, ^ 1 mbs

AU1D0 W013

| PUBUCations

NBSIR 81-2200

Evaluation of Alternate Mounting

Methods for the Evaluation of

Brattice Cloth on ASTM E-162

Emil Braun and Ramon Reyes-Virella

Center for Fire Research

National Engineering Laboratory

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

January 1981

Final Report

Prepared for: U.S. Bureau of Mines

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

and

-QC—p. 100

. U56

81-2200

1981

c. 2

Safety and Health Administration

elphia. West Virginia 26059

national bubeau

OF STANDABUS

ubkaby

NBSIR 81-2200 APR 3 0 1981

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATE MOUNTING

METHODS FOR THE EVALUATION OF

BRATTIC CLOTH ON ASTM E-162

Emil Braun and Ramon Reyes-Virella

Center for Fire Research

National Engineering Laboratory

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

January 1981

Final Report

Prepared for: U.S. Bureau of Mines

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

and

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Triadelphia, West Virginia 26059

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

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
1 *
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES iv

LIST OF TABLES iv

Abstract 1

1 . INTRODUCTION 1

2 . BACKGROUND 2

3. TEST MATERIALS 3

4. TEST PROCEDURE 3

5. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6

5.1 Comparing Average Values 12

5.2 Comparing Performance Variability 14

6. CONCLUSION 19

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 22

8. REFERENCES 22

iii
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Stack temperature correction factor for ASTM E-162 using

a holder assembly of calcium silicate board 7

Figure 2. Stack temperature correction factor for ASTM E-162 using

a holder assembly of a screen and calcium silicate

board 8

Figure 3. Stack temperature correction factor for ASTM E-162 using

a holder assembly of foil and calcium silicate board .... 9

Figure 4. Stack temperature correction factor for ASTM E-162 using

a holder assembly of a screen, spacer, foil, and calcium

silicate board . 10

Figure 5. Stack temperature correction factor for ASTM E-162 using

a holder assembly of wire screen 11

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Description of NBS brattice cloth 4

Table 2. Description of MSHA brattice cloth 5

Table 3. Average flame spread index for NBS brattice cloth using

different backing assemblies 13

Table 4. Average flame spread index for MSHA brattice cloth using

different backing assemblies 15

Table 5a. Standard deviation for the average flame spread index

for NBS brattice cloth using different backing assemblies . . 16

Table 5b. Standard deviation for the average flame spread index

for MSHA brattice cloth using different backing assemblies . 17

Table 6. List of materials that showed significant (.95) differences

due to mounting method 18

Table 7a. The variability of material performance for various backing

assemblies in comparison to the board only (NBS brattice

cloth) 20

Table 7b. The variability of material performance for various backing

assemblies in comparison to the board only (MSHA brattice

cloth) 21

IV
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATE MOUNTING METHODS

FOR THE EVALUATION OF BRATTICE CLOTH ON ASTM E-162

Emil Braun and Ramon Reyes-Virella

Abstract

Twenty-two brattice cloth samples representing a cross section of materials available to the coal mining

industry were tested using ASTM E-162, Surface

Flammability of Materials Using a Radiant Heat Energy

Source. The tests were conducted to evaluate alternative

mounting methods that would improve test repeatability.

Five mounting methods were studied. The study showed that

the flame spread index was dependent on the mounting method.

The foil/spacer/backing method produced the highest values,

while the backing only method produced the lowest values.

However, measurement dispersion was unaffected by mounting

method

Key words: ASTM E-162; brattice cloth; coal mining; fire

test; flame spread; sample mounting; ventilation cloth.

1. INTRODUCTION

At the request of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)

and the Bureau of Mines (BOM) , the Center for Fire Research (CFR) at the

National Bureau of Standards (NBS) initiated a review of current practices

for the certification and approval of ventilation control materials for

use in underground coal mines.

This report is a first step in the overall review process. It considers

the impact on mean values and dispersion of the data about the mean for several

mounting methods, using ASTM E-162, Surface Flammability of Materials Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source, as the basic procedure. However, additional work

will have to be conducted to determine the relative importance of the acceptance criterion in terms of life safety. Large-scale tests will be necessary

to verify that geometric changes do not adversely impact on the acceptance

criterion. Furthermore, it is possible that if an adequate large-scale program

is conducted, attention may be directed to test methods other than ASTM E-162.

