AlllOb c17^0fi7

III miTi °F STAND & TECH

A 1 1 1 1 7 2 b 5 2 fl NBSIR 78-1438

Back-Up Report for the

Proposed Standard for the

Flammability (Cigarette

Ignition Resistance) of

Upholstered Furniture,

PFF 6-76

Joseph J. Loftus

Center for Fire Research

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

June 1978

Final Report

’QC

“

100

,U56

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

78-1438

National Brno of Standards APR j 7 1979

NBS1R 78-1438

* * y BACK-UP REPORT FOR THE

PROPOSED STANDARD FOR THE

FLAMMABILITY (CIGARETTE

IGNITION RESISTANCE) OF

UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE,

PFF 6-76

Joseph J. Loftus

Center for Fire Research

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

June 1978

Final Report

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary

Dr. Sidney Harman, Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
i
CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES vi

LIST OF TABLES . vi

Abstract 1

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. OBJECTIVE 2

2.1. The National Household Fire Survey 2

2.2. The Flammable Fabrics Accident Case and

Testing System (FFACTS) 3

2.3. Analysis of Fire Accident Scenarios by the Fire

Incidence Data Organization (FIDO) Maintained by

the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) ... 4

2.4. Notice of Finding — Federal Register,

November 29, 1972 5

2.5. Development of the Proposed Standard 5

3. SwRI RESEARCH (IDENTIFICATION OF THE HAZARDS) 6

4. CFR - EXAMINATION OF THE PROBLEM 6

5. TESTING PHASE I 7

6. TESTING PHASE II 7

7. TESTING PHASE III 9

8. TESTING PHASE IV 9

9. PLANT VISITS 9

10. TEST APPARATUS FOR MOCK-UP UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE TEST ... 9

11. TESTING PHASE V - SEVEN-LAB EVALUATION OF THE MOCK-UP

UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE TEST METHOD . 10

12. TESTING PHASE VI - DEVELOPMENT OF A FABRIC CLASSIFICATION

TEST METHOD 11

13. TESTING PHASE VII - SIX-LAB EVALUATION OF FCT TEST METHOD . 12

14. TESTING PHASE VIII - FIFTY-FIVE-LAB EVALUATION OF THE

MOCK-UP UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE AND FABRIC CLASSIFICATION

TEST METHODS 14

iii
CONTENTS (cont'd)

Page

15 . TESTING PHASE IX - STANDARD FABRICS ........ 15

16. OTHER TESTS AND REPORTS 16

17. DISCUSSION 17

17.1. The Standard 17

17.2. The Standard's Reasonableness 17

17.3. The Standard’s Appropriateness 19

17.4. The Standard's Technological Feasibility 20

17.5. The Standard's Cost 21

17.6. Toxicity of Combustion Products from Materials

Treated with Fire Retardants 22

18. CONCLUSIONS 22

19. REFERENCES 23

APPENDIX A. PROPOSED RULE MAKING A-l

APPENDIX B. FIRE DEATH SCENARIOS AND FIRESAFETY PLANNING B-l

APPENDIX C. PART 1633 — PROPOSED STANDARD FOR THE FLAMMABILITY

(CIGARETTE IGNITION RESISTANCE) OF UPHOLSTERED

FURNITURE (PFF 6-76) C-l

APPENDIX D. AN INTERLABORATORY EVALUATION OF A CIGARETTE

IGNITION TEST FOR UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE D-l

APPENDIX E. TEST METHOD FOR CLASSIFYING CIGARETTE IGNITION

CHARACTERISTICS OF UPHOLSTERY FABRICS E-l

APPENDIX F. INTERLABORATORY PROGRAM FOR THE EVALUATION OF A

PROPOSED FLAMMABILITY (CIGARETTE IGNITION

RESISTANCE) TEST FOR UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE F-l

APPENDIX G. EVALUATION OF STANDARD CLASS B AND C FABRICS FOR

THE PROPOSED STANDARD FOR THE FLAMMABILITY

(CIGARETTE IGNITION RESISTANCE) OF UPHOLSTERED

FURNITURE G-l
CONTENTS (cont'd)

Page

APPENDIX H. RESULTS OF TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS MADE ON BURNING

CIGARETTES AND THEIR USE AS A STANDARD IGNITION

SOURCE FOR MATTRESS TESTING .... G-l

APPENDIX I. CIGARETTE IGNITION RESISTANCE TESTS OF TWENTYTHREE POLYURETHANE FOAMS . 1-1

APPENDIX J. MEMORANDUM ON RATIONALE BEHIND SOME DECISIONS ON

WHAT TO SPECIFY IN THE "PROPOSED STANDARD FOR THE

FLAMMABILITY OF UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE J-l

APPENDIX K. MEMORANDUM ON COMMENTS ON THE BUREAU OF DOMESTIC

COMMERCE'S ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED STANDARD

FOR UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE K-l

v
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Mock-Up Frame: Upholstered Furniture Test 25

Figure 2. Mock-Up Panels: Upholstered Furniture Test 26

Figure 3. Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Test 27

Figure 4. Fabric Classification Test: Fabric/Glass

Fiberboard Sample . 28

Figure 5. Fabric Classification Test: Fabric/Cotton

Batting Sample 29

Figure 6. Fabric Classification Test: Sample Holder 30

Figure 7. Upholstery Fabric Classification Test 31

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Covered and Uncovered Cigarette Ignition Test Results

on Small-Scale Seat Cushion and Chair Arm Furniture

Constructions and Flammability Tests on Upholstery

Fabric Materials 8

Table 2. Upholstery Test Materials 12

Table 3. Interlaboratory Fabric Test Results • 13

Table 4. Production Furniture Testing 19

Table 5. Estimated Cost of Testing to the Furniture Industry ... 21
BACK-UP REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD FOR THE

FLAMMABILITY (CIGARETTE IGNITION RESISTANCE)

OF UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE, PFF 6-76

Joseph J. Loftus

Abstract

This report brings together data, information, and reports

generated by the Center for Fire Research (CFR) at the National

Bureau of Standards (NBS) and by others during four years of

work on the development of the test method. All of this information was used in the preparation of a recommended Proposed

Standard for the Flammability (Cigarette Ignition Resistance)

of Upholstered Furniture, PFF 6-76.

Key words: Cigarette ignition; fabric classification;

mock-up furniture samples; smoldering; upholstered furniture;

upholstery fabrics.

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) has been

asked by various government agencies to assist in the development of

standards and/or standard methods of test for the measurement of the

properties or characteristics of different materials. With increasing

frequency, these requests have been directed toward standards for public

safety and/or products or materials used by the consumer.

More specifically, one such agency, the Consumer Product Safety

Commission (CPSC) had requested that the Center for Fire Research (CFR)

at NBS develop and provide CPSC with a viable, repeatable, and reproducible method of test for measuring the flammability (resistance to cigarette

ignition and smoldering) of upholstered furniture.

The intent of the Commission was to issue the test method as a flammability standard for upholstered furniture to fulfill the "Finding

of Need" [1]^ published in the Federal Register in 1972 by the Department

of Commerce (see Appendix A) . This notice stated that a flammability

standard or other regulation may be needed for upholstered furniture to

protect the public against unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire

leading to death, personal injury, or significant property damage.

Numbers in brackets refer to the literature references listed at the

end of this paper.

1
The Finding's request for a test method was based on fire accident

case data obtained from various sources, e.g., the National Bureau of

Standards' Flammable Fabrics Accident Case and Testing System (FFACTS)

a public safety organization, the National Fire Protection Association

(NFPA) ; and state and local fire departments (New York, Oregon, etc.)

which indicated that the majority of fire incidents involving upholstered

furniture and bedding were caused by cigarettes and/or smoking related

materials

A more recent report (see Appendix B) published in 1976 added

supportive evidence for a need for a test standard by showing that for

fire death scenarios occurring annually in the United States 27% of

residential fire deaths resulted from smoking materials igniting bedding

and upholstered furniture.

The purpose of this back-up report then, is to bring together

some of the data and information and reports generated by CFR (and others)

during four years of work on the development of the test method. This

information was used in the preparation of a recommended Proposed Standard

for the Flammability (Cigarette Ignition Resistance) of Upholstered

Furniture, PFF 6-76 (see Appendix C)

2. OBJECTIVE

The objective of the proposed standard is to reduce the number of

upholstered furniture fire incidents which occur every year in the United

States as a result of careless smoking. It proposes to do this by establishing test methods and procedures designed to measure the ignition

resistance of upholstered furniture to cigarettes.

Such a standard would obviously serve to protect the consumer from

the many hazards associated with furniture fires: e.g., continuous slow

burning or smoldering and resultant production of smoke and toxic atmospheres which may lead to death, injury, or significant property loss.

In order to establish priorities for work within CFR, the available

fire data sources were studied. As expected, it was found that the most

common of all fire death scenarios was cigarette ignition of upholstered

furniture resulting in smoldering combustion and causing death by toxic

combustion products.

For information purposes, a brief summary of these fire data are presented here.

2.1. The National Household Fire Survey

In 1974, the Bureau of the Census, under the sponsorship of NBS and

CPSC, conducted "The National Household Fire Survey." The following

outlines the findings on upholstered furniture from this survey.

2
33 856 households were surveyed. (There were approximately

70 million households in the U.S.)

Of these households, 2333 reported having had 2463 fires

during the previous 12 months. Projected to National totals,

this would represent an estimated 5.6 million fires annually.

Of these, it is estimated that 4.6 million occurred in

residences

.

Of the 4.6 million residential fires, fabric items were identified as first to ignite in an estimated 469 000.

In 93 000 cases, approximately 20% of the 469 000, upholstered

furniture was the first item ignited.

In 88% (82 000) of the upholstered furniture fire incidents,

the probable cause (or ignition source) was estimated to be

cigarettes, cigars, and other smoking related materials.

2.2. The Flammable Fabrics Accident Case and

Testing System (FFACTS)

FFACTS was developed by NBS in response to the Department of

Commerce's responsibility for determining the need for standards under

the Flammable Fabrics Act and to characterize accident scenarios. The

following information on upholstered furniture fires was obtained from

the FFACTS file:

1. There are 3347 cases in the data base.

2. There are 298 cases in which upholstered furniture (upholstery/

sofa bed) was ignited, with a total of 343 pieces (327 upholstered furniture and 16 sofa beds) ignited.

3. Of the 298 cases in which upholstered furniture was ignited,

182 had personal injury reported, and 115 involved no personal

injury (1 personal injury data element was unknown)

.

4. Of the 182 cases involving personal injury, fatality information

is available for 164 cases. Of these 164 cases, there were 90

fatal injuries and 74 nonfatal injuries.

5. Of the 298 cases, in which upholstered furniture was ignited,

in 209 cases upholstered furniture was the first item ignited.

In 47 cases, the ignition order is unknown, and in 42 cases the

upholstered furniture is not the first ignited item. The 209 cases include 8 sofa beds.

6. Of the 209 cases in which upholstered furniture was first to

ignite, the distribution of ignition sources is as follows:

1 .

2 .

3.

4.

5.

3
Smoking Materials

Cigarette

Cigar, Pipe

Smoking Material (Unspecified)

Total Smoking Materials

166

Matches and Lighters 15

Other 17

Unknown 11

209

Smoking materials, primarily cigarettes, are the ignition source indicated for 84% of the 198 "f irst-to-ignite" furniture cases for which

the ignition source is known.

7. The injury disposition for the 209 cases in which upholstered

furniture was first to ignite is as follows:

Died 49

Hospitalized 31

Treated and Released 21

First Aid 7 No Treatment 2

Unknown 3

Total Injured 113

In 95 cases, there were no injuries. In one case this information

is not available.

2.3. Analysis of Fire Accident Scenarios by the Fire Incidence

Data Organization (FIDO) Maintained by the

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

The FIDO study made by Clarke and Ottoson (see Appendix B) used a quantitative approach to survey available data and to identify and rank

what appear to be the most frequent scenarios for fire death in the

United States. The 14 top scenarios are listed, and it is shown that

almost two-thirds of the Nation’s fire deaths are accounted for by this

listing. Heading the list with 27% of the fire deaths is the residential

f ire where furnishings are the first item to ignite, and the ignition source is smoking . The furnishing category includes both bedding and

upholstered furniture.

The next highest listing (5% of fire deaths) was furnishings

ignited by open flames.

4
This report concluded that the residential fire fatality record

and the role contributed by furnishings need to be recognized as crucial

points for action if fire losses are to be substantially reduced. The

National goal [2] of reducing fire losses by 50% cannot be accomplished

unless this aspect of residential fire is addressed.

2.4. Notice of Finding — Federal Register, November 29, 1972

A notice of finding was published in the Federal Register (see

Appendix A) in 1972 by the Department of Commerce which informed the

public that a flammability standard or other regulation may be needed

for upholstered furniture to protect the public against the unreasonable

risk of the occurrence of fire leading to death or personal injury or significant property damage.

The basis of possible need for a standard (at that time) was set

forth in the proceedings where injury data collected from a number of

different sources were presented: e.g., the Flammable Fabrics Accident

Case and Testing System (FFACTS) , the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) , the States of Oregon and New York, and other public safety

organizations and local fire departments. Also cited in the document

were research data supplied by the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)

under contract to NBS.

2.5. Development of the Proposed Standard

CFR began work on the development of the proposed flammability

standard for upholstered furniture soon after the notice of finding was published in the Federal Register in 1972.

The Department of Commerce (DoC) originally had responsibility for

the work until the authority to administer the Flammable Fabrics Act was transferred to CPSC as a result of the 1972 Consumer Product Safety Act

and formation of the Commission on May 14, 1973. Since that time, the

work has been sponsored by CPSC.

By 1974, CFR had developed a "cigarette test" for measuring the

ignition resistance of upholstered furniture and had presented a draft

of a proposed test standard to CPSC.

The next two years (*74 to '76) were devoted to a full-scale interlaboratory evaluation (50 to 60 laboratories) testing program designed

to determine the feasibility of the proposed test.

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the

Upholstered Furniture Action Council (UFAC), a group of furniture

executives joined together to look after the interests of the furniture

industry, helped CFR carry out the feasibility studies.

5
I

Based on the information gained in these interlaboratory studies

and other studies, CFR made some revisions to the 1974 draft of the

proposed standard and submitted a new draft to CPSC on May 21, 1976.

The following is a summary report of the information generated by

CFR and others in the development of the proposed flammability standard.

3. SwRI RESEARCH (IDENTIFICATION OF THE HAZARDS)

The Southwest Research Institute report, "Characterization of

Bedding and Upholstery Fires" by Hafer and Yuill [3], described a series

of 30 exploratory tests on beds and on upholstered chairs using various

combinations of materials and ignition sources. Eight of the 30 tests

were on upholstered chairs made with different combinations of upholstery

fabric and cushioning. Both smoldering ignition (cigarettes) and flaming

ignition (matches or methenamine pills) tests were conducted.

Conclusions drawn from this work were: (1) that upholstered chairs

were easily ignited by lighted cigarettes and open flames and (2) that

conditions hazardous to life could be obtained within a short time after

ignition was established. Measurements of temperature, light obscuration,

oxygen depletion, CO, CO 2

, and other noxious gases showed that hazardous

(to life) levels were reached within 30 minutes for cigarette ignitions

and within 6 minutes for open flame tests. It was reported that choking,

irritating, and lachrymating elements of the combustion products rendered

the atmosphere intolerable for even an alert, mature, healthy adult before

lethal conditions were recorded. But CO could incapacitate a sleeping

person.

4. CFR - EXAMINATION OF THE PROBLEM

In designing the flammability (cigarette ignition resistance) tests

for upholstered furniture, it was decided from the discussion below that

the test methods and procedures should follow those already developed for

mattresses in the Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses, FF 4-72.

Two elements entered into this decision: (1) the filling or stuffing

and cushioning materials used in upholstered furniture were similar to

those used in mattresses, e.g., cotton batting, foam rubber, foam urethane, and polyester fiberfill and (2) the primary hazard pattern for

furniture fires was the same as identified for mattresses (careless

smoking)

A comparison of mattresses and upholstered furniture showed that

the two differed by (1) the type of fabric used as cover material, (2)

the weight of the fabric cover, and (3) the presence of vertical members

(sides and backs) in furniture (not found in mattresses)

6
Generally, mattress covers or tickings are made of cotton, rayon,

or blends of cotton and rayon, weigh in the range of 136 to 254 g/m2 (4 to 7.5 oz/yd2 ), and provide little fuel for ignition of filling or stuffing materials in a mattress. By comparison, upholstery fabrics

are made from a wide range of cellulosic and synthetic fiber materials

or blends, weigh from 203 to 881 g/m2 (6 to 26 oz/yd2

) (average 339 to

508 g/m2 (10 to 15 oz/yd2 )), and can strongly influence the ignition of

substrate filling materials.

5. TESTING PHASE I

CFR began its test development work by evaluating the flammability

performance (cigarette ignition resistance) of over 40 different upholstery fabrics on three types of filling materials: e.g., cotton batting,

foam rubber, and foam urethane.

Initially, tests involved the burning of cigarettes on the surfaces

of 15 x 15 cm (6 x 6 in) mock-up seat cushions and in the crevices of the

seat cushions abutting 15 x 15 cm (6 x 6 in) vertical test panels. Both

covered and uncovered cigarette tests were conducted. For the covered

tests, a paper tissue was used as the covering material.

Table 1 lists the results of cigarette and open flaming tests

conducted on each of the fabric materials. The flaming ignition tests

included ease of ignition, rate of burning, and methenamine pill tests on small-scale foam urethane seat cushions.

The knowledge gained from these cigarette tests showed that: (1)

cellulosic fabrics ignite easily and in turn will ignite cotton batting

and foam rubber cushioning in covered cigarette tests, (2) most synthetic

fabrics (nylon, olefin, and PVC plastics) on cotton batting and foam

rubber cushioning will resist ignition, and (3) foam urethane cushioning

in combination with each of the fabrics tested was not ignited.

Observations made for crevice (cigarette) tests showed that 41 of

the 47 fabrics tested permitted ignition of cotton filled vertical

panels while a combination of 1.3 cm (1/2 in) foam urethane over cotton

allowed only 12 ignitions for the same 47 fabrics. No significant differences were noted between vertical or vertical curved (oval) panel

configurations

6. TESTING PHASE II

The next phase of testing involved a study of the ignition

resistance of cellulosic and synthetic fabrics on a total of 12 fullsize urethane foam filled seat cushions. Information gained from this

study showed that the cellulosic fabrics permitted ignition of the

cushions in the welt edges and the synthetics did not. From these data,

7
Table

1.

