiment, review of the video

of the experiment, and review of the data. Table 3.3-1 describes the level of fire development in

the room. This can be compared with other measurements presented in following sections, such

as changes in temperature, gas concentration or fire protection system response.

35
Table 3.3-1. Timeline for Experiment Number 3

Time (s) Observations

Ignition

22 Smoke alarm in fire room activated

35 Flames attached to bedding

60 Fire extended to desk chair

65 Fire extended to pillow

70 Visible smoke layer started to form

85 Flames extended to desk

112 Sprinkler activation

115 Smoke visible in corridor

120 Fire extinguished

3.3.2 Smoke Alarm and Sprinkler Activation Times

The smoke alarm activation and sprinkler activation times are given in Table 3.3-2 and Table

3.3-3 respectively. The smoke alarm located in the dorm room activated at 22 s, while the fire was limited to the materials in the waste basket. The temperature at the thermocouple located near the smoke alarm was 46 °C (1 15 °F) at the time of activation. Due to the open door between

the dorm room and the corridor, within 68 s after ignition, the three smoke alarms installed on

the ceiling of the corridor activated.

The fire generated enough heat to activate the sprinkler in the dorm room at 112 s after ignition.

At this point, the temperature adjacent to the sprinkler was approximately 1 12 °C (233 °F). In

this experiment, the sprinkler had a water supply, flowing at approximately 1.3 L/s (20 gpm).

Within 20 s after the activation of the sprinkler, the fire was almost completely exfinguished.

In this experiment, even with the door open, the sprinkler located in the corridor was not exposed

to enough thermal energy to activate. This was due to the rapid reduction of heat release rate from the fire and cooling of the combustion products caused by the activation of the single

sprinkler in the dorm room.

Table 3.3-2. Dorm Room Experiment 3, Smoke Alarm Activation Times

Smoke Alarm Location Time (s) Temperature (°C)

1 Dorm Room 22 46

2 West Corridor 68 27

3 Center Corridor 36 28

4 East Corridor 62 29

Table 3.3-3. Dorm Room Experiment 3, S prinkler Activation Times

Sprinkler Activation Location Time (s) Temperature (°C)

1 Dorm Room 112 112

2 Corridor Did not activate

36
3.3.3 Temperature Data

Temperatures from the 5 thermocouple arrays located in the dorm room (TC arrays 1 and 2) and

in the corridor (TC arrays 3 through 5) are presented in Figure 3.3-1 through Figure 3.3-5.

Figure 3.3-1 shows the temperature data from the thermocouple array, in location 1, which was

adjacent to the bed and closest to the source of ignition. The temperature 0.03 m (1 in) below the

ceiling peaked at approximately 170 °C (340 °F), approximately 115 s after ignition, just a few

seconds after the sprinkler activated. Within 20 s of sprinkler activation, the temperatures

measured at TC array 1 had all equalized to approximately 30 °C (86 °F).

Figure 3.3-2 shows the temperature data for the thermocouple array in location 2, which was

adjacent to the other bed and closest to the corridor door. Again, the trends from TC array 2 were consistent with that of TC array 1, with the exception of the temperature measured 0.03 m

below the ceiling. At approximately 115 s after ignition, the maximum temperature 0.03 m

below the ceiling at TC array 2 was just over 100 °C (212 °F), about 70 °C (160 °F) less that the

same position in TC array 1 at this time. This was the only time and location that the

temperatures between TC array 1 and 2 were significantly different. This difference was most

likely due to the close proximity of TC array 1 to the thermal plume impingement area on the

ceiling.

210

180

„^

oo 150

p

3 120

+j

(0 90

a.E

0) 60

1- 30

Room smoke alarm ^^j^^^^^^sprinkler activated

\

Thermocouple Array Location 1 P 0.03m BC X 1.22m BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

A 0.61m BC V 1 83m BC

+ 0.91m BC El 2.13m BC

V^^*^ *v^*'

410

356

30? o^^

Q) 248 3+-• ro^

194 <uQ.

F

140 0) 1- 86

32

50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time (s)

Figure 3.3-1. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 in Experiment 3,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

37
o

o

(0o

E

o

Room

140

120

100

80

60 •

40

20

smoke alarm ^^j^^^^^^^sprinkler activated

\

Thermocouple Array Location 2 0.03m BC X 1 .22m BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

A 0.61m BC V 1.83m BC

+ 0.91m BC El 2.13m BC

284

248

212

176

140

32

50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time (s)

Figure 3.3-2. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 2 in Experiment 3,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

0)3*-' (0

(]> a

E

0) IThe temperature time histories from the three vertical thermocouple arrays located along the

center line of the corridor are given in Figure 3.3-3 through Figure 3.3-5. Unlike the previous

two experiments, the open door to the dorm room allowed hot combustion products to flow into

the corridor.

TC array 4 was the closest of the three arrays in the corridor to the open doorway of the burning room. As a result, the hot gases reached TC array 4 first and provided the highest temperature

increase at that location. The temperature 0.03 m below the ceiling began to increase at 30 s after ignition as shown in Figure 3.3-4. The peak temperature in the corridor, approximately

70 °C (160 °F), was measured at the same location at about the same time that the sprinkler

activated.

The only significant temperature increases at TC arrays 3 and 5 were limited to less than

20 °C (68 °F) above ambient at positions within 0.30 m (1 ft) of the ceiling. The temperatures

0.61 m (2 ft) below the ceiling or lower for all three of the arrays located in the corridor never exceeded 30 °C (86 °F) at any time during the experiment.

38
34-1 (0o

Q.

E

Room smoke alarm ^-^^,,,,r.y.\e< activated

50 1^

Thermocouple Array Location 3 D 0.03m BC X 1.22m BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

A 0.61m BC V 1.83m BC

+ 0.91m BC B 2.13m BC

50 100 150 200

Time (s)

250 300

122

104 _

86

68

50

32

350

o

3

n

(Ua

E

Figure 3.3-3. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 3 in Experiment 3,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

OoO

3^^

0)a.E

d) IRoom

80

60

40

20

sn^oke alarm ^^'^^^spriu^^^^ activated

\

Thermocouple Array Location 4 a 0.03m BC X 1.22m BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

A 0.61m BC V 1 83m BC

+ 0.91m BC H 2.13m BC

176

140 uT

104

68

3

Q.

E

0)

32

50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time (s)

Figure 3.3-4. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 4 in Experiment 3,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

39
60

Room

o

3

ffi o

Q.

E

0)

50 - 40

30

20

10

sn^oke alarm ^^l^^^^^^^sprinkler

activated

\

Thermocouple Array Location 5 P 0.03m BC X 1.22tn BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

A 0.61m BC V 1 83m BC

+ 0.91m BC B 2.13m BC

140

122

104

86

68

50

32

50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time (s)

Figure 3.3-5. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 5 in Experiment 3,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

0)3*-> (0o

Q.

E

3.3.4 Gas Concentrations

The gas concentrations were sampled in two locations, one in the dorm room adjacent to TC

array 1 and one centered in the corridor adjacent to TC array 4, Figure 3.3-6 and Figure 3.3-7

respectively. Both of the sample locations were positioned 1.52 m (5.0 ft) above the floor. In each figure, the oxygen and carbon dioxide levels are given on the upper graph with a range of

% to 25 % by volume and the carbon monoxide measurement is shown on the lower graph

which has a range of % to 1 % by volume.