1
The current basis of measurement and acceptance of ventilation control materials

may warrant changes in the acceptance criterion used with ASTM E-162.

2 . BACKGROUND

According to title 30, section 75.302 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

the area around the working face of a coal mining operation must be adequately

ventilated to remove flammable, explosive and noxious gases, dusts, and fumes.

This is generally accomplished by the installation of line brattice (i.e.,

ventilation cloth) from the last open crosscut of a working section to control

the direction of airflow. Line brattice is a cloth like material that extends

from the roof of a mine to its floor dividing a passageway into an incoming

flow and an outgoing flow of air. Line brattice is also used to temporarily

close off unused passageways to minimize the size of the ventilation system

necessary to maintain minimum acceptable flows in the working areas. Check

curtains to minimize air leaks between various sections of a mine are also

made from line brattice.

Line brattice is used extensively in mining applications other than

ventilation control (e.g., shield equipment during welding, transporting, or

storage) . The general use of line brattice could represent a significant fire

hazard. Ignition and rapid flame propagation along installed brattice could

reduce the likelihood of successful escapes for those miners inby"*" of the fire

origin. The Code of Federal Regulations, therefore, requires that "brattice

cloth and ventilation tubing being used underground shall be flame resistant

to the extent that the flame spread index shall be 25 or less... The flame

2 spread index shall be determined by ASTM methods of test E-84 or E-162" [1] .

Although the regulations allow use of either E-84 or E-162, the primary

test administered by MSHA and generally employed by the industry is ASTM E-162.

This test method was originally designed to test traditional building materials.

With the introduction of synthetic materials, modifications were introduced into

the test procedure to accommodate the different material behavior exhibited by

them. Currently, MSHA's Certification and Approval Center follow ASTM E-162

practices for synthetic materials. Test samples are mounted on an asbestoscement board with a wire screen covering. Measurements are made for 15 minutes

or until all flaming has extinguished, whichever is longer.

This indicates the direction towards the working face of the mine.

Numbers in brackets refer to the references at the end of this report.

2
In 1972, Murphy [2] conducted comparative tests of line brattice material

in large-scale tests and in ASTM E-162. He found that those samples that propagated a flame 15 feet or more had flame spread indices greater than 100, while

those samples that propagated a flame less than 10 feet had a flame spread index

no greater than 20. This appears to support the establishment of 25 as the maximum allowable flame spread index. However, the mounting method described by

Murphy for the ASTM E-162 test differs from that currently used by MSHA . Murphy

used 6.5 mm standoffs between the brattice cloth and the asbestos-cement board

and no screen cover.

This work represents the only large-scale tests conducted to substantiate

the use of ASTM E-162 and the flame spread acceptance criterion of 25 or less.

3 . TEST MATERIALS

Two sets of brattice cloth were used in the evaluation of the effects of

mounting method on flame spread index. One set, table 1, was obtained directly

from several manufacturers, while the other set, table 2, was obtained from

MSHA. Together they represent a reasonable cross section of available materials

for use in ventilation control in underground mining.

Table 1 contains several sets of materials that differ either in color

or scrim pattern. Samples la, lb, and lc differ only in scrim design. Samples

5a and 5b are a clear plastic differing in scrim design, while 5y has the same

scrim design as 5a but is dyed yellow.

The materials in table 2 were selected by MSHA and sent to NBS for testing

on the ASTM E-162. Among the samples received were several weights of flameretardant treated jute as well as one untreated jute brattice cloth.

Along with the weight of each cloth is a description of the major chemical

components used.