Covered

and

Uncovered

Cigarette

Ignition

Test

Results

on

Small-Scale

Seat

Cushion

and

Chair

Arm

Furniture

Constructions

and

Flammability

Tests

on

Upholstery

Fabric

Materials

r

Z M Z w ih Z Z Z M z z

H H (N N 00 O' 00 O

ooooh

•O O' vO H *0 O m

i—I O rH O

rl'OCOOfO'OMO OH 0'f'"<rrHCMfH rHeH CM OOOOOOrHO O

<r o

\c m

• z • o o

n vo 'O

on <j- oh <r «H O On nO co n h \o oooo oooo

so oh o >3- rH O

00 CO CO O O' M 'C HHO'inriNjO'O 0"0 H

O O' OOr—lOOOOOOrHi—(OOOO

i/iNMOcoHin® O' <rmO'sOCMr^co<r<ro m m co co <r o o (N ® o ro ^cMrHCM*3-cMininooooMrino't'-'sO <Tv7HvrnM'£)oj • ••••••• m

• cHr'-.oincHvoiniH'Oao •••••••••• Z •••••••••• vo <r n

• ••••••••••••».. -<r n vo m so cn O'OHinoH'OOO'^vjmvomin *H *—< H H rH iH rH rH

Z Z Z Z Z m m

z Z Z Z E Z H

Z Z Z Z Z Z M

M Z Z Z M

m Z Z Z w

z Z Z Z M

Z Z M z z z z

z z z z z z z

Z Z M z z. z z

Z Z Z Z Z M z

z z z z z z z

z z z z z z z

Z z Z 2 Z M

Z Z Z 2 Z M

Z Z Z Z Z M

z Z Z Z Z w M

Z Z Z Z Z M Z

z Z Z Z Z M z

Z M z Z Z M

Z Z Z Z Z m ih

Z Z Z Z Z M M

IHIHIHMMMIHhH M MMH-IZZMMMMMZMZMMMHHMMMI-IM MMMMZZMMMMMMMMh-l

IHMtHhHMHHlH M MM»-HZZH-^MMMMZt-HZMMhHh-IKHK-IMZ^-* MMIHMZZMMZtHMIHlHMH

IHMIHlHHCMH-lM M MMUZZMMZMZZMZMMMZZMZMM MMMMZZMMZMMMZMM

zzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

MMMMMMMM M MMMMZMZMZMZMZZZZZMZZZM MZMMZMMMMMZMZMM

ZZMMMZMM Z ZZMZZ>HZZZZZMZZZZZZZZZM MZZZZZMZZMZZZZM

MZZMMMMM M MZMZZWMWWMZMZWWMMMMZMM mmmmzmmmmmmmmmm

ZZZZZZZZ Z ZZZZZmmmmzZmzmmh-(Z»-+mzmm hmmmZmmmmmmzhwih

vom'JMincNO'vo

NCO'OCO'OrsNvO <rMN'jomo'OvOHvjO"Ocoo'in^rn ^ n oo o

r^Or^CT'r^ocr'OOO-—(ooaNrHOvOc-sirH cn oo ?H csvO'OO'infOtNfOtNO'for^mcorsa>csir^cnromr-(inin'Or^a'«3-ooo

W <U 9s? <3 rH m CQ rl

(5 C H u u

C* O eeecceoc o o o o o o .

U 0'S 6^5 o in o

•O O sO CJ e ^

c c

w U U

G C -1 o o

>N I

o>

» O N

• o. *H

8* o o i o o i

u u

U U C u u u

O > -H o O 0 U ft. > u u u

ooeoo<uecc u o O ^ U u

CTJ O > o pu

rH C C rH rH , c c c a) c e

O O O o o

H K Ctf ^ C

Bs? O B? H C -jOB^B^OOU-4 <u UOr^mrHO CU C JH iO n H H rl O r-J

CU O C

-u a C -H c c c c H

•v C/)lHO lHww«ww *H CU >-. <D rH rH

<U > -H Oj rH (0 Oh u otfozzoiazi C *H c < S'? 0*H O B* rHB'?B<B'?8"«B-S8'?B'?B'Si ooB^inoooooooo* nj ^ H OnOOfH ^ OOOOOOOOl , aL Z Z O Z

u c_> c c c

sO <U H 4J

O S'? S'? 6

s? >% o o o (OOOO 0- rH rH rH

HNn'jmvONcoa o MOJNCNNNNNN CM

oh ^ m so

in in m in m

CM CM CM CM CM

CO O' O H (M

in m vo so so

CM CM CM CM CM

>j in vo n oo

r-» n r->* CM CM CM CM CM

O' O H N CO

00 00 00 00

CM CM CM CM CM

sj in vO I— CO On O

CO 00 00 00 00 00 O'

CM CM CM CM CM CM CM

rH CM O' O'

CM CM

cn «j m io n

O' O' O' O' O'

CM CM CM CM CM

8

298

33

1/3%

Wool

33

1/3%

Cotton

33

1/3%

Mohair

23.4

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

I

NNN

N

0.28

I

-

Ignition
a criterion for test failure was established as (1) an obvious ignition

or (2) a 7.5 cm (3 in) char or smolder in any direction from a test

cigarette. If the char exceeds 7.5 cm (3 in), experience has shown

that the char will generally progress to destruction of the test sample.

7.

TESTING PHASE III

A total of 47 silk and silk blended fabrics supplied for test by

the Decorative Fabrics Association were subjected to the ’'small-scale"

testing program.

Information obtained from these experiments showed that (1) silks

permit ignition of vertical cotton panels, (2) silks do not permit ignition of protected cotton panels 1.3 cm (1/2 in) foam urethane layer over cotton, and (3) silks resist ignition from pill tests (open flame) on foam urethane cushioning.

8.

TESTING PHASE IV

By mid-1973, CFR was investigating (1) aluminized fabrics as a heat

dissipating medium under upholstery fabric materials, (2) the possible

use of a Standard Fabric for qualification tests of furniture mock-up

constructions, (3) glass fiberboard as a standard substrate for fabric

evaluations, and (4) the ignition performance of various types of filled

and unfilled foam urethane cushioning materials.

9.

PLANT VISITS

In early 1974, the upholstered furniture industry, working through

the Upholstered Furniture Action Council (UFAC) , sponsored a tour of seven different furniture factories in the Hickory, North Carolina, area to

acquaint government personnel with the methods of furniture manufacture.

These plant visits made one lasting impression: i.e., that the burden of

testing had to be lightened if flammability requirements were to be

established for furniture under a proposed standard. In view of the vast

selection of cover fabrics available to the consumer (in some large

plants, this selection may be 500 to 5000 fabrics), it was apparent that

a strong effort would have to be made to develop a fabric classification

test so that every fabric in a plant would not have to be tested on every

furniture construction.

10.

TEST APPARATUS FOR MOCK-UP UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE TEST

By mid-1974, CFR and UFAC had jointly decided on a mock-up test

apparatus (figures 1-3) for testing upholstered furniture constructions.

Briefly, this apparatus was designed to accommodate full-size seat

cushions and vertical test panels fabricated with the same filling

materials and upholstery fabric intended for use on full-size furniture

9
items. This apparatus was to become the accepted means for conducting

the Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Test described in the draft of the

proposed standard prepared for CPSC by CFR.

11. TESTING PHASE V - SEVEN-LAB EVALUATION OF THE

MOCK-UP UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE TEST METHOD

Preparations were made to subject the Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture

Test method to an inter laboratory evaluation study and to compare the

results of this study with cigarette ignition tests on full-size

upholstered chairs.

ASTM and UFAC cooperated with CFR in setting up a seven-lab

evaluation of the test method. Each laboratory was instructed to determine the cigarette ignition resistance of six different upholstery fabrics

by the Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Test, and for comparison, to also

conduct cigarette tests on three full-size chairs. Foam urethane was used as the cushioning material for the mock-up and chair seat cushions,

and cotton batting was supplied as the filling material for vertical

mock-up panels and the chair arms and backs.

Instructions called for making uncovered and covered cigarette tests

(cover-piece of bed sheeting material) on the smooth surfaces of the seat

cushions, on the welt or border edges of cushions, and in the crevices of

abutting seat cushions and vertical mock-up panels and sides and backs

(chair tests) . Horizontal surfaces of chair arms and tops of backs were

also tested.

All laboratories submitted their data to CFR for analysis and review;

and a report of test results for this study [4] was submitted to CPSC by

mid-1975 (see Appendix D)

Briefly, the interlab provided the following information:

1. Cigarette tests on mock-up upholstered furniture constructions

were found equable to those obtained for similar tests on full-size upholstered chairs.

2. Covered cigarette tests (see note) were more severe (than

uncovered) and provided more reproducible results.

3. Ignitions in upholstered furniture constructions were clearly

related to the type and kind of cover fabric used on a construction.

4. Synthetic fabrics produced fewer ignitions than did cellulosic

fabrics in both the mock-up upholstered furniture and chair

test assemblies.

10
5 . NBS statisticians analyzed test results in terms of percent

failure and measured the consistency of results between laboratories. In a memo report to CFR staff, it was reported that

with few exceptions, results of the Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture

Tests were satisfactory in terms of lab-to-lab variability.

NOTE: Covering the cigarette duplicates what is likely to occur in an actual accident scenario. The cigarette is very likely to come to

rest in the crevice underneath some material such as clothing. In this

situation, the heat is maintained in the area of the cigarette and

presents a more hazardous situation.

12. TESTING PHASE VI - DEVELOPMENT OF A FABRIC

CLASSIFICATION TEST METHOD

The intent of CFR in developing the Fabric Classification Test

Method was to reduce the testing burden on the furniture manufacturer

(not every fabric would be required to be tested on every furniture

construction)

Briefly, the concept of the test was to use a small-scale test

apparatus (figures 4-6) to support fabric-covered, noncombustible glass

fiberboard and/or cotton batting/glass fiberboard substrates and to burn

cigarettes (covered by a piece of sheeting material) in the crevice

location for each fabric test sample. The test sample consists of a piece of fabric 20 x 20 cm (8 x 8 in) for the horizontal cover and a piece of fabric 30 x 30 cm (12 x 12 in) for the vertical back cover. Shown in figure 7, is a schematic diagram of the Fabric Classification

Test procedure. As detailed in this diagram, fabrics receive Class A,

B, C, or D ratings based on their cigarette ignition resistance performance. Class A fabrics are the most resistive materials and produce

chars less than 3.8 cm (1.5 in) on glass fiberboard and do not ignite

cotton batting; Class B fabrics char less than 3.8 cm (1.5 in) on glass

fiberboard, but do ignite cotton; Class C chars 3.8 to 7.5 cm (1.5 to

3 in) on glass fiberboard; and Class D chars more than 7.5 cm (3 in) on

the same material.

Glass fiberboard was chosen as the substrate material for the

Fabric Classification Test (FCT) to ensure that any smoldering or char

that developed in a fabric during test could only be attributed to the

fabric and not to the under layment material. Cotton batting was selected

for the vertical test panels in the second part of the test to help

determine whether a test fabric was a Class A or Class B (Class B ignites

cotton, Class A does not).

A report entitled "Test Method for Classifying Cigarette Ignition

Characteristics of Upholstery Fabrics" [5] was presented to CPSC (see

Appendix E) covering initial observations obtained with the FCT test

method. For this testing program, a total of 47 upholstery fabrics were

classified by the FCT test method, and results yielded the following

information:

11
1. There were six Class A fabrics consisting of vinyl plastic,

heavyweight nylons, and polyester materials.

2. There were 29 Class B fabrics consisting of synthetic fiber

or lightweight cellulosic materials or blends.

3. There were five Class C materials consisting of lightweight

or medium-weight cellulosic fabrics.

4. There were seven Class D fabrics consisting of various weights

of cellulosic materials.

13. TESTING PHASE VII - SIX-LAB EVALUATION OF FCT TEST METHOD

After completion and distribution of information gained in the above

report to CPSC and the furniture industry, ASTM, UFAC, and CFR jointly

agreed to conduct a small-scale interlaboratory feasibility study to

evaluate the repeatability of the FCT test method in a laboratory and

the reproducibility of the method between laboratories.

To this end, a total of six laboratories agreed to participate in

classification tests on 10 different cotton, rayon, and cotton or rayonblended fabrics.

The following is a list of upholstery fabric materials selected

for test:

Table 2. Upholstery Test Materials

Fabric No. Fiber Content Weight

(g/m2

)

1 100% Rayon 440

2 66% Viscose/21 Nylon/13 Polyester 848

3 43% Rayon/30 Polyprop/27 Nylon 339

4 72% Cotton/17 Acetate/ll Rayon 440

5 65% Cotton/35 Viscose 475

6 55% Cotton/ 39 Rayon/ 6 Acetate 440

7 60% Rayon/40 Cotton 509

8 100% Cotton 203

9 45% Rayon/55 Cotton 475

10 70% Rayon/ 30 Nylon 339

To convert to oz/yd2

, multiply by 0.03.

12
Each laboratory was furnished sufficient material to conduct four

repeat Fabric Classification Tests on each fabric. The laboratories

chose the lowest rating obtained for a test for that particular fabric's

class

The following table lists the test results furnished to CFR by the

laboratory participants:

Table 3. Interlaboratory Fabric Test Results

Laboratory

1 2 3 4 5 6

Fabric No. Classification Averages

1 D D B D B D -

2 B B B B B B B

3 D C B B B B -

4 D D D D B D D

5 B B B B B C B

6 D D D D D D D

7 B B B B B C B

8 B B B B B B B

9 B B B B B C B

10 B B B B B B B

The information gained from the above table of data was most

encouraging. Four of the fabrics were exactly classified by all laboratories; four others were misclassif ied by only one laboratory; and two

fabrics were misclassif ied by two laboratories.

Conclusions drawn from this interlaboratory study indicated that

the Fabric Classification Test was: a viable method of test, repeatable

within a lab, reproducible between laboratories, and worthy of further

evaluation by a greater number of laboratories on a much larger scale.

13
14. TESTING PHASE VIII - FIFTY-FIVE-LAB EVALUATION OF THE

MOCK-UP UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE AND FABRIC CLASSIFICATION

TEST METHODS

CFR (with the help and cooperation of ASTM and UFAC) set up and

designed a fifty-five-lab interlaboratory evaluation study of both the

Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture and Fabric Classification Test Methods in

the proposed standard. Draft No. 5 of the proposed standard was used for

conducting the tests. A report on this evaluation study [6] was presented to CPSC in March 1976 (see Appendix F)

Among the laboratory participants were fabric producers, furniture

manufacturers, chemical suppliers, retailers. State and Federal government agencies, fiber producers, and educational institutions. Of the

55 laboratories, 38 used the Fabric Classification Test Method to classify 16 different upholstery fabrics; 38 conducted mock-up upholstered

tests on a total of 11 different furniture constructions; and 21 of the

laboratories conducted both tests.

Knowledge gained from the fabric classification (38-lab) evaluation

study showed that:

1. Classifications were influenced by test fabric orientation

and by air gaps or spacing between the vertical panel and

horizontal panel support.

2. Reproducible results were obtained by those laboratories who

conducted classification tests on fabrics with the fiber direction on vertical panels matching that of the horizontal panels;

i.e., machine matching machine (or warp matching warp) fiber

direction and with no air gap between test panels.

3. A definite relationship was found between fabric type and the

classification obtained for a test fabric.

4. Fabrics found to fall into class patterns were:

a. Wools, wool blends, vinyl plastics, and heavyweight

synthetics rated "Class A."

b. Medium-weight synthetics (nylons, olefins, etc.) and some lightweight cottons and rayons were "Class B."

c. Medium-weight cellulosics (cotton, rayon, etc.) were rated

"Class C."

d. Heavyweight cellulosics >508 g/m2 (>15 oz/yd2

) were

generally classed "Class D."

14
It appears that the FCT test method is a viable, reproducible

method of test. Two immediate advantages would be (1) that the furniture

industry’s burden of testing will be considerably lightened (not every

fabric would require testing on the mock-up test method samples) and (2)

that industry would be provided a means of determining what fabric class

"works well" (passes the cigarette test) with a furniture construction

and would avoid unnecessary testing.

Conclusions drawn from the (38-lab) evaluation study of the Mock-Up

Upholstered Furniture Test Method in the proposed standard were:

1. Most present-day (manufactured) upholstered furniture can easily

be ignited by burning cigarettes (vinyl covered, wool, and

heavyweight synthetic covered furniture excepted)

.

2. Laboratory participants had little difficulty in identifying

the safe (nonignition) and problem areas (ignition prone) in

the mock-up assemblies.

3. Upholstery cover fabrics were shown to play an extremely important role in determining whether a furniture construction

will resist or allow ignitions to occur in finished furniture

items. Constructions which may pass the test with one fabric cover may not necessarily pass the test when covered with a different class of fabric material.

4. Class A fabrics were found compatible with most furniture

constructions.

5. Class B fabrics demonstrated a need for barrier layers between

cotton batt and cover fabric.

6. Class C and Class D fabrics, because they smolder when exposed

to burning cigarettes, may require a heat dissipating medium

under cover fabrics in order to resist ignition.

7. The Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Test Method (based on the go- no go results obtained) was judged viable, reproducible, and a useful tool for the furniture industry for making determinations

on whether a mock-up furniture construction used in combination

with a particular upholstery fabric will pass or fall a cigarette

test (see Appendix E for data)

.

15. TESTING PHASE IX - STANDARD FABRICS

Research and development testing did not end with the completion

of the 55-lab interlaboratory study, for an anomaly was soon discovered in

the provisions of Draft No. 5 of the proposed standard. Under Draft No. 5, a mock-up furniture construction qualified for use in full-size furniture

items if it passed cigarette tests with any upholstery fabric from a

15
particular fabric class. By passing this single test, all other fabrics

from that same fabric class would automatically qualify for use with

that particular construction without any further testing. Additional

testing, however, showed that this interpretation was too liberal, for

within a fabric class it was discovered that high and low-level fabrics

may exist, and if a high-level (easily passing) fabric were used for

qualification tests of a furniture mock-up construction, there was a good chance that many low-level (barely staying within the fabric class)

fabrics in the same class might fail on the same construction if tested.

It was also found that this problem existed only for the Class B and

Class C fabrics, for the proposed standard had already provided that

each Class D fabric intended for use on furniture would require individual testing on mock-ups and that Class A fabrics as a group were

"so good" that any fabric from that group was considered eligible for

qualification testing.

In order to resolve this problem and to strengthen the mock-up test

provisions in the proposed standard, a research effort was initiated to

determine if "Standard Fabrics" might be found and specified for Class B

and Class C upholstery fabrics for qualification tests on upholstered

furniture mock-up constructions.

Mock-up tests showed that a satisfactory fabric for Class B was a 50/50 cotton/polyester blend sheeting material (similar to that used to cover test cigarettes in the proposed standard) and that a suitable

standard fabric for Class C was a cotton ticking cloth material listed

under Federal Specification CCC-C-436D.

