NISTIR 7094 

Structural Collapse Fire Tests: 

Single Story, Wood Frame Structures

David W. Stroup 

Nelson P. Bryner 

Jack Lee 

Jay McElroy 

Gary Roadarmel 

William H. Twilley 

Sponsored in part by 

Department of Homeland Security

Federal Emergency Management Agency

United States Fire Administration
NISTIR 7094 

Structural Collapse Fire Tests: 

Single Story, Wood Frame Structures

David W. Stroup 

Nelson P. Bryner 

Jack Lee 

Jay McElroy 

Gary Roadarmel 

William H. Twilley 

Fire Research Division 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8661 

March 2004 

Department of Homeland Security 

Tom Ridge, Secretary 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary of Emergency 

Preparedness and Response 

United States Fire Administration 

R. David Paulison, Administrator

U.S. Department of Commerce

Donald L. Evans, Secretary

Technology Administration

Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director
 - ii - 
Table of Contents 

 Page

Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 1 

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 

Experimental Configuration............................................................................................................ 3 

Experiments.................................................................................................................................... 6 

Full Scale Fire Tests.................................................................................................................... 6 

Cone Calorimeter Experiments................................................................................................... 8 

Results............................................................................................................................................. 9 

Full Scale Fire Tests.................................................................................................................... 9 

Temperature Data.................................................................................................................... 9 

Infrared Camera Data............................................................................................................ 11 

Cone Calorimeter Experiments................................................................................................. 13 

Uncertainty Analysis..................................................................................................................... 14 

Conclusions................................................................................................................................... 16 

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... 17 

References..................................................................................................................................... 17 

Appendix A – Cone Calorimeter Test Data................................................................................... 67 

- iii - 
List of Figures 

 Page

Figure 1. Photograph showing the front and one side of test structure with tile roof 

prior to start of test................................................................................................ 20 

Figure 2. Photograph showing rear and one side of test structure with asphalt single 

roof prior to start of test ........................................................................................ 21 

Figure 3. Plan view of test structure showing approximate placement of furniture 

and other items within structure (not to scale)...................................................... 22 

Figure 4. Plan view of test structure showing locations of measurement instruments 

and dimensions (all dimensions in m) .................................................................. 23 

Figure 5. Diagram showing typical construction of the test structure.................................. 24 

Figure 6. Photograph showing living room ceiling with ceiling louvers, electrical 

boxes, and attic access .......................................................................................... 25 

Figure 7. Photograph of living room area showing furniture arrangement.......................... 26 

Figure 8. Photograph showing living room with furniture, cabinets, and 

thermocouple array ............................................................................................... 27 

Figure 9. Photograph showing furniture in bedroom area of test structure 

(thermocouple array is visible in the foreground.)................................................ 28 

Figure 10. Photograph showing two double beds, night tables and lamps in the 

bedroom ................................................................................................................ 29 

Figure 11. Photograph showing trusses supporting the roof structure with 

thermocouple array visible in front of second vertical wood member ................. 30 

Figure 12. Photograph of living room showing ignition location in corner of couch 

under newspaper ................................................................................................... 31 

Figure 13. Photograph showing bedroom with ignition location in corner of chair 

under the newspaper ............................................................................................. 32 

Figure 14. Photograph of test structure at 60 s after ignition................................................. 33 

Figure 15. Photograph of test structure at 75 s after ignition................................................. 34 

Figure 16. Photograph of test structure at 120 s after ignition............................................... 35 

Figure 17. Photograph of test structure at 180 s after ignition............................................... 36 

Figure 18. Photograph of test structure at 210 s after ignition............................................... 37 

Figure 19. Photograph of test structure at 540 s after ignition............................................... 38 

Figure 20. Photograph of test structure at 640 s after ignition............................................... 39 

Figure 21. Photograph of test structure at 900 s after ignition when front door has 

burned away.......................................................................................................... 40 

Figure 22. Photograph of test structure at 960 s after ignition with portion of roof 

structure burning ................................................................................................... 41 

Figure 23. Photograph of test structure at 1010 s after ignition as collapse is starting.......... 42 

Figure 24. Photograph of test structure at 1140 s after ignition when suppression has 

been completed ..................................................................................................... 43 

Figure 25. Schematic drawing of the cone calorimeter.......................................................... 44 

Figure 26. Graph showing temperatures measured in the living room during the first 

test (distances measured from ceiling downward)................................................ 45 

- iv - 
Figure 27. Graph showing temperatures measured in the bedroom during the first test 

(distances measured from ceiling downward) ...................................................... 46 

Figure 28. Graph showing temperatures measured in the north portion of the attic 

during the first test (distances measured from roof peak downward)................... 47 

Figure 29. Graph showing temperatures measured in the south portion of the attic 

during the first test (distances measured from roof peak downward)................... 48 

Figure 30. Graph showing temperatures measured on the roof under the fire fighter 

mannequins’ boots during the first test................................................................. 49 

Figure 31. Graph showing temperatures measured in the living room during the 

second test (distances measured from ceiling downward).................................... 50 

Figure 32. Graph showing temperatures measured in the bedroom during the second 

test (distances measured from ceiling downward)................................................ 51 

Figure 33. Graph showing temperatures measured in the north portion of the attic 

during the second test (distances measured from roof peak downward).............. 52 

Figure 34. Graph showing temperatures measured in the south portion of the attic 

during the second test (distances measured from roof peak downward).............. 53 

Figure 35. Graph showing temperatures measured on the roof under the fire fighter 

mannequins’ boots during the second test ............................................................ 54 

Figure 36 Graph showing temperatures measured in the living room during the third 

test (distances measured from ceiling downward)................................................ 55 

Figure 37. Graph showing temperatures measured in the bedroom during the third 

test (distances measured from ceiling downward)................................................ 56 

Figure 38. Graph showing temperatures measured in the north portion of the attic 

during the third test (distances measured from roof peak downward).................. 57 

Figure 39. Graph showing temperatures measured in the south portion of the attic 

during the third test (distances measured from roof peak downward).................. 58 

Figure 40. Graph showing temperatures measured on the roof under the fire fighter 

mannequins’ boots during the third test................................................................ 59 

Figure 41. Graph showing temperatures measured in the living room during the 

fourth test (distances measured from ceiling downward)..................................... 60 

Figure 42. Graph showing temperatures measured in the bedroom during the fourth 

test (distances measured from ceiling downward)................................................ 61 

Figure 43. Graph showing temperatures measured in the north portion of the attic 

during the fourth test (distances measured from roof peak downward) ............... 62 

Figure 44. Graph showing temperatures measured in the south portion of the attic 

during the fourth test (distances measured from roof peak downward) ............... 63 

Figure 45. Graph showing temperatures measured on the roof under the fire fighter 

mannequins’ boots during the fourth test.............................................................. 64 

Figure 46. Test 3 shown a few seconds after ignition (top – normal video, middle –

Infrared Camera A, bottom – Infrared Camera B)................................................ 65 

Figure 47. Test 3 shown approximately 10 s before collapse of the roof structure (top 

– normal video, middle Infrared Camera A, bottom – Infrared Camera B) ......... 66 

- v - 
List of Tables 

 Page

Table 1. Fuel Load ......................................................................................................................... 5 

Table 2. Summary of Cone Calorimeter Data.............................................................................. 14 

Table 3. Uncertainty in Experimental Data ................................................................................. 15 

- vi - 
- 1 - 

Structural Collapse Fire Tests: 

Single Story Wood Frame Structures 

David W. Stroup, Nelson P. Bryner, Jack Lee, 

Jay McElroy, Gary Roadarmel, and William H. Twilley 

Abstract 

A series of fire tests was conducted in Phoenix, Arizona to collect data for a project examining 

the feasibility of predicting structural collapse. The fire test scenario was selected as part of a 

training video being prepared by the Phoenix, Arizona Fire Department. Multiple fires were 

started in each structure to facilitate collapse; the fires were not intended to test the fire 

endurance of the structures. Four structures with different roof constructions were used for the 

fire tests. Temperatures were measured as a function of time in four locations within each 

structure. Furniture items were placed in the front and back of each structure to simulate living 

room and bedroom areas. The living room and bedroom areas of each structure were ignited 

simultaneously using electric matches. Peak temperatures obtained during the tests ranged from 

approximately 800 °C (1500 °F) to 1000 °C (1800 °F). The roof of each structure collapsed 

approximately 17 minutes after ignition. In addition to the full scale tests, the plywood and 

oriented strand board (OSB) roofing materials were tested using a cone calorimeter to 

characterize the fire properties of the materials. 

Key Words: 

building collapse; building fires; fire data; fire fighting; large scale fire tests; structural failure; 

temperature measurements 

Introduction 

Every year, approximately 100 fire fighters die in the line of duty, and 90,000 to 100,000 are 

injured [1]. In 1999, the United States Fire Administration estimated that slightly more than 

30 % of the fire fighter fatalities occurring on the fire ground resulted from something other than 

stress and heart attacks [2]. Stress and heart attacks, accounting for almost half of the fire fighter 

fatalities, remain the leading cause of death. The categorization of the statistics does not lend 

itself to easy identification of those deaths that occurred due to structural issues including failure 

and collapse. Examination of specific incidents in 1999 indicates that 18 fire fighters or 16 % 

died as a result of being trapped in a structure or involved in a collapse [2]. Based on data 

obtained from 1979 through 1988, a report prepared by the National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA) for the Federal Emergency Management Agency [3] indicates that 93 of the 474 fire 

fighters who were killed at structure fires died as a result of structural collapse. Of these, 60 % 

were caught or trapped in the collapse while 40 % were struck by collapsing walls or sections of 

walls. A subsequent report examined 1150 fire fighter fatalities that occurred during the period 

from 1983 through 1992 [4]. Of the 390 deaths that occurred at structure fires, 45 fire fighters 
- 2 - 

died as a result of being caught or trapped and 26 fire fighters were struck and killed by debris 

from the collapse. In a 2002 report [5], Dr. Fahy of NFPA indicates that the rate of deaths due to 

heart attacks at structural fire is decreasing while the rate of deaths due to traumatic injuries is 

increasing. Structural collapse is identified as one of the major causes of these traumatic injuries. 

A recent National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report [6] indicates that deaths 

resulting from structural collapse have decreased overall during the last 23 years. However, the 

percentage of those deaths occurring at residential fires has been increasing. 

As part of a project funded by the United States Fire Administration, the Building and Fire 

Research Laboratory (BFRL) at NIST is exploring the feasibility of developing a system for use 

by fire fighters to predict structural collapse during fire ground operations. Predicting a potential 

structural collapse is one of the most challenging tasks facing an incident commander at a fire 

scene. Usually the lack of information on the construction of the building, fire size, fire location, 

fire burn time, condition of the building, fuel load, etc., makes the task nearly impossible. 

The fire department in the City of Phoenix, Arizona conducted a series of live fire training 

exercises in various structures in an effort to better educate fire fighters about structural collapse. 

While some of the structures in this ongoing series of training exercises were scheduled for 

demolition [7], other structures such as those described in this report were built specifically for 

the fire tests. Each structure was allowed to burn until some portion of the structure collapsed. 