The oxygen concentration at both the dorm room and the corridor positions never measured less than 20 % by volume. The peak measures of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide in the dorm

room were 1.0 % and less than 0.1 % respectively, hicreases of carbon dioxide and carbon

monoxide at the corridor sampling position were negligible.

40
25

20

15

,!-, (DE

3 10

O

>

S5 5

£

O

*i« (0

4-I 1 c

a>uc OH

o

o

0.6

Roo,. smoke alarm ^<^'^^^^,,,mer aotWated

\

^:

O 02% Room

A C02% Roo^

0.4

0.2

0.0

1

1 r.

.^-6^ ^^

D C0% Room

3^=: -A- -A. . -Ar-T ; A. .-A

Vn . = o_fc —"-—

:a^ i

50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time (s)

Figure 3.3-6. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above

the floor at location 1 in Experiment 3

41
o

E

3

O

>

c

_o

(Q

I.

'4-1 C

(DO

C

o

O

(A

ns

Room smoke ala.m ^-'^^^sp<\<^^^e, activated

\

O 02% Corridor A C02% Corridor

d lA I

• ^ ^

.Ua mBm 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time (s)

Figure 3.3-7. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above

the floor at location 4 in Experiment 3

3.3.5 Heat Flux Data

The heat flux data from the three sets of gauges positioned in the corridor are shown in Figure

3.3-8. Even with the open door, there was very httle increase in heat flux at the gauges locations, as there was only a modest amount of heat discharged into the corridor from the fire room, prior

to sprinkler activation. The gauges at location 4, being closest to the open doorway of the fire room, increased on average to approximately 0.25 kW/m .

42
E

X

3

Room smoke alarm ^c^^^J^^^p.-^kler activated

0.4

0.3

0.2

ffi I 0.1

0.0

n |Loc. 3 vert. O jLoc. 3 horz. A Loc. 4 vert. + Loc. 4 horz. X Loc. 5 vert. O Loc. 5 horz.

50

. .t.V . ^^ Ji , '- ' I.I ^ J\. ' • - k-^^ I '^' ^' - 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time (s)

Figure 3.3-8. Heat flux versus time data for the heat flux gauges at locations 3, 4, and 5 in the

orientations up (vert.) and sideways (horz.) in Experiment 3

3.4 Experiment 4: Open Door, Non-Sprinklered

The objective of this experiment was examine the fire development and measure the level of

hazard produced when there was compromised compartmentation, due to the open door, and no

automatic fire suppression system. This experiment also provided a direct comparison with the

previous experiment as a means to demonstrate the impact of the automatic sprinkler.

3.4.1 Experiment Timeline

The timeline was developed from observations made during the experiment, review of the video

of the experiment, and review of the data. Table 3.4-1 describes the level of fire development in

the room. This can be compared with other measurements presented in following sections, such

as changes in temperature, gas concentration or fire suppression team response.

43
Table 3.4-1. Timeline for Experiment Number 4

Time (s) Observations

Ignition

14 Smoke alarm in fire room activated

15 Flames extended to bedding

30 Flames extended to pillow

60 Visible smoke layer started to form

75 Visible smoke started to enter corridor

76 Tell-tale sprinkler in fire room activated

80 Flames extended to desk

90 Flames extended to floor carpeting

100 Flames extended to plastic bookshelf

110 Visible smoke layer started to form in corridor

128 Tell-tale sprinkler in corridor activated

145 Plastic bookshelf falls 202 Right window failure starting

220 Right window failure complete

220 Center window failure starting

225 Fire out of right window

287 Center window failure complete

290 Fire out of center window

319 Left window failure starting

328 Left window failure complete

Fire out of all three windows

430 Smoke door open, firefighter enter 465 Hose stream suppression

550 Fire extinguished, suppression completed

3.4.2 Smoke Alarm and Sprinkler Activation Times

The smoke alarm activation and sprinkler activation times are given in Table 3.4-2 and Table

3.4-3, respectively. The smoke alarm located in the dorm room activated at 14 s, just as the fire was spreading to the bedding. The temperature at the thermocouple located near the smoke alarm

was 45 °C (1 13 °F) at the time of activation. Due to the open door between the dorm room and

the corridor, within 62 s after ignition, the three smoke alarms installed on the ceiling of the

corridor activated.

The fire generated enough heat to activate the sprinkler in the dorm room 76 s after ignition. At

this point, the temperature adjacent to the sprinkler was approximately 136 "C (277 °F). hi this experiment, the sprinkler did not have a water supply, it was installed only to provide an

activation time.

44
Given that there was no suppression from the sprinkler in the dorm room, the fire continued to grow unabated. As a result, the sprinkler located in the corridor was activated at 128 s after

ignition, being exposed to a gas temperature of 99 °C (210 "F). These sprinklers had no water

supply and were used only to provide an activation time.

Table 3.4-2. Dorm Room Experiment 4, Smoke Alarm Activation Times

Smoke Alarm Location Time (s) Temperature (°C)

1 Dorm Room 14 45

2 West Corridor 60 31

3 Center Corridor 32 29

4 East Corridor 62 32

Table 3.4-3. Dorm Room Experiment 4, Sprinkler Activation Times

Sprinkler Activation Location Time (s) Temperature (°C)

1 Dorm Room 76 136

2 Corridor 128 99

3.4.3 Temperature Data

Temperatures from the 5 thermocouple arrays located in the dorm room (TC arrays 1 and 2) and

in the corridor (TC arrays 3 through 5) are presented in Figure 3.4-1 through Figure 3.4-5.

Figure 3.4-1 and Figure 3.4-2 provide the temperature time history for both of the thermocouple

arrays located in the dorm room. Both graphs show the steady development of a hot gas layer in

the dorm room and rapid progression to a post-flashover condition at approximately 220 s after

ignition. At 220 s after ignition, the thermal conditions had transitioned from having a hot layer

and a cold layer in the room to having a single well mixed reaction zone with nearly equal

temperatures floor to ceiling in excess of 600 °C (1 1 12 °F). This post-flashover burning

condition continued until fire fighters began to suppress the fire 465 s after ignition. The

firefighters completed their suppression efforts approximately 85 s later, 550 s after ignition.

After the suppression was complete, temperatures in the room remained elevated due to the

"stored energy" in concrete ceiling and walls of the room. The temperatures in TC array 1, were

all at 150 °C (302 °F) or below given their position near the now open windows. TC array 2 was

located approximately 1.1m (3.5 ft) north of the south wall of the room. After suppression was

completed, the temperatures ranged from approximately 350 °C (660 °F) near the ceiling to approximately 150 T (302 °F) near the floor.

45
Room smoke alarm activated

3

0)Q.

E

1000 r

800

600

400

200 y^M'fJ

Thermocouple Array Location 1 D 0.03m BC X 1 22mBC

£0.30m BCOl 52mBC

0.61m BC V 1.83m BC

"4=0. 91m BC K 2 13mBC

1 1832

1472

1112

752

392

32

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time (s)

Figure 3.4-1. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 in Experiment 4,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

<u

o.E

0)

Room smoke alarm activated

1112 2

3

(0a

E

0)

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time (s)

Figure 3.4-2. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 2 in Experiment 4,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

46
The temperature time histories from the three vertical thermocouple arrays located along the

center line of the corridor are given in Figure 3.4-3 through Figure 3.4-5. This experiment had

an open door similar to Experiment 3, which allowed hot combustion products to flow into the

corridor.