These two fabrics were selected as "standard" because tests showed

they were representative of the "low-level" fabrics in their particular

fabric classes and thus would be expected to provide for a most severe

test when used for qualification testing of upholstered furniture con- struction (by definition, a "low-level" fabric would be one which provides chars up to the limits allowed for a particular fabric class)

Based on the information gained in this study [7] (see Appendix G)

the proposed standard was revised to include new provisions requiring

use of the standard Class B and Class C fabrics for all furniture mockup tests where the construction is intended for use with a fabric from one of these classes.

A final version of the proposed standard incorporating these

changes was submitted to CPSC on May 21, 1976 (see Appendix C)

16. OTHER TESTS AND REPORTS

Although not listed chronologically in the Phase Testing Programs,

a number of research and development tests were made at CFR, and results

were reported to CPSC.

16
One such report was concerned with the temperatures developed byburning cigarettes [8] (see Appendix H) . The knowledge gained from this

investigation of 32 brands of cigarettes was that king-size non-filter

tipped cigarettes produced higher smoldering temperatures (worst case)

than their filter tip counterparts. Based on the results of this study,

the non-filter tip cigarette was selected as the standard ignition source

for the Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses, FF 4-72, and for the

Proposed Standard for the Flammability (Cigarette Ignition Resistance) of

Upholstered Furniture, PFF 6-76.

Another report [9] documented a series of tests designed to determine the ignition resistance of 23 different types of urethane foams when

the foams were tested by the Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Test (see

Appendix I)

.

These tests showed (1) that foam urethane constructions can be

ignited by smoldering Class D upholstery fabric covers and (2) that fireretardant treatments of foams failed to prevent ignitions when covered

by the "D" fabrics.

A third report [10] was concerned with the "Rationale Behind Some

Decisions on What to Specify in the Proposed Standard for the Flammability of Upholstered Furniture" (see Appendix J)

.

Each of these reports provided useful input to the proposed

flammability standard.

17. DISCUSSION

17.1. The Standard

CFR interprets the accident data presented in the Clarke-Ottoson

(FIDO) report to indicate that the control of ignition in upholstered

furniture may be one of the most effective, available means of reducing

injury and loss due to fire in the United States. Clearly, an effort

to eliminate easily ignitable furniture from reaching the marketplace

must be given serious consideration.

The Standard for the Flammability (Cigarette Ignition Resistance)

of Upholstered Furniture proposed to CPSC is intended to fulfill this

need by reducing to a very low level the quantity of new furniture

manufactured which would be cigarette ignitable.

17.2. The Standard’s Reasonableness

Under the fabric classification test in the proposed standard,

fabric producers have the option of testing and classifying each and

every upholstery fabric in their inventory, or of selecting a reduced

testing protocol where only representative light and heavyweight fabrics

17
of a fabric type would be tested. Under the latter option, if the

selected test fabrics produce the same fabric class by testing, then all

intermediate weight fabrics of the same fabric type would automatically

be assigned to the same fabric class without further testing. If, however, the test fabrics show different fabric classifications, then all

fabrics of the same fabric type would require classification testing on an individual basis. After qualification, a fabric type would be allowed

for use as a cover fabric on production furniture constructions (qualified by the mock-up test) for a period of 12 months or at time intervals

designated by CPSC. In order to qualify for an extended testing cycle,

a fabric producer would document (to the satisfaction of CPSC) that a fabric type had not changed (e.g., by manufacturing method fiber content

or dye color process) from the material originally classified as a fabric class.

Under the mock-up upholstered furniture test in the proposed

standard, manufacturers have the option of testing each different upholstery fabric on mock-up upholstered furniture constructions and using

the passing or qualified assemblies in production furniture, or of testing constructions covered with standard class fabrics instead of

upholstery fabric materials.

Under the latter option, no Class A, B, or C upholstery fabric

would need to be destroyed by testing if certain standard fabrics are used for the qualification tests. A singular "passing" furniture con- struction with standard Class C fabric cover would automatically qualify

all Class A, B, and C upholstery fabrics for use on the same construction

in production furniture without any further testing. If standard Class B

fabric were used, and the furniture construction passed all tests, then

all Class A and B fabrics would qualify for use on the furniture con- struction. If a manufacturer wishes, a singular Class A fabric can be

used to qualify all Class A fabrics on a furniture construction without

further test. Presently, the standard only requires that Class D upholstery fabrics be tested individually on each different furniture

construction. The testing cycle for the mock-up furniture tests would

be as described for the fabric classification test: i.e., every 12 months

or at time intervals designated by CPSC.

It is fortunate that there are only a limited number of filling or stuffing materials or combinations of materials used in upholstered

furniture constructions (cotton batting, foam urethane, polyester, and

combinations of cotton and foam urethane or polyester in combination

with cotton or foam urethane) . Seat cushions are almost exclusively

made with foam urethane or foam urethane covered with polyester.

Manufacturers may, therefore, qualify production furniture for periods

of 12 months or longer by conducting a minimal number of tests

(see table 4)

18
Table 4. Production Furniture Testing

Cover Fabric Seat Cushion Vertical Members No. of Tests

A Foam Cotton 6

A Poly/Foam Cotton 6

Standard B Foam Foam 6

" B Poly/Foam Foam 6

" B Foam Foam/Cotton 3

" B Poly/Foam Poly/Cotton 3

Standard C Foam Treated Cotton 6

" C Poly/Foam Treated Cotton 6

The above number of tests (42) is based on the assumption that tops

of side arms and tops of backs of the upholstered furniture piece con- tains the same arrangement of filling material to fabric cover as is used

in the sides and back. If such an arrangement exists (as would be the case in most production furniture), then these locations would not have

to be made or tested under conditions of the test standard. If the production furniture item contains loose seat cushions, then three additional tests would be required to qualify mock-up decking constructions.

Each Class D upholstered furniture construction will require testing on

an individual basis.

One further consideration offered to manufacturers would be to allow

for pooling of test results on different furniture constructions. Under

this provision, a central testing laboratory (approved by CPSC) would

test and certify (passing) upholstered furniture constructions for use

in production furniture. Manufacturers would be allowed to use the certified constructions in furniture for 12 months or longer or until CPSC

determined that the construction must be retested or requalified.

The above described testing frequency or cycles would not be burdensome, nor would they impact greatly (financially) on fabric producers or furniture manufacturers.

17.3. The Standard's Appropriateness

Once an upholstered furniture construction has been tested, passed,

and accepted as a viable construction for use in production furniture,

that construction may be used by manufacturers until a requalification

19
test is deemed necessary by CPSC. Proper matching of fabric class to a construction should eliminate the need for removing any great number of

upholstery fabrics from the marketplace.

Construction systems found suitable with Class C fabrics might often

be found suitable for lightweight Class D fabrics in the range up to

about 508 g/m2 (15 oz/yd 2

) . Heavier weight Class D fabrics (>508 g/m 2 (>15 oz/yd 2

) J may only require thicker or heavier layers of smolder re- sistant substrate material (than used for Class C) to meet the requirements of the cigarette test.

Based on the above estimates, the following conclusions may be

drawn

1. The level of choice of fabrics available to the consumer would

not be lowered by any significant degree.

2. The fashion and craft segments of the industry would not suffer

undue hardship from the proposed standard.

3. The consumer would maintain a freedom of choice in fabric

selection.

4. The economic impact on the furniture industry would not be as severe as projected by UFAC (20 to 25% cost increase of furniture

at wholesale; researched by Arthur D. Little Co. and Battelle

Columbus Institute) but may only impact at 5% increase by CFR

estimates (based on $3 billion sales at wholesale; the Dept, of

Commerce, Goods and Services Division Report, Jan. 75).

O “t 17.4. The Standard’s Technological Feasibility

The biggest problem facing the furniture industry (if the proposed

standard becomes law) would be "how to handle the interaction between

fabric and interior components?" Clearly, Class A, B, and C fabrics can easily be used on most present-day furniture with only slight modifications in furniture constructions while Class D fabrics will most likely

require some major changes in component assembly and construction.

CFR has endeavored to make a contribution to the furniture

industry’s research effort by actually fabricating an upholstered chair

with a Class D fabric cover for test in accordance with the proposed

flammability standard. The chair passed all cigarette tests. The

"passing" construction consisted of the following assembly of materials:

(1) needle punched aluminum foil cover over cotton batting material in

sides and back constructions, (2) the same foil material glued to the

edges of a foam urethane seat cushion with the foil quilted or glued to

the cover upholstery fabric, and (3) welt edges, of the cushion required

a PVC plastic welt cord material.

20
CFR believes that constructions of this type may easily be achieved

by the furniture industry.

17.5. The Standard’s Cost

Estimates of the cost of the proposed flammability standard for

upholstered furniture to the furniture industry have been made [11]

(see Appendix K) in a report to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The report projects costs as listed in table 5.

Table 5. Estimated Cost of Testing

to the Furniture Industry

Cost of Upgrading

(1) Upholstery Fabric $ 98 M

(2) Cotton Batting Filling Material 16 M

(3) Polyester Fiberfill 0

(A) Welt Cord 0.6 M*

(5) Polyurethane Foam 0

(6) Muslin 3 M

(7) Down Feathers 0

(8) Fabric Classification Test 11.25M

(9) Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Test 1.33M

$127. 18M**

* Since development of PVC tape, this cost would be 0.

** 126. 58M, New Total.

This total cost estimate of $126. 58M assumes the most expensive

case , e.g., no change in fabric mix , and an upgrading of Class D fabrics

now being used. A manufacturer’s shift to safer Class A and Class B

fabrics would reduce the cost of compliance even more than the estimate

given.

21
17.6. Toxicity of Combustion Products from Materials

Treated with Fire Retardants

Throughout this report, it has been repeatedly stated that the

proposed standard's intent was to eliminate cigarette induced smoldering

fires in upholstered furniture.

Among the ideas proposed on "how to reduce the number of ignitions"

in furniture, it has been suggested that fire-retardant chemicals be used

to impart cigarette-resistant qualities to upholstery fabric and filling

materials used in furniture constructions.

It has been reported by Battelle Laboratories [12] that the addition

of fire-retardant chemicals to a product will make the products of com- bustion from that product more toxic if it does burn. This generalization, however, is not based on experimental evidence.

The feasibility of whether to accept this hypothetical increase of

combustion product toxicity (when burning does occur) as a trade-off in

return for a reduction in the number of furniture fire incidents (which

is the intent of the proposed standard) poses a difficult policy decision

to be made by code officials and regulators.

18. CONCLUSIONS

This report serves as a back-up document to support the need for a Standard for the Flammability (Cigarette Ignition Resistance) of Upholstered Furniture. Of all the data and statistics cited in support of the

need for a standard, probably the most significant would be the fact that

27% of the fire deaths in the United States (see Appendix B) are due to

smoking materials igniting upholstered furniture and bedding. It is

further estimated that upholstered furniture fires resulting from ignition

by smoking materials account for 15% of the national fire deaths, and

bedding fires resulting from ignition by smoking materials account for the

other 12%. Since a mattress standard is now in effect, it is fully ex- pected that loss data will begin to reflect a reduction in mattress fires

as compliant mattresses are purchased to replace old mattresses.

Clearly, the goal of this proposed standard is to significantly

reduce the number of deaths, injuries, and property loss caused by

upholstered furniture fires.

If the Consumer Product Safety Commission promulgates the proposed

standard to full standard status, then all (assuming 100% compliance)

upholstered furniture reaching the marketplace would be cigarette ignition

resistant. Significant public benefit would result from the reduction of

ignition under this major fire loss scenario.

22
19. REFERENCES

[1] [15 CFR Part 7] Upholstered Furniture, Notice of Finding That

Flammability Standard or Other Regulation May Be Needed and

Institution of Proceedings, Federal Register, Vol. 37, No. 230,

Wednesday, November 29, 1972.

[2] America Burning, The Report of the National Commission on Fire

Prevention and Control, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C. 20402.

[3] Yuill, C. H. and Hafer, C. A., Characterization of Bedding and

Upholstery Fires, Final Report, SwRI Project No. 3*2610 to the

National Bureau of Standards (March 31, 1970).

[4] Loftus, J. J., An Interlaboratory Evaluation of a Cigarette Ignition Test for Upholstered Furniture, NBS Report to the Consumer

Product Safety Commission (May 22, 1975).

[5] Loftus, J. J., Test Method for Classifying Cigarette Ignition

Characteristics of Upholstery Fabrics, NBS Report to the Consumer

Product Safety Commission (March 6, 1975).

[6] Loftus, J. J., Interlaboratory Program for the Evaluation of a Proposed Flammability (Cigarette Ignition Resistance) Test for

Upholstered Furniture, NBS Report to the Consumer Product Safety

Commission (March 1976)

[7] Loftus, J. J., Evaluation of Standard B and C Fabrics for the

Proposed Standard for the Flammability (Cigarette Ignition

Resistance) of Upholstered Furniture, NBS Report to the Consumer

Product Safety Commission (October 1976)

[8] Loftus, J. J., Results of Temperature Measurements Made on Burning

Cigarettes and Their Use as Standard Ignition Source for Mattress

Testing, NBS Memo Report (June 18, 1971).

[9] Loftus, J. J., Cigarette Ignition Tests on Twenty-three Polyurethane Foams, Report to the Consumer Product Safety Commission

(June 29, 1976).

[10] Winger, J. H., Rationale Behind Some Decisions on What to Specify

in the Proposed Standard for the Flammability of Upholstered

Furniture, NBS Memo Report to the Consumer Product Safety Commission

(December 12, 1974).

[11] Winger, J. H., Comments on the Bureau of Domestic Commerce's Report

on the Impact of the Proposed Standard for the Flammability of

Upholstered Furniture, Report to the Consumer Product Safety

Commission (February 24, 1976).

23
[ 12 ]

a

Study of the Economic Impact of a Proposed Cigarette Ignition

Standard for Upholstered Furniture, Report to the Consumer Product

Safety Commission, Battelle Columbus Laboratories (April 14, 1975).

24
o

1

Figure

1.

Mock-Up

Frame:

Upholstered

Furniture

Test
MAT. ^

THICK PLYWOOD (ALL DIM. INCHES)

Figure 2. Mock-Up Panels: Upholstered Furniture Test

26

1
Figure 3. Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Test

27
GLASS

FIBERBOARD

8"X8

h-2

LU

28

Figure

4.

Fabric

Classification

Test:

Fabric/Glass

Fiberboard

Sample
Figure 5. Fabric Classification Test: Fabric/Cotton Batting Sample

29
30 7]
GLASS

FIBERBOARD

31

Figure

7.

Upholstery

Fabric

Classification

Test

APPENDIX A

PROPOSED RULE MAKING

MOTHERT OF COMBS

Offlct of the Stcrttary

[ 15 CFR Part 7 ] UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE

Node* of Finding That Flammability

Standard or Othor Regulation May

Re Needed and Institution of Pro- ceedings

Finding. Pursuant to section 4(a) of the Flammable Fabrics Act, as amended

(See. 3, 81 Stat. 569 : 15 U.S.C. 1193 ) and

t 7J of the Flammable Fabrics Act Procedures (33 FJt. 14642, October 1 . 1968 )

,

and upon the basis of Investigations or research conducted pursuant to section 14 of the Flammable Fabrics Act. as amended (sec. 10. 81 Stat. 573 ; 15 UB.C.

1201), it is hereby found that a flammability standard or standards, or other

regulation, including labeling, may be needed for upholstered furniture, and

fabrics or related materials Intended to be used, or which may reasonably be ex- pected to be used, in these products, to protect the public against unreasonable

risk of the occurrence of fire leading to death or personal injury, or significant

property damage.

There now exists no national flammability standard for upholstered furni- ture affording the general public protection from an unreasonable risk of fire. Upholstered furniture, therefore, may be produced and made available for con- sumer purchase which through ordinary

use would present such foreseeable has25239

ards as continuous slow burning or smoldering and the resultant production of smoke or toxic atmospheres leading to death. Injury, or significant property

damage.

Bates for Need. A detailed analysis of the 130 upholstered furniture ignition In- cidents in the National Bureau of Standards' Flammable Fabrics Accident Case and Testing System (FFACTS) In April 1972 indicates the following:

a. The ignition sequence was known

in 114 of the 130 Incidents. Upholstered

furniture was the first product ignited in 93 (81 percent) of these 114 incidents.

b. Of the 118 individuals directly in- volved in the 130 incidents, 74 were injured.

c. Thirty-three of these 74 individuals died as a result of their injuries.

d. Of the 118 persons directly involved, 91 persons became involved because of

their own or someone else’s smoking.

e. Cigarettes (77.9 percent) and un- known smoking materials (81 percent) were the ignition sources in 74 of the 86

incidents in which upholstered furniture was the first product ignited and the

ignition source was known. In seven of the 93 incidents in which upholstery was

the first to Ignite the Ignition source w&s unknown.

In addition to the foregoing, data obtained from public safety organizations

and State and local fire departments in- dicate that upholstered furniture fires constitute an important category of

fabric fires and cause major injury and

economic losses. A study conducted be- tween 1966 and 1998 by the National

Fire Protection Association has indicated that smoking on upholstered furniture was responsible for over 16 percent of the

single fatality nonclothing fires studied,

for which the causes of Ignition were known and stated. ("Single Fatality

Fire," an NFPA Fire Record Department

Study, “Fire Journal,” January 1968.) In a 1970 report on fires in Oregon in- volving furniture, furnishings, and cloth- ing where loss occurred, bedding and

upholstery material were the initial material Ignited In 60.9 percent of the cases; upholstered furniture was the first material ignited in over 23 percent oi these

cases, with the remaining 37.5 percent

attributed to mattresses or bedding ig- nitions. (Annual Statistical Report for the Calendar Tear 1970—published In

1971, C. Walter Stlckney, State Fire Marshal, Salem, Oreg.) In a New York

State report, bedding and furniture

fabric Ignitions constituted 59 percent of the cases involving casualties and 52.6 percent of the reported fabric ignition death cases. Of these New York statistics, furniture fabric and furnishings ac- counted for 21.9 and 17.5 percent of th©

cases resulting In injuries and deaths, respectively, with the remainder of the

cases attributed to bedding ignitions. (New York State Department of Health Burns Care Institute—Prevention Pro- gram "Reported Flammable Fabrics

Episodes. 1907-1971”.)

Institution of proceedings . —Pursuant

to section 4(a) of the Flammable Fabrics

No. 880—Pt. wsmwai Hemm m $?, no. m©~w8bw8s®ay,, teovsfls*®® as, wa

A-l
25240 PROPOSED RULE MAKING

Act, as amended (sec. 3, 81 Stat. 569; 15

U.S.C. 1193) and 7.6(a) of the Flammable Fabrics Act Procedures (33 Fit.