In collaboration with the Phoenix Fire Department, researchers from NIST provided 

measurement support during the fire tests. Using video and data obtained from two different fire 

test series, the fire department developed a set of three videotapes dealing with fire ground 

command and collapse issues [8]. 

This report presents the results obtained from a set of tests that were conducted in single story 

wood frame residential structures. These structures were constructed for test experiments in 

order to examine several issues related to fire fighter health and safety. The first goal of the tests 

was to obtain temperature data from a burning structure during a collapse. Second, various 

techniques and tools were being evaluated for use in predicting structural collapse. Specifically, 

the use of thermal imaging techniques was being examined as a means to predict collapse. In 

addition, the exterior of the building was observed prior to and during collapse to identify any 

visual indicators of impending collapse. Subsequent reports will provide additional analysis of 

these fires and will also assess the effectiveness of various methodologies for predicting the 

onset of structural collapse. 

These tests were not designed to evaluate the fire endurance of wood trusses, gypsum wallboard, 

wood studs, or any other structural elements used in the construction of the four structures. The 

fire scenario used in this study was designed to reach flashover conditions rapidly to force a 

partial or complete collapse of the structure. Many factors influence the failure of structural 

elements including the load on the element, protection of the element, fire intensity, and fire 

duration. More or less time may be available before failure of the element depending on the 

particular fire scenario. Kenneth E. Bland provides a review of and expert procedure for 

predicting the failure of wood assemblies when exposed to fire [9]. Using the Component 
- 3 - 

Additive Method (CAM) procedures presented in his report, the fire resistance rating of a wood 

roof assembly consisting of wood trusses, spaced 0.6 m (24 in) on center and protected by a 

12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) thick layer of gypsum board would be at least 20 min. The CAM procedures 

assume the gypsum board is continuous, unlike the Phoenix fire tests where an attic access hole 

was located directly above the couch. 

The fire resistance and ability of a structural member to maintain its load during an actual fire are 

influenced by a number of factors. Many of these factors can vary significantly depending on 

the specific fire scenario. Fire resistance ratings and measured or predicted times to failure or 

collapse should not be relied upon as absolute indicators of time available for operating on or 

within a burning structure. Each structure must be evaluated and reevaluated during the fire to 

determine whether or not it is safe for fire fighters to remain within any potential collapse zone. 

Experimental Configuration 

The Phoenix Fire Department built four single story wood frame residential type structures for 

this series of tests. These structures were identical except for the roof construction. One 

structure had a roof consisting of asphalt shingles on 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) five-ply plywood while a 

second structure had asphalt shingles on 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) oriented strand board (OSB). Both 

structures had a layer of 6.8 kg (15 lb) felt paper between the asphalt shingles and the plywood 

or OSB. The other two structures used tile over either plywood or OSB as the roof construction. 

The cementatious tile roofs had two layers of 13.6 kg (30 lb) felt over the plywood or OSB and 

nominally 25.4 mm (1 in) by 50.8 mm (2 in) boards to hold the tile in place. The measurements 

for the materials used to construct the test structures described in this report are approximate 

nominal dimensions. 

Each structure consisted of two rooms and an attic space. The rooms were separated by a wall 

constructed of 2 x 4 wood studs with a layer of 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) gypsum board nailed to each 

side. There was a doorway, 0.8 m (2.9 ft) wide and 2 m (6.5 ft) high, in the wall between the two 

rooms with its centerline located 4.5 m (14.9 ft) from one exterior wall and 0.7 m (2.4 ft) from 

the other exterior wall. Figure 1 is a photograph of the front of one of the structures, and 

Figure 2 provides a rear view. A typical structure is shown in plan view in Figure 3. The 

placement of the measurement instruments and dimensions of the structure are shown in Figure 

4. 

The exterior walls of the structures were composed of 2 x 4 wood studs on 0.4 m (1.3 ft) centers 

nailed to a single sole plate and a double top plate. The exterior surfaces of the walls were 

covered with 15.9 mm (5/8 in) T-1-11 wood siding using galvanized nails. Interior walls and 

ceilings had 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) gypsum board nailed to the studs. All of the joints between boards 

were taped, and the taped joints and nails were covered with joint compound. In addition, the 

four walls in the back room (bedroom) and the two walls in the front room (living room) were 

covered with 3.2 mm (1/8 in) pressboard paneling attached using construction adhesive and 

small brads. 
- 4 - 

The front wall of the living room had a doorway, approximately 0.9 m (2.9 ft) wide and 2 m 

(6.7 ft) high, located with its centerline 0.6 m (1.9 ft) from one wall and 4.2 m (14.8 ft) from the 

opposite wall. A hollow core wood door was mounted in the doorway opening. In the living 

room of each structure, the walls adjacent to the front wall each had an approximately 1.2 m 

(4 ft) wide by 0.9 m (3ft) high section removed to let air into the room. One wall in the bedroom 

had a 1.2 m (4 ft) wide by 0.9 m (3 ft) high section removed, and the rear wall had a 0.9 m (3 ft) 

by 0.9 m (3 ft) window with glass. Each of the three cutout sections of wall had a piece of 

plywood on a slide track allowing it to be moved back and forth to regulate the flow of air into 

the room. 

The roof system was built with manufactured trusses on 0.6 m (2 ft) centers (Figure 5). The 

gable ends were studded with 51 mm (2 in) by 76 mm (3 in) lumber and covered with 12.7 mm 

(1⁄2 in) high density fiberboard. The trusses were nailed on each end and attached to the top plate 

with metal hurricane ties. All structures had 2 x 6 boards nailed to the truss tails and the tails on 

the trusses were cut off at 0.5 m (1.7 ft). The outside rafts were nailed to 2 x 4 boards and 

attached to the second truss at 1.2 m (4 ft) intervals. 

A 1.5 m (5 ft) long base cabinet made of particle board and a counter top were placed along the 

front wall of the living room. A second 1.5 m (5 ft) long cabinet was nailed to the wall above the 

first cabinet. Electrical outlet boxes were installed in the walls at various locations throughout 

the two rooms. A 0.3 m (0.8 ft) by 0.3 m (0.8 ft) hole was cut in the center of the ceiling in the 

living room and covered with a plastic grill to simulate a vent. The location of this vent was 

selected to facilitate fire spread into the attic space. A 0.6 m (2 ft) by 0.8 m (2.5 ft) hole was cut 

in the ceiling of the living room to allow access to the attic space. This opening was covered 

with a 12.7 mm (1⁄2 in) piece of drywall held in place using wood molding strips (Figure 6). 

Identical pieces of furniture, typical of a residential occupancy, were placed in each of the four 

structures. The living room contained a couch, a love seat, and two chairs consisting of wood 

frames with polyurethane foam cushioning material. Two wood end tables, a wood coffee table, 

and two table lamps were also placed in the living room (Figures 7 and 8). The bedroom 

contained two sets of foam mattresses and box springs on metal frames. Wood bed tables were 

placed adjacent to each bed. Two wood dressers were located in the room. One dresser was 

located along the wall opposite the ends of the two beds while the second dresser was adjacent to 

the side of the second bed. Finally, a chair with polyurethane padding on a wood frame was 

positioned in the bedroom diagonally opposite the end corner of the first bed (Figures 9 and 10). 

Table lamps were placed on top of the two bed tables. The mass of each object in the two rooms 

for all four tests is summarized in Table 1. Both rooms in each structure had nylon wall-to-wall 

carpet laid on the floor over 1.4 kg (3 lb) pad. 
- 5 - 

Table 1. Fuel Load 

Item 

Test No. 1 

Weight 

kg (lb) 

Test No. 2 

Weight 

kg (lb) 

Test No. 3 

Weight 

kg (lb) 

Test No. 4 

Weight 

kg (lb) 

Bedroom 

Chair 34 (75) 32.7 (72) 30.8 (68) 34.5 (76) 

Dresser 1 50.8 (112) 45.3 (100) 49 (108) 47.6 (105) 

Bed Stand 1 13.6 (30) 13.6 (30) 13.6 (30) 13.6 (30) 

Lamp 1 4.5 (10) 3.6 (8) 2.7 (6) 2.3 (5) 

Bed 1 64.9 (143) 63.5 (140) 64 (141) 64.4 (142) 

Bed Stand 2 9.5 (21) 14 (31) 13.6 (30) 13.6 (30) 

Lamp 2 4 (9) 2.3 (5) 2.7 (6) 3.2 (7) 

Bed 2 69.9 (154) 62.6 (138) 63.5 (140) 65.8 (145) 

Dresser 2 50.3 (111) 45.3 (100) 50.8 (112) 49.4 (109) 

Living Room 

Chair 1 35.4 (78) 36.3 (80) 34.5 (76) 35.8 (79) 

Table Lamp 1 1.8 (4) 4.5 (10) 3.6 (8) 3.2 (7) 

End Table 1 14 (31) 13.6 (30) 13.6 (30) 14 (31) 

Sofa 97.5 (215) 98.9 (218) 87.5 (193) 95.3 (210) 

Table Lamp 2 2.3 (5) 4.5 (10) 2.7 (6) 3.2 (7) 

End Table 2 13.6 (30) 13.6 (30) 13.6 (30) 13.6 (30) 

Chair 2 33.6 (74) 33.6 (74) 30.4 (67) 32.7 (72) 

Coffee Table 19.1 (42) 20 (44) 21.8 (48) 20.4 (45) 

Love Seat 51.7 (114) 51.7 (114) 51.3 (113) 50.8 (112) 

Four thermocouple arrays were positioned in each structure to obtain temperature data during the 

fire test. The first array was located in the living room 0.8 m (2.6 ft) from the front wall and 

0.8 m (2.6 ft) from the adjacent wall. The second thermocouple array was placed in the rear 

room between the two beds, 1.6 m (5.3 ft) from the rear wall and 2.6 m (8.6 ft) from the north 

wall. These arrays had Chromel-Alumel (Type K)1

 thermocouples located at 25 mm (1 in), 

0.3 m (1 ft), 0.6 m (2 ft), 0.9 m (3 ft), 1.2 m (4 ft), 1.5 m (5 ft), 1.8 m (6 ft), and 2.1 m (7 ft) 

below the ceiling. Two thermocouple arrays were located in the attic space along the attic 

centerline that ran parallel to the front wall of each structure. These arrays were located 0.8 m 

(2.6 ft) from either gabled end of each structure. The attic arrays had thermocouples located at 

25 mm (1 in), 0.2 m (0.5 ft), 0.3 m (1 ft), 0.5 m (1.5 ft), 0.6 m (2 ft), 0.8 m (2.5 ft), 0.9 m (3 ft), 

and 1.1 m (3.5 ft) below the attic peak (Figure 11). 

 

1

 Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this paper to foster understanding. Such 

identification does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the 

purpose. 
- 6 - 

Two mannequins outfitted in fire fighter turnout gear with self-contained breathing apparatus 

were placed on the roof of each structure during the test. Each fire fighter mannequin had a mass 

of approximately 127 kg (280 lb) with gear, and they were positioned on the roof using metal 

stands. One fire fighter was placed in a bending position while the second stood upright (Figure 

1). Thermocouples were located in contact with the roof surface under the left and right boot of 

each fire fighter mannequin. The tiles were removed from under the mannequins’ boots for tests 

3 and 4. A roof mounted air conditioning unit was also placed on the roof of each structure. 