Again TC array 4 was the closest of the three arrays in the corridor to the open doorway of the

burning room. As a result, the hot gases reached TC array 4 first and provided the highest

temperature increase at that location. The temperature 0.03 m below the ceiling began to increase within 20 s after ignition as shown in Figure 3.4-4. After the dorm room fire transitioned to a post-flashover fire at 220 s after ignition, the peak temperatures near the ceiling

in the corridor were on the order of 300 °C (572 °F) until suppression began.

The temperatures from TC array 3 and 5 are shown in Figure 3.4-3 and Figure 3.4-5,

respectively. Each of these arrays are positioned 4.6 m (15 ft) away from location 4, although in

opposite directions. At both of these positions the temperatures significantly decreased relative

to TC array 4. The peak temperatures near the ceiling never exceeded 200 °C (392 "F).

The corridor itself did not transition to flashover, as shown by the thermal gradient with a hot gas

layer in the upper portion of the corridor and the near ambient temperatures in the lower portion

of the corridor, as shown in Figure 3.4-3 through Figure 3.4-5. This condition began as hot

combustion products entered the corridor and continued until suppression. Hence a fire fighter

crouching 1 .2 m (4.0 ft) or less above the floor as they approached the fire room would be

exposed to temperatures of 100 °C (212 °F) or less.

Room smoke alarm activated

250

200

o

0)3

O

Q.

E

o

£ 150

100

50

fc

482

392

UL

o 302 3*•> CO

1- 212 Q.

Eo

122

32

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time (s)

Figure 3.4-3. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 3 in Experiment 4,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

47
Room smoke alarm activated

Thermocouple Array Location 4 n 0.03m BC X 1.22m BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

A 61m BC V 1.83m BC

+ 0.91m BC H 2.13m BC

932

752

572

392

212

0)3^-» (0

Q.

E

o

32

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time (s)

Figure 3.4-4. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 4 in Experiment 4,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

Room smoke alarm activated

oooi_3

n>o

Q.

E

0)

250

200

150

100

50

100 200 300 400

Time (s)

500 600 700

482

392

302 (U34-> re

1- 212

E

o> 122

800

Figure 3.4-5. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 5 in Experiment 4,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

48
3.4.4 Gas Concentrations

The gas concentrations were sampled in two locations, one in the dorm room adjacent to TC

array 1 and one centered in the corridor adjacent to TC array 4; their measured values with

respect to time are shown in Figure 3.4-6 and Figure 3.4-7, respectively. Both of the sample

locations were positioned 1.52 m (5.0 ft) above the floor. In each figure, the oxygen and carbon

dioxide levels are given on the upper graph with a range of % to 25 % by volume and the

carbon monoxide measurement is shown on the lower graph which has a range of % to 8 % by

volume for the dorm room location and a range of % to 4% by volume for the corridor

location.

The oxygen concentration in the dorm room began to decrease at approximately 140 s after

ignition, which indicated that the hot gas layer had extended down from the ceiling to the entry

level of the sampling tube. The carbon dioxide began to increase noticeably as the oxygen

decreased. At approximately 250 s after ignition, the oxygen concentration started to decrease at a faster rate, decreasing from 18 % to approximately 1 % by volume within a 150 s period.

During this same period, the carbon dioxide increased to 3 %. At this point in the development

of the fire, all of the windows had self-vented and the temperatures in the dorm room had been

consistent with post-flashover conditions for the past 180 s.

49
Room smoke alarm activated

0)E

3

O

>

c

o

o

c

o

o

(0 o

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time (s)

Figure 3.4-6. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above

the floor at location 1 in Experiment 4

Figure 3.4-7 shows the measured gas concentrations from the corridor location. The gas

concentrations began to change significantly at approximately 250 s after ignition. The trends of

decreasing oxygen, and increasing carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide continued until after fire suppression started. Oxygen concentrations reached a low of approximately 5 %. Carbon

dioxide and carbon monoxide reached peak values of 13 % and 3 %, respectively.

The gas concentrations in the dorm room and the corridor returned to near pre-fire by 800 s after

ignition.

50
Room smoke alarm activated

o

E

O

>

c

_o

(0

t-

*-• c

0)o

c

o

o

m

O

25

20

15

10

5 •

O 02% Corridor A C02% Corridor

a C0% Corridor

\n 1 I ni |_^|_^_0_^ ^- - '^ I I -i-tm 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time (s)

Figure 3.4-7. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above

the floor at location 4 in Experiment 4

3.4.5 Heat Flux Data

The heat flux data from the three sets of gauges positioned in the corridor are displayed in Figure

3.4-8. The gauges at location 4, being closest to the open doorway of the fire room exhibit the

largest increase of the three pairs. The peak heat flux was between 2 kW/m^ and 3 kW/m as measured by the horizontal gauge, pointed toward the open doorway of the fire room. The heat

flux values are consistent with the temperature gradient in the corridor as discussed in

Section 3.4.3.

51
Room smoke alarm activated

3.0

2.5

^1-1^ NE

i

2.0 ^•^^^ X 1 5 3

U.

4-1 1.0

oX

0.5

0.0

n Loc. 3 vert. O Loc. 3 horz. A Loc. 4 vert. + Loc. 4 horz. X Loc. 5 vert. O Loc. 5 horz.

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time (s)

Figure 3.4-8. Heat flux versus time data for the heat flux gauges at locations 3, 4, and 5 in the

orientations up (U) and sideways (S) in Experiment 4

3.5 Experiment 5: Open Door, Non-Sprinklered

The objective of this experiment was to rephcate Experiment 4 and provide another baseline data

set with an open door and no automatic fire suppression.

3.5.1 Experiment Timeline

The timeHne was developed from observations made during the experiment, review of the video

of the experiment, and review of the data. Table 3.5-1 describes the level of fire development in

the room. This can be compared with other measurements presented in following sections, such

as changes in temperature, gas concentration or fire suppression team response.

52
Table 3.5-1. Timeline for Experiment Number 5

Time (s) Observations

Ignition

26 Smoke alarm in fire room activated

25 Visible smoke layer started to form

35 Flames extended to bedding

40 Smoke started to enter the corridor

45 Flames extended to pillow

70 Smoke layer started to form in corridor

110 Tell-tale sprinkler in fire room activated

165 Flames extended to desk

180 Plastic bookshelf falls 191 Right window failure starting (glass cracking)

224 Tell-tale sprinkler in corridor activated

246 Smoke to the floor 247 Center window failure starting

290 Flames out of small openings in right window glass

305 Left window failure starting

331 Right window failure complete

405 Flames out of openings near top of left window glass

417 Center window failure complete

426 Left window failure complete

501 Door open

570 Start suppression

3.5.2 Smoke Alarm and Sprinkler Activation Times

The smoke alarm activation and sprinkler activation times are given in Table 3.5-2 and Table

3.5-3 respectively. The smoke alarm located in the dorm room activated at 26 s. The

temperature at the thermocouple located near the smoke alarm was 31 °C (88 °F) at the time of

activation. Due to the open door between the dorm room and the corridor, within 98 s after

ignition all three smoke alarms installed on the ceiling of the corridor had activated. The time

until activation for the most remote smoke alarm was 36 s longer than in Experiment 4. This

was due in part to the bum room being at the west end of the corridor instead of near the middle

as in the previous experiment.

The fire generated enough heat to activate the sprinkler in the dorm room at 110s after ignition.

At this point the temperature adjacent to the sprinkler was approximately 82 °C (180 °F). In this

experiment, the sprinkler did not have a water supply, it was installed only to provide an

activation time.