14642, October 1, 1968), notice is hereby

given of the institution of proceedings

for the development of an appropriate

flammability standard or standards, or other regulation, including labeling, for upholstered furniture, and fabrics or re- lated materials intended to be used, or which may reasonably be expected to be

used, in these products.

Participation in Proceedings.—All in- terested persons are invited to submit

written comments or suggestions within

30 days after the date of publication of

this notice in the Federal Register relative to ( 1 ) the above finding that a new

flammability standard or standards, or other regulation, including labeling, may

be needed; arrd (2) the terms or sub- stance of a flammability standard or standards, or other regulation, including

labeling, that might be adopted in the event that a final finding is made by the Secretary of Commerce that such a standard or standards, or other regulation, are needed to adequately protect the public against the unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire leading to death,

injury, or significant property damage.

Written comments or suggestions should

be submitted in at least four (4) copies

to the Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology, Room 3862, U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce, Washington, DC

20230, and should include any data or other information pertinent to the

subject.

Inspection of Relevant Documents.

The written comments received pursuant

to this notice will be available for public

Inspection at the Central Reference and

Records Inspection Facility of the Department of Commerce, Room 7043, Main

Commerce Building, 14th Street between E Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20230. A supporting document is available for inspection in the above facility. The doc- ument contains in more detail the data which are summarized in the preceding

portions of this notice. Issued: November 24, 1972. Richard O. Simpson,

Acting Assistant Secretary

for Science and Technology.

|FR Doc.72-20488 Plied li-24-72;2:56 ami

AA useful method for analyzing such real world events

is to construct typical “scenarios” to describe a series of events leading up to fire loss. The scenario concept is a common tool in long-range planning; 1 we are interested

in scenarios as an aid to formulating action plans for

firesafety focused on both the present and the near

future. FIRE DEATH

SCENARIOS

AND

FIRESAFETY

PLANNING

FREDRIC B. CLARKE, III Center for Fire Research

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

and

JOHN OTTOSON

NFPA Fire Analysis Department

Each of the millions of fire incidents that occur yearly

is the outcome of a fateful chain of events. Some of these events are the result of the circumstances sur- rounding the fire; others are usually the consequences

of human action. However, if the sequence of events could be broken, i.e., if one of the links in the chain

could be removed, the end result would not occur.

It follows that the more we know about the events and

their causal connection, the greater is the possibility of

interfering with the chain and avoiding fire loss.

The purpose of this article is to introduce the sce- nario concept to firesafety program planning and to show how the available data, although imperfect, can be used to develop a quantitative ranking of scenarios

for the most distressing aspect of fire losses: fire death.

Leaving aside the human behavioral aspects, it is possible to describe any fire incident in terms of the type of loss and the circumstances that surround it. This can be done using six characteristics:

/ 1 ) Type of Loss — Death, irtjury, and

/or property;

2) Type of Occupancy — Residential,

industrial, etc.; 3) Time — Day, night;

Circumstances / 4) Ignition Source — Smoking, elecj trical appliances, etc.;

i 5) Item Ignited or Agents of Spread

j — Apparel, furnishings, etc.;

j 6) Direct Cause of Loss — Smoke

\ and gas, heat and Same.

For example, a death caused by a smoldering mattress might be described as: (1) death; (2) residence;

(3) night; (4) smoking; (5) furnishings; (8) smoke

and gas.

This approach can yield over a thousand possible, different scenarios for each of the three kinds of fire loss, depending on the number of elements In each of the categories. A system of 5,040 different scenarios was recently employed by the National Bureau of Standards’ Center for Fire Research in developing a research plan. 2

The most important function of the scenario is to focus attention on the ways in which the causal chain can be broken. But not all scenarios are equally likely to occur, so the second step is to identify the ones that

1 See, for example, R. Zentner, "Scenarios in Forecasting,"

Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 53, No. 40 ( October 6, 1975), p. 22, and references cited therein.

“ "Reducing the Nation’s Fire Losses, the Research Plan," Center for Fire Research, National Bureau of Standards, January, 1976.

2 0 • FIRE JOURNAL - MAY 1976

Vol. 70, No. 3
represent likely situations and the ones that do not. The

smoking-in-bed scenario, for example, is a significant occurrence, but there are many conceivable scenarios

that may be largely artificial. Therefore, a selection process must take place, leading to a ranking of the most important scenarios. Ideally, they would be listed

in order of the contribution to actual fire losses that each represents.

The best way to achieve this would be by an analysis of fire loss statistics. However, in order to rank 5,000

scenarios, one needs in-depth data on hundreds of thousands of selected fire incidents. While the National

Fire Data System of the National Fire Prevention and

Control Administration will eventually be able to pro- vide the necessary statistics, the present data are too

limited to allow the job to be done properly.

In the interim, two options are available. A nonquantitative approach can be used to rank the scenarios

by “expert judgment,” or the scenarios can be simplified

by removing categories and combining elements until a point is reached where actual data can be used. Both

options are imperfect. The nonquantitative approach is only as good as the experts' judgment,3 and the data- based approach limits the amount of information that the scenario can presently supply. In the long run, however, the quantitative approach is the method of choice

simply because increasingly good statistics will eventually eliminate the need for oversimplification.

In anticipation of that time, and to demonstrate the

surprising amount of information that can be gained now from a quantitative approach, we have surveyed

the available data to identify and rank what appear to be the most frequent scenarios for fire death in the United States. The top fourteen of these are reported

in this article. Together, they are believed to account

for almost two-thirds of the nation’s fire deaths.

Fire Death Scenario*

Figure 1 is a schematic illustration of a simplified

scenario classification system. Note fhat “time of day”

and “direct cause of loss” are omitted; this information

is not yet included in most fire death reports. In addition, the term “agents of spread” has been dropped in favor of the simpler term "item ignited.” Although

existing data sources contain some information on

“ Both NBS and the NFPA presently rely partially on the nonquantitative Delphi technique in their planning activities. See W. Middendorf, "A Modified Delphi Method of Solving

Business Problems," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. EM-20, No. 4 (November 1973), p. 130.

T~ BNTOD omoN

! LOSSES OCCUPANCY ASENT SOURCE

1 a 1 1 W

DEATHS Tout Numbar

of Outaxm

Equals 378

Figure 1. Elements of fire scenario and specific loss paths.

spread agents, the data-processing techniques for re- ducing the appropriate terms to a proper format are

still incomplete. Thus, for the present, we have re- stricted the discussion to “item ignited.” Associated

with each death is one of seven occupancies, one of six ignited items, and one of nine ignition sources. A given

path through the Figure, such as the one shown in boldface type, constitutes a single scenario. For the sys- tem shown, there are 518 different possible scenarios. Occupancy category No. 7, listed as “independent,”

reflects the fact that in a number of fire death cases, such as many of those involving apparel or those occur- ing outdoors, specifying the occupancy is not important

in understanding how the incident occurred. In such

cases, therefore, the circumstances surrounding the

death are, in effect, “independent” of occupancy.

In principle, ranking the scenarios in order of importance involves: 1) ranking occupancies in order of frequency of fire death; 2) for each occupancy in turn, ranking the item ignited by frequency of fire death;

. .id 3) for each ignited agent, similarly ranking the

ignition sources. Data needed to accomplish these rankings are not generally available. For example, the statistics that the NFPA publishes yearly4 on fire losses cannot be used because reported fire deaths cannot be

connected to specific circumstances. In other words,

they do not allow us to say, for example, how many

deaths are caused by toxic gases from smoldering furni- ture ignited by a cigarette. In fact, there is presently no single source for these data. However, we were able

* See "Fires and Fire Losses Classified, 1974," fire joimNAi,

Vol. 69, No. 5 (September, 1975), p. 43.

B-2 FIRE JOURNAL -MAY 1976 • 2 1
to combine features of four different systems to yield the necessary statistics. The four systems are:

Table 1. Where US Fire Deaths Occur

1) The FIDO (Fire Incident Data Organization)

file maintained by NFPA. This is a computerized file of fire experience; data collection began in 1971. Approximately 30,000 fire-related incidents are in the data base. Each is characterized by some 00 coded at- tributes. 5 The incidents are primarily fires causing

death, injury, or major property loss ( $50,000 or

greater). However, the coded fires include approximately 11,000 fatalities, or about 20 percent of all fire deaths in the United States in the period from 1971 to 1975. A little more than one-third of these deaths are

filed in sufficient detail to permit identification of the

ignition source and ignited agent. This compilation is the largest known US source of in-depth fire death

data, and is the mainstay of this study. Since the FIDO

file is maintained from reports submitted by fire departments, relatively few fire fatalities caused solely by

apparel fires are included. This reflects the fact that the

apparel fire is usually small, and often is not reported to the fire service.

2) National Fire Data System (NFDS), of the National Fire Data Center, National Fire Prevention and

Control Administration. The NFDS currently contains

about 60,000 incidents reported by the fire services from various cities in California, Colorado, and Florida,

including approximately 140 fatalities.

IA. Reported by Fire Departments

Percentage of Fire Deaths

Occupancy NFPA ( FIDO ) NFPCA ( NFDS

)

Residential 84 76 One- and Two- Family

Apartment

Mobile Home

Other

5220

7

5

55

16

14

Institutional 2

Public Assembly 2 Commercial 1 Industrial 4 Motor Vehicles 4 Others 3

100

2

1

14

106 100

IB. FIDO Data, Adjusted for Unreported Categories

Occupancy

Residential Independent of Structure Apparel

Apparel Plus Flammable

Fluids Motor Vehicles

Industrial

Institutional Public Assembly

Commercial

Others

Percentage of Fire Deaths 72

14

4

3

2

2

12 100 The NFDS was queried (from the NFPA’s remote

terminal in Boston) as to where the fire deaths occur,

as a check on FIDO’s occupancy figures. The results are shown in Table 1A. Agreement between FIDO and

NFDS was remarkably good. Inspection of the Table

shows only two areas where significant differences appear. The first difference is that FIDO includes more

mobile home deaths than NFDS does. These figures are probably a reflection of the NFPA’s three-year effort to obtain data on mobile home fires. The second dif- ference is in the percentage of fire deaths in motor

vehicles. While it is possible that this number is understated by FIDO, the small number of deaths presently

in the NFDS ( the difference between 4 percent and 10

percent of all NFDS fire deaths is only eight deaths)

makes drawing any conclusions premature. In general,

the two sets of figures agree well.®

‘See J. Ottoson, “Attribute Analysis," Fire Technology, Vol.

11, No. 1 (February, 1975), p. 29.

' The comparison is heartening in itself, but the routine process by which it was made is a landmark. To have the resources

of the NFDS available to the fire community on a routine basis

is a major advance in the communication and exchange of fire data.

3) “Accidents Caused by Fires and Flames” in Vital

Statistics of the United States, Volume II (Mortality),

compiled annually by the National Center for Health

Statistics (CHS), Bureau of Vital Statistics, US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The data

are taken from vital statistics information compiled at the state level. Fire deaths are broken down roughly

by occupancy, but no additional information such as ignition source and agent is provided. Apparel fire deaths are included, but motor vehicle fire deaths are excluded.

4) Flammable Fabrics Accident Case and Testing

System (FFACTS), developed at the National Bureau

of Standards, and now maintained by the Consumer

Product Safety Commission. This file contains detailed

information on ignition sources for about 3,300 apparelrelated fire incidents, including 300 fire deaths.

Despite the fact that no single data base contains

all the necessary information, the four listed here can

(Continued on page 117 )

22 FIRE JOURNAL - MAY 1976 B-3
Fire Death Scenarios and Firesafety Planning ( continued from page 22)

be used7 to yield a representative picture of US fire deaths. The most complete file of fire experience is FIDO, but it does not fairly depict the entire fire death

picture, since apparel-related fires are under-represented. The CHS statistics, on the other hand, give a representation of apparel-related deaths, but do not

reflect motor vehicle- related fires. Each of these two

sources is missing one category, but since they are not missing the same one, it is a simple mathematical exercise to correct both sets of statistics for the missing

categories. 8 The FIDO data, corrected for apparelrelated fire deaths, are shown in Table IB. This list of

fire deaths by occupancy was then broken down into percentages by scenario, using FIDO, or, in the case of apparel fires, using FFACTS.

The Top Fourteen Fire Death Scenarios The most common fire death scenario, by far, is the

residential furnishings fire caused by smoking materials,

which alone accounts for 27 percent of fire deaths. This

figure was derived as follows. First, we estimate that 72 percent of the nation’s fire deaths occur in resi- dences, as shown in Table IB. Of all residential fire deaths in the FIDO file, 54 percent involved the igni- tion of furnishings. Roughly half of this total was contributed by soft goods ( principally mattresses and

bedclothes), and half by upholstered furniture. Of all residential fatalities involving furnishings in the FIDO

file, 70 percent were reportedly ignited by smoking materials. Thus the fraction of total fire deaths associated

with the residential-fumishings-smoking scenario is

( 72$ x 54% x 70% = ) 27%. The percentages associated

with the other scenarios were similarly derived. We

report here only those scenarios that accounted for 2 percent or more of fire deaths; they total fourteen.

The top fourteen fire scenarios are shown in Table

2. Together, they account for about 66 percent, or nearly two-thirds, of fire deaths in the United States, based on available data.

Residential furnishings fires alone account for 36

percent of the total deaths (scenarios 1, 2, and 3c).

Three scenarios tie for third place, each accounting

for about 4 percent of fire deaths. The transportation

scenario, 3a, primarily represents the ignition of gaso1 For the details of this procedure, see F. Clarke and J. Ottoson, "Developing Fire Scenarios From Available Data,” Fire Technology, in press.

* Aircraft-related fire deaths are not part of either set, and

therefore they could not be included in the overall exercise.

Table 2. The Top Fire Death Scenarios

Ignition

Percent

of US

Fire Rank Occupancy Item Ignited Source Deaths

1 Residential Furnishings Smoking 27

2 Residential Furnishings Open Flame 5 3 a. Transportation Flammable

Fluids

Several 4

b. Independent

( Residential

Apparel Heating and

Cooking

Equipment

4

c. Residential Furnishings Heating and

Cooking

Equipment

4

6 a. Independent Apparel/

Flammable

Liquids

Several 3

b. Residential Flammable

Liquids

Heating and

Cooking

Equipment

3

c. Residential Flammable

Liquids

Open Flame 3

d. Independent Apparel Open Flame 3

10 a. Residential Interior Finish Heating and Cooking

Equipment

2

b. Residential Interior Finish

Electrical Equipment2

c. Independent 1 Apparel Smoking 2

d. Residential Structural Electrical Equipment

2

e. Residential Trash Smoking 266

Others, all less than 2 percent of total 34

100

line, which is generally the result of motor vehicle ac- cidents. Precise ignition sources in this scenario were

difficult to pinpoint. They were variously reported as

friction, hot surface, and the like. We have therefore grouped ther ‘ogether as “several.”

Scenario 3 the apparel fire death ignited by heat- ing and cooking equipment, is listed as independent

of occupancy, but in fact it could also be called a resi- dential fire death, since the ignition almost always oc- curs in the home.

Three of the four fires in sixth place involve flam- mable fluids. Scenario 6a, the apparel fire in which

flammable liquids play a role, was caused, like the

vehicle fire death, by a variety of ignition sources. An

B-b FIRE JOURNAL - MAY 1976 •117
important segment of this scenario is the well-known

“barbecue grill” fatality, involving the improper use of

a gasoline or charcoal starter. Scenarios 6b and 6c,

which together account for 6 percent of all fire deaths,

are ignitions of a flammable fluid in the home, such as an explosion caused by a gas leak. Scenario 6d includes

the case of a child playing with matches.

Scenarios 10a and 10b both involve ignitions of in- terior finishes, principally wall and floor coverings, by

appliances or electrical wiring. Scenario 10c, another

apparel fire, is the direct result of smoking. Scenario

lOd is the only significant instance in which a resi- dence’s structural members, such as framing, are ignited directly — in this case, by faulty wiring. Scenario

lOe is the result of a residential trash fire. This ex- tremely common cause of fires 4 is a relatively uncom- mon cause of fire death.

In several instances, the reporting or classification system was inadequate to define precisely even these abbreviated scenarios. For example, the role of flammable fluids in apparel and residential fires is not adequately described. The role of these materials, which

often play an intermediary role in the fire chain, needs

to be clarified.

Implications for Firesafety Program Planning

Some sort of fire loss ranking system is basic to any

attempt to plan and evaluate firesafety programs. The

scenario concept has proven to be a useful tool in planning, both at the NFPA and in the federal fire effort. As

the nation’s new fire data system matures, more and

better data will permit existing scenarios to be re- ranked and new ones to be formulated. The scenarios

will also be expressible in more detail, approaching

something like the six-component system discussed

earlier. As the scenarios become more detailed, all fire- safety programs designed to reduce life loss can be

focused with correspondingly greater precision. Nevertheless, there are at least three points, of importance to any planning effort, that are already clear.

1)

Note that, with the exception of transportation

and apparel fires, all scenarios that involve 2 percent

or more of the fire deaths occur in the home. Thus,

fatalities occuring in large office buildings, for example, or in nursing homes, are a very small part of the whole fire death picture, despite the public attention

they attract. It is vital to protect these occupancies, but

at the same time, the more glaring aspects of the problem cannot be ignored. In particular, the residential fire fatality and the role of furnishings therein need to be

recognized as crucial points for action if fire losses are

to be substantially reduced.

Indeed, the national goal® of reducing fire losses by

50 percent, as established by the National Commission

on Fire Prevention and Control, cannot be accomplished unless the residential problem is addressed,

simply because there is far less than 50 percent of the deaths in all other occupancies combined.

2 ) Those features of a residence normally controlled by building codes, such as structural components and

interior finish, are seldom the items first ignited in fatal

fires. This distinction belongs far more often (38 per- cent vs. 6 percent) to furnishings. In other words, the building contents, not the building itself, is the most

likely starting point for a fatal fire. Consequently,

breaking the fire chain in its early stages may best be

done through such measures as improving the ignition

resistance of materials, or installation of a residential smoke detector.

3) The scenarios highlight some areas where fore- seeable technology will be of little or no help. Examples of these are scenarios involving the ignition of flammable fluids, either in conjunction with apparel or

residential fires. It is helpful to recognize these areas

clearly, so that other, more promising techniques, such

as education of the public, can be brought to bear

upon them.

The scenario approach is, in principle, extendable to other areas of fire losses — injury and property damage — as well as to fire deaths. Its capabilities are presently

limited on all fronts, however, by the available data. Nevertheless, we have tried to show that, even with

these limitations, scenarios are useful now in shaping

our attack on the fire problem. ZL

” See America Burning — The Report of the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control (Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1973).