Each air conditioning unit had an approximate mass of 227 kg (500 lb) and was placed on the 

sloped portion of the roof opposite the fire fighter mannequin locations. 

Each test was documented using standard video, infrared cameras, and still photographs. Two 

separate infrared cameras monitoring different portions of the electromagnetic band were used 

during the tests. One of the infrared imagers, Camera A provided less quantitative temperature 

data, but was representative of infrared cameras typically used by fire departments. The other 

infrared imager, Camera B, provided significantly more resolution in temperature data, different 

measurement ranges, emissivity factors, adjustable sensing spans, and calibration capability, but 

it was not designed for fire fighter use. The video and infrared cameras were mounted on a fire 

department ladder truck. During each fire test, the ladder with the standard video and two 

infrared cameras was elevated to provide a similar overhead view of each structure for the three 

cameras. 

Experiments 

Full Scale Fire Tests

Two fires were ignited simultaneously in each structure using electric matches. Electric matches 

are matchbooks with a short length of Ni-Chrome wire wrapped around the match heads. When 

a small electric current passes through the wire, the wire heats up and ignites the matchbook. 

One electric match was placed in a slit in the couch in the front room and covered with paper 

towels and newspaper (Figure 12). A second electric match was positioned in a slit in the chair 

in the back room and covered with paper towels and newspaper (Figure 13). 

The fires were ignited in each room simultaneously and allowed to grow to flashover. Flashover 

occurs when multiple combustible items in a room ignite as a result primarily of being heated by 

the intense thermal radiation from the hot upper layer. At flashover, the room environment is 

characterized as well stirred with temperatures throughout the space being relatively uniform. 

Gas temperatures in the room typically exceed 600 °C (1110 °F). During this test series, the fire 

ultimately spread into the attic space and eventually caused collapse of a portion of the roof 

structure. For this test series, collapse was assumed to occur when the portion of the roof 

supporting the fire fighter mannequins failed and allowed fire to envelope the mannequins. As 

the roof structure collapsed, the fire fighter mannequins were removed using a fire department 

crane. Once the mannequins were removed, the fire was extinguished using water or a 
- 7 - 

combination of water and a fire suppression foam agent. The test sequence is depicted in Figures 

14 through 24. 

Test No. 1 was conducted using the structure with a roof composed of asphalt shingles over 

plywood. For the first test, smoke became visible coming from the structure approximately 60 s 

after ignition. At approximately 3 min after ignition, the living room reached flashover 

temperatures. The bedroom reached flashover temperatures about 6 1⁄2 min after ignition. After 

approximately 1 min, the temperatures in the living room dropped to a relatively uniform 500 °C 

(930 °F). The bedroom temperatures remained near 600 °C (1110 °F). The fire appears to have 

penetrated into the attic space at about 7 1⁄2 min after ignition. At 14 min, portions of the roof 

began to burn. Collapse of a portion of the roof and removal of the firefighter mannequins 

occurred 17 1⁄2 min after ignition. Fire suppression was initiated at 18 min 40 s. 

Test No. 2 was conducted using the structure with a roof composed of asphalt shingles over 

oriented strand board. In the second test, smoke became visible coming from the structure 

approximately 52 seconds after ignition. At approximately 3 1⁄2 min after ignition, the living 

room temperatures briefly exceeded flashover temperatures. Temperatures in the bedroom area 

never exceeded the 600 °C (1110 °F) flashover threshold until near the end of the test. The 

living room maintained peak temperatures in excess of 500 °C (930 oF) while the temperatures in 

the bedroom remained between 400 °C (750 oF) and 600 °C (1110 oF). The fire appears to have 

penetrated into the attic space at about 8 min after ignition. Flames began lapping the roof 13 

min after ignition and the front door failed. At 14 min, portions of the roof began to burn. 

Collapse of a portion of the roof and removal of the firefighter mannequins occurred 17 min after 

ignition. Suppression was initiated at 17 min 45 s. 

Test No. 3 was conducted using the structure with a roof composed of cementitious tile over 

plywood. During the third test, smoke became visible coming from the structure approximately 

1 min 20 s after ignition. At approximately 3 min after ignition, the living room reached 

flashover temperatures of approximately 600 °C (1110 oF). The living room continued to 

maintain temperatures in excess of 600 °C (1110 oF) for most of the test period. Temperatures in 

the bedroom remained below flashover temperatures until 11 min after ignition. The fire appears 

to have penetrated into the attic space again at 8 min after ignition. Collapse of a portion of the 

roof and removal of the firefighter mannequins occurred 16 min after ignition. Suppression was 

initiated at 17 min. White smoke was observed coming from the structure at 19 min 40 s. 

Test No. 4 was conducted using the structure with a roof composed of cementitious tile over 

oriented strand board. For the fourth test, smoke was first visible at approximately 56 s after 

ignition. Flashover temperatures were reached in the living room 4 min after ignition while the 

bedroom remained below flashover temperatures until almost 8 min after ignition. The fire 

penetrated into the attic space at about 8 min after ignition. Collapse of a portion of the roof and 

removal of the firefighter mannequins occurred 17 min 10 s after ignition. Suppression was 

initiated at 18 min. 
- 8 - 

Cone Calorimeter Experiments

The type of material, either plywood or OSB, which was used for the roofs of the structures is 

one of the variables examined during this study. In an effort to develop additional information 

about the materials and their response to fire exposure, samples were tested in the cone 

calorimeter. The cone calorimeter was developed at NIST in the 1980’s [10], and it is presently 

the most commonly used bench-scale rate of heat release apparatus [11]. There are national [12] 

and international [13] standards documenting the apparatus and appropriate test procedures. 

Heat release rate is determined by the oxygen consumption method [14]. The gas flow rate in 

the exhaust duct is calculated from the pressure drop across and temperature at an orifice plate in 

the duct. 

The cone calorimeter consists of a heater, spark ignitor, sample holder, and load cell located 

underneath an exhaust hood (Figure 25). Typically, the sample is located in the open with free 

access of air to the combustion zone. The heater consists of a 5-kW electrical heating element 

inside an insulated stainless-steel conical shell. Samples can be tested in either a horizontal or 

vertical orientation. When tests are performed in the horizontal configuration, the specimen is 

positioned approximately 25 mm (1 in) beneath the bottom plate of the cone heater. Flames and 

products of combustion pass through a circular opening at the top of the heater. The heater can 

expose samples to a maximum irradiance of approximately 100 kW/m2

. 

For piloted ignition tests, an electric spark ignitor is positioned at the top of vertical samples and 

over the center of horizontal samples. Samples are typically 0.1 m (0.3 ft) by 0.1 m (0.3 ft), and 

they can be wrapped with aluminum foil to minimize edge effects. Combustion products and 

dilution air are extracted through the hood and exhaust duct by a high temperature fan. The flow 

rate can be adjusted between 0.01 m3

/s (0.35 ft3/s) and 0.03 m3/s (1.1 ft3/s). The volumetric flow 

rate is maintained constant during testing. The sample is mounted on a load cell to determine 

mass loss rate during a test, and smoke obscuration is measured using a laser light source. 

Finally, the concentrations of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and other gases are measured 

using appropriate instruments. 

Three replicate tests of each sample were conducted at external heat fluxes of 35 kW/m2

 and 

70 kW/m2

. For each test, the 0.1 m (0.3 ft) square sample was oriented horizontally under the 

cone heater. Data were recorded until approximately 20 % to 25 % of the original mass 

remained. 
- 9 - 

Results 

Full Scale Fire Tests

Temperature Data 

The temperature histories obtained for the first test are shown in Figures 26 through 30. As the 

fire in the living room grows to flashover, the stratified fire environment is evident from the 

distinct temperature histories obtained at the eight sampling locations (Figure 26). At about 

200 s, the temperature plots indicate a “well stirred environment” with an average temperature of 

about 500 °C (930 °F). The fire in the bedroom takes longer to reach flashover temperatures; it 

reaches that point at about 420 s. At this point, the environment becomes well mixed with a 

temperature of about 600 °C (1100 °F) (Figure 27). Both the north (Figure 28) and south (Figure 

29) thermocouple arrays in the attic indicate a stratified environment until about 700 s. The two 

peaks evident in both figures, one at about 180 s and the second at 200 s to 250 s, are most likely 

the result of periodic flame penetration into the attic space through the ceiling penetrations 

(Figure 6). At about 700 s, flashover appears to have occurred in the attic with the environment 

becoming well mixed at an average temperature of 750 to 800 °C (1380 to 1470 °F). The 

temperature plots suggest that some portions of the ceiling begin failing at about 800 s. In 

addition, the front door failed at about 840 s. The roof begins to collapse at 1050 s and 

suppression is started at 1120 s. The temperature data obtained on the roof surface beneath the 

fire fighter mannequin boots during the fire test is shown in Figure 30. Once flashover occurs in 

the attic at about 700 s, the temperatures under the boots increase rapidly to 800 °C (1470 °F), 

approximately the temperature within the attic space. Subsequently, the temperatures decrease 

correspondingly with decreasing temperatures within the attic space, possibly the result of failure 

of the ceiling. The temperatures gradually increase until roof collapse at which point the 

mannequins become surrounded by flames until their removal. 

The temperature histories obtained for the second test are shown in Figures 31 through 35. In the 

living room, the fire grows to a temperature indicative of impending flashover, approximately 

600 °C (1100 °F) within 180 s after ignition. After this initial period, the fire environment 

becomes stratified with a temperature gradient of 300 °C (570 °F) to 550 °C (1020 °F) for a 

period of about 180 s (Figure 31). At approximately 350 s after ignition, the entire living room 

area appears to flashover with a peak temperature of 700 °C (1300 °F). At this point, the 

environment in the living room becomes well mixed with a uniform temperature throughout 

most of the remainder of the test. The decrease in temperature occurring at approximately 400 s 

is the result of failure of some portion of the living room ceiling. After the fire begins spreading 

into the attic area, temperatures in the living room begin a steady climb to a peak of 1200 °C 

(2200 °F). The front door fails at about 840 s leading to a reduction in living room temperatures. 

Except for a few brief moments, the temperatures in the bedroom area never exceed 600 °C 

(1110 °F) (Figure 32). With the exception of the point at which the roof section collapsed at 

1020 s, the environment in the bedroom remains stratified throughout the duration of the test. 

The first peak evident in Figures 33 and 34 at 180 s is most likely the result of flames 
- 10 - 

momentarily extending into the attic area through the ceiling ventilation louvers. A comparison 

of Figures 33 and 34 suggests that the attic access panel and possibly a portion of the ceiling near 

the ignition location failed at 400 s. The brief peak in Figure 34 at 725 s is probably the ignition 

of plastic light boxes in the ceiling. The attic area reaches a flashover condition at about 900 s. 