Given that there was no suppression from the sprinkler in the dorm room, the fire continued to grow. As a result, the sprinkler located in the corridor at location 4 was activated at 224 s after

53
ignition. The gas temperature near the sprinkler at the time of activation was 125 °C (257 °F).

This sprinkler was also intended to only provide an activation time.

Table 3.5-2. Dorm Room Experiment 5, Smoke Alarm Activation Times

Smoke Alarm Location Time (s) Temperature (°C)

1 Dorm Room 26 31

2 West Corridor 62 30

3 Center Corridor 80 31

4 East Corridor 98 31

Table 3.5-3. Dorm Room Experiment 5, Sprinkler Activation Times

Sprinkler Activation Location Time (s) Temperature (°C)

1 Dorm Room 110 82

2 Corridor 224 125

3.5.3 Temperature Data

Temperatures from the 5 thermocouple arrays located in the dorm room (TC arrays 1 and 2) and

in the corridor (TC arrays 3 through 5) are presented in Figure 3.5-1 through Figure 3.5-5.

Figure 3.5-1 and Figure 3.5-2 provide the temperature time history for both of the thermocouple

arrays located in the dorm room. Both graphs show the steady development of a hot gas layer in

the dorm room reaching temperatures of approximately 200 °C (392 "F) by 180 s after ignition.

After 180 s, the temperature gradients in the two different areas of the dorm room diverge. The

temperatures near the ceiling at TC array 1, near the area of origin, increase to approximately

800 "C (1470 °F) at 240 s after ignition. At the same time the temperature 1.52 m (5 ft) below

the ceiling was 100 °C (212 °F). There was also a thermocouple in the array 1.83 m (6 ft) below

the ceiling, whose temperature did not follow the trends of the thermocouples either above or below it. A plastic crate fell and pushed TC array 1 toward the burning bed, and the TC at the

1.83 m position was pushed into the burning bed at that point. This was the only TC affected.

During this same time, 240 s after ignition, the temperatures at TC array 2 reached a plateau of

approximately 580 "C (1076 °F) near the ceiling. At the same time, the temperatures near the

floor of this position were still less than 100 °C (212 °F).

At 330 s after ignition, temperatures in the hot layer began to decrease at both TC array positions

in the dorm room. The right window pane had completely vented open by this time and was

allowing heat to leave the room. About 40 s, later the temperatures began to increase again. The

temperatures in the dorm room increased, transitioning through flashover at approximately 440 s, based on all of temperature measurements from TC array 1 exceeding 600 °C (1 1 12 °F) at that

time. The temperatures at TC array 2 showed a similar trend, although it occurred about 20 s

later. These temperatures continued until the fire fighters began suppression at 570 s after

54
ignition. Hose stream application resulted in a significant and rapid decrease in temperature

throughout the dorm room.

1200

Room smoke alarm activated

I Tjhermocouple Array Location 1 Id 03m BC X 1.22m BC

1 000 T

I Q Q 3Q^ QQ ^ ^ 52m BC

•A 0.61m BC V 1.83m BC

100 200 400 500

2192

1832

147?

oL.3

111? re^

(Ua

75? E

0)

300 600

Time (s)

Figure 3.5-1. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 in Experiment 5,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

Room smoke alarm activated

100 200 400 500

o

3

re 752 ^

E

o

300 600

Time (s)

Figure 3.5-2. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 2 in Experiment 5,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

55
The temperature time histories from the three vertical thermocouple arrays located along the

center line of the corridor are given in Figure 3.5-3 through Figure 3.5-5. This experiment had

an open door similar to Experiment 3 and 4, which allowed hot combustion products to flow into

the corridor. However in this experiment, TC array 3 was closest to the bum room, while TC

array 5 was the most remote.

The temperature trends in the corridor follow those from the dorm room in that the temperatures

increased, decreased, and then increased again until fire fighting activities commenced with the

opening of the smoke door leading into the corridor at 500 s.

The peak temperatures in the corridor were located 0.03m (1 in) below the ceiling for each of the

TC arrays in the corridor. The peak temperatures were approximately 230 °C (446 °F), 170

°C (338 °F), and 135 "C (275 "F) at locadons 3, 4, and 5 respecfively.

As in Experiment 4, the corridor maintained a two layer thermal environment even though the

dorm room flashed over. Figure 3.5-3 through Figure 3.5-5 show that throughout the

experiment, temperatures 1 .22 m (4 ft) below the ceiling or lower never exceeded

100''C(212°F).

300

250 — 200

(0o

a.E

0)

150

100

50

Room smoke alarm activated

! Tihermocouple Array Location 3 In 0.03m BC X 1.22m BC

|o 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

!A 0.61m BC V 1-83m BC

\+ 0.91m BC B 2.13m BC

1 572

482

392 -

302

212

122

3*•> nj

a.£

32

100 200 300 400 500 600

Time (s)

Figure 3.5-3. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 3 in Experiment 5,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

56
oo

0)m

o

Q.

E

0)

210

180

150

120

90

60

30

Room smoke alarm activated

I Thermocouple Array Location 4 D 0.03m BC X 1.22m BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

A 0.61m BC V 1.83m BC

4- 0.91m BC Bl 2.13m BC

410

356

,_^ 302 Li_ o9

248 I.3•*-' ns^

194 (i> Q.

E

140 (D

86

32

100 200 300 400 500 600

Time (s)

Figure 3.5-4. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 4 in Experiment 5,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

180

150

rJ

Room smoke alarm activated

oo 120

oV.3

90 1.

0)Q.

E 60

o

\-

30

fiermocouple Array Location 5 0.03m BC X 1.22m BC

O 0.30m BC O 1.52m BC

A 0.61m BC V 1 83m BC

+ 0.91m BC B 2.13m BC

100 200 400 500

356

302

,_^ u. 248

0)^3

194 V.<Ua

140 E

0)

86

32

300 600

Time (s)

Figure 3.5-5. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 5 in Experiment 5,

listed by distance below ceiling (BC)

57
3.5.4 Gas Concentrations

The gas concentrations were sampled in two locations, one in the dorm room adjacent to TC

array 1 and one centered in the corridor adjacent to TC array 4; their measured values with

respect to time are shown Figure 3.5-6 and Figure 3.5-7 respectively. Both of the sample

locations were positioned 1.52 m (5.0 ft) above the floor. In each figure, the oxygen and carbon

dioxide levels are given on the upper graph with a range of % to 25 % by volume and the

carbon monoxide measurement is shown on the lower graph which has a range of % to 8 % by

volume for the dorm room location and a range of % to 2 % by volume for the corridor

location.

In the dorm room, the oxygen concentration began to decrease at approximately 120 s after

ignition; this occurred in conjunction with the increase in carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

The rates of change for the gas concentrations are nearly linear until 280 s after ignition, when

the rate of change increases. For the interval between 120 s and 280 s, the oxygen concentration

decreased approximately 3 % and carbon dioxide increased by approximately 3 %. In absolute

terms, the rate of change for both species during this 160 s period was approximately

1.1 % per min. During the next minute, from 280 s to 340 s, the oxygen concentration decreased

by 10 %, the carbon dioxide increased by 7 % and the carbon monoxide had increased by 1 %.

The oxygen concentration leveled out at about 6 % between 380 s and 410 s after ignition. This

was the period when the temperatures in the dorm room are increasing again, after the opening of one of the three window sections. During this same period, the carbon dioxide increased to a steady level of 1 1 % by volume and the carbon monoxide reading increased to more than 2 %.