B-5

118 * FIRE JOURNAL - MAY 1976

APPENDIX C

PART 1633—PROPOSED STANDARD FOR THE FLAMMABILITY (CIGARETTE

IGNITION RESISTANCE) OF UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE (PFF 6-76)

Sec

.

1633.1 Scoi e and application.

1633.2 Definitions.

1633.3 General requirements, furniture.

1633.4 Test procedure, furniture.

1633.5 General requirements, fabric.

1633.6 Test procedure, fabric.

1633.7 Test results, fabric.

1633.8 Labeling requirements.

1633.9 Glossary of terms.

1633.10 Effective date.

AUTHORITY; Sec. 4, 67 Stat. 112, as amended 81 Stat. 569-70, 90

Stat. 515; 15 U.S.C. 1193.

§ 1633.1 Scope and application.

(a) This Part 1633 sets forth the proposed standard that prescribes (1) requirements and a test method for determining the cigarette

ignition resistance of upholstered furniture and (2) a method of classifying individual upholstery fabrics and related materials intended or

promoted for use as the outer cover of upholstered furniture. This Part

1633 is applicable to all upholstered furniture manufactured for sale on

or after its effective date, including furniture that is reupholstered

for sale or intended for sale by a reupholsterer or its customer.

C-l
(b) All upholstered furniture items, as defined in § 1633.2(c),

are subject to the requirements of this Part 1633.

§ 1633.2 Definitions.

In addition to the definitions given in section 2 of the Flammable

Fabrics Act as amended (sec. 2, 81 Stat. 568; 15 U.S.C. 1191) and

I

§ 1607.2 of this chapter, the following definitions apply for the

purposes of this Part 1633:

(a) (1) "Upholstered furniture" means a unit of interior furnishing

(i) with a resilient surface covered, in whole or in part, with a fabric

or related material, (ii) that is intended for use or may be reasonably

expected to be used in homes, offices, or other places of assembly or

accommodation, and (iii) that is intended or promoted for sitting or

reclining upon.

(2) This definition of the term "upholstered furniture" includes,

but is not limited to, seating pieces such as boudoir chairs, chairs,

chaise lounges, convertible sofas, daybeds, jackknife sofa beds, lounge

chairs, loveseats, ottomans, platform rockers, press-back lounges', pushback sofas, reclining chairs, recliners, sectional sofas, sleep lounges,

sofas, sofa lounges, studio couches, studio divans, and swivel rockers.

(These items are more fully described in § 1633.9 Glossary of terms .)

Mattresses that are used in conjunction with these items shall continue

to be regulated by the Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses (FF

4-72) set forth in Part 1632 of this chapter.

C-2
(3) This definition of "upholstered furniture" does not include

any item of inflatable furniture, any mattress covered by Part 1632 of

this chapter, or any chair or stool which has an upholstered seat and

upholstered jack and/or sides and the back and/or sides are not within

2.5 cm (1 in) of the seat cushion.

(b) "Reupholstered furniture" means a unit of upholstered furniture, as defined in paragraph (a) of this section, that has been reworked to replace any materials such as the upholstery fabric, cushioning, or upholstery materials.

(c) "Item" means any product of upholstered furniture, reupholstered furniture, or any upholstery fabric or related material intended

or promoted for use in upholstered furniture defined in paragraph (a) of

this section.

(d) "Upholstery fabric" means the outer-most layer of fabric or

related material used to enclose the main support system and upholstery

material used in the furniture item. Slipcovers are excluded from this

definition.

(e) "Main support system" means the frame or other supporting

structure in the furniture item. Main support systems may be constructed of materials such as wood, plastic (including foam), or metal.

(f) "Upholstery material" means the padding, stuffing, or filling

material used in a furniture item. This material may be either loose or

attached, enclosed by an upholstery fabric, or located between the

upholstery fabric and support system, if present. This definition

includes, but is not limited to, materials such as springs, foams,

C-3
cotton batting, polyester fiberfill, bonded cellulose, or down used in

cushions.

(g) "Welt edge" or "edge" means the seam or border edge of a

cushion, pillow, arm, or back of an item.

(h) "Quilted" means fused or stitched with thread through the

upholstery fabric and one or more layers of upholstery material.

(i) "Tufted" means buttoned or laced through the upholstery fabric

and upholstery material.

(j) "Fabric class" means the fabric classification of A, B, C,

or D as defined in § 1633.7(b).

(k) "Production furniture" means all upholstered furniture manufactured or reupholstered for sale.

(l) "Furniture mockup" means a representation of production furniture that utilizes the same upholstery fabric or an acceptable fabric

(as defined in § 1633.3(b)(4)) representing the fabric class, the same

upholstery materials, and which are assembled in the order used in the

production furniture. For the purpose of this Part 1633, mockup is both

singular and plural.

(m) "Fabric type" means an upholstery fabric of a specific construction, color or combination of colors and color pattern, weave

pattern design, finish application, fiber content, and nominal weight

per unit area. With respect to film-coated fabrics, a type includes a

given method of application, chemical formula, and thickness of application of the film coating.

C-4
(n) "Lobse seat cushion" means any removable or interchangeable,

attached or unattached, part of an upholstered furniture item upon which

one sits.

(o) "Tight seat" means any fixed or integral part of the upholstered furniture item upon which one sits.

(p) "Seat support system" means the supporting medium for loose

seat cushions.

(q) "Specimen" means a piece of upholstery fabric cut to specified

dimensions for testing.

(r) "Sample" means a specified arrangement of upholstery fabric

specimens and cotton batting and/or glass fiber board that is required

in § 1633.6 for determining the fabric classification.

(s) "Abutment" means a horizontal crevice formed where vertical

side or back panels meet horizontal panels or seat cushions.

(t) "Burn out" means a cigarette has burned its entire length.

(u) "Butt end" means the unlit end of the cigarette.

(v) "Slipcover" means a removable, fitted cover (fabric or related

material) for an armchair, sofa, etc.

(w) "Flammability" means the susceptibility of upholstered furniture to ignition from smoldering cigarettes.

(x) "Surface location" means the designated surface locations on

the moc.kup or furniture item for cigarette placement, such as horizontal
crevices, seat cushions (smooth, quilt, tuft, and welt edge areas) top

of armrests, top of backs, and top of loose seat support systems.

(y) "Standard fabric" means the specified fabrics representing

fabric classes B and C to be used in mockup test and acceptance under

§§ 1633.3 and 1633.4.

§ 1633.3 General requirements, furniture.

All upholstered furniture manufactured for sale on or after the

effective date of this Part 1633, including furniture that is reupholstered for sale or intended for sale by a reupholsterer or its

customer, must have been previously tested and accepted under the method

described herein.

(a) Summary of test method for flammability of upholstered

furniture . The test method requires the use of lighted cigarettes

covered with a piece of sheeting material to measure the ignition

resistance of upholstered furniture items reproduced in mockup. Exposed

mockup surface locations to be tested include horizontal crevices where

seat cushion and vertical panels meet; seat cushion surface locations

including smooth surface, quilt, tuft, and welt edge; top surfaces of

upholstered armrests; top surfaces of tops of backs; and top surfaces

of seat support systems. A measurement of char length determines

whether the particular combination of upholstery materials and the

upholstery fabric class meets the test criterion.

C-6
(b) Qualification . (1) Prior to manufacture of production

furniture, mockups of each specified surface location of that furniture

must be tested according to § 1633.4 and must meet the requirements of

§ 1633.3(d). The number and types of surface locations that must be

tested in rnockup will depend on the construction and design of the

I production furniture to be manufactured. Section 1633.4(b) prescribes

mockup preparation, describes each type of test location, and how *nd

under what circumstances the mockup must be constructed for the qualification of production furniture.

(2) A total mockup assembly or set which includes one or two

vertical panels (back, side, both, or combination of two sides or two

backs), one seat cushion (loose or tight), one loose seat support

system, one top of armrest, and one top of back can be used to oualiJy

several production furniture items (see 1633.3(b)(4)) provided that all the

production furniture items are constructed from the same upholstery

materials, same upholstery fabric class, except Class D (classes

defined at § 1633.7(b)(4)), and their assemblies for testing according

to § 1633.4 are the same. Separate mockup tests are not required to

qualify furniture items that are different only in size and shape. The

basic objective is to qualify each specified si rf ace location with the

required number of cigarettes. Therefore, as many as feasible surface

locations representing different furniture items with common surface

locations can be qualified at one time. In order to qualify furniture

items to be manufactured with Class D fabrics, each fabric must be tested

separately over each assembly of upholstery materials for which it is

C-7
intended to be used in • production furniture, and be accepted in mockup.

If a furniture item is manufactured to contain either smcith, quilted,

or tufted cushions or seats, each type of cushion shall be tested and

accepted separately in mockup assemblies.

(3) If it is determined or suspected, as a result of testing

according to § 1633.4, that a component material has influenced the

ignition resistance of the furniture mockup, a dimensional or other

change (except an increase in thickness) in that material shall be

deemed a difference in materials for purposes of mockup testing, unless

it is previously shown to the satisfaction of the Consumer Product

Safety Commission that such dimensional or other changes will not reduce

the ignition resistance of the furniture mockup. If it has been shown,

as a result of testing according to § 1633.4, that an upholstery material

has not influenced the resistance to ignition of the mockup, substitution of another material for said material shall not be deemed a difference in materials for mockup testing.

(4) Except for Class D upholstery fabrics (see § 1633.7(b)(4)),

all fabrics within the same class may be substituted for one another, on

production furniture, over the particular assembly of upholstery materials

used in the mockup, without further testing acc rding to § 1633.4 after

a furniture mockup covered with the appropriate fabric (any fabric

representing Class A or the standard fabric for Class B or C) has been

tested and accepted. Upholstery fabrics that fall into Class P must

each be tested on a furniture mockup as described in § 1633.4, for each

assembly of upholstery materials over which the fabric is intended to be

C-8
used in production furniture, and be accepted thereon. At the option of

the manufacturer, a Class A, B, or C fabric may be qualified on an

individual furniture mockup as is required for Class D fabrics.

(5) Each mockup qualification must be repeated at intervals not to

exceed 3 calendar months if it is anticipated that production furniture

based on such mockup qualification will be manufactured in the following

3-month period. In no event shall production furniture be manufactured

if mockup qualification testing has not been performed within the past 3

months. The frequency of testing after the initial qualification,

however, may be changed to a different period not to exceed 6 calendar

months if there is documentation to show that each of the materials used

in the production furniture that contributed to the cigarette ignition

resistance characteristics of the furniture mockup came from a single

manufacturing lot of such material. Specifications may be used in lieu

of manufacturing lots provided the specifications contain sufficient

details to control those parameters of the material that influence

cigarette ignition resistance.

(c) Test criterion . After testing in accordance with § 1633.4,

individual cigarette test locations pass the test if the char length is

not more than 7.5 cm (3 in) in any direction measured from the nearest

point of the original cigarette location. In the interest of safety,

the test operator should discontinue the test immediately and record a

failure for that test location if an obvious ignition occurs.

(d) Acceptance criterion . Production furniture represented by

qualified mockups may be manufactured for sale in commerce if all

C-9
individual cigarette test locations on the required mockup surface

locations pass the test criterion of paragraph (c) of this section. Any

surface location which sustained one cigarette test failure out of the

three tested at that location may be retested with three additional

cigarettes, and if none fail in the retest, then production furniture

may be manufactured. If two or more cigarettes fail at any surface

location, then production furniture may not be manufactured until the

design or materials used in that surface location have been changed,

retested, and passed. For acceptance of the seat cushion surface

location, the three cigarettes include the combination of the two

cigarettes on the welt edge and the one cigarette on the smooth area or

quilted area or tufted area as applicable. Therefore, a retest of the

seat cushion surface location includes all three cigarettes in the above

described two areas.

§ 1633.4 Test procedure, furniture.

(a) Apparatus—(1) Mockup frame and panels . (i) The mockup

frame and panels for the test materials are illustrated and detailed in

Figure 1 and Figure 2. The wooden framework shown in Figure 2 serves to

support mockup reproductions of upholstered sides, backs, seat support

systems, tops of upholstered furniture armrests, tops of backs, and

tight seat cushions of production furniture, as shown in Figure 3.

(ii) An assembly of mockups as shown in Figure 3 and described in

paragraph (a) (1) (i) of this section may consist of two vertical panels

which may be two backs or two sides per seat cushion construction (tight

C-10
or loose) or one back and one side per seat cushion. The seat support

system, armrests and tops of backs are tested (Figure 3) in separate

constructions specified in paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(7) of this section.

(2) Ignition source . The ignition source for the test shall be

cigarettes without filter tips made from natural tobacco and which are

' 7 85+2mm (3.4+0. 1 in) long with a packing density of 0.270+0.020 g/cm and

a total weight of 1. 1+0.1 g.

(3) Sheeting material . Cotton or cotton-polyester blend bed2 2 sheeting material, with a weight of 125+28 g/m (3. 7+0. 8 oz/yd ), white

in color, and not treated with flame retardants shall be used to cover

the test cigarettes. The material shall be laundered in an automatic

home washing machine and dried in a tumble dryer at least once before

use. For testing, the sheeting material is cut into pieces approximately

12.5 by 12.5 cm (5 in by 5 in). An alternate sheeting material may be

approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

(4) Test room . The test room shall be draft protected and equipped

with a suitable system for exhausting smoke and noxious gases produced

during testing.

(5) Fire extinguisher . A pressurized-water fire extinguisher or

other suitable fire extinguishing equipment shall be immediately available.

(6) Water bottle and water bucket . A bottle of water fitted with

a spray nozzle shall be provided to extinguish any ignited portions of

the mockup. A bucket of water shall be provided for immersing smoldering

or burning materials removed from the mockups.

C-ll
(7) Scale . A linear scale at least 6 inches long, graduated in

millimeter , 1/10-inch or 1/16-inch divisions, shall be used to measure

char length.

(8) Standard fabrics . The following standard fabrics representing

Classes B and C shall be used to qualify furniture constructions in

mockup testing:

(i) Class B. Cotton or cotton and polyester blend bed sheeting

2 2 material, weight 125+28 g/m (3.7+0. 8 oz/yd ), white in color, and not

treated with flame retardants shall be used to qualify all mockups to be

used with Class B upholstery fabrics. This is the same fabric as used

for covering cigarettes (paragraph (a)(3) of this section) and may or

may not be laundered.

(ii) Class C. Cotton ticking listed under Federal Specification

CCC-C-436D, Cloth, Ticking Twill, Cotton, shall be used to qualify all

mockups to be used with Class C upholstery fabric. Specifically, the

2 fabric shall be Type I, Class I, untreated and 9+0.5 oz/yd .

(9) Other apparatus . In addition, straight pins, a staple gun, a

knife or scissors, and tongs are required to carry out the testing.

(b) Mockup preparation—(1) Upholstery fabric . The standard

fabric for the class (see § 1633.4(a)(8) for Classes B and C fabrics), a

fabric representing the class (Class A, see § 1633. 2(j)) or the particular fabric to be used in the production furniture (required for

class D, optional for A, B, or C) , shall be selected for testing. A

swatch of fabric large enough to be cut into four specimens, each

measuring about 55 by 68 cm (22 in by 27 in) , shall be cut across the

width of the fabric.

C-12
(2) Upholstery material . Padding, stuffing, and filling materials

that have the same specifications as the materials to be used in the

production furniture construction shall be chosen for testing.

(3) Loose seat cushion . Seat cushions covered with the appropriate upholstery fabric shall be made for testing. Seat cushions shall

I be constructed in the same size (up to 69.0 by 69.0 by 13.0 cm (27.0 by

27.0 by 5.0 in)) and manner and with the same materials as those to be

used in production furniture.

(4) Loose seat support system . Seat support systems shall be made

for testing (if they are part of the production furniture) by attaching

to the horizontal panel (figure 2) of the test apparatus the same upholstery materials used in actual furniture construction. The decking,

standard fabric, or upholstery fabric shall be stretched over the top of

the support materials and fastened to the underside of the wood framework with staples.

(5) Tight seat . If the production furniture is to be constructed

with a tight seat, it shall be duplicated for testing in the raockup.

For the purpose of this Part 1633, ottomans shall be considered tight

seats for purposes of mockup testing. Tight seats shall be duplicated

in raockup by making cushions 45+5 cm by 55+5 cn. (18+2 in by 22+2 in)

having the same thickness of upholstery material (or up to 4 inches) and

the standard fabric, class fabric, or same fabric as that to be used in

the production furniture. The cushion assembly shall be attached to the

horizontal panel of the test apparatus (Figure 2) by extending the

fabric around the panel edges and stapling the fabric to the underside

of the wood panel.

C-13
(6) Side and back panels. Constructions of furniture sides and

backs shall be made for testing (if they are part of the production

furniture and are within 2.5 cm (1 in) of a seat cushion), by upholstering one surface of the vertical test panel (Figure 2) with the

appropriate upholstery material and the standard fabric, class fabric,

or same upholstery fabric to be used in production furniture, whichever

is applicable. The fabric shall be stretched tightly over the upholstery

material and shall be fastened to the backside of the panel with staples.

All edges of the panels shall be covered with fabric. If the side and

back construction of the production furniture are the same, only one

vertical panel must be assembled and tested to qualify that vertical

panel and seat custion combination.

Bolsters filled with the same material as used in the sides or

backs need not be tested in mockup. However, if bolsters are filled

with different material than the sides or backs, they shall be tested in

the mockup assembly as a vertical panel either by constructing a bolster

with the standard fabric, class fabric, or the same fabric as used in

production furniture or by constructing a vertical panel in the same

manner as described above for sides and backs.

(7) Armrests and tops of backs. Constructions of armrests and

tops of backs shall be made for testing (if, (i) they are part of the

production furniture, (ii) present a surface large enough and so inclined as to support a cigarette, and (iii) contain upholstery materials

that differ in any way from those used in the side and back panel

constructions) by upholstering a piece of 1.3 cm (0.5 in) thick plywood

C-14
approximately 30 by 50 cm (12 by 20 in) with the same upholstery material

to be used in the production furniture, and an acceptable upholstery

fabric (standard fabric, class fabric, or same fabric to be used in

the production furniture, whichever is applicable). All details of

arrangement and thickness of upholstery material in the mockup must

I reproduce the construction of full-size furniture. Method of assembly

shall be the same as outlined in paragraph (b)(6) of this section fc.r

side and back panels. It is not necessary to include welt cord if it

has been tested in another part of the mockup (for example, in the

cushion)

.