4 . TEST PROCEDURE

The apparatus and test procedures for the ASTM E-162 are described in

detail in the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, part 14. The apparatus consists

of a radiant panel made from a high porosity refractory material (30 cm wide

by 46 cm high) . The panel is mounted vertically and a premixed air-gas mixture

is burned in contact with the refractory surface. The energy output of the

3
Table 1. Description of NBS brattice cloth

Sample Number Weight Construction

oz/yd2 kg/m2

1 14 0.47 PVCa (yellow) Film - Nylon Scrim

2 4 0.13 Aluminum & PVC Laminate - Polyester Scrim

3 16 0.55 PVC (yellow) Film - Nylon Scrim

4 43 1.44 PVC (white) Film - Nylon Scrim

5a 14 0.48 PVC (clear) Film - Scrim

Polyester

5b 14 0.48 PVC (clear) Film - Scrim

Polyester

5y 13 0.45 PVC (yellow) Film - Scrim

Polyester

6 12 0.40 PVC (clear) Film - Scrim

Polyester

6y 12 0.39 PVC (yellow) Film - Scrim

Polyester

7 40 1.36 PVC (clear) Film - Scrim

Polyester

8 38 1.29 PVC (clear) Film - Scrim

Polyester

9 13 0.43 PVC (yellow) Film - Scrim

Polyester

10 17 0.59 PVC (yellow) Film - ScrimPolyester

11 10 0.32 Jute, FRd Treated

12 13 0.43 Jute & PVC Laminate

13 35 1.18 PVC (white) Film - Polyester

Scrim

a Polyvinyl Chloride

Fire Retardant

4
Table 2. Description of MSHA brattice cloth

Sample Number Weight Construction

1 oz/yd 2 kg/m2

;j i4 15 0.51 Jute, FRa Treated

15

1 20 0.68 Jute, FR Treated

16 24 0.81 Jute, FR Treated

17 10 0.32 Cotton, FR Treated

18 20 0.68 Jute & PVC*3 Laminate

19 15 0.51 PVC Film

20 13 0.43 PVC (yellow) Film - Polypropylene Scrim

21 12 0.40 PVC (clear) Film - Polypropylene Scrim

22 14 0.47 Jute, Untreated

a Fire Retardant

b Polyvinyl Chloride

5
panel, as measured by a radiation pyrometer, is equivalent to a blackbody

temperature of 670°C. A stack is placed above the test specimen and receives

hot combustion gases. Four equal length thermocouples, wired in parallel, are

installed in the stack to measure the average temperature of the exhaust gases

The flame spread index, I g

, is computed as the product of the flame spread

factor, F , and the heat evolution, Q:

D

*S

= F

S

X Q

Q is corrected for each backing assembly.

The standard test specifies that a 15 cm by 46 cm specimen backed by an

asbestos-cement millboard be placed in front of and inclined towards the panel

In this study a 25 mm mesh screen was placed over all specimens and five

different backing schemes were investigated. They were:

• Aluminum foil and board;

• Spaces (6.5 mm), aluminum foil, and board;

• Board only;

• Spaces (6.5 mm) and board;

• No backing material.

The board used was a calcium silicate board with a nominal density of

738 Kg/m3

.

The standard test procedure requires that a correction factor for the

holder assembly (i.e., metal frame and backing) be applied to the test data.

Each of the five backing methods were blank tested and a temperaturetime curve was plotted, figures 1-5. These figures were used to determine

appropriate correction factors for the heat release data, Q.

5. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis of the data was divided into: (1) a consideration of the

effects that different mounting methods have on the average I g

values, and

(2) on changes in the dispersion of the data about the mean as a function of

mounting method. The first determines which samples are acceptable according

to the acceptance criterion I g

< 25. The second defines the precision that

can be attached to the mean values, I . s

6
a

(Oo) es|j 9jrHDJ9duuGi

7

Figure

1

-

Stack

temperature

correction

factor

for

ASTM

E-162

using

holder

assembly

of

calcium

silicate

board
o

ID

CO

CVJ

o

c

E

<DE

i—

(Oo) es|j ejniDJGduuei

8

Figure

2

-

Stack

temperature

correction

factor

for

ASTM

E-162

using

holder

assembly

of

a

screen

and

calcium

silicate

board
o

(GO qs|j ejniDjeduuGi

9

Figure

3

-

Stock

temperature

correction

factor

for

ASTM

E-162

using

holder

assembly

of

foil

and

calcium

silicate

board
o

o

CVJ (Oo) 9S|J ejruDjeduuei

Figure

4

-

Stack

temperature

correction

factor

for

ASTM

E-162

using

holder

assembly

of

a

screen,

spacer,

foil,

and

calcium

silicate

board
o

to

OJ

00

o

£z

I

<D£

hFigure

b

-

Stack

temperature

correction

factor

for A

STM

E-162

using

holder

assembly

of

wire

screen
Since two sets of samples were investigated with variations in the

mounting method, each set will be analyzed separately.