A portion of the roof under the fire fighter mannequins collapses approximately 4 min after 

flashover in the attic area. The temperature data obtained on the roof surface beneath the fire 

fighter mannequin boots during the fire test is shown in Figure 35. As the attic space approaches 

flashover conditions at about 800 s, the temperatures under the boots increase to 750 °C 

(1380 °F). At approximately 1020 s, the roof structure begins to collapse. 

The temperature histories obtained for the third test are shown in Figures 36 through 40. As with 

the other tests, the temperatures in the living room rise rapidly at the start of the third test. At 

approximately 120 s, the space reaches temperatures indicative of flashover (Figure 36). After 

flashover, the environment becomes stratified with temperatures ranging from 300 °C (570 °F) to 

600 °C (1110 °F). At about 550 s, the temperatures in the lower part of the living room increase 

producing an almost uniform environment of between 550 °C (1020 °F) and 600 °C (1110 °F). 

Just prior to a portion of the ceiling collapsing at about 700 s, the temperatures in the living room 

increase to about 700 °C (1290 °F). After collapse of a portion of the ceiling, the temperatures 

initially decrease then increase to 700 ° C (1290 °F) to 800 °C (1470 °F). Collapse of a portion 

of the roof occurs at about 960 s. Prior to collapse of a portion of the ceiling, the bedroom 

temperatures remain well below 600 °C (1110 °F) (Figure 37). For the first 400 s of the test, the 

temperatures in both the north (Figure 38) and south (Figure 39) portions of the attic grow slowly 

to a peak of about 150 °C (300 °F). The temperature spikes during this period are indicative of 

flames momentarily extending into the attic area through the louvers and other ceiling 

penetrations (Figure 6). Once materials located in the attic start burning, the temperatures 

increase reaching a sustained maximum of 550 °C (1020 °F) with a momentary peak above 

600 °C (1110 °F). When the roof collapses at 960 s, the attic temperatures initially increase then 

decrease rapidly as suppression is initiated. The temperatures under the fire fighter mannequins’ 

boots remain close to ambient until the roof collapses at 960 s when the mannequins are 

enveloped in flame and removed (Figure 40). 

The temperature histories obtained for the fourth test are shown in Figures 41 through 45. The 

temperature data obtained in the living room (Figure 41) indicates that the fire grew rapidly 

producing temperatures in excess of 600 °C (1110 °F). The environment in the living room 

remained at flashover temperatures and well mixed until about the time of roof collapse. The 

environment in the bedroom (Figure 42) remains stratified with a peak temperature of 420 °C 

(790 °F) until some portion of the ceiling fails at 450 s. After ceiling failure, the temperatures 

become somewhat erratic varying between 400 °C (750 °F) and almost 800 °C (1470 °F). At 

approximately 800 s, the temperatures in the bedroom become uniform and decrease then rapidly 

increase then decrease again. The most likely cause of this phenomenon is failure of additional 

portions of the ceiling as a result of flashover in the attic space. Temperature increase in both the 

north (Figure 43) and south (Figure 44) parts of the attic is relatively continuous with only slight 

discontinuities at about 450 s and 850 s. These discontinuities indicate ignition of materials in 
- 11 - 

the attic space and failure of the ceiling membrane between the living room/bedroom area and 

the attic. Once the attic space has flashed over at 900 s, the temperatures become uniform at 

approximately 750 °C (1380 °F) until collapse at 1030 s. The temperature data obtained on the 

roof surface beneath the fire fighter mannequin boots during the fire test is shown in Figure 45. 

Very little temperature increase is evident on the underside of the fire fighter boots until the roof 

collapses at 1030 s. 

In all cases, some temperatures in the living room reach flashover temperatures (approximately 

600 °C (1110 °F)) in at least some portion of the room within 180 s after ignition. With the 

exception of test 3, the living room temperatures remained at or above 600 °C (1110 °F) until 

roof collapse. Temperatures in excess of 600 °C (1110 °F) were seldom sustained in the 

bedroom until after apparent ignition of combustibles in the attic area. Combustible materials in 

the attic space appeared to ignite 400 s to 450 s after ignition during each test. With the 

exception of the first test, roof collapse appears to be preceded by flashover in the attic space. 

Even though the noncombustible tile was removed from beneath the fire fighter mannequins’ 

boots, no temperature changes were measured under the boots until collapse of the roof during 

the third and fourth tests. The increased temperatures obtained during the first and second tests 

could be the result of burning of portions of the combustible roof structure remote from the 

mannequin locations. 

Infrared Camera Data 

Any substance will emit electromagnetic radiation as a result of electron motion associated with 

the internal energy of the material. This internal energy is a strong function of the temperature of 

the substance [15]. The emitted radiant energy can range from radio waves to cosmic rays. This 

radiant energy is always present, however, the human body can detect only a relatively small 

portion of it. Radiation that is detectable as heat or light is referred to as thermal radiation and 

occupies a wavelength range of 0.4 μm to 1000 μm. 

The portion of this spectrum visible to the human eye is extremely small, ranging from 0.4 μm to 

approximately 0.7 μm. The color blue is in the range from 0.4 μm to 0.5 μm, the color green is 

in the range from 0.5 μm to 0.6 μm, and the color red is in the range from 0.6 μm to 0.7 μm. 

The infrared region of the spectrum is from 0.7 μm to 1000 μm. The infrared region of the 

spectrum is divided into three parts: near infrared, mid infrared, and thermal infrared. Only the 

thermal infrared portion, 3 μm to 1000 μm, is related to the sensation of heat. Infrared 

measurement devices typically operate somewhere in the range from 3 μm to approximately 

30 μm. 

Infrared thermometers have been in commercial use since the early 1960’s. These electronic 

sensors capture the invisible infrared energy naturally emitted from all objects, in proportion to 

their temperature and material characteristics. The term emissivity is used to quantify the energy 

emitting characteristics of different materials. Most infrared temperature measuring devices 

include a user-adjustable emissivity to allow accurate measurement of different materials. An 

infrared camera or thermal imager package includes one or more lens, spectral filter detector, 
- 12 - 

processing electronics, and a housing to hold the components together and protect them from the 

environments. Some infrared imaging cameras measure temperature contours across a surface in 

front of the lens using scanning optics; other cameras use staring arrays to determine temperature 

contours. The total energy reaching the sensor is the sum of (1) energy emitted from the target, 

in proportion to temperature and emissivity; (2) energy reflected from the target, in proportion to 

its reflectivity or the presence of any hot objects nearby; and (3) energy transmitted through the 

target, in proportion to its transmissivity and the presence of any hot objects behind it. 

Emissivity and transmissivity are wavelength dependent properties for many materials. 

Many factors enter into the considerations of the best camera waveband selection. The 

theoretical implications of operating in a particular waveband and the performance factors of the 

camera must be considered. Most infrared cameras are filtered to operate in the 3 μm to 5 μm 

and 8 μm to 14 μm waveband regions. These two operating regions are directly related to 

atmospheric propagation properties. If a wide range of applications is being considered, the 7 to 

14 μm region would be preferred. However, more energy is available for detectors in the 3 to 

5 μm region when the sources are very hot, 500 °C (930 °F) to 1000 °C (1830 °F). 

During each fire test, two infrared cameras and one standard video camera were used to record 

similar views. Camera A, which was typical of what fire fighters might employ, utilizes focal 

plane array technology and is capable of detecting infrared radiation in the 8 to 14 μm range. 

Camera B, which is often used for research applications, operates using focal plane array 

technology and detects radiation in the waveband 3.4 to 5 μm. Camera B offers the user the 

ability to calibrate the focal plane array sensor, adjust the target emissivity, and achieve better 

temperature resolution by employing narrower temperature ranges. Camera B is capable of 

displaying quantitative temperature information, but also costs between three and five times 

more than Camera A. Figure 46 presents the same view from the three cameras a few seconds 

after ignition during test 3. The scene shown in Figure 47 is test 3 approximately 10 s prior to 

collapse of the roof structure. In both figures, the top image is from the standard video camera, 

the middle image is from Camera A, and the bottom image is from Camera B. 

During these tests, the standard video camera documented that the roof began to sag or drop 

slightly just before failing completely. The time between the first appearance of a noticeable 

depression on the roof and the complete collapse of the roof appeared too short to allow any 

personnel on the roof to escape safely. The thermal images provided by the infrared cameras 

were also examined for evidence of an imminent collapse. The thermal images did not provide 

any warning of the roof collapse. The thermal radiation from the smoke plumes on both ends of 

the roof was radiated back to the surface of the roof. This reradiated energy appeared to wash 

out any thermal signature of the energy being conducted through the roof. Another factor that 

could make it difficult to see via thermal imager the energy being conducted through the roof 

would be the presence of water on the shingles or tiles. During one of the experiments, the fire 

department attempted to cool the boom of the extraction crane and the wind carried some of the 

water droplets onto one side of the roof. The temperature of the roof appeared to decrease, and 

the temperature difference across the wetted portion of the roof disappeared. The presence of hot 

smoke plumes or water from suppression activity or rain make it very difficult to see the thermal 
- 13 - 

signature of the fire through the roof. For this limited set of burn experiments, the thermal 

imagers did not appear to provide sufficient warning to allow fire fighters to escape before the 

roof collapsed. 

Cone Calorimeter Experiments

Three replicate tests of each sample were conducted in the cone calorimeter. Each sample was 

exposed to either an external heat flux of 35 kW/m2

 or 70 kW/m2. Based on an analysis of heat 

flux data obtained by various researchers, Babrauskas recommends using a heat flux value of 

35 kW/m2

 for materials exposed to pre-flashover fires [16]. For post flashover fire exposure, 

Babrauskas indicates potential heat fluxes as high as 150 kW/m2

 could be required. This value is 

beyond the capabilities of most laboratory scale apparatus including the cone calorimeter. In the 

post flashover fire data analyzed by Babrauskas, heat flux values for exposures to ceiling 

surfaces ranged from 67 to 147 kW/m2

. In research by Madrzykowski [17], a value of 70 kW/m2

is suggested as providing cone calorimeter results similar to full scale performance for certain 

materials. 

For each test, the 0.1 m (0.3 ft) square sample was oriented horizontally under the cone heater. 