(c) Conditioning . The furniture mockup or all materials and

components used to construct the mockup shall be conditioned at a

temperature greater than 18° C (65° 7 ) and a relative humidity less than

55 percent for at least 48 hours prior to testing. Cigarettes and

sheeting material shall also be conditioned in this manner. If the test

room conditions do not meet the above specifications, then testing must

be initiated within 10 minutes after the materials are removed from the

conditioning room. At no time shall the test mockup or its components

be exposed to any environmental conditions that promote resistance to

cigarette ignition.

(d) Mockup assembly . A furniture mockup shall be assembled by

attaching the side and/or back panels to the mockup frame and placing a

seat cushion (either loose or tight seat construction) against the

panels, as shown in figure 3. The assembly may be placed on a table or

platform in the test area and shall be under an exhaust hood or other

suitable means for exhausting the products of combustion from testing.

C-15
The seat support system for loose cushion items, the tops of armrests,

and the tops of backs shall be tested separately.

(e) Testing —(1) General . (1) Each test cigarette shall be well

lighted and v urned not more than 4 mra (0.16 in) when placed on a specified test location. After placement, each cigarette shall be covered

with a piece of sheeting material.

(ii) If a test cigarette extinguishes before burning its full

length on a specified test surface location, that cigarette test must be

repeated with a freshly lit cigarette on a different portion of the same

type of surface location. If there is no longer space to repeat the

test on that surface location, a new vertical panel and cushion shall be

constructed. A test on a surface location (for example, seat-back

crevice) is considered complete when the number of cigarettes specified

in paragraph (e) (1) (iii) of this section and § 1633.3(d) have (A) burned

their full lengths, (B) extinguished before burning their full lengths,

or (C) resulted in failures, as outlined in § 1633.3(c).

(iii) Except as indicated above at least 3 cigarettes shall be

burned on each surface location. The surface locations include hoi Lzontal crevice(s) where seat cushion and vertical panels meet; seat

cushion (combination of welt edge and smooth or quilted or tufted area);

tops of upholstered armrests; tops of upholstered backs; and loose

seat support systems.

(iv) CAUTION: EVEN UNDER THE HOST CAREFULLY OBSERVED CONDITIONS,

SMOLDERING COMBUSTION CAN PROGRESS TO A POINT WHERE IT CANNOT BE READILY

EXTINGUISHED. . IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT A TEST BE DISCONTINUED AS SOON AS

IGNITION HAS DEFINITELY OCCURRED. IMMEDIATELY WET THE EXPOSED AREA WITH

A WATER SPRAY FROM THE WATER BOTTLE, REMOVE THE CHARRED OR BURNED

C-16
MATERIAL, AND IMMERSE THE MATERIAL IN A BUCKET OF WATER. VENTILATE THE

TEST AREA.

(v) PRODUCTS OF COMBUSTION (SMOKE AND GASES) CAN BE IRRITATING AND

DANGEROUS TO TEST PERSONNEL. TEST PERSONNEL MUST AVOID EXPOSURE TO

SMOKE AND GASES PRODUCED DURING TESTING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. IT IS

i SUGGESTED THAT A LARGE HOOD WITH A LOW AIR VELOCITY (NOT GREATER THAN

200 FEET PER MINUTE MEASURED AT THE MOCKUP) BE IN OPERATION DURING

TESTING AND THAT TEST PERSONNEL REMAIN OUTSIDE THE TEST AREA AS MUCH AS

POSSIBLE.

(2) Horizontal crevice tests . (i) (A) At least three cigarettes

shall be burned in each horizontal crevice surface location—one at the

center and one to each side of the center cigarette. The two cigarettes

next to the center cigarette shall be placed in the crevice so that

their butt ends burn out at least 7.5 cm (3 in) from the outermost edge

of the side or back panel. (See figure 3 for placement of the cigarettes.)

(B) It is extremely important that the test cigarettes be placed

horizontally and as much as possible of the entire length of the

cigarette burn out against the vertical panel surface as well as the

cushion welt; therefore, if the cigarette needs support to remain in

contact with the panel, use three straight pins —one at the tip, center,

and butt end of the cigarette. The pins should not penetrate the

cigarette but may be used in the welt or cushion surface as necessary.

The heads of the pins should not extend above the cigarette.

(ii) After placement, each cigarette shall be covered with sheeting

material. Pin one edge of the sheeting material to the vertical panel

(approximately 5 cm (2 in) above the cigarette) and drape the remaining

C-17
material to completely cover the test cigarette. To ensure that a good

sheeting-material-to-cigarette contact is made, a finger shall be run

across the full length of the covered cigarette.

(iii) The test cigarettes shall be allowed to burn out in the test

location unless an obvious ignition occurs. If this happens, stop the

test, extinguish the burning material, ventilate the test area, and

record a failure for the cigarette test location.

(iv) If the cigarette burns out in the test location, the maximum

char length in any direction from the nearest point of the original

location of the cigarette shall be measured with a scale. The char

length measurement for each test cigarette shall be recorded except

where the cigarette is extinguished because of an obvious ignition. In

this case, record an "I" for ignition for that cigarette location.

(3) Seat cushion tests . One covered cigarette shall be burned on

each different surface location encountered in a seat cushion except two

cigarettes shall be burned on the welt edge. For the purposes of this

test, smooth surfaces, welt edges, fused or threaded portions of quilts,

and tuft depressions are considered different surface locations on a

seat cushion. Test cigarettes shall be arranged so that the butt ends

burn out on the threads of a quilt or in tuft cepressions. The smooth

surface of a quilted or tufted cushion is not required to be tested.

For the welt edge, it may be necessary to use straight pins in the seat

cushion to support the test cigarettes and ensure that they burn out

against the welt. Three straight pins may be used—one at the tip,

center, and butt end of the cigarette--while ensuring that the pins do

not penetrate the cigarette and the heads of the pins do not extend

C-18
above the surface of the cigarette. For smooth surface cushions, the

test cigarette shall be burned on the center of the cusnion.

(4) Armrests, tops of backs, and seat support systems tests . Test

constructions defined in paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(7) of this section

shall require testing under this paragraph (e)(4). Three test cigarettes

shall be burned on horizontal mockup test panels duplicating armrests,

tops of backs, and seat cushion support systems. One shall be burned at

the center of the panel and the two others shall be burned at least 7.5

cm (3 in) from the edges of the test panel. (See figure 3 for the location of the cigarettes on the test panels.)

1633.4(f) Qualification using production furniture.

A finished furniture item may be used in lieu of the mockup, at

the discretion of the manufacturer, with the following limitations.

If a finished furniture item made with a class B, C, or D fabric meets

the qualification requirements (1633.3(b)), that qualification extends

only to the particular combination of fabric and upholstery materials

assembly used in the tested finished furniture item. If a finished

furniture item made with a class A fabric meets the qualification

requirements, that qualification extends to all class A fabrics in

combination with the particular upholstery materials assembly used in

the tested finished furniture item.

§ 1633.5 General requirements, fabric.

All upholstery fabrics used in or intended or promoted for use in

upholstered furniture manufactured or reupholstered on or after the

effective date of this Part 1633 must be tested and classified according

to this method.

C-19
(a) Summary of test method for flammability of upholstery cover

fabrics . Lighted cigarettes covered with a piece of sheeting material

shall be burned in crevices made by the abutment of vertical and horizontal

fabric-covered glass fiber board panels (Figure 4) . Horizontal fabriccovered glass fiber boards abutted with vertical fabric-covered cotton

batting (Figure 5) shall also be tested in this manner for some upholstery fabrics as required in § 1633.5(b). Based on char measurements

on the vertical and horizontal panels, upholstery fabrics shall be

classified as Class A, B, C, or D (see § 1633.7 (b)).

(b) Qualification . (1) Each fabric type must be tested and

classified prior to use in production furniture and at intervals not to

exceed 12 consecutive months thereafter. This requirement is applicable

to all upholstery fabric manufactured after the effective date of this

Part 1633. Upholstery fabric in inventory and/or manufactured prior to

such effective date shall be classified only once according to this

qualification procedure. For upholstery fabric manufactured after the

effective date, tests are to be made at 12-month intervals. If the

manufacturing process is discontinued within any 12-month interval, a

test must be made when production is resumed, and the qualifying time

interval is to be measured from the time production is resumed.

(2) Fabric types with various print or pattern designs require

careful specimen selection to ensure that when tested, all different

areas of the design shall be exposed to the cigarette ignition source

for a portion of the time the cigarette is burning on the test sample.

C-20
(3) Upholstery fabrics supplied or furnished to the manufacturer

or reupholsterer by the customer for use on a particular furniture

itera(s), "Customers Own Material (COM),'' must be tested and classified

before fabrication of the furniture item, unless the fabric already

bears a classification label. The manufacturer or reupholsterer shall

use only those furniture constructions that have been proven by mockup

testing to be acceptable for t-he same fabric class as that of the "COM"

fabric

.

(4) For the purposes of this section, upholstery fabrics to be

used in the manufacture of upholstered furniture need not be tested and

classified by the manufacturer of the unit of upholstered furniture

provided that fabric has been guaranteed by the fabric producer to have

been tested and classified in accordance with § 1633.5, 1633.6, and

1633.7 of this Part 1633.

§ 1633.6 Test procedure, fabric.

(a) Apparatus—(1) Sample holder . The sample holder shall consist of two wooden panels, each approximately 20 by 20 cm (8 by 8 i t)

and 1.9 cm (0.75 in) thick, joined together at one edge. As shown in

figure 6, a movable horizontal panel support is positioned on a centrally

located guide and is held in place by a metal pin.

(2) Glass fiber substrate . The glass fiberboard used for the

upholstery cover fabric test shall be approximately 2.5 cm (1 in) thick

with a density of 40+8 kg/m^ (2.5+CM5 lb-s/ft^).— For testing, the

1/ Glass fiber board that meets Federal Specification HH-I-558B

is acceptable. Under this specification, the board is Form A, Glass 1,

and plain faced. Copies of the specifications mav be obtained from

the Business Service Centers of the General Service Administration's

regional offices.

C-21
glass fiber board is cut into squares approximately 20 by 20 cm (8 by 8

in) for vertical panels and pieces approximately 12.8 by 20 cm (5 by 8

in) for horizontal panels. Horizontal panels shall be cut to eliminate

any air gap that may be created when the vertical and horizontal panels

are abutted (see Figures 4 and 5)

(3) Cotton batting substrate . The cotton batting used for the

upholstery fabric test shall be approximately 5 cm (2 in) thick with a

3 3 density of 32+8 kg/m (2+0.5 lbs/ft ) and shall not be treated with any

substance that imparts fire retardancy. The batting shall be a blend of

cotton staple and linters, all new (unused) material, and shall contain

a minimum of 25 percent of cotton staple.

(4) Support panels . For the upholstery fabric/cotton batting

test, vertical panels shall be plywood approximately 20 by 20 cm (8 by 8

in) and approximately 1.3 cm (0.5 in) thick. Horizontal panels shall be

pieces of glass fiber board approximately 12.8 by 20 cm (5 by 8 in).

(b) Conditioning . All upholstery fabric specimens and test

materials (including cotton batting, glass fiber board, cigarettes, and

sheeting material) shall be conditioned at a temperature greater than

18° C (65° F) and at a relative humidity less than 55 percent for at

least 48 hours prior to testing. The cut fabric specimens shall be

suspended in a manner that will allow free air circulation around them.

(Note: If the test room conditions do not meet these specifications for

the conditioning room, then testing must be initiated within 10 minutes

after the specimens are removed from the conditioning room. At no time

shall the test materials be exposed to any environmental conditions that

promote resistance to cigarette ignition.)

C-22
(c) Glass fiber board test — (1) Upholstery fabric specimens .

Fabric specimens shall be selected from finished fabric of ter its last

processing step as a fabric. A swatch, chosen as representative of the

fabric surface and large enough for at least three specimens approximately 20 by 20 cm (8 by 8 in) for horizontal panels and three specimens

I approximately 20 by 30 cm (8 by 12 in) with the machine direction cut as

the longest dimension for vertical panels, shall be cut across the width

of the fabric.

(2) Mounting of specimens . Straight pins shall be used to attach

the upholstery fabric specimens to the glass fiber boards. As shown in

figure 4, the fabric shall cover the surface, top, and bottom edges of

the vertical panel and the surface and abutting edge of the horizontal

panel. The fabric shall be mounted with the machine direction as shown

in Figure 5.

(3) Sample assembly . The fabric covered glass fiber board panels

shall be mounted in the sample holder, as shown in Figure 5. The

fabric covered horizontal panel shall firmly abut the vertical panel.

(d) Cotton batting test — (1) Upholstery fabric specimens . For the

cotton batting test, at least three fabric specimens approximately 30 by

30 cm (12 by 12 in) shall be cut for vertical panels and three specimens

approximately 20 by 20 cm (8 by 8 in) for horizontal panels in the same

manner as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

(2) Mounting of specimens . The vertical panel shall be prepared

for testing by covering one surface of a 20 x 20 cm (8 x 8 in) plywood

support panel with a layer of cotton batting approximately 2 inches

thick followed by the upholstery fabric. The fabric shall be stretched

023
tightly over the surface of the assembly, wrapped around each edge, and

fastened to the backside of the panel with staples. The horizontal

panel shall be prepared by covering a glass fiber board panel with the

upholstery fabric. Straight pins shall be used to attach the fabric to

the glass fiber board. The fabric shall be mounted with the machine

direction as shown in Figure 5.

(3) Sample assembly . The test panels shall be mounted in the

sample holder for testing in the same manner as outlined in paragraph

(c)(3) of this section.

(e) Testing . A minimum of three cigarette tests (one cigarette

per test sample) shall be conducted on each upholstery fabric in the

glass fiber board and/or cotton batting tests. Each loaded sample holder

shall be placed on a table or platform in a draft-protected area of the

test room under an exhaust hood or other suitable means for exhausting

the products of combustion from testing. For testing, a lighted cigarette (burned no more than 4 mm (0.16 in) before placement) shall be

placed in the center (equal distance from each side) or the crevice and

immediately covered with a piece of sheeting material. Pin one edge of

the sheeting material to the vertical panel approximately 5 cm (2 in)

above the cigarette. The cigarette shall be completely covered and

shall be in contact with the sheeting material. (Note: A finger shall

be run along the length of the covered cigarette to ensure good fabricto-cigarette contact.)

C-24
§ 1633.7 Test results, fabric.

(a) Observations . (1) A sample test is considered complete when

a test cigarette has burned its full length in the crevice area and all

smoldering and smoke evolution from the test sample have ceased. A

minimum of three and a maximum of five cigarettes shall be required to

classify an upholstery fabric.

(2) If a test cigarette extinguishes before burning its full

length, the test shall be repeated with a fresh sample until either (i)

three individual cigarettes have burned their full lengths on three

individual test samples or (ii) three individual cigarettes extinguish

on three individual test samples before burning their full lengths.

Testing may be discontinued as soon as a char length is obtained in

excess of 3.8 cm (1.5 in) as specified for class B fabric in 1633.7(b)(2),

or in excess of 7.5 cm (3 in) as specified in class D fabric in 1633.7(b)(4).

(3) Measure the maximum length of char on the vertical and horizontal test panel surfaces and the char from the tip and butt ends of

the test cigarette along the crevice location of the test sample. Panel

char measurements shall be made from the crevice location (line where

the horizontal panel abuts the vertical panel) with the ruler or scale

perpendicular to the crevice. Measurements sha’.l be made to the nearest

smallest gradation of the linear scale used, and the maximum char length

measured shall be recorded for each sample.

(b) Class if ication . Upholstery fabrics shall be tested in accordance with § 1633.6 and shall be placed in the fabric class corresponding

to the results obtained. As shown in figure 7, all fabrics shall be

C-25
tested by the glass fiber board test prescribed by § 1633.6(c). Those

that produce chars less than 3.8 cm (1.5 in) long when measured according

to paragraph (a) of this section shall also be tested by the cotton

batting test (Figure 7) prescribed by § 1633.6(d). The following are

the fabric classes:

I (1) Class A . Class A fabrics shall be those for which all chars

are less than 3.8 cm (1.5 in) on test panels in the glass fiber beard

test (§ 1633.6(c)) and in the cotton batting test (§ 1633.6(d)) (cotton

is not ignited)

(2) Class B . Class B fabrics shall be those for which all chars

are less than 3.8 cm (1.5 in) on test panels in the glass fiber board

test and produce one or more chars of 3.8 cm (1.5 in) or greater in the

cotton batting test (cotton is ignited).

(3) Class C . Class C fabrics shall be those that produce one or

more chars of 3.8 cm (1.5 in) or greater but less than 7.5 cm (3 in) on

test panels in the glass fiberboard test.

(A) Class D . Class D fabrics shall be those that produce one or

more chars of 7.5 cm (3 in) or greater on test panels in the glass fiber

board test.

§ 1633.8 Labeling requirements.

(a) All fabrics intended or promoted for use as upholstery fabrics

must be labeled with a classification letter. A, B, C, or D (see §

1633.7(b)), as determined by testing according to § 1633.6 and § 1633.5(b).

(b) All items of upholstered and reupholstered furniture must be

permanently labeled to identify the fabric class used.

C-26
§ 1633.9 Glossary of terns.

(a) Boudoir chair . A chair, usually small in scale, designed for

use in the bedroom.

(b) Chair . A seat with a back and legs or other support, often

with arms.

(c) Chaise r lounge . An upholstered furniture couch-chair or couch

I with a chair back. It has a permanent backrest and no arms.

(d) Convertible sofa . An upholstered sofa that converts into an

adult-size bed. Mattress unfolds out and up from under the seat cushioning .

(e) Daybed . A daybed has a foundation usually supported by coil

or flat springs mounted between arms on which a mattress is placed. It

has permanent arms and no backrest.

(f) Inflatable furniture . Gas or liquid filled, may be a chair,

lounger, or other type, used for sitting or reclining upon.

(g) Jackknife sofa bed . An upholstered sofa that converts into an

adult-size bed. Back folds down to become part of bed.

(h) Lounge chair . A comfortable chair designed for resting -nd

relaxing that may swivel or be stationary.

(i) Loveseat . A short sofa for seating two persons.

( j ) Ottoman . A small upholstered seat with no arms or back that

is usually designed as a footrest with a lounge chair.

(k) Platform rocker . A lounge chair with a spring mechanism

designed to rock back and forth on an attached base that rests on the

floor

.

(l) Press-back lounge . A lounge that is longer and wider than

most conventional sofa beds. When the lounge back is pressed lightly,

C-27
it levels off to form, with the seat, a flat sleeping surface. The seat

slopes in the sitting position for added comfort.

(m) Push-back sofa . A sofa that becomes a bed when its back is

pushed flat. Lift the back and it is a sofa again. Styled in tight or

loose cushions.