As the temperature in the dorm room continued to increase during the period fi^om 410s after

ignition to flashover at 440 s, the oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations incurred two rapid

transitions with the largest change being an increase of 6 % for the oxygen and about a 4 %

decrease for the carbon monoxide. Once all of the windows had self-vented and the fire was in

post-flashover, the oxygen and carbon dioxide continued to oscillate for the next 80 s. For the

oxygen, the range of fluctuation was between 5 % and 10 %. Just prior to suppression, the

temperatures in the dorm room continued to increase, peaking in excess of 820 °C (1500 °F). At

that same time, the oxygen concentration dropped to % and the carbon dioxide concentration

peaked at 18 % by volume and the carbon monoxide increased to over 6 % by volume.

Figure 3.5-7 shows the gas concentrations measured in the corridor. The gas concentrations did

not significantly change for the first 300 s after ignition, then conditions in the corridor began to exhibit rapid change in a manner similar to those inside the dorm room. Just prior to the

complete failure of the last window in the dorm room, the gas concentrations reached their presuppression peak values. At 420 s after ignidon, the oxygen dipped just below 10 %, the carbon

dioxide exceeded 8 %, and the carbon monoxide reached 1 %.

After the dorm room windows had completely vented open, the flow path for the fire consisted

of drawing fresh air from the building and exhausting the majority of the hot gases out of the

window openings. This flow had the impact of increased oxygen concentration and decreased

58
concentrations of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. This trend continued until the fire fighters entered the building and suppression activities began.

Although not shown in the figures, the gas concentrations in the dorm room and in the corridor

had returned to near pre-fire conditions by 800 s after ignition.

Room smoke alarm activated

o

E

3

O

>

(0c

o

o

c

o

o

(0

(Q CD

100 200 300 400 500 600

Time (s)

Figure 3.5-6. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above

the floor at location 1 in Experiment 5

59
Room smoke alarm activated

o

E

o

>

c

o

Vm

CO

t—

*-> c

0)o

c

o

o

(0

(0 o

25

20

15

10 •

5 •

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

^ - ^

O 02% Corridor A C02% Corridor

a C0% Corridor

'^ • - r-3 . — ra 100 200 300 400 500 600

Time (s)

Figure 3.5-7. Relative gas concentrations versus time for the gas sampling at 1.52 m above

the floor at location 4 in Experiment 5

3.5.5 Heat Flux Data

The heat flux data from the three sets of gauges positioned in the corridor are displayed in Figure

3.5-8. The gauges at location 3, being closest to the open doorway of the fire room exhibited the

largest increase of the three pairs. The peak heat flux was between 2 kW/m" and 3 kW/m as measured by the horizontal gauge, pointed toward the open doorway of the fire room. This was

consistent with the heat flux results from Experiment 4.

60
E

X

3

(0 X

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Room smoke alarm activated

D Loc. 3 vert. O Loc. 3 horz A Loc. 4 vert.

-}- Loc. 4 horz ± Loc. 5 vert. <> Loc. 5 horz

100 200 300 400 500 600

Time (s)

Figure 3.5-8. Heat flux versus time data for the heat flux gauges at locations 3, 4, and 5 in the

orientations up (vert.) and sideways (horz.) in Experiment 5

61
4 Discussion

In order to examine the potential impact of the effectiveness of compartmentation or an

automatic fire sprinkler system, the discussion will begin with benchmark values for thermal

injury and incapacitation due to inhalation of combustion products. The life safety hazards

generated by a fire include: temperature, toxic gases, and loss of visibility. In these experiments,

only quantitative measures of heat and a few toxic gases were made and some qualitative measures of visibility were made with video cameras.

Heat can be transferred by conduction, convection and radiation. Bum injuries caused by the

combustion products (smoke) can be caused by convection and/or radiant heat transfer.

Frequently the hazard related to heat transfer from the environment to the body is simplified as an exposure temperature for a prescribed duration.

As presented in the SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, estimated limits for

tenability due to convected heat suggest a thermal tolerance of 120 °C (248 °F). Above this limit,

the onset of pain is rapid and bums can develop within a few minutes or less. The estimated

tenability limit due to heat flux is 2.5 kW/m . At this level, the time to bum unprotected skin is 20 s or less [13].

These limits are not absolute limits since clothing, humidity, skin composition etc, can mitigate or exacerbate the impact of the thermal energy for a given heat level and exposure time. These

values are used as bench marks for the discussion presented here. It is also important to note that as the fire grew, the temperatures in some areas of the dorm room and corridor increased rapidly

and quickly exceeded the benchmark tenability thresholds, making concems over uncertainty in

the tenability limits a minor point.

Based on individual exposures, incapacitation can occur due to low oxygen (10 % to 13 %) or high level of carbon dioxide (7 % to 8 %) or carbon monoxide (0.6 % to 0.8 %) after

approximately 5 minutes of exposure [13]. Lower concentrations of oxygen and higher

concentrations of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, or the synergistic effect of all three

combustion products would result in incapacitation in a shorter time. For purposes of this

analysis, the following values will be considered the limits of untenablity: oxygen < 10 %,

carbon dioxide > 8 %, and carbon monoxide > 1 %.

In the sections that follow, comparisons between the experiments are made by examining the

temperatures and gas concentrations at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor. This

elevation can be considered the face height of a typical, standing person.

4.1 Closed Door Experiments

In these experiments, the door between the dorm room and the corridor remained closed

throughout the experiments. This had the impact of preventing significant amounts of heat or combustion products from entering the corridor. The conditions in the corridor in both

experiments remained tenable.

62
The post fire damage in both dorm rooms was similar, as shown in Figure 4.1-1. In the nonsprinklered experiment, the fire self-extinguished due to low oxygen concentration, while in the

other dorm room with a closed door, the water fi-om the sprinkler extinguished the fire.

Figure 4.1-1. Post fire photographs of the dorm room for Experiment 1 (non-sprinklered) on

the left and Experiment 2 (sprinklered) on the right.

Even though the fire damage was similar between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, the tenability

conditions in the dorm rooms were quite different. Figure 4. 1-2 shows the measured

temperatures from the TC array 1 location in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. The temperatures

in both experiments increased after ignition and followed similar trends until the sprinkler in

Experiment 2 activated at 100 s. The temperatures significantly diverged at this point, with the

temperatures in the non-sprinklered experiment surpassing untenable levels at approximately

150 s after ignifion. The fire in Experiment 2 was automatically extinguished 125 s after

ignition.

63
210 r

180

^

150 Oo2 120

g. 90

E

o> •" 60

30 ;

Room Temperatures

D Exp 1 (Unsprinklered)

O Exp 2 (Sprinklered)

v"©^—e-'-'-©—0~-^^0-<~sp

' ' ' -

410

356

302

u.

o

^ ^ ?48 £

3+J

(Uw

194 Q.

E

a> 140 h86

32

100 200 300

Time (s)

400 500

Figure 4.1-2. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 from Experiment 1

and 2 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

Figure 4.1-3 through Figure 4.1-5 show the comparison of oxygen, carbon dioxide and carbon

monoxide for the two experiments. In both experiments, the measurements showed decreased

oxygen levels and increased amounts of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. In the sprinklered

experiment, this occurred after sprinkler activation due to the cooling and mixing of the

combustion products in the hot gas layer. The gas concentration levels in the sprinklered

experiment as the fire was being suppressed were approximately five times less than the peak

values in the non-sprinklered experiment and remained within tenable limits throughout the

experiment.