Each sample was wrapped in aluminum foil on all sides except for the exposed surface and 

placed in a metal frame. A number of flammability properties were measured including heat 

release rate, specimen mass loss rate, smoke generation rate, combustion gas production, and 

ignitability. The data obtained for each sample from the cone calorimeter tests is contained in 

Appendix A. The average values for each sample at the two external heat fluxes are shown in 

Table 2. 
- 14 - 

Table 2. Summary of Cone Calorimeter Data 

35 kW/m2 70 kW/m2 Data Item 

Plywood OSB Plywood OSB 

Peak Heat Release Rate (kW/m2) 220 235 254 329 

Time of Peak Heat Release Rate (s) 433 442 32 36 

Average Heat Release Rate (kW/m2) 115 156 168 223 

Average Heat Release Rate at 60 s (kW/m2) 123 165 164 267 

Average Heat Release Rate at 180 s (kW/m2) 93 156 157 231 

Average Heat Release Rate at 300 s (kW/m2) 95 142 180 231 

Total Heat Released (MJ/m2) 62 80 65 89 

Average Effective Heat of Combustion (MJ/kg) 12.9 13.4 13.4 14.2 

Average Specific Extinction Area (m2/kg) 56 63.8 130.5 123.9 

Average Mass Loss Rate (g/s/m2) 9.9 12.1 14.4 16.9 

Initial Specimen Mass (g) 64.7 76.4 64.0 79.5 

Final Specimen Mass (g) 16.8 17.0 16.0 16.9 

Average CO Yield (kg/kg) 0.0016 0.0023 0.00344 0.00391 

Average CO2 Yield (kg/kg) 1.34 1.45 1.40 1.49 

Time to Sustained Ignition (s) 47.1 39.7 7.7 10.6 

As expected, the higher heat flux results in a more rapid ignition of both materials. It also leads 

to greater production of smoke and combustion gases. At the higher heat flux, the OSB has a 

peak heat release rate almost 100 kW greater than the peaks obtained from either material at 

35 kW/m2

 and the plywood at 70 kW/m2. The heat release rate for the OSB is approximately 

100 kW greater than the other materials throughout the test at 70 kW/m2

. While the plywood 

mass was approximately 10 g less than the OSB at the start of each test, approximately the same 

mass of material remained at the end of the test. The total amount of energy liberated per square 

meter of material is significantly greater for the OSB than the plywood. The pyrolysis and 

combustion of the organic binder, which represents a higher mass fraction in OSB relative to 

plywood, would be consistent with a higher peak heat release rate. 

Uncertainty Analysis 

There are different components of uncertainty in the gas temperatures, mass of fuel packages, 

and time to collapse data reported here. 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 [18]. 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 

essentially 100 %. After estimating uncertainties by either Type A or B analysis, the 

uncertainties are combined in quadrature to yield the combined standard uncertainty. 
- 15 - 

Multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of two results in the 

expanded uncertainty which corresponds to a 95 percent confidence interval (2σ). 

Components of uncertainty are tabulated in Table 3. Some of these components, such as the zero 

and calibration elements, are derived from instrument specifications, while other components, 

such as positioning include past experience. The combined standard uncertainty for gas 

temperature includes a component that is related to the position of the thermocouple. Each 

thermocouple array was carefully installed and positioned as each structure was prepared for 

each experimental burn. Each thermocouple was tested individually for proper response to flame 

temperatures. The position of each thermocouple was rechecked during the final steps prior to 

ignition. Several load cells were utilized to measure fuel package mass. Each load cell was 

calibrated with a standard mass prior to recording the mass of each fuel item. All fuel items, 

such as bed, dresser, or sofa, in a particular structure were weighed, then items were selected at 

random to be reweighed a second time in order to help estimate repeatability. 

The combined standard uncertainty for infrared camera temperatures includes components 

related to the calibration of the thermal camera which were estimated from manufacturer 

specifications. Other uncertainty components including material emissivity and surface 

properties were estimated based on prior experience. Uncertainty components for the cone 

calorimeter were estimated based on manufacturer specifications and past experience using the 

cone calorimeter to collect ignition and flammability properties. Uncertainties associated with 

oxygen calorimetry techniques is discussed in greater detail by Babrabrauskas et al [19] and 

Bryant et al. [20] 

Table 3. Uncertainty in Experimental Data 

Component 

Standard 

Uncertainty 

Combined 

Standard 

Uncertainty 

Total 

Expanded 

Uncertainty 

Gas Temperature 

 Zero 

 Calibration 

 Position 

 Repeatability 

 Random 

± 2 % 

± 2 % 

± 5 % 

± 5 % 

± 10 % 

± 12 % ± 25 % 

Mass of Fuel Package 

 Zero 

 Calibration 

 Repeatability 

 Random 

± 2 % 

± 7 % 

± 5 % 

± 3 % 

± 9 % ± 18 % 
- 16 - 

Component 

Standard 

Uncertainty 

Combined 

Standard 

Uncertainty 

Total 

Expanded 

Uncertainty 

Time to Collapse 

 Repeatability 

 Random 

± 7 % 

± 5 % 

± 9 % ± 17 % 

Infrared Camera Temperatures 

 Zero 

 Calibration 

 Emissivity 

 Repeatabiltiy 

 Random 

± 5 % 

± 5 % 

± 10 % 

± 10 % 

± 5 % 

± 17 % ± 35 % 

Cone Calorimeter 

 Peak Heat Release Rate 

 Time of Peak Heat Release Rate 

 Average Heat Release Rate 

 Total Heat Released 

 Average Eff. Ht. of Combustion 

 Average Specific Extinction Area 

 Average Mass Loss Rate 

 Specimen Mass 

 Average CO Yield 

 Average CO2 Yield 

 Time to Sustained Ignition 

± 13 % 

± 4 % 

± 10 % 

± 14 % 

± 10 % 

± 10 % 

± 10 % 

± 5 % 

± 10 % 

± 10 % 

± 5 % 

± 13 % 

± 4 % 

± 10 % 

± 14 % 

± 10 % 

± 10 % 

± 10 % 

± 5 % 

± 10 % 

± 10 % 

± 5 % 

± 25 % 

± 8 % 

± 20 % 

± 28 % 

± 20 % 

± 20 % 

± 20 % 

± 10 % 

± 20 % 

± 20 % 

± 10 % 

Note: Random and repeatability evaluated as Type A, other components as Type B. 

Conclusions 

For all four tests, the maximum temperatures in the living room and bedroom areas reached 

between 540 °C (1000 °F) and 815 °C (1500 °F). Flashover occurred in the living room spaces 

approximately 3 to 4 minutes after ignition. Prior to collapse, peak temperatures in the attic 

spaces were approximately 500 °C (930 °F). The fires broke through into the attic spaces 

between 6 minutes and 8 minutes after ignition. In all of the tests, collapse occurs approximately 

17 minutes after ignition. Flashover in the attic spaces occurs approximately 5 1⁄2 minutes after 

the fire breaks through the ceiling or 12 minutes after ignition. As the attic space approaches 

flashover, temperatures under the roof rapidly change (on the order of a few seconds) from near 

ambient 37 °C (100 °F) to 540 °C (1000 °F). 
- 17 - 

The temperature of the roof surface under the fire fighter mannequins’ boots did not increase 

significantly prior to collapse. Temperature measurements obtained under fire fighter boots 

would probably not be a useful indicator of potential collapse. Unfortunately, the fire fighter 

mannequins did not move. Therefore, the influence of impact or dynamic loading from walking 

on the roof could not be evaluated. Impact loads on these roof structures could result in 

significantly less time to collapse. 

Each of the roofs collapsed between approximately 16 3⁄4 min and 17 1⁄2 min. This limited set of 

full-scale tests do not demonstrate significant difference between the performance of the 

plywood and OSB sheathing. No differences were observed between the asphalt shingles and 

the cementatious tiles. The other temperature data obtained during the tests did not indicate any 

difference in performance between the plywood and OSB. OSB releases energy faster and more 

of its total energy when exposed to high radiant heat fluxes in the cone calorimeter. While it is 

heat flux dependent, both materials ignite after about the same exposure time. 

This limited set of burn tests indicated that infrared cameras may not be a viable tool for 

predicting structural collapse in residential structures. The thermal signature of the fire coming 

through the roof is washed out by radiation from smoke or fire plumes or was obscured by water 

spray or rain. Since one typically expects hot smoke or fire plumes as well as water sprays to be 

present at residential fire scenes, thermal images do not appear to be an adequate indicator of 

pending structural collapse. 

Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to thank the Phoenix Fire Department and Chief Alan Brunacini for 

inviting NIST to participate in this live fire training exercise. Captain Tom Bates of the Phoenix 

Fire Department deserves special recognition for the invaluable support that he provided to NIST 

staff during this test series. In addition, the authors are grateful to Mr. Michael Smith of the 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory at NIST for conducting the cone calorimeter tests. The 

authors would like to thank Mr. Francis L. Brannigan, author of Building Construction for the 

Fire Service, for providing comments on this report. Review of this document by the American 

Forest and Paper Association is also appreciated. Finally, the authors express gratitude to the 

United States Fire Administration and Mr. William Troup for their sponsorship and support of 

this important research. 

References 

[1] Beyler, C.L., “Fire Safety Challenges in the 21st Century,” Journal of Fire Protection 

Engineering, Vol. 11, No.1, pp. 4-15, 2001. 

[2] Fire Fighter Fatalities in the United States in 1999, United States Fire Administration, 

Emmitsburg, MD, July 2000. 
- 18 - 

[3] “Fire Fighter Deaths in Structural Collapses, 1979-1988,” National Fire Protection 

Association, Quincy, MA, August 1989. 

[4] “Fire Ground Fatalities as a Result of Structural Collapse, 1983-1992,” National Fire 

Protection Association, Quincy, MA, August 1993. 

[5] Fahy, R.F., “U.S. Fire Service Fatalities in Structure Fires, 1977-2000,” National Fire 

Protection Association, Quincy, MA, July 2002. 

[6] Brassell, L.D. and Evans, D.D., “Trends in Firefighter Fatalities Due to Structural 

Collapse, 1979-2002,” NISTIR 7069, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Gaithersburg, MD, November 2003. 

[7] Stroup, D.W., Madrzykowski, D., Walton, W.D., and Twilley, W., “Structural Collapse 

Fire Tests: Single Story, Ordinary Construction Warehouse,” NISTIR 6959, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, May 2003. 

[8] Brunacini, A., “Critical Fireground Factors Video Set,” VCRSET1, National Fire 

Protection Association, Quincy, MA, 2002. 

[9] Bland, K.E., “Behavior of Wood Exposed to Fire: A Review and Expert Judgment 

Procedure for Predicting Assembly Failure,” Master’s Thesis, Worcester Polytechnic 

Institute, Worcester, MA, May 1994. 

[10] Babrauskas, V., “Development of the Cone Calorimeter – A Bench-Scale Heat Release 

Rate Apparatus Based on Oxygen Consumption,” Journal of Fire and Materials, Vol. 8, 

pp. 81-95, 1984. 

[11] Janssens, M., “Section 3/Chapter 2: Calorimetery,” The SFPE Handbook of Fire 

Protection Engineering, 2nd ed., SFPE, Bethesda, MD, pp. 3-16 – 3-36, 1995. 

[12] “ASTM E 1354: Test Method for Heat and Visible Smoke Release Rates for Materials 

and Products Using an Oxygen Consumption Calorimeter,” ASTM Fire Test Standards, 

4th ed., ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 968-984, 1993. 

[13] “ISO 5660-1: Rate of Heat Release of Building Products (Cone Calorimeter),” 

International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1992. 

[14] Parker, W., “Calculations of the Heat Release Rate by Oxygen Consumption for Various 

Applications,” NBSIR 81-2427, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, March 

1982. 

[15] Siegel, R. and Howell, J.R., Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill 

Book Company, New York, NY, pg. 1, 1981. 