I (n) Reclining chair . A lounge chair with a mechanism that permits

the seat and back surfaces to be moved to a supine position.

(o) Recliner . The same as a reclining chair.

(p) Sectional sofa . A set of two or more seating sections or

pieces that when positioned together will make up a seating group. The

sections may be curved or straight and any number may be used to make

the grouping. An arm may or may not be used on either end section.

(q) Sleep lounge . An upholstered seating section that is mounted

on a sturdy frame. This may have bolster pillows along the wall as

backrests or may have headrests.

(r) Sof

a

. A long upholstered seat or couch with a back and two

arms or raised ends.

(s) Sofa lounge . An upholstered seating section that is mounted

on springs and in a special frame that permits it to be pulled out for

sleeping. It has an upholstered backrest-bedding box that is hinged.

(t) Studio couch . This consists of an upholstered seating section

on an upholstered foundation. Many types convert to twin beds.

(u) Studio divan . This is a twin-size upholstered seating section

with a foundation that is mounted on a metal bed frame. It has no arms

or backrest and sleeps one.

C-28
(v) Swivel rocker . A platform rocker containing an additional

mechanism that permits it to pivot around a central balancing point.

§ 1633.10 Effective date.

The effective date of this standard shall be one year from

promulgation.

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding

this proposal on or before (insert date that is on a workday at

least 30 days after publication hereof in the FEDERAL REGISTER) . Comments

and any accompanying material should be submitted, preferrably in five

copies, to the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington,

D.C, 20207. Received responses may be seen at the Office of the Secretary,

3rd Floor, llll-18th Street, NW., Washington, D.C., during working hours

Monday through Friday.

Dated:

SADYE E. DUNN,

Secretary, Consumer Product

Safety Commission.

C-29
Figure 1. Mock-Up Frame: Upholstered Furniture Test

C-30
MAT.

Figure 2. Mock-Up Panels Upholstered Furniture Test

C-31
Figure 3. Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Test

C-32
l" GLASS FIBERBOARD' 8" X8"

Figure 4. Upholstery Fabric Test

Fabric/Glass Fiberboard Sample

C-33
FABRIC 12x12

Figure 5. Upholstery Fabric Test

Fabric/Cotton Batting Sample

C-34
4^!oi

2-6~X8x| PLYWOOD

2 PANELS

Figure 6. Sample Holder - Upholstery Fabric Test

C-35
TEST

FABRIC

ON

C-36

Figure

7.

Upholstery

Fabric

Classification

Test
APPENDIX D

An Interlaboratory Evaluation of a Cigarette Ignition Test

for Upholstered Furniture

Joseph J. Loftus

May 22, 1975

D-l
Abstract

Seven laboratories participated in an interlaboratory evaluation

study on the feasibility of a proposed cigarette ignition resistance test for upholstered furniture. The objective of the roundrobin was twofold, first to obtain data for evaluating the test

method for reproducibility and repeatability; and secondly to

determine if tests on small-scale mock-ups of upholstered furniture constructions would provide ignition results equable to fullsize upholstered furniture pieces.

A statistical analysis of the data showed that the proposed test

method was indeed realistic and reproducible. Additionally, it

was demonstrated that small-scale furniture mock-up samples may

be tested in lieu of full-size furniture pieces with full confidence that the test results would be meaningful and equable.

D-2
Introduction

The interlaboratory study was conducted under the sponsorship of

the AS1M Subcommittee for Furniture Flammability and the Consumer

Product Safety Commission (CPSC) . The following is a list of participants :

Burlington Industries, Incorporated

California Department of Consumer Affairs

Collins and Aikman

Courtaulds North America, Incorporated

Guilford Laboratories, Incorporated

Drexel Enterprises, Incorporated

National Bureau of Standards (NBS)

Code numbers were assigned to each laboratory, and the number "4A"

was assigned to NBS. Each participant was required to test three

full-size upholstered chairs, each identical in construction but

covered by a different upholstery fabric material. Additionally,

the laboratories tested six fabrics (including the three used on

the chairs) on small-scale upholstered furniture mock-up constructions. Again, the constructions were identical and differed one

from the other only by the fabric cover material.

D-3
2

For the purposes of the round-robin, to satisfy statistical requirements, each laboratory burned a total of 18 cigarettes (nine covered by

a piece of sheeting material and nine uncovered) on each different test

location in the furniture mock-up samples. This dual testing program

was conducted to provide for a comparison of the severity and reproducibility of covered versus uncovered cigarette tests.

Tests on full-size upholstered chairs involved the burning of four cigarettes on each test location (two covered by a piece of sheeting material and two uncovered) . Test locations included tops of chair backs

,

armrest surfaces, crevices (seat cushion abutting side and back), seat

cushion surfaces, and seat cushion welt edges.

The data obtained in this testing program was submitted to NBS statisticians for analysis, and their report is included in the following

report

.

Test Materials

Upholstery Fabrics - Table I lists the six upholstery fabrics used in

the testing program. The fabrics were selected as representative of

those used by the furniture industry and were identified by a code letter; no producer's identification was intended or implied.

D-4
3

Upholstery Filling Material - The filling material used for the mock-155

test panels and for the test chairs was a cotton batting material of

nominal 2 lb/cu ft density.

Upholstered Seat Cushions - Four-inch thick urethane foam (nominal 1.5

lb/cu ft density) seat cushions (four per fabric) were fabricated especially for the test program.

Sheeting Material - One hundred percent cotton sheeting material (washed

and dried once to remove starch and sizing material) was used as the

cover material in the covered cigarette tests.

Upholstered Chairs - A total of 21 barrel back chairs were made by a

single manufacturer especially for the round-robin study. Three different upholstery fabrics were used as the cover materials on the chairs

(nylon "F", Olefin "D", and cotton print cloth MC”). The chairs had

4-inch thick urethane foam seat cushions (loose). The chair backs,

sides, and armrests were all fabricated with a nominal 1-inch thick

layer of cotton batting over urethane foam.

Test Method

Draft #5 of the proposed cigarette ignition test for upholstered furniture, dated 3/4/74, was used for conducting the test.

D-5
4

Sample Conditioning

All of the test materials, including the upholstered chairs and test

cigarettes, were conditioned at temperatures greater than 65° F. and

relative humidity (RH) less than 55 percent for at least 48 hours

prior to test.

Sample Preparation

Test panels for the furniture mock-up tests were prepared for test

following procedures and methods of assembly outlined in the test

method (see appendix). Briefly, a 2 -inch thick layer of cotton batting was placed on a plywood test frame and then covered by a piece

of test fabric. The fabric was fastened to the frame with staples

after being drawn tightly over the cotton filling material. The

horizontal panels (upholstered seat cushions) used for the mock-up

test consisted of 4 -inch thick urethane foam cushions covered by

matching test fabrics. When assembled on the test rack, the cushion firmly abutted the vertical test panel (see Figure 1)

D-6
5

Test Procedure

Furniture Mock-up Test - In order to accommodate 18 test cigarettes

for each test location, it was necessary to build three separate mockups for each of the six fabric materials. Each test cigarette was

burned no more than 4 mm before placement on a test location. Tests

were made in the crevices of the abutting seat cushion and vertical

test panels and on the surface and welt edge of the seat cushion (see

Figure 1)

.

Chair Tests - Figure 2 shows cigarette test locations on a test chair.

The procedures for conducting the tests were the same as for the furniture mock-up samples. Duplicate covered and uncovered cigarette

tests were made on each test location.

Interpretation of Test Results

A test location ’'passed" the test if the test cigarette burned its

full length on the location and did not cause an ignition.

A test location "failed" the test if the test cigarette caused a char

or smoldering combustion which spread 2 inches or more in any direction from the test cigarette.

D-7
1

Test Results

Mock-up Tests

Table II lists the results of cigarette tests on upholstered furniture mock-up samples. An examination of this table showed the following:

(1) A total of 2,268 cigarettes (1,134 covered and 1,134 uncovered)

were burned in test locations on a total of 126 furniture mock-up

samples.

(2) Of the 1,134 covered cigarette tests, 520 (or 46 percent) caused

ignitions

(3) Of the 1,134 uncovered cigarette tests, 343 (or 30 percent) caused

ignitions

(4) All laboratories reported "passing" (nonignition) results for

every test made on the surfaces of the urethane foam seat cushions.

(5)

Nylon "F" fabric "passed" all cigarette tests on all test locations in all seven laboratories.

D-8
7

(6) Olefin "DM fabrics "passed” all seat cushion welt edge tests

in all laboratories.

(7) Cellulosic fabrics A, B, C, and E "failed" covered cigarette

tests in every laboratory.

(8) Olefin "D" fabric melted on exposure to the heat from burning

cigarettes and produced some "passing" results of covered cigarettes in crevice tests.

(9) A total of 538 ignitions were recorded by all laboratories for

all cigarette tests in crevice locations of the mock-ups (279

of these were covered cigarette ignitions and 259 were uncovered

cigarette ignitions).

(10) A total of 333 ignitions were recorded by all laboratories for

all cigarette tests on welt edges of seat cushions (242 of these

were covered cigarette ignitions and 93 were uncovered cigarette

ignitions)

.

(11) Cotton batting under cellulosic fabric materials was shown most

vulnerable to cigarette ignition in the mock-up furniture samples.

D-9
8

Chair Tests

Cigarette ignition test results on full-size upholstered chairs are

listed in Table III. An examination of this table showed the following:

(1) A total of 420 cigarettes (210 covered and 210 uncovered) were

burned on the test chairs by the seven laboratories.

(2) The laboratories reported a total of 110 ignitions in the cotton

print cloth "CM fabric chair, 15 ignitions in the Olefin "D" fabric chair, and 13 ignitions in the nylon "F" fabric chair.

(3) Of the 15 ignitions reported for the Olefin "D" fabric chair, 10

were in the chair sides and only five ignitions were recorded for

chair arms and tops of backs.

(4) All laboratories reported "passing" results for every cigarette

test on chair seat cushion surfaces.

(5) All laboratories reported "passing" results for every cigarette

test on welt edges of seat cushions covered by nylon "F" and

Olefin "D" fabrics.

D-10
9

(6) Cotton print cloth "C" fabric (seat cushion surface excepted)

.

"failed" every test location for both covered and uncovered cigarette tests.

Conclusions

Based upon the results obtained, the following conclusions are drawn:

(1) Covered cigarette tests are more severe than uncovered cigarette

tests.

(2) Covered cigarette tests are more reproducible than uncovered cigarette tests.

(3) Ignitions in upholstered furniture constructions are clearly

related to the type and kind of cover fabric used on the construction.

(4) Synthetic fabrics showed fewer ignitions in the furniture mockups and chairs than did the cellulosic cover fabrics.

(5) A relationship was found which showed that tests on small-scale

mock-up samples are equable to tests on full-size chairs.

D-ll
1 °

(6) A statistical analysis of the interlaboratory test results showed,

that with few exceptions, the results were satisfactory in terms

of laboratory-to-laboratory variability.

(7) The proposed test method for measuring the ignition resistance of

upholstered furniture to burning cigarettes was proven meaningful

and viable by the round-robin testing program and merits consideration for promulgation as a test standard.

D-12
Figure 1. Covered and Uncovered Cigarette Test

Locations in Mock-Up Furniture Test

D-13
Figure 2. Cigarette Test Locations in

Upholstered Chair Tests

D-14
Table I

Test Fabric Material

Fabric

Designation

Fiber

Content Style Color

Fabric Wt

oz/yd2

A 1001 Cotton Wide Rib Yellow/Orange 12.8

B Cotton/Rayon Velvet Olive 14.1

C 1001 Cotton Print Cloth Flower/Beige 5.4

D 1001 Olefin Woven Green/Gold 10.2

E Cotton/Rayon Velvet Green 13.6

F 100% Nylon Woven Beige 14.6

l

D-15
Table

II

nbs

M4.-Ao.iy.il

pipn

No,

of

Cigarette

Ignitions

on

Mock-up

Upholstered

Furniture

Assemblies

L

*' U

v ^

z

3

vO

<

cn

CTl

CTl

cn

cn

OlT*

CO u

cn o cn

cnl cn

o r—

i

i 0|0

cn

cn

cn

aicn cn

o o

CO

o

:!<_> co

C4

c>

cn

cn

cn

cn

cn

cn

°i

cn

c_> D-16

c o

C o

cq

sc

vO

u

c r- o

c d a

c n c

cn

O CT

o c

cr

oo cn

co S:

cu

u CO

o oI

U.

u

42

cn3

<_>

04

CHI

CO

4> CO

uCO

4)

"d

44

(i -4J- >

OU

II >

J=2i

xl

4)

til 44>

_a_ u

a

CD

II z

35

-Pjj
Table

III

nbs

so**—

Ao»iyt«

paper

No

.

of

Cigarette

Ignitions

on

Upholstered

Chairs

-

7

UN

CV ©

o

fNS

fsj

CM

(SI

esi

<SJ

(S|

(SI

O

©

©

o

1=1 ©

(S3 ©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

I00J pHO

mu

'A; | >

u

©

z

3

o

o

esj

(SJ

«S|

(S|

(SI

(S|

fS)

(SI

©

©

©

©

©

rH

tH

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

(SJ

O

pH

©

©

d

a

CO

4J

1ft

acu

n3 CQ4h 4

6H<

i<

0-oH

II ea

5

UN

CV o

o

esj

(sj

(SI

fsi

(S|

(SI

(SI

*(SI

©

o

©

o

pH

©

©

c

©

©

o

o

o

o

O

o

fH

pH

5=)

o

4B UN

CV ©

© <sj

(S|

ess

(N8

(S|

(SJ

(Si

©

©

©

©

©

©

c©

c

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

©

t=H

4A

UN

CV ©

©

ev3

(M

(S3

(S3

rH

(SJ

«SJ

(SI

©

©

©

©

(SJ ©

«=*= C

co

©

©

©

©

©

o

©

©

(S| ©

c

c

•r

pH

rH

ed

<L> C

«

4

COC

o

• H

2

UN

CV ©

©

«S|

(SJ

(S3 CM

(S3

(SJ

ess

©

o

©

©

CS ©

©

c

e

©

©

©

©

o

©

©

©

©

©

4-C

4

L

d

a

u;

I/I 3U

1 4>U

4-4

a-'- co

II CO

4

- - a

ii a

C=Crevj

1

.UN

cy. o

©

(SJ

(SI

<S|

(SI

(SI

(SI

(SJ

5=<

o

©

o

p

c=^

rH

©

c

r-©

©

©

©

©

o

o

rHO

fs| ©

Fabric

CO a u

u

< CQ C/1 a c-c

< & c

o

a

E

C

1

< pa

D-17
"Statistical Analysis of Cigarette Tests on Upholstered Furniture"

by

John Mandel

Table I

Summarizes the results, in terms of percent failure.

Table II

Tabulates the chi-square values. These are measures of the consistency of results between laboratories. In this case, the expected

value of each chi-square is 6. Values that are appreciably larger

than 6 indicate a lack of consistency among laboratories. The values

with an asterisk are significant at the 5 percent level. Four such

values were observed in a total of 48 cases, whereas one would expect,

on the average, 5 percent of 48 or 2.4 cases. Thus, these results are,

with few exceptions, satisfactory in terms of laboratory-to- laboratory

variability.

D-18
Table I

Percent Failure

Ignitions Based on Char

Welt Test

Fabric A B C D E F

Uncovered 44.4 4.8 98.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Covered 100.0 92.1 100.0 0.0 90.5 0.0

Crevice Test

Fabric A B C D E ]

Uncovered 100.0 95.2 100.0 17.5 98.4 0

Covered 100.0 100.0 98.4 44.4 100.0 0

Upholstered Chair

Cotton (C) Olefin (D) Nylon

Unc. Cov. Unc. Cov. Unc.

Welt 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Crevice 100.0 100.0 21.4 50.0 14.3

Arm 100.0 92.9 0.0 28.6 14.3

Back 92.9 100.0 0.0 7.1 . 7.1

0

0

(F)

Cov.

0.0

0.0

14.3

42.9

D-19
Table II

Chi Square Values

Welt Test

Fabric A B C D E F

Uncovered 1.80 8.59 6.10 6.00 6.00 6.00

Covered 6.00 5.21 6.00 6.00 3.68 6.00

Crevice Test

Fabric A B C D E F

Uncovered 6.00 18.90* 6.00 15.20* 6.10 6.00

Covered 6.00 6.00 6.10 14.40* 6.00 6.00

Upholstered Chair

Cotton (C) Olefin (D) Nyloni (F)

Unc. Cov. Unc. Cov. Unc. Cov.

Welt 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

Crevice 6.00 6.00 5.09 8.00 14.00* 6.00

Arm 6.00 0.92 6.00 9.10 5.83 5.83

Back 0.92 6.00 6.00 6.46 6.46 9.92
APPENDIX E

Test Method for Classifying Cigarette Ignition Characteristics

of Upholstery Fabrics

Joseph J. Loftus

March 6, 1975

E-l
Summary

A test method has been developed for evaluating upholstery fabric materials for ignition resistance. Under the method, fabrics are classified as

A, B, C, or D based on char and/or ignition measurements. The test is

conducted by burning cigarettes (covered by a piece of sheeting material

after placement) in the crevices of fabric -covered test assemblies, made

by abutting horizontal and vertical test panels. Two types of assemblies

are used in the test: fabric/glass fiber board and fabric/cotton batting.

"Fabric Class A" materials do not ignite either assembly. "Fabric Class

B" materials ignited the cotton batting assembly. "Fabric Classes C and

D" ignited on both assemblies, but differed in char measurement on the

fabric/glass fiber board assembly.

The above method was used to evaluate 47 different upholstery fabric

materials for ignition resistance to cigarettes. Data showed that fabric type, construction, and weight influenced the outcome of test results.

2 Cellulosic fabrics, especially those in the weight range above 305 g./m.

2 (9 oz./yd. ), were found to be more susceptible to ignition than were

synthetic fabric materials.

E-2
2

Introduction

The test method described in this report supplements a previously developed flammability test for upholstered furniture which is currently being

evaluated in a small-scale interlaboratory study . In theory, an ideal

flammability test for upholstered furniture would require testing of each

different fabric/upholstery material construction used in any one furniture plant; however, in practice, such an undertaking would not be economically feasible.

In order to better understand the magnitude of the effort required by an

upholstered furniture test, one need only consider that there exist, today,

about 2,000 manufacturers and 5,200 furniture plants throughout the United

States. Many of these facilities maintain a large inventory of furniture

cover fabrics and considering the color selection available for each pattern, it would not be unrealistic to assume that as many as 5,000 different choices may be available at one time. Fortimately, however, the number of filling, padding, or stuffing materials used in combination with

these fabrics, are few, as was found in a recent survey* of the marketplace. This survey showed that:

Schmulling, D. ,

' ’A Materials Survey of the Furniture Industry", private communication.