64
o

E

o

>

c

_o

'^

flS k.

4-> c

o

u

c

o

o

(0

CO O

25

20

15

10

5

o B o n o

02 Concentrations n Exp 1 (Unsprinklered)

O Exp 2 (Sprinklered)

100 200 300

Time (s)

400 500

Figure 4.1-3. Oxygen concentrations versus time in the dorm room from Experiment 1 and 2

at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

E

so

>

c

_o

(0

*-• c

o

u

c

o

o

(/) (0 o

6

C02 Concentrations D Exp 1 (Unsprinklered)

O Exp 2 (Sprinklered)

100 200 300

Time (s)

400 500

Figure 4.1-4. Carbon dioxide concentrations versus time in the dorm room from Experiment 1

and 2 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

65
E

o>

o

re

0.25

0.20

0.15

-£ 0.10 c

o

u

c

o

o

(0

re

0.05

0.00

CO Concentrations D Exp 1 (Unsprinklered)

O Exp 2 (Sprinklered)

-^ I n I a-t- ^i .Q . ^A; q

^

e-/S

100 200 300

Time (s)

400 500

Figure 4.1-5. Carbon monoxide concentrations versus time in the dorm room from

Experiment 1 and 2 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

4.2 Comparison of the Non-Sprinklered Experiments

Three of the five Experiments, 1, 4 and 5, were conducted without sprinklers. The first experiment had the dorm room door to the corridor closed, while the door was open in the latter two experiments (4 and 5). The photos and data that follows show the impact that a closed door

can have on the room of origin.

Figure 4.2-1. Post fire photographs of the dorm room for Experiment 1 (door closed) on the

left and Experiment 5 (door open) on the right.

66
Figure 4.2-2. Post fire photographs of the corridor for Experimerit 1 (door closed) on the left and Experiment 5 (door open) on the right.

Figure 4.2-3 and Figure 4.2-4 show the temperature time histories in the dorm room and the

corridor locations for Experiment 1, 4 and 5. In all three cases, the temperatures in the dorm

room reached untenable levels in excess of 120 °C (248 °F). Figure 4.2-4 shows that the corridor

temperature approached 120 °C (248 °F) in the open door experiments, while the temperature

remained near ambient for the closed door experiment.

67
1000 r

800

oo 600

»-34-« ak.o

a.E

400

0)

200 -

Room Temperatures

D Exp 1 (Closed)

O Exp 4 (Open)

A Exp 5 (Open)

Olt"^

1832

1472

1112 0)3*^

re

752 I

I392

32

100 200 300 400 500 600

Time (s)

700 800

Figure 4.2-3. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 from Experiment 1, 4

and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

140 r

120

284

_-_ 100

ooS 80 3**nk

o

Q. 60

E

0) 1- 40

20

100 200 300 400 500

Time (s)

600 700 800

Figure 4.2-4. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 4 from Experiment 1,

and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

68
The oxygen measurements in the dorm room and the corridor are shown in Figure 4.2-5 and

Figure 4.2-6. The closed door prevented sufficient oxygen from entering the room. Therefore

the fire was unable to generate additional energy and the fire self-extinguished when the oxygen

level fell below 15%. In the open door experiments, the fires continued to grow until they

transidoned to flashover, which in turn consumed most of the oxygen in the dorm room. In addition to generating untenable temperatures in the dorm rooms, there were untenable gas

concentrations in the corridor as shown Figure 4.2-5, Figure 4.2-7 and Figure 4.2-9. This led to incapacitating conditions in the corridor due to reduced oxygen, and increased carbon dioxide

and carbon monoxide as shown in Figure 4.2-6, Figure 4.2-8 and Figure 4.2-10. The closed door

prevented heat or smoke from being transported to the corridor in Experiment 1

.

E

O

>

c

_o

C

o

u

c

oO

(0

re O

25 r

20

15

10

5

-op2^o-n^

02 Concentrations D Exp 1 (Closed)

O Exp 4 (Open)

A Exp 5 (Open)

100 200 300 400 500

Time (s)

600 700 800

Figure 4.2-5. Oxygen concentrations versus time in the dorm room from Experiment 1, 4 and

5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

69
E

o

>

_o

COc

0)o

c

o

o

(0

(0 o

25

20

15

10 •

5 •

5o-ba dd a n —^^ fl —

02 Concentrations Exp 1 (Closed)

O Exp 4 (Open)

A Exp 5 (Open)

100 200 300 400 500

Time (s)

600 700 800

Figure 4.2-6. Oxygen concentrations versus time in the corridor from Experiment 1, 4 and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

E

o

>

20 r

15 •

'E 10

£

u

c

o

o

m

(0 O

C02 Concentrations n Exp 1 (Closed)

O Exp 4 (Open)

A Exp 5 (Open)

100 200 300 400

Time (s)

500 600 700 800

Figure 4.2-7. Carbon dioxide concentrations versus time in the dorm room from Experiment

1, 4 and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

70
o

E

o

>

c

o

20

15

•5 10 a

c

o

u

c

o

o

m

n

O

C02 Concentrations D Exp 1 (Closed)

O Exp 4 (Open)

A Exp 5 (Open)

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time (s)

Figure 4.2-8. Carbon dioxide concentrations versus time in the corridor from Experiment 1, 4

and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

<DE

3

O

>

c

o

at-

•** c

0)u

c

oO

(0

CO O

8

6 I4

2

CO Concentrations n Exp 1 (Closed)

O Exp 4 (Open)

A Exp 5 (Open)

100 200 300 400

Time (s)

500 600 700 800

Figure 4.2-9. Carbon monoxide concentrations versus time in the dorm room from

Experiment 1, 4 and 5 at approximately 1.5 m {5 ft) above the floor.

71
E

O

>

(0c

o

u

c

o

o

m

(0 O

CO Concentrations D Exp 1 (Closed)

O Exp 4 (Open)

A Exp 5 (Open)

100 200 300 400

Time (s)

500 600 700 800

Figure 4.2-10. Carbon monoxide concentrations versus time in the corridor from Experiment

1, 4 and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

4.3 Comparison of Open Door, Sprinklered versus Non-sprinklered

Experiments

Three experiments were conducted with the door from the dorm room to the corridor open, hi one case, Experiment 3, there was an automatic fire sprinkler in the dorm room and in the other

two experiments (4 and 5), no active sprinkler was provided. The photographs shown in Figure

4.3-1 are representative of the results. With an operating sprinkler present, the fire damage was

very limited. The photograph of the dorm room taken after Experiment 4 shows a room that has

damage consistent with post-flashover (burning floor to ceiling) fire.

72
Figure 4.3-1. Post fire photographs for Experiment 3 (sprinklered) on the left and Experiment

4 (non-sprlnklered) on the right.

The comparative temperatures from the dorm room and corridor are shown in Figure 4.3-2 and

Figure 4.3-3. In the dorm room with a sprinkler, temperatures remained tenable. As previously

noted, the temperatures in the non-sprinklered dorm rooms became untenable within 182 s of

ignition.