[16] Babrauskas, V., “Specimen Heat Fluxes for Bench-Scale Heat Release Rate Testing,” 

Fire and Materials, Interflam ’93, Fire Safety, International Interflam Conference, 6th, 

March 30-April 1, 1993, Oxford, England, Interscience Communications Ltd., London, 

England, pp. 57-74, 1993. 

[17] Madrzykowski, D., “Office Work Station Heat Release Rate Study: Full Scale vs. Bench 

Scale,” Interflam ’96, International Interflam Conference, 7th Proceedings, March 26-28, 

1996, Cambridge, England, Interscience Communications, Ltd., London, England, pp. 

47-55, 1996. 

[18] Taylor, B.N. and Kuyatt, C.E., “Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the 

Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results,” NIST TN 1297, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, January 1994. 
- 19 - 

[19] Twilley, W. H. and Babrauskas, V., “User's Guide for the Cone Calorimeter,” NBS SP 

745, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, August 1988. 

[20] Bryant, R.A., Womeldorf, C.A., Johnsson, E.L., and Ohlemiller, T.J., “Radiative Heat 

Flux Measurement Uncertainty,” Fire and Materials, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 209-222, 2003. 
- 20 - 

Figure 1. Photograph showing the front and one side of test structure with tile roof prior to start 

of test. 
- 21 - 

Figure 2. Photograph showing rear and one side of test structure with asphalt single roof prior to 

start of test.
- 22 - 

Figure 3. Plan view of generic test structure showing approximate placement of furniture and 

other items within structure (not to scale). 
- 23 - 

Figure 4. Plan view of generic structure showing locations of measurement instruments and 

dimensions (all dimensions in m). 
- 24 - 

Figure 5. Diagram showing typical construction of the structure. 
- 25 - 

Figure 6. Photograph showing “living room” ceiling with ceiling louvers, electrical boxes, and 

attic access.
- 26 - 

Figure 7. Photograph of “living room” area showing furniture arrangement. 
- 27 - 

Figure 8. Photograph showing “living room” with furniture, cabinets, and thermocouple array. 
- 28 - 

Figure 9. Photograph showing furniture in “bedroom” area of test structure. (A thermocouple 

array is visible in the foreground.) 
- 29 - 

Figure 10. Photograph showing two double beds, night tables and lamps in the “bedroom”. 
- 30 - 

Figure 11. Photograph showing trusses supporting the roof structure with thermocouple array 

visible in front of second vertical wood member. 
- 31 - 

Figure 12. Photograph of “living room” showing ignition location in corner of couch under 

newspaper. 
- 32 - 

Figure 13. Photograph showing “bedroom” with ignition location in corner of chair under the 

newspaper. 
- 33 - 

Figure 14. Photograph of test structure at 60 s after ignition. 
- 34 - 

Figure 15. Photograph of test structure at 75 s after ignition. 
- 35 - 

 

Figure 16. Photograph of test structure at 120 s after ignition. 
- 36 - 

Figure 17. Photograph of test structure at 180 s after ignition. 
- 37 - 

Figure 18. Photograph of test structure at 210 s after ignition. 
- 38 - 

Figure 19. Photograph of test structure at 540 s after ignition. 
- 39 - 

Figure 20. Photograph of test structure at 640 s after ignition. 
- 40 - 

Figure 21. Photograph of test structure at 900 s after ignition when front door has burned away. 
- 41 - 

Figure 22. Photograph of test structure at 960 s after ignition with portion of roof structure 

burning. 
- 42 - 

Figure 23. Photograph of test structure at 1010 s after ignition as collapse is starting. 
- 43 - 

Figure 24. Photograph of test structure at 1140 s after ignition when suppression has been 

completed. 
- 44 - 

Figure 25. Schematic drawing of the cone calorimeter. 
- 45 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.3 m

0.6 m

0.9 m

1.2 m

1.5 m

1.8 m

2.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 26. Graph showing temperatures measured in the living room during the first test 

(distances measured from ceiling downward). 
- 46 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.3 m

0.6 m

0.9 m

1.2 m

1.5 m

1.8 m

2.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 27. Graph showing temperatures measured in the bedroom during the first test (distances 

measured from ceiling downward). 
- 47 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.3 m

0.5 m

0.6 m

0.8 m

0.9 m

1.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 28. Graph showing temperatures measured in the north portion of the attic during the first 

test (distances measured from roof peak downward). 
- 48 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.15 m

0.3 m

0.6 m

0.8 m

0.9 m

1.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 29. Graph showing temperatures measured in the south portion of the attic during the 

first test (distances measured from roof peak downward). 
- 49 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Standing - Left

Standing - Right

Leaning - Left

Leaning - Right

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 30. Graph showing temperatures measured on the roof under the fire fighter mannequins’ 

boots during the first test. 
- 50 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.3 m

0.6 m

0.9 m

1.2 m

1.5 m

1.8 m

2.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 31. Graph showing temperatures measured in the living room during the second test 

(distances measured from ceiling downward). 
- 51 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.3 m

0.6 m

0.9 m

1.2 m

1.5 m

1.8 m

2.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 32. Graph showing temperatures measured in the bedroom during the second test 

(distances measured from ceiling downward). 
- 52 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.15 m

0.3 m

0.5 m

0.6 m

0.8 m

0.9 m

1.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 33. Graph showing temperatures measured in the north portion of the attic during the 

second test (distances measured from roof peak downward). 
- 53 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.15 m

0.3 m

0.5 m

0.6 m

0.8 m

0.9 m

1.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 34. Graph showing temperatures measured in the south portion of the attic during the 

second test (distances measured from roof peak downward). 
- 54 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Standing - Left

Standing - Right

Leaning - Left

Leaning - Right

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 35. Graph showing temperatures measured on the roof under the fire fighter mannequins’ 

boots during the second test. 
- 55 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.3 m

0.6 m

0.9 m

1.2 m

1.5 m

1.8 m

2.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 36. Graph showing temperatures measured in the living room during the third test 

(distances measured from ceiling downward). 
- 56 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.3 m

0.6 m

0.9 m

1.2 m

1.5 m

1.8 m

2.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 37. Graph showing temperatures measured in the bedroom during the third test (distances 

measured from ceiling downward). 
- 57 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.15 m

0.3 m

0.5 m

0.6 m

0.8 m

0.9 m

1.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 38. Graph showing temperatures measured in the north portion of the attic during the 

third test (distances measured from roof peak downward). 
- 58 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.15 m

0.3 m

0.5 m

0.6 m

0.8 m

0.9 m

1.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 39. Graph showing temperatures measured in the south portion of the attic during the 

third test (distances measured from roof peak downward). 
- 59 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Standing - Left

Standing - Right

Leaning - Left

Leaning - Right

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 40. Graph showing temperatures measured on the roof under the fire fighter mannequins’ 

boots during the third test. 
- 60 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.3 m

0.6 m

0.9 m

1.2 m

1.5 m

1.8 m

2.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 41. Graph showing temperatures measured in the living room during the fourth test 

(distances measured from ceiling downward). 
- 61 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.3 m

0.6 m

0.9 m

1.2 m

1.5 m

1.8 m

2.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 42. Graph showing temperatures measured in the bedroom during the fourth test 

(distances measured from ceiling downward). 
- 62 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.15 m

0.3 m

0.5 m

0.6 m

0.8 m

0.9 m

1.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 43. Graph showing temperatures measured in the north portion of the attic during the 

fourth test (distances measured from roof peak downward). 
- 63 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.03 m

0.15 m

0.3 m

0.5 m

0.6 m

0.8 m

0.9 m

1.1 m

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 44. Graph showing temperatures measured in the south portion of the attic during the 

fourth test (distances measured from roof peak downward). 
- 64 - 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Standing - Left

Standing - Right

Leaning - Left

Leaning - Right

T

e

m

per

atur

e (oC)

Time (s)

Figure 45. Graph showing temperatures measured on the roof under the fire fighter mannequins’ 

boots during the fourth test. 
- 65 - 

Figure 46. Test 3 shown a few seconds after ignition (top – normal video, middle – fire 

department thermal imager, bottom – high end, quantitative infrared camera) 
- 66 - 

Figure 47. Test 3 shown approximately 10 s before collapse of the roof structure (top – normal 

video, middle – fire department thermal imager, bottom – high end, quantitative infrared camera) 
- 67 - 

Appendix A 

Cone Calorimeter Test Data
- 68 - 

---------------------------- NIST/BFRL/MPG -------------------------------- 

FILE: C:\CONE171\RAWDATA\010731A1.CDT 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

------- Test Parameters --------------------------------------------------- 

Test Date : 31-Jul-01 Test Time : 13:38 p.m. Operator : Michael Smith 

Test Scans : 238 scans, 3 secs/scan 

Test Length : 592.94 secs 

Sample Surface Area : 0.01000 m2 

Radiant Heat Flux : 35.0 kW/m2 

Sample Orientation : Horizontal 

Measured Exh. Flow : 0.024 m3/sec 

Orifice Plate : 57 mm 

Sample Material : 

 External Oriented Strandboard 

 SAMP.l 

------- Test Notes -------------------------------------------------------- 

Pre-test Comments: 

Samp.in double density alumn.pan edge control. 

Thermal absorber applied. 

Samp.wt.=77.4g,Samp.+pan wt.=80.5g. 

All samp.this series are 100mm X 100mm X 12mm 

Post-test Comments: 

Samp.exhibited a uniform combustion process 

without any thermal anomalies to report. 

------- Reduction Parameters ---------------------------------------------- 

C-Factor (Methane) : 0.04381603 

Conversion Factor : 13.100 MJ/kg 02 

Baseline 02 Reading : 20.984 % 

Baseline C02 Reading : 0.04818% 

Baseline CO Reading : 0.00012 % 

------- Test Results ------------------------------------------------------ 

Peak Heat Release Rate : 224.27 kW/m2 at 484.00 secs 

Average Heat Release Rate : 151.12 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T60 : 154.68 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T180: 154.38 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T300: 138.36 kW/m2 

Total Heat Released : 83.06 MJ/m2 

Average Effective HOC : 13.24 MJ/kg 

Average Specific Ext Area : 56.28 m2/kg 

Average Mass Loss Rate: : 11.783 g/s*m2 

Entered Initial Specimen Mass : 80.50 g 

Measured Final Specimen Mass : 17.75 g 

Average CO Yield : 0.00262 kg/kg 

Average C02 Yield : 1.43264 kg/kg 

Time to sustained Ignition : 48.51 secs 
- 69 - 

---------------------------- NIST/BFRL/MPG -------------------------------- 

FILE: C:\CONE171\RAWDATA\010731A2.CDT 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

------- Test Parameters --------------------------------------------------- 

Test Date : 31-Jul-01 Test Time : 01:01 p.m. Operator : Michael Smith 

Test Scans : 203 scans, 3 secs/scan 

Test Length : 487.16 secs 

Sample Surface Area : 0.01000 m2 

Radiant Heat Flux : 35.0 kW/m2 

Sample Orientation : Horizontal 

Measured Exh. Flow : 0.024 m3/sec 

Orifice Plate : 57 mm 

Sample Material : 

 External Oriented Strandboard 

 SAMP.2 

------- Test Notes -------------------------------------------------------- 

Pre-test Comments: 

Samp.in double density alumn.pan edge control. 