i 5.1 Comparing Average Values

Table 3, summarizes the results of tests using four different mounting

methods and the first 13 materials. The largest range of average values for

the various mounting methods was obtained with sample #11 (7 to 470) . For

this sample, the foil/board combination gave the lowest value. In general,

however, the use of foil gave higher results than those mounting methods without the foil. Those tests that had the material make contact with the board

tended to produce the lowest values of I . Except for two samples (2V, 6)

,

s the board only had lower I values than the spacer board combination. The

presence of the foil appeared to enhance energy feedback to the sample. This

was probably due to a combination of reflection and conduction along the foilmaterial interface. While a fraction of the incident radiation was absorbed

by the sample, the remainder reached the foil surface. Portions of this energy

were reflected back to the test material and absorbed by the foil to be conducted to the foil's cooler regions. The energy spreading more rapidly in the

foil elevated the temperature of the specimen ahead of the flame front. It is

not clear which mode of energy transfer predominates because the foil/board

combination has higher values than the foil/spacer/board combination in only

9 of the 17 samples where comparative data exists.

Sample number 2 is an aluminum-vinyl laminate that demonstrates the

necessity for testing both surfaces when they are dissimilar. When the aluminum surface was exposed to the panel the average I value was very low, less

than 3, for all mounting methods. The vinyl surface exposed to the radiant

panel had values that were much higher but still acceptable, less than 25, for

all mounting methods except the foil/board combination which had an I equal

to 27.

Sample number 1 represents three lots, a, b, and c, from the same

brattice cloth design. The results were reasonably consistent except for

sample laS using the spacer/board combination. In all but one case the

rough finished surface produced higher I values than the smooth finished

surfaces. Both surfaces of sample number 10 were tested and here also the

results agreed qualitatively with sample number 1 results.

! Several samples were received dyed (yellow) and undyed (clear) (5a and 5y:

6 and 6y)

.

The dyed materials appear to give lower I values in tests that

O

did not use the foil. When the foil was used the results appear independent

of coloring.

12
Table 3. Average flame spread index for NBS brattice

cloth using different backing assemblies

Sample Number Foil/Board Foil/Spacer/Board Spacer/Board Board

laS - 181 13 2

laR - 233 34 7

lbS 276 196 85 14

IbR 283 240 109 31

lcS 107 182 90 -

lcR 149 253 47 1

2A 2 1 3 3

2V 27 17 8 15

3 89 - - 16

4 172 - - 17

5a 188 188 34 2

5b 134 225 25 1

5y 196 208 1 1

6 119 232 2 107

6y 252 27 1 1

7 288 118 - 31

8 99 209 25 3

9 72 102 77 1

10S 230 158 37 1

10R - 194 54 1 11 7 470 223 39

12 310 - - 2

13 120 75 14 6

13
Table 4, summarizes the results of tests on the last nine materials.

As with the previous set of materials, this set also had the smallest I values

with the board only mounting method. Four samples (numbers 17, 18B, 20R, and

20S) are higher I values with no backing as compared to the foil/spacer/board

combination. Sample number 18, a jute and PVC laminate, again demonstrates the

importance of testing both surfaces when they are different.

In the preceding paragraphs, several qualitative statements were made

concerning average response as a function of the mounting method. Due to

uncertainties in the average I values, a question can be raised concerning

the significance of some of the differences. For a given level of significance, Natrella [3] outlines a procedure for comparing the averages of several

products. The products in this case are the various mounting methods. In

order to perform the analysis the estimate of the variance (square of the

2 standard deviation) , S is necessary. The calculated standard deviations for

each average I value is tabulated in tables 5a and 5b. Using the values

obtained from a table of t- distribution for a 95% significance level, a significance range for each material is calculated. If the absolute difference

between any two sample averages exceeds this calculated range, the averages

then differ significantly from each other.