Figure 4.3-4 through Figure 4.3-9 provides comparisons of the measured gases in the dorm room

and the corridor from Experiment 3, 4 and 5. The conditions in the sprinklered experiment (3)

remained tenable with respect to the levels of oxygen, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide that were present in both the dorm room and the corridor. The two non-sprinklered experiments

transitioned to flashover. In both experiments, the levels of oxygen, carbon dioxide and carbon

monoxide were untenable, as defined earlier in this section, within 346 s and 454 s after ignition

for the dorm room and the corridor respectively, The time to reach the untenability criteria for

each gas is presented in Table 4.4-2.

73
oo

<u3

a

o

Q.

E

4)

1000

800

600

400

200

Room Temperatures

D Exp 3 (Sprinklered)

O Exp 4 (Unsprinklered)

A Exp 5 (Unsprinklered)

»<M^%WII l^^jl' CC'^">^

1 1832

1472

1112

752

• 392

-l__l l_l L.

u.

o

0)3*j

(0

u.O

Q.

E

a> I32

100 200 300 400 500

Time (s)

600 700 800

Figure 4.3-2. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 1 from Experiment 3, 4

and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

100 200 300 400 500

Time (s)

600 700 800

Figure 4.3-3. Temperature versus time data from thermocouple array 4 from Experiment 3, 4

and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

74
<DE

O

>

c

o

re

25

20

15

g 10

o

u§ 5

O

(0 5

Hh^CD-nAB

02 Concentrations n Exp 3 (Sprinklered)

O Exp 4 (Unsprinklered)

A Exp 5 (Unsprinklered)

100 200 300 400

Time (s)

500 600 700 800

Figure 4.3-4. Oxygen concentrations versus time in the dorm room from Experiment 3, 4 and

5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

o

E

3

O

>

c

o

V?

re

t^

*-> c

o

uc

o

o

(0

re

25

20

15

10

5

Ano- cm a QE^i —^ pAn ^""^

A

^ i

: \\ A / ,._A / 02 Concentrations \Ni 7^^

D Exp 3 (Sprinklered)

O Exp 4 (Unsprinklered)

A Exp 5 (Unsprinklered)

100 200 300 400 500

Time (s)

600 700 800

Figure 4.3-5. Oxygen concentrations versus time in the corridor from Experiment 3, 4 and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

75
E

o

>

C

o

'<? OS

k. *Jc

o

u

c

o

o

m

m

20

15

10

C02 Concentrations D Exp 3 (Sprinklered)

O Exp 4 (Unsprinklered)

A Exp 5 (Unsprinklered)

100 200 300 400

Time (s)

500 600 700 800

Figure 4.3-6. Carbon dioxide concentrations versus time in the dorm room from Experiment

3, 4 and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

o

E

O

>

c

o

'^

CO

I-

*-> c

o

o

c

o

O

v>

CO

20

15

10

C02 Concentrations D Exp 3 (Sprinklered)

O Exp 4 (Unsprinklered)

A Exp 5 (Unsprinklered)

100 200 300 400

Time (s)

500 600 700 800

Figure 4.3-7. Carbon dioxide concentrations versus time in the corridor from Experiment 3, 4

and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

76
o

E

D

o

>

(0

l_ *Jc

o

u

c

o

o

(0a

O

CO Concentrations n Exp 3 (Spnnklered)

O Exp 4 (Unsprinklered)

A Exp 5 (Unsprinklered)

100 200 300 400

Time (s)

500 600 700 800

Figure 4.3-8. Carbon monoxide concentrations versus time in the dorm room from

Experiment 3, 4 and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

o

E

O

>

c

_o

COc

o

o

c

o

o

O

CO Concentrations a Exp 3 (Sprinklered)

O Exp 4 (Unsprinklered)

A Exp 5 (Unsprinklered)

100 200 300 400

Time (s)

500 600 700 800

Figure 4.3-9. Carbon monoxide concentrations versus time in the corridor from Experiment 3,

4 and 5 at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) above the floor.

77
4.4 Summary

The complete set of measurements from each of the five experiments was presented in Section 3. In the previous portions of this section comparisons have been provided to examine the impact of

automatic sprinkler protection and the impact of keeping the door to the room of origin closed. In this summary section, Table 4.4-1 presents the smoke alarm and sprinkler activation times for

comparison against the times to reach the untenability criteria in the dorm room and the corridor,

given in Table 4.4-2.

In each of the experiments, the ionization smoke alarms installed in the dorm rooms activated

within 12 s to 26 s after ignition. The average time between the first smoke alarm activation and

the time to reach untenability in the dorm room for the three unsprinklered experiments

(Experiment 1, 4 and 5) was 134 s. The last two experiments (Experiment 4 and 5), which were

unsprinklered and had the dorm room door open, resulted in untenable conditions in the corridor

as well as in the dorm room. The average time between the activation of smoke alarm in the

center location in the corridor and the time to reach untenable conditions in the corridor was

356 s.

The untenable conditions in the corridor for Experiment 4 and 5, would represent the worst case

for a building occupant, not located in the room of origin, who needed to use the corridor as a means of egress. In these experiments, the warning of the smoke alarms located in the corridor

provided at least 5 minutes of available safe egress time.

Experiment 1 and 2 were conducted with the dorm room door closed. In both cases the corridor

remained tenable throughout the duration of the experiments. In Experiment 1, which was

unsprinklered, the closed door limited the availability of fresh oxygen to the fire, which resulted

in the limitation of the amount of heat that could be released and eventually led to the self- extinguishment of the fire. While the thermal tenability limit was exceeded in the dorm room,

the transmission of hazardous conditions from the fire to building occupants outside the room of

origin were mitigated by the closed door.

Experiment 2 and 3 had active sprinkler systems installed. The time between the activations of

the smoke alarm and the automatic sprinkler in the same room was approximately 90 s in both

experiments. Experiment 3 had the dorm room door open to the corridor. As a result, the smoke

alarms in the corridor also activated prior to the thermal activation of the sprinkler in the room.

In both of the sprinklered experiments (Experiment 2 and 3), the tenability limits were not

exceeded.

78
o

0)E

re

I/) 0)u

'>

O) O

OJ

I/) o

re

(/> 3*>

re

Q.E

(U I-TSC

reMEco

'•Mre _>u<<

0)oEac c

re o ^ '^

<u re 2 > a <

re

ex ^ in o £ U ON

ON

in

Corrido Sprinkl >o< H£ o

(A < <Z <

OO

Cl.

O £ u

oo On rj (NOO

oom

prink]

03> £ {/i

O ino(N ^(^

O

ex GO < H

Cl,

L. co £H

u (N ON (N ,^

ast

orrido

(U

G

"^ o <

CnI r^ r<-i o

iH § £ Ol

'^

Csl OO

ON

w

u CO < < H

&,

enter

orridor (U £ uo <

oo

(N

OS

m o - >

J2 "-S £ C/1

'^ ooo

uu CO < < H

Cl,

West

Corridor

<D £H

uo <

ro o o£

00

Alam

Activ £ 1/3 o 'A OO o

Cl,

ation Tem

u (N (N ^ m ^^

rn •"

O

m r-i '^ -'^l- (^ § > 03 "5 s ^ '^ (N rs| ^ ^ 03 cy3 (N ^^ <N <N

Cii 00 < < H ^^ £

-'-' i-i C/3 1/3 ^ &. •>1 O <u (U o O < 00 C/2 Z >- > z 2 co -o -o O o

(U

1/3 O1/3 o c

a. c

IDa. cx

Q Dh

UuOOO c

QJ£

)_(Ua.XW --^ CNl

m '^m

_3c3Ouc

I/)

rec

0)c

re

'E

.2P lo

(/) o

TJ

(U Q^

re

L.01

4-> ^u ^

*rf >• oo ^ 1.