Thermal absorber applied. 

Samp.wt.=68.2g,Samp.+pan wt.=71.4g. 

Post-test Comments: 

Samp.exhibited a uniform combustion process 

without any thermal anomalies to report. 

------- Reduction Parameters ---------------------------------------------- 

C-Factor (Methane) : 0.04381603 

Conversion Factor : 13.100 MJ/kg 02 

Baseline 02 Reading : 20.983 % 

Baseline C02 Reading : 0.05089 % 

Baseline CO Reading : 0.00012 % 

------- Test Results ------------------------------------------------------ 

Peak Heat Release Rate : 233.82 kW/m2 at 409.00 secs 

Average Heat Release Rate : 161.66 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T60 : 164.92 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T180: 154.49 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T300: 144.87 kW/m2 

Total Heat Released : 74.28 MJ/m2 

Average Effective HOC : 13.44 MJ/kg 

Average Specific Ext Area : 65.55 m2/kg 

Average Mass Loss Rate: : 12.369 g/s*m2 

Entered Initial Specimen Mass : 71.40 g 

Measured Final Specimen Mass : 16.12 g 

Average CO Yield : 0.00223 kg/kg 

Average C02 Yield : 1.44792 kg/kg 

Time to sustained Ignition : 32.62 secs 
- 70 - 

---------------------------- NIST/BFRL/MPG -------------------------------- 

FILE: C:\CONE171\RAWDATA\010731A3.CDT 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

------- Test Parameters --------------------------------------------------- 

Test Date : 31-Jul-01 Test Time : 01:18 p.m. Operator : Michael Smith 

Test Scans : 228 scans, 3 secs/scan 

Test Length : 562.94 secs 

Sample Surface Area : 0.01000 m2 

Radiant Heat Flux : 35.0 kW/m2 

Sample Orientation : Horizontal 

Measured Exh. Flow : 0.024 m3/sec 

Orifice Plate : 57 mm 

Sample Material : 

 External Oriented Strandboard 

 SAMP.3 

------- Test Notes -------------------------------------------------------- 

Pre-test Comments: 

Samp.in double density alumn.pan edge control. 

Thermal absorber applied. 

Samp.wt.=74.2g,Samp.+pan wt.=77.4g. 

Post-test Comments: 

Samp.exhibited a uniform combustion process 

without any thermal anomalies to report. 

------- Reduction Parameters ---------------------------------------------- 

C-Factor (Methane) : 0.04381603 

Conversion Factor : 13.100 MJ/kg 02 

Baseline 02 Reading : 20.981 % 

Baseline C02 Reading : 0.05175 % 

Baseline CO Reading : 0.00010 % 

------- Test Results ------------------------------------------------------ 

Peak Heat Release Rate : 246.64 kW/m2 at 433.00 secs 

Average Heat Release Rate : 155.26 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T60 : 174.22 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T180: 158.42 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T300: 141.60 kW/m2 

Total Heat Released : 81.99 MJ/m2 

Average Effective HOC : 13.63 MJ/kg 

Average Specific Ext Area : 69.57 m2/kg 

Average Mass Loss Rate: : 12.240 g/s*m2 

Entered Initial Specimen Mass : 77.40 g 

Measured Final Specimen Mass : 17.24 g 

Average CO Yield : 0.00211 kg/kg 

Average C02 Yield : 1.46153 kg/kg 

Time to sustained Ignition : 38.11 secs 
- 71 - 

---------------------------- NIST/BFRL/MPG -------------------------------- 

FILE: C:\CONE171\RAWDATA\010731A4.CDT 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

------- Test Parameters --------------------------------------------------- 

Test Date : 31-Jul-01 Test Time : 01:35 p.m. Operator : Michael Smith 

Test Scans : 247 scans, 3 secs/scan 

Test Length : 621.95 secs 

Sample Surface Area : 0.01000 m2 

Radiant Heat Flux : 35.0 kW/m2 

Sample Orientation : Horizontal 

Measured Exh. Flow : 0.024 m3/sec 

Orifice Plate : 57 mm 

Sample Material : 

 External 5 PLY Plywood 

 SAMP.l 

------- Test Notes -------------------------------------------------------- 

Pre-test Comments: 

Samp.in double density alumn.pan edge control. 

Thermal absorber applied. 

Samp.wt.=63.6g,Samp.+pan wt.=66.6g. 

Post-test Comments: 

Samp.exhibited a uniform combustion process 

without any thermal anomalies to report. 

------- Reduction Parameters ---------------------------------------------- 

C-Factor (Methane) : 0.04381603 

Conversion Factor : 13.100 MJ/kg 02 

Baseline 02 Reading : 20.984 % 

Baseline C02 Reading : 0.05404 % 

Baseline CO Reading : 0.00011 % 

------- Test Results ------------------------------------------------------ 

Peak Heat Release Rate : 220.48 kW/m2 at 454.00 secs 

Average Heat Release Rate : 108.64 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T60 : 112.37 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T180: 82.65 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T300: 86.52 kW/m2 

Total Heat Released : 63.26 MJ/m2 

Average Effective HOC : 12.80 MJ/kg 

Average Specific Ext Area : 51.79 m2/kg 

Average Mass Loss Rate: : 9.555 g/s*m2 

Entered Initial Specimen Mass : 66.60 g 

Measured Final Specimen Mass : 17.17 g 

Average CO Yield : 0.00155 kg/kg 

Average C02 Yield : 1.31432 kg/kg 

Time to sustained Ignition : 40.71 secs 
- 72 - 

---------------------------- NIST/BFRL/MPG -------------------------------- 

FILE: C:\CONE171\RAWDATA\010731A5.CDT 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

------- Test Parameters --------------------------------------------------- 

Test Date : 31-Jul-01 Test Time : 01:54 p.m. Operator : Michael Smith 

Test Scans : 228 scans, 3 secs/scan 

Test Length : 562.37 secs 

Sample Surface Area : 0.01000 m2 

Radiant Heat Flux : 35.0 kW/m2 

Sample Orientation : Horizontal 

Measured Exh. Flow : 0.024 m3/sec 

Orifice Plate : 57 mm 

Sample Material : 

 External 5 PLY Plywood 

 SAMP.2 

------- Test Notes -------------------------------------------------------- 

Pre-test Comments: 

Samp.in double density alumn.pan edge control. 

Thermal absorber applied. 

Samp.wt.=59.0g,Samp.+pan wt.=61.9g. 

Post-test Comments: 

Samp.exhibited a uniform combustion process 

without any thermal anomalies to report. 

------- Reduction Parameters ---------------------------------------------- 

C-Factor (Methane) : 0.04381603 

Conversion Factor : 13.100 MJ/kg 02 

Baseline 02 Reading : 20.985 % 

Baseline C02 Reading : 0.05104 % 

Baseline CO Reading : 0.00009 % 

------- Test Results ------------------------------------------------------ 

Peak Heat Release Rate : 201.86 kW/m2 at 430.00 secs 

Average Heat Release Rate : 112.72 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T60 : 115.17 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T180: 87.06 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T300: 97.40 kW/m2 

Total Heat Released : 58.52 MJ/m2 

Average Effective HOC : 12.82 MJ/kg 

Average Specific Ext Area : 59.05 m2/kg 

Average Mass Loss Rate: : 9.897 g/s*m2 

Entered Initial Specimen Mass : 61.90 g 

Measured Final Specimen Mass : 16.21 g 

Average CO Yield : 0.00133 kg/kg 

Average C02 Yield : 1.33092 kg/kg 

Time to sustained Ignition : 46.32 secs 
- 73 - 

---------------------------- NIST/BFRL/MPG -------------------------------- 

FILE: C:\CONE171\RAWDATA\010731A6.CDT 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

------- Test Parameters --------------------------------------------------- 

Test Date : 31-Jul-01 Test Time : 02:11 p.m. Operator : Michael Smith 

Test Scans : 227 scans, 3 secs/scan 

Test Length : 561.41 secs 

Sample Surface Area : 0.01000 m2 

Radiant Heat Flux : 35.0 kW/m2 

Sample Orientation : Horizontal 

Measured Exh. Flow : 0.024 m3/sec 

Orifice Plate : 57 mm 

Sample Material : 

 External 5 PLY Plywood 

 SAMP.3 

------- Test Notes -------------------------------------------------------- 

Pre-test Comments: 

Samp.in double density alumn.pan edge control. 

Thermal absorber applied. 

Samp.wt.=62.6g,Samp.+pan wt.=65.5g. 

Post-test Comments: 

Samp.exhibited a uniform combustion process 

without any thermal anomalies to report. 

------- Reduction Parameters ---------------------------------------------- 

C-Factor (Methane) : 0.04381603 

Conversion Factor : 13.100 MJ/kg 02 

Baseline 02 Reading : 20.986 % 

Baseline C02 Reading : 0.05039 % 

Baseline CO Reading : 0.00009 % 

------- Test Results ------------------------------------------------------ 

Peak Heat Release Rate : 238.41 kW/m2 at 415.00 secs 

Average Heat Release Rate : 124.83 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T60 : 143.02 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T180: 109.21 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T300: 102.26 kW/m2 

Total Heat Released : 63.66 MJ/m2 

Average Effective HOC : 13.17 MJ/kg 

Average Specific Ext Area : 56.65 m2/kg 

Average Mass Loss Rate: : 10.248 g/s*m2 

Entered Initial Specimen Mass : 65.50 g 

Measured Final Specimen Mass : 17.16 g 

Average CO Yield : 0.00183 kg/kg 

Average C02 Yield : 1.38610 kg/kg 

Time to sustained Ignition : 54.23 secs 
- 74 - 

---------------------------- NIST/BFRL/MPG -------------------------------- 

FILE: C:\CONE171\RAWDATA\010731A7.CDT 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

------- Test Parameters --------------------------------------------------- 

Test Date : 31-Jul-01 Test Time : 02:46 p.m. Operator : Michael Smith 

Test Scans : 171 scans, 3 secs/scan 

Test Length : 393.60 secs 

Sample Surface Area : 0.01000 m2 

Radiant Heat Flux : 70.0 kW/m2 

Sample Orientation : Horizontal 

Measured Exh. Flow : 0.024 m3/sec 

Orifice Plate : 57 mm 

Sample Material : 

 External Oriented Strandboard 

 SAMP.1 

------- Test Notes -------------------------------------------------------- 

Pre-test Comments: 

Samp.in double density alumn.pan edge control. 

Thermal absorber applied. 

Samp.wt.=72.3g,Samp.+pan wt.=75.6g. 

Post-test Comments: 

Samp.exhibited a uniform combustion process 

without any thermal anomalies to report. 