E-3
I

a. Flexible urethane foam and cotton batting are the principal filling

materials used in furniture constructions

.

b. Approximately 95 percent of the seat cushions are flexible urethane

foam of about 1.5 lb./cu. ft. density. About half of these cushions

are wrapped in a polyester batting.

c. Cushion backs are generally made with slab or shredded urethane foam.

d. Most upholstered backs and aims are cotton batting over urethane foam.

e. In upholstered furniture pieces, loose cushions are used about 90

percent of the time; upholstered arms, about 86 percent; and upholstered backs, about 63 percent.

Concerning cover fabric materials:

a. About 340,000,000 linear yards (54 inches wide) of fabric were used

in 1972.

b. About 65 percent of the fabrics were cellulosic (cotton, rayon, and

cotton/rayon blends) and 35 percent were synthetic, mostly nylon, polyester, and olefin.

E-4

L
4

c. Approximately 78 percent of the fabrics were woven and 22 percent were

vinyls

.

From this survey, it is clear that the number of upholstery fabric materials available for use on different furniture constructions is enormous,

and they present a major problem to implementing a workable and reasonable

flammability test for upholstered furniture. However, the test method

described here would help to reduce this problem considerably by requiring

that each upholstery fabric be classified before its use on a particular

furniture construction.

E-5
5

Requirements

The basic requirements for any laboratory test method are that it be simple in concept and easy to operate and that it yield realistic, reproducible results based on sound principles. It should be relatively insensitive to minor variables, but be capable of operating over a wide range of

conditions. In this test, upholstery cover fabrics are exposed to burning cigarettes on the outside surface only to simulate the usual case in

accidental furniture fires and to permit evaluation of the effectiveness

of the fabric in resisting ignition. In terms of ignition resistance,

the method for testing and classifying cover fabrics is outlined in the

following diagram:
TEST

FABRIC

ON

GLASS

FIBER

BOARD

COVER

FABRIC

CLASSIFICATION

TEST
7

I

Test Apparatus

a. Sample Holder

The sample holder used in this test is shown in detail in Figure 1.

Briefly, it consists of two wood panels, each 20 x 20 cm. (8x8 in.)

and nominal 1.9 cm. (0.75 in.) thickness, joined together at one edge.

For test, the horizontal support accommodates a 12.5 x 20 cm. (5x8

in.) sample against a 20 x 20 cm. (8 x 8 in.) vertical panel. (See

Figure 4 in the proposed upholstered furniture standard.)

b. Substrate Board

The substrate board used for test was a glass fiber board material

that is sold commercially as a thermal insulation and which meets

Federal Specification HH-I-558B. Under this specification, the

board is Form A, Class I, plain faced, 2.5 cm. (1 in.) thick, and

3

density 40 ± 8 kg./m. (2.5 ± 0.5 lb./cu. ft.).

c. Panel Support

For the cotton batting test, plywood panels 20 x 20 cm. (8x8 in.)

and nominal 1.3 cm. (0.5 in.) thick were used as supporting members

for the fabrication of upholstery fabric/cotton batting test panels.

E-8

L
8

d. Igiition Source

Cigarettes without filter tips made from natural tobacco with a den3

sity of 0.270 ± 0.20 g./cm. and a total weight of 1.1 ± 0.1 g. were

used in the test.

e. Sheeting Material

2 Cotton bed-sheeting material, weight 125 ± 28 g./m. (3.7 ± 0.8 oz ./

2 yd. ), white in color, and not treated with flame -retardant chemicals

was used in the test. The material was laundered once in an automatic

home washer and dried in a tumble dryer before use in the test. For

testing, the sheeting was cut into 12.5 x 12.5 cm. (5 x 5 in.) pieces.

f . Scale

A scale graduated to 2.5 mm. (0.1 in.) was used to measure char length.

g. Pins

Straight pins were used to attach the upholstery fabric to the glass

fiber board material.

E-9
9

h. Water Bottle

A water bottle fitted with a spray nozzle was readily available for

extinguishing ignitions.

i. Test Room

A test room with a draft -protected area provided with a hood exhaust

for smoke and fumes produced by testing, was used for testing.
10

Test Materials

a. Upholstery Fabrics

The upholstery fabrics selected for test are listed and described in

Table 1. Most popular types and blends are represented with weights

ranging from 213 to 719 g./m.^ (6.3 to 23.4 oz./yd.^).

b. Cotton Batting

Cotton batting, nominal 5 cm. (2 in.) thick, obtained from a local

supplier and represented as typical of the material used by the furniture industry was used for test. The material density was about

24 kg./m.

3

(1.5 lb./cu. ft.).

c. Flexible Urethane Foam

3 Flexible urethane foam, nominal 1.3 cm. (0.5 in.) thick and 24 kg./m.

(1.5 lb./cu. ft.) density, purchased from the same supplier was used

as a cover layer over cotton batting for additional tests on furniture

combinations

.

i

E-ll
11

Conditioning

The test fabric, foam, substrate, filling materials, and cigarettes were

conditioned in a room maintained at a temperature of at least 18° C. (65°

F.) and less than 55 percent relative humidity for a minimum of 48 hours

prior to testing.

E-12
12

Glass Fiber Board Test

a. Sample Preparation

Vertical fabric/glass fiber board panels were prepared for test bycovering the surface, top, and bottom edges of a 20 x 20 cm. (8x8

in.) piece of glass fiber board with a 20 x 30 cm. (8 x 12 in.) piece

of fabric. The fabric was attached to the back of the substrate board

with straight pins. Horizontal test panels were prepared in the same

manner by covering the surface and one edge of a 12.5 x 20 cm. (5x8

in.) piece of glass fiber board with a 20 x 20 cm. (8x8 in.) piece

of fabric material.

b. Test Procedure

The conditioned test panels were mounted in the sample holder (Figure

2) with the horizontal panel firmly abutting the vertical panel, and

the assembly was placed on a laboratory bench surface near an exhaust

hood. A lighted cigarette [burned no more than 0.4 cm. (0.25 in.)

before placement] was placed in the crevice of the panels and was

immediately covered with a piece of sheeting material. The uppermost

edge of the sheeting material was pinned to the vertical test panel

and fabric/cigarette contact was ensured by running a finger over the

covered cigarette.

E-13
13

After a test cigarette had burned its full length in the crevice area,

the sheeting material was removed, and char measurements on the fabric

surface were made. Using a scale, both vertical and horizontal chars

were measured (to 0.1 in.) on the respective test panels; in addition,

a horizontal crevice char measurement was also recorded. At least

three tests were made on each fabric material; however, if one cigarette extinguished before burning its full length, the test was

repeated until a total of three cigarettes self-extinguished or three

cigarettes burned their full length. In any event, no more than five

tests were required for evaluating an upholstery fabric material. The

data obtained in the fabric/glass fiber board test was used to determine which fabrics were 'Tabric Class C" or 'Tabric Class D

M materials.

Those fabrics not igniting on this test assembly qualified for the

fabric/cotton batting test.

E-14
14

Fabric/Cotton Batting Test

a. Sample Preparation

Vertical test panels were prepared for test by covering one surface

of a plywood support panel with a nominal 5 cm. (2 in.) thick layer

of cotton batting, followed by a piece of 30 x 30 cm. (12 x 12 in.)

test fabric stretched tightly over the surface, wrapped around the

edges, and stapled to the backside of the plywood panel. Horizontal

test panels consisted of a nominal 12.5 x 20 cm. (5 x 8 in.) piece

of glass fiber board covered with a 20 x 20 cm. (8 x 8 in.) piece

of fabric material.

For testing, the prepared panels were mounted in the sample holder

with the horizontal panel firmly abutting the vertical test panel

as shown in Figure 3 (Figure 5 in the proposed upholstered furniture

standard)

.

b. Test Procedure

Those fabrics which did not ignite in the fabric/glass fiber board

test were subjected to the fabric/cotton batting test. The exact

same test procedures previously outlined were followed. Those fabrics found to produce chars greater than 3.8 cm. (1.5 in.) or to

ignite the cotton batting were rated "Fabric Class B" materials.

E-15
15

Fabrics that produced chars less than 3.8 an. (1.5 in.) and prevented

ignition of the cotton batting were rated "Fabric Class A" materials.

c. Test Results

Each of the 47 upholstery cover fabrics listed in Table 1 were evaluated for resistance to ignition, by a burning cigarette.

Results showed that the group contained (6) 'Tabric Class A" materials, (29) 'Tabric Class B" materials, (4) 'Tabric Class C" materials,

and (7) "Fabric Class D" materials.

An examination of this table showed the following:

1. 'Tabric Class A" materials were heavyweight vinyl plastics, nylons,

and polyester materials.

2. 'Tabric Class B" materials contained 23 synthetic and six cellulosic fabrics. The cellulosics in this group were lightweight or

tightly woven materials.

3. 'Tabric Class C" and "Fabric Class D" materials were

"all cel lulosic"- type materials.

E-16
16

d. Additional Test Results

After classification of the test fabric materials into different

Fabric Class categories, additional cigarette tests were made on

the 'Tabric Class B, C, and D" materials. 'Tabric Class A

M materials were not tested because they did not ignite the cotton batting in the fabric/cotton batting test. In these tests, a 1/2 -inch

thick urethane foam layer was used to cover cotton batting. Test

results on the fabric/foam/cotton combinations listed in Table 1

show:

1. 'Tabric Class B" materials did not ignite or ignite the cotton

batting.

2. 'Tabric Class C" and 'Tabric Class D" materials ignited, burned

through the foam layer, and ignited the cotton batting material.

E-17
17

Conclusions

A cigarette ignition resistance test for classifying upholstery cover

fabric materials into different Fabric Classes has been developed. The

method supplements the flammability test for upholstered furniture by

helping to reduce the number of mock-up tests required under the furniture test. With a Fabric Class given to each upholstery fabric material,

upholsterers and re -upholsterers will be provided with information on

whether a certain fabric would prevent ignitions on different furniture

constructions. In view of the enormous number of cover fabrics available for use on furniture pieces, mock-up furniture testing and associated record-keeping would present a very severe hardship for these individuals; however, with the fabric test, this burden would be lessened

considerably.

Based on the data of this report and results of more recent testing, the

following table was developed that shows how different upholstery fabrics

\

perform on different substrate materials.

Ignition Performance of Upholstery Fabric Materials

FILLING MATERIAL

1/2 M Thick Foam Retardant Aluminized

Fabric or Polyester Over Treated Fabric Over

Class Cotton Batting Cotton Batting Cotton Batting Cotton Batting

A N N N N

B I N N N

C I I N N

D I I I N

I - Ignition N - Non- Ignition

E-18
Mo*

Figure 1. Sample Holder Cover Fabric Test

mO
Figure 2. Cover Fabric Glass Fiber Board Test

E-20
Figure 3. Cover Fabric Cotton Batting Test

E-21
Table

1

§

4->

*&

I:

u*1-4

•a

w.

s

6

1

•H1

m

8

c

u

•H

l-> au.

u

V)o1-4

•a

U->

fcl

o&

XXX

XXX

CM

c c c

X> .O <D <U <D 0) •H *rt f-4 > > > OJBJ-HO Op •h a 2 S: S H t4 s s u o£ a. 5 5 4-> *-> 4-> *-> v-v-o^jr^rxooj *- *0 O M M M"0 TJ a Cfl JT *H *H *i-( *«-( *iH 2Z2WHHH22

m'ON^vONr'Oom

4O40SNN 00 00 ON

8+J s

22

XX

X X

c c c

tl 0) ]) u u >hh > > O 'H t4 O O Cl 2 C. C. 2 2 i-i

t—

4_I+J 4_I+J*JC- X 1-1 y X X MO O M M*-> HifltflHhS

cTi \o rj tn in sONOHinO

£

2222 2222

X XX XX

c c

flj o M > >

'-'2 S

C COT)

o o o o

> > <d a> _o .p c- >» xx • • M MO T3 H f-

« C §

o > o

3e .O S

C 13 tJ 13

MtCO tS

0140 H 40 iflMNM

MOlOOM 4tinW

s

rH£

E-22
•o!

Q> r-4 t ao

cS

3*. z>au.

«/> a

rHuo

•rH atil

g

•rH J

•rHgg

•H6 Z Z ZZ Z Z U

PQ

X

X

XX

X

X

•ft 0

•H

t- 1Uro

H-)

•ft f“Ho§ g c

<L>

® > > o o

Se 3=

G "O

g 03

0) CO > <0 O U

•M •C • MT3 • rH 0> H 2

<L> rt > <u o t- SrC

.c • 0003

•rH 0) H2 c1

-o

C rt 8 8

ifS £ I' to rt

•rH (U H S N

T3X

00 \D \D CT> Cl VO • ••••• OO O N M M rt IXO3©o z z z X X X

iS *3 *s PQ PQ PQ g g g +J +J +J J *J 4J cScStS

888 rt rt ca 4h 4h «+h u u u WWW •5 +3 -5 888 £66 CO to CO

VOOOOlH

«si z zu

•M

•ft «DXr*t £ l l I 1 I I I l l 2 I l i I l t I l I I I l l I I I I l l G G

<0

® > , > o o I Ss T3 , ’G

to rt 8 1 8

rH T5

•rH 0) P- 2 o o> e 9 ©

GoG

XX I £ I I II <333

E-23

»tton

Ac

Rayon

19.2

Wide

Rib

>tton

(6

5)

/Rayon

(35)

17.2

Wide

Rib

itton

(34)

/Rayon

(56)

9.7

Heavy

Thread

Woven
§* § i u* 3 = O

•o3c

4JcooI 66t—

Ie

ul

05O

XT£

XI

•tH a:

vco 2

H3X

o>o

in

to 4> ^ 55 /— 05 m Co co £ou

222

XXX c ® o >11 o ^ S

T3 T3

O it n)

co <u <u

<D V- >- ^IS

co oo

M CO Tf H H N

IflOlO

vO in to C C 3 O O O

coXXXco co o: ce. c2

in o to in io

E-24 2 2 X X

X c c c

:> > !> i

x: x:

x 00 oo oo

4-* M

HHH

in• to o• • O t' Ol

•8&o<s

=3 • 1 1 ; l. i > M

Wool/Cotton/Mohair

23.4

Loop

Pile
appendix f

Interlaboratory Program for the Evaluation of a

I Proposed Flammability (Cigarette Ignition Resistance)

Test for Upholstered Furniture

by

Joseph J. Loftus

March 1976

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Washington , D . C

.

F-l
Table of Contents

Page

Abstract 1

Introduction 2

Test Materials 5

Test Methods 8

Material Conditioning 9

Sample Preparation 9

Test Procedures 11

Interpretation of Test Results 13

Test Results 14

Fabric Classification Test Method 14

Upholstered Furniture Mock-Up Test Method 19

Arm and Top of Back Test Method 25

Decking Test Method 28

Full-Size Upholstered Chair Test Method 28

Summary 35

Fabric Classification Test Method 36

Upholstered Furniture Mock-Up Test Method 37

Arm and Top of Back Test Method 39

Decking Test Method 40

Full-Size Upholstered Chair Test Method 41

Conclusions and Recommendations 42
Interlaboratory Program for the Evaluation of a

Proposed Flammability (Cigarette Ignition Resistance)

Test for Upholstered Furniture

Joseph J. Loftus

March 1976

Abstract

A total of 55 laboratories participated in an interlaboratory evaluation study to determine the feasibility of a ’’Proposed Standard for the

Flammability (smolder resistance to cigarettes) of Upholstered Furniture”,

PFF 6-74.

Thirty-seven of the laboratories used the "Fabric Classification Test

Method" in the proposed standard to classify a total of 16 different upholstery fabrics as Class A, B, C, or D materials.

Thirty-eight laboratories used the "Upholstered Furniture Mock-Up

Test Method" in the proposed standard to make smolder resistance measurements on 11 different upholstered furniture constructions.

F-3
2

Three laboratories used the mock-up furniture test procedures to

burn cigarettes on six new full-size upholstered chairs to compare test

results with those obtained for similar tests on mock-up furniture constructions made with the same fabric and filling materials.

This report summarizes the results of tests from all laboratories

and presents an analysis of the data.

Introduction

The interlaboratory study on the flammability of upholstered furniture was conducted under the financial sponsorship of the Consumer

Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and with the cooperation of the ASTM

Subcommittee D13.52 and its task force on furniture flammability. The

following is a list of participants:

A. Brandt Company

Action Industries

American Enka Company

Bassett Upholstery Division

Berkline Corporation

Bernhardt Industries

Broyhill Industries
3

Burlington Industries

I Cannon Mills Company

Chatham Manufacturing Company

Collins and Aikman Corporation

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Cotton , Incorporated

Courtaulds North America, Incorporated

Dan River, Incorporated

Deering Milliken Research

Dolly Madison Company

Drexel Heritage

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Incorporated

Erwin-Lambeth , Incorporated

FMC Corporation

Fox Manufacturing Company

Guilford Laboratories

Guilford Mills

Hercules, Incorporated

Hickory Chair

Hickory Tavern

Hoechst Fibers , Incorporated

J . C . Penney Company

J. P. Stevens

Joan Fabrics Corporation

F-5
4

Kay Lyn, Incorporated

Kroehler Manufacturing Company

LaFrance Industries

M. Lowenstein £ Sons, Incorporated

Mayo Manufacturing Company

Mohasco Corporation

Monsanto Textiles Company

National Bureau of Standards

Norwalk Furniture

Para-Chem, Incorporated

Radford College

Schnadig Corporation

Schweiger, Incorporated

Sears , Roebuck and Company

Silver Craft Furniture Company

Simmons Company

Southern Furniture Company of Conover, Incorporated

Sperry £ Hutchinson Company

State of California, Bureau of Home Furnishings

Tennessee Eastman Company

Thayer Coggins , Incorporated

U.S. Furniture Company

U.S.D.A., Southern Regional Research Laboratory

Walsh Chemical Company

F-6
5

The study was designed to determine if the Fabric Classification and

Furniture Mock-Up Test Methods would produce repeatable results within a

t laboratory and reproducible results between laboratories. In addition,

it sought to determine if tests on mock-ups of furniture constructions

would produce results which would relate to those obtained on full-size

furniture pieces

.

Code numbers were assigned to each of the laboratory participants,

and the number 29-11 was assigned to the National Bureau of Standards

(NBS)

.

Test Materials

Materials —Fabric Classification Test Method

Table 1 lists the 16 upholstery fabric materials used in the testing

program. The fabrics were selected as representative of those used by

the furniture industry and were identified by a code number; no producers' identification was intended or implied. An attempt was made to

incorporate most of the fiber types and blends in current use. Fabric