Table 6 lists those samples whose range of average I values were found

to exceed the calculated significance range. The empirical and significance

ranges are included in the table for each sample. Of the 35 sets of data

listed in tables 3 and 4, 13 had sample variabilities such that the range of

average I gvalues for the various mounting methods were not indicative of

sample mounting method interactions.

5.2 Comparing Performance Variability

In addition to selecting a method for the evaluation of ventilation

control materials that correlates with acceptable and nonacceptable field

experience, attention must be given to the uncertainty associated with any

measurement process. It is, therefore, necessary to determine if any mounting method yields a significantly smaller dispersion of measured values about

an average I

g than the other tested methods.

Since the board only mounting method is currently employed by MSHA for

certification and approval, it will be used as the reference for evaluating

the variability of the other mounting methods. Because the magnitude of the

variance may be related to the magnitude of the average I value, only those

s

14
Table 4

.

Average flame spread index for

cloth using different backing

MSHA brattice

assemblies

Sample Number Foil/Spacer/Board No Backing Board

14 513 320 377

15 684 407 158

16 463 343 290

17 3 19 3

18B 8 404 262

18W 310 166 81

19 97 48 6

20R 3 15 1

20S 1 8 1

21S 205 53 7 21R 431 153 11

22 1183 703 331

15
Table 5a. Standard deviation for the average flame spread

index for NBS brattice cloth using different

backing assemblies

Sample Number Foil/Board Foil/Spacer/Board Spacer/Board Board

laS - 13.02 4.18 1.31

laR - 53.18 10.43 4.61

lbS 7.18 23.58 8.42 18.04

IbR 73.79 42.84 21.64 34.81

lcS 52.02 24.94 4.87 «

lcR 66.32 18.51 37.71 0.32

2A 0.47 0.16 1.00 1.61

2V 25.21 8.55 24.31 1.19

3 46.48 - - 13.30

4 82.10 - - 7.66

5a 75.56 39.15 2.92 0.22

5b 36.97 66.72 7.88 0.76

5y 130.64 74.56 0.46 1.11

6 13.41 90.60 0.70 24.02

6y 29.12 18.42 0.46 0.22

7 306.58 26.89 - 29.76

8 42.58 63.38 14.78 5.44

9 11.44 46.44 15.10 0.64

10S 227.71 15.23 12.06 0.32

10R - 26.26 13.97 0.05

11 1.58 57.62 43.80 42.76

12 550.20 m < - 0.63

13 40.12 25.84 4.11 3.13

16
Table 5b Standard deviation for the average flame spread

index for MSHA brattice cloth using different

backing assemblies

Sample Number Foil/Spacer/Board No Backing Board

14 75.8 95.1 151.0

15 202.6 86.3 55.1

16 191.1 89.9 92.6

17 0.5 19.4 0.3

18B 0.8 107.4 113.5

18W 223.1 41.9 39.7

19 24.9 11.7 2.7

20R 5.4 11.5 0.6

20S 0.3 4.0 0.5

21S 45.5 4.1 5.1

21R 54.9 3.4 19.1

22 125.5 179.1 169.1

17
Table 6. List of materials that showed significant (.95)

differences due to mounting method

Sample Number Range of Values Range of Significance

laS 179 16

laR 226 62

lbS 262 33

IbR 252 99

lcS 92 66

lcR 252 82

5a 238 109

5b 224 80

5y 207 158

6 230 99

6y 251 36

8 206 82

9 101 53

11 463 88

13 69 50

15 526 259

18B 395 178

19 91 32

20S 8 5

21S 198 52

21R 421 66

22 853 315

18
samples found to be unaffected by mounting method will be used for evaluation

of the dispersion of the data due to each mounting method.

In the preceding section, 13 samples were found to be unaffected by

mounting method (i.e., those not listed in table 6). The ratio of the variance

of each mounting method to the variance of the board only method was computed

for each sample from the data in tables 5a and 5b. These values were compared

to the appropriate value taken from a table of F-distributions for a 95% level

of significance. Table 7a shows the results of this comparison for the NBS

brattice cloth, while table 7b is the MSHA brattice cloth results. A plus

(+) in the tables indicates that specific mounting method had less variability

than the board only. A minus (-) indicates that the board only tests were

variable. No compelling case can be made for favoring any one method over

another from either set of data.