------- Reduction Parameters ---------------------------------------------- 

C-Factor (Methane) : 0.04381603 

Conversion Factor : 13.100 MJ/kg 02 

Baseline 02 Reading : 20.989 % 

Baseline C02 Reading : 0.05890 % 

Baseline CO Reading : 0.00009 % 

------- Test Results ------------------------------------------------------ 

Peak Heat Release Rate : 325.77 kW/m2 at 34.00 secs 

Average Heat Release Rate : 219.88 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T60 : 263.24 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T180: 223.34 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T300: 223.88 kW/m2 

Total Heat Released : 84.46 MJ/m2 

Average Effective HOC : 14.20 MJ/kg 

Average Specific Ext Area : 117.30 m2/kg 

Average Mass Loss Rate: : 16.520 g/s*m2 

Entered Initial Specimen Mass : 75.60 g 

Measured Final Specimen Mass : 16.10 g 

Average CO Yield : 0.00359 kg/kg 

Average C02 Yield : 1.46371 kg/kg 

Time to sustained Ignition : 10.55 secs 
- 75 - 

---------------------------- NIST/BFRL/MPG -------------------------------- 

FILE: C:\CONE171\RAWDATA\010731A8.CDT 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

------- Test Parameters --------------------------------------------------- 

Test Date : 31-Jul-01 Test Time : 03:01 p.m. Operator : Michael Smith 

Test Scans : 171 scans, 3 secs/scan 

Test Length : 393.92 secs 

Sample Surface Area : 0.01000 m2 

Radiant Heat Flux : 70.0 kW/m2 

Sample Orientation : Horizontal 

Measured Exh. Flow : 0.024 m3/sec 

Orifice Plate : 57 mm 

Sample Material : 

 External Oriented Strandboard 

 SAMP.2 

------- Test Notes -------------------------------------------------------- 

Pre-test Comments: 

Samp.in double density alumn.pan edge control. 

Thermal absorber applied. 

Samp.wt.=74.3g,Samp.+pan wt.=77.5g. 

Post-test Comments: 

Samp.exhibited a uniform combustion process 

without any thermal anomalies to report. 

------- Reduction Parameters ---------------------------------------------- 

C-Factor (Methane) : 0.04381603 

Conversion Factor : 13.100 MJ/kg 02 

Baseline 02 Reading : 20.986 % 

Baseline C02 Reading : 0.04789 % 

Baseline CO Reading : 0.00009 % 

------- Test Results ------------------------------------------------------ 

Peak Heat Release Rate : 332.89 kW/m2 at 34.00 secs 

Average Heat Release Rate : 225.25 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T60 : 271.41 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T180: 234.63 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T300: 236.61 kW/m2 

Total Heat Released : 86.51 MJ/m2 

Average Effective HOC : 14.20 MJ/kg 

Average Specific Ext Area : 124.59 m2/kg 

Average Mass Loss Rate: : 17.007 g/s*m2 

Entered Initial Specimen Mass : 77.50 g 

Measured Final Specimen Mass : 16.57 g 

Average CO Yield : 0.00407 kg/kg 

Average C02 Yield : 1.50906 kg/kg 

Time to sustained Ignition : 10.03 secs 
- 76 - 

---------------------------- NIST/BFRL/MPG -------------------------------- 

FILE: C:\CONE171\RAWDATA\010731A8.CDT 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

------- Test Parameters --------------------------------------------------- 

Test Date : 31-Jul-01 Test Time : 03:15 p.m. Operator : Michael Smith 

Test Scans : 184 scans, 3 secs/scan 

Test Length : 432.87 secs 

Sample Surface Area : 0.01000 m2 

Radiant Heat Flux : 70.0 kW/m2 

Sample Orientation : Horizontal 

Measured Exh. Flow : 0.024 m3/sec 

Orifice Plate : 57 mm 

Sample Material : 

 External Oriented Strandboard 

 SAMP.3 

------- Test Notes -------------------------------------------------------- 

Pre-test Comments: 

Samp.in double density alumn.pan edge control. 

Thermal absorber applied. 

Samp.wt.=82.2g,Samp.+pan wt.=85.4g. 

Post-test Comments: 

Samp.exhibited a uniform combustion process 

without any thermal anomalies to report. 

------- Reduction Parameters ---------------------------------------------- 

C-Factor (Methane) : 0.04381603 

Conversion Factor : 13.100 MJ/kg 02 

Baseline 02 Reading : 20.986 % 

Baseline C02 Reading : 0.04896 % 

Baseline CO Reading : 0.00009 % 

------- Test Results ------------------------------------------------------ 

Peak Heat Release Rate : 328.92 kW/m2 at 40.00 secs 

Average Heat Release Rate : 225.23 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T60 : 265.81 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T180: 236.29 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T300: 231.97 kW/m2 

Total Heat Released : 95.28 MJ/m2 

Average Effective HOC : 14.16 MJ/kg 

Average Specific Ext Area : 129.81 m2/kg 

Average Mass Loss Rate: : 17.266 g/s*m2 

Entered Initial Specimen Mass : 85.40 g 

Measured Final Specimen Mass : 18.12 g 

Average CO Yield : 0.00408 kg/kg 

Average C02 Yield : 1.49875 kg/kg 

Time to sustained Ignition : 11.20 secs 
- 77 - 

---------------------------- NIST/BFRL/MPG -------------------------------- 

FILE: C:\CONE171\RAWDATA\010731B1.CDT 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

------- Test Parameters --------------------------------------------------- 

Test Date : 31-Jul-01 Test Time : 03:34 p.m. Operator : Michael Smith 

Test Scans : 159 scans, 3 secs/scan 

Test Length : 355.86 secs 

Sample Surface Area : 0.01000 m2 

Radiant Heat Flux : 70.0 kW/m2 

Sample Orientation : Horizontal 

Measured Exh. Flow : 0.024 m3/sec 

Orifice Plate : 57 mm 

Sample Material : 

 External 5 PLY Plywood 

 SAMP.l 

------- Test Notes -------------------------------------------------------- 

Pre-test Comments: 

Samp.in double density alumn.pan edge control. 

Thermal absorber applied. 

Samp.wt.=58.0g,Samp.+pan wt.=60.9g. 

Post-test Comments: 

Samp.exhibited a uniform combustion process 

without any thermal anomalies to report. 

------- Reduction Parameters ---------------------------------------------- 

C-Factor (Methane) : 0.04381603 

Conversion Factor : 13.100 MJ/kg 02 

Baseline 02 Reading : 20.986 % 

Baseline C02 Reading : 0.04953 % 

Baseline CO Reading : 0.00008 % 

------- Test Results ------------------------------------------------------ 

Peak Heat Release Rate : 257.48 kW/m2 at 49.00 secs 

Average Heat Release Rate : 167.08 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T60 : 174.59 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T180: 159.94 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T300: 178.10 kW/m2 

Total Heat Released : 59.15 MJ/m2 

Average Effective HOC : 13.04 MJ/kg 

Average Specific Ext Area : 105.84 m2/kg 

Average Mass Loss Rate: : 14.742 g/s*m2 

Entered Initial Specimen Mass : 60.90 g 

Measured Final Specimen Mass : 15.54 g 

Average CO Yield : 0.00235 kg/kg 

Average C02 Yield : 1.37760 kg/kg 

Time to sustained Ignition : 6.73 secs 
- 78 - 

---------------------------- NIST/BFRL/MPG -------------------------------- 

FILE: C:\CONE171\RAWDATA\010731B2.CDT 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

------- Test Parameters --------------------------------------------------- 

Test Date : 31-Jul-01 Test Time : 03:51 p.m. Operator : Michael Smith 

Test Scans : 169 scans, 3 secs/scan 

Test Length : 387.58 secs 

Sample Surface Area : 0.01000 m2 

Radiant Heat Flux : 70.0 kW/m2 

Sample Orientation : Horizontal 

Measured Exh. Flow : 0.024 m3/sec 

Orifice Plate : 57 mm 

Sample Material : 

 External 5 PLY Plywood 

 SAMP.2 

------- Test Notes -------------------------------------------------------- 

Pre-test Comments: 

Samp.in double density alumn.pan edge control. 

Thermal absorber applied. 

Samp.wt.=60.3g,Samp.+pan wt.=63.2g. 

Post-test Comments: 

Samp.exhibited a uniform combustion process 

without any thermal anomalies to report. 

------- Reduction Parameters ---------------------------------------------- 

C-Factor (Methane) : 0.04381603 

Conversion Factor : 13.100 MJ/kg 02 

Baseline 02 Reading : 20.987 % 

Baseline C02 Reading : 0.04982 % 

Baseline CO Reading : 0.00009 % 

------- Test Results ------------------------------------------------------ 

Peak Heat Release Rate : 262.58 kW/m2 at 25.00 secs 

Average Heat Release Rate : 169.23 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T60 : 169.96 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T180: 149.30 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T300: 176.07 kW/m2 

Total Heat Released : 64.48 MJ/m2 

Average Effective HOC : 13.56 MJ/kg 

Average Specific Ext Area : 141.90 m2/kg 

Average Mass Loss Rate: : 13.859 g/s*m2 

Entered Initial Specimen Mass : 63.20 g 

Measured Final Specimen Mass : 15.66 g 

Average CO Yield : 0.00335 kg/kg 

Average C02 Yield : 1.41203 kg/kg 

Time to sustained Ignition : 9.76 secs 
- 79 - 

---------------------------- NIST/BFRL/MPG -------------------------------- 

FILE: C:\CONE171\RAWDATA\010731B3.CDT 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

------- Test Parameters --------------------------------------------------- 

Test Date : 31-Jul-01 Test Time : 04:04 p.m. Operator : Michael Smith 

Test Scans : 179 scans, 3 secs/scan 

Test Length : 417.46 secs 

Sample Surface Area : 0.01000 m2 

Radiant Heat Flux : 70.0 kW/m2 

Sample Orientation : Horizontal 

Measured Exh. Flow : 0.024 m3/sec 

Orifice Plate : 57 mm 

Sample Material : 

 External 5 PLY Plywood 

 SAMP.3 

------- Test Notes -------------------------------------------------------- 

Pre-test Comments: 

Samp.in double density alumn.pan edge control. 

Thermal absorber applied. 

Samp.wt.=65.0g,Samp.+pan wt.=67.8g. 

Post-test Comments: 

Samp.exhibited a uniform combustion process 

without any thermal anomalies to report. 

------- Reduction Parameters ---------------------------------------------- 

C-Factor (Methane) : 0.04381603 

Conversion Factor : 13.100 MJ/kg 02 

Baseline 02 Reading : 20.988 % 

Baseline C02 Reading : 0.05011 % 

Baseline CO Reading : 0.00009 % 

------- Test Results ------------------------------------------------------ 

Peak Heat Release Rate : 240.95 kW/m2 at 22.00 secs 

Average Heat Release Rate : 168.73 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T60 : 147.92 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T180: 161.98 kW/m2 

Average Heat Release Rate T300: 185.50 kW/m2 

Total Heat Released : 69.85 MJ/m2 

Average Effective HOC : 13.73 MJ/kg 

Average Specific Ext Area : 143.74 m2/kg 

Average Mass Loss Rate: : 14.741 g/s*m2 

Entered Initial Specimen Mass : 67.80 g 

Measured Final Specimen Mass : 16.91 g 

Average CO Yield : 0.00461 kg/kg 

Average C02 Yield : 1.39783 kg/kg 

Time to sustained Ignition : 6.69 secs