re o c u a;

4-> o C c 3 re c E

(U o > o O Q^ ^ F u \- re o

a;

Q

(U o4-> (U ^ E o

t-

(N^^

(U ^re 1-

O

fcou

Ou

A o O o

c/3 oc/3

Ou

ooA o o o

en OO

ONm

c/3 nO

XT

O

OV CnI

CAl NOc/3

in £H uoOCMA UoNO o uo

(N oo UoO £oooQ o A O O o

c/3 o

CO

CAl NO ou

ooA NO ^ ^ c/3 oom

On o oV o O

(N

en OmCA) oom

ci£H

UoO

(NA

CO NO

»n

uo

OO o

OO

c/3 oo

T—H

en

oo

Active

Sprinkler

System o2

1/3 c/3 <U o2 o

Door

Position lU

c/3 O

-a

1/3 ou c

&. O c

lUa. o c

a, O £

CuX

rN

m ^ in

79
Experiment 4 and 5 also showed the impact of ventilation on fire growth and development. In Experiment 4, the first window pane completely vented open at 220 s after ignition, which

coincided with flashover. By 328 s after ignition, all three window panes were gone and flames were venting out of the openings. In Experiment 5, the fire development was slower than that in

Experiment 4. The first window pane completely vented open at 331 s after ignition. It took

another 95 s for the other two window panes to self-vent, providing the dorm room with the

ventilation needed to achieve flashover. The fire behavior in Experiment 5 transitioned from a

fuel limited fire to an under-ventilated, fuel-rich condition, which resulted in reduced

temperatures in the dorm room. Once all of the window openings were completely vented open,

enough fresh oxygen could be drawn into the room to increase the heat release rate, resulting in

increased temperatures in the room and leading to flashover at approximately 440 s after

ignition, see Figure 3.5-1 and Figure 3.5-2.

The conditions in the corridor during Experiment 4 and 5 also provide insight into the conditions

that firefighters would face under near ideal natural ventilation conditions with ambient air being

introduced from the ends of the corridor while the flames and majority of the hot gases were

exhausted out of the open windows of the dorm room. The peak thermal conditions in the

corridor during two experiments, at approximately 0.9 m (3 ft) above the floor, were

approximately 75 °C (170 °F), with a total heat flux of approximately

2.5 kW/m^(0.22 BTU/ft^s).

80
5 Conclusions

This report describes a series of experiments in which fires were initiated in dormitory sleeping rooms. These experiments were conducted by NIST in cooperation with the University of

Arkansas and the Fayetteville Fire Department with the support of the U.S. Fire Administration.

The experimental conditions were documented, including a description of the building geometry

and construction, the fuel load in the dorm rooms, and the location of the instrumentation used to measure gas temperature, oxygen, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide concentrations, and heat

flux. Smoke alarm activation and sprinkler activation times were also reported. Five

experiments were conducted. In two of the experiments, the door between the dorm room (room

of fire origin) and the corridor was closed, hi the other three experiments, the door from the

dorm room (room of fire origin) remained open to the corridor, hi each case, door closed or door

open, one of the experiments included an operating automatic fire sprinkler. The results from the

experiments comparing the sprinklered and non-sprinklered dorm rooms were presented, as well

as a comparison of the results from the open and closed corridor door experiments.

In each of the experiments the smoke alarm activated prior to the development of untenable

conditions in the room of origin, within 12 s to 26 s after ignition. In all of the experiments, the

smoke alarm sounded while the fire was limited to the first fuel ignited.

Experiment 1 and 2 were conducted with the dorm room door closed. In both of the closed door

experiments, the corridor remained tenable throughout the duration of the experiments.

Experiment 2 and 3 had active automatic fire sprinklers installed. The time between the

activation of the smoke alarm located in the dorm room and the activation of the automatic

sprinkler in the room was approximately 90 s in both experiments. In the sprinklered

experiments, tenability was maintained in the dorm room and the corridor.

Experiments 4 and 5 were conducted with the dorm room door open and no active sprinkler. In both of these experiments, the tenability limits were exceeded in the dorm room and the corridor.

The results from these experiments demonstrate the potential life safety benefits of smoke alarms

for early detection and notification and automatic fire sprinkler systems for fire suppression and

life safety in college dormitories and similar occupancies. The benefit of a closed door between

the fire room and corridor in limiting the spread of smoke and gasses to other areas of the

building was also demonstrated.

81
6 References

1. Flynn, Jennifer D., Structure Fire in Dormitories, Fraternities, Sororities and Barracks.

National Fire Protection Association, Quincy. MA., August 2009.

2. Madrzykowski, D., Stroup, D.W., Walton, W.D., "Impact of Sprinklers on the Fire hazard in

Dormitories: Day Room Experiments," National Institute of Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, MD, June 2004.

3. Stroup, D.W., DeLauter, L.A., Lee, J.H., Roadarmel, G.L., "Large Fire Research Facility

(Building 205) Exhaust Hood Heat Release Rate Measurement System," NISTIR 6509,

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, July 2000.

4. Taylor, B.N. and Kuyatt, C.E., "Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of

NIST Measurement Results," NIST TN 1297, National histitute of Standards and

Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, January 1994.

5. Omega Engineering Inc., The Temperature Handbook, Vol. MM, pages Z-39-40, Stamford,

CT., 2004.

6. Blevins, L.G., "Behavior of Bare and Aspirated Thermocouples in Compartment Fires",

National Heat Transfer ( Albuquerque, NM, 1999National Heat Transfer Conference, SB"'' Proceedings. HTD99-280. August 15-17, 1999,

7. Pitts, W.M., E. Braun, R.D. Peacock, H.E. Mitler, E. L. Johnsson, P. A. Reneke, and

L.G. Blevins, "Temperature Uncertainties for Bare-Bead and Aspirated Thermocouple

Measurements in Fire Environments," Thermal Measurements: The Foundation ofFire

Standards. American Societyfor Testing and Materials (ASTM). Proceedings. ASTM

STP 1427. December 3, 2001, Dallas, TX.

8. Medtherm Corporation Bulletin 118, "64 Series Heat Flux Transducers", Medtherm

Corporation, Huntsville, AL., August 2003.

9. Pitts, William, M., Armageri V. Murthy, John L. de Ris, Jean-Remy Filtz, , Kjell Nygard,

Debbie Smith, and Ingrid Wetterlund. Round robin study oftotalflux gauge calibration

atfire laboratories. Fire Safety Journal 41, 2006, pp 459-475.

10. Bundy, M., Hamins, A., Johnsson, E.L., Kim, S.C., Ko, G.H., and Lenhart, D. B.,

"Measurements of Heat and Combustion Products in Reduced-Scale Ventilated-Limited

Compartment Fires", National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.,

NISTTN 1483, July 2007.

11. Omega Engineering Inc., Flow, Level, and Environmental Handbook Omega Engineering

hic, Stamford, CT 2000

82
12. Ohaus Corporation, Manual for SD Series Bench Scale, Pine Brook, NJ., 2000.

13. Purser, David A., "Assessment of Hazards to Occupants from Smoke, Toxic Gases, and

Heat," SFPE Handbook ofFire Protection Engineering, 4' ed. DiNenno, P. J., Drysdale, D., Beyler, C.L., Walton, W. D., Custer, R.L.P., Hall J.R., Watts, J.M. (eds).

NFPA Quincy, MA, 2008.

83