While the statistical data do not appear to indicate a superior mounting

method, end-use conditions can be used to dictate the best mounting method for

the E-162. Brattice cloth used for ventilation control is free-hanging and

rarely makes contact with a heat sink. Under most conditions, each brattice

cloth surface is exposed to air flowing counter to the airflow on its opposite

surface. When used to close off unused portions of a mine, airflow is along

one surface with near stationary air on its other surface. This appears to

favor either the no-backing method or the spacer/board method for mounting

samples in the E-162. In general, the spacer/board method and the no-backing

method were found to produce higher flame spread indices than the board only

method. Materials appear to be available that can pass either mounting method.

Other end-uses for brattice cloth would result in a heatsink being placed in

contact with one surface. The presence of the heat sink should reduce the fire

hazard just as the flame spread index was lowest for the board only tests.

6. CONCLUSION

The mean value of the flame spread index, I , was found to depend on the

s mounting method. The foil/spacer/backing mounting method produced the highest

I value, while the backing only mounting method produced the lowest I . s s

Changes in the mounting method did not appreciably affect measurement

dispersion.

19
Table 7a. The variability of material performance

backing assemblies in comparison to the

(NBS brattice cloth)

for various

board only

Sample Number Foil/Board Foil/Spacer/Board Spacer/Board

2A +

a + +

2V + +

3 -b

4

7 +

10S

10R

12

+

a Indicates that specified system had less variability than board only

Indicates that specified system had more variability than board only

20
Table 7b. The variability of material performance for various backing

assemblies in comparison to the board only (MSHA brattice

cloth)

Sample Number

14

16

17

18W

20R

Foil/Spacer/Board

+

a

+

+

b

No Backing

+

+

+

Indicates that specified system had less variability than board only

Indicates that specified system had more variability than board only

21
Based on end-use considerations, the spacer/board and no-backing mounting

methods appear to be the preferred mounting methods. Because of large-scale

tests conducted by BOM, the spacer/board mounting method should be selected.

7 . RECOMMENDATIONS

Additional large-scale tests are necessary to define the appropriateness

of this test method or any other test method used for brattice cloth. These

large-scale tests should furnish information over a broader range of conditions. The data should determine the effects of mine height and width as well

as ventilation rate on brattice cloth fire performance.

8 . REFERENCES

[1] Code of Federal Regulations, title 30, section 75.302-3.

[2] Murphy, E. M. , Flame spread evaluation of ventilation cloth, Report

of Investigations 7625, Bur. Mines (U.S.), 1972.

[3] Natrella, M. G., Experimental statistics, NBS Handbook 91, Nat. Bur. Stand.

(U.S.), 1966.

22
NBS-114A (rev. 2*>o

i

1. Publication Date January 1981

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC OATA

SHEET (See instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

NBSIR 81-2200

2. Performing Organ. Report No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATE MOUNTING METHODS FOR THE EVALUATION OF BRATTICE CLOTH

ON ASTM E-162

5. AUTHOR(S)

Emil Braun and Ramon Reyes-Virella

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions)

national bureau of standards

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No.

8.

Type of Report & Period Covered

Final Report

9.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State. ZIP)

U.S. Bureau of Mines Mine Safety and Health Administration

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 and Triadelphia, West Virginia 26059

10.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11.

ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

Twenty-two brattice cloth samples representing a cross-section of materials available to the coal mining industry were tested using ASTM E-162, Surface Flammability

of Materials Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source. The tests were conducted to evaluate alternative mounting methods that would improve test repeatability. Five

mounting methods were studied. The study showed that the flame spread index was

dependent on the mounting methods. The foil/spacer/backing method produced the

highest values, while the backing only method produced the lowest values. However,

measurement dispersion was unaffected by mounting method.

12.

KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) ASTM E-162; brattice cloth; coal mining; fire test; flame spread; sample mounting;

ventilation cloth.

13. AVAILABILITY

Q^Unlimited

I'. . j For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

r~] Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

' 20402.

[X] Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

26

15. Price

$6.50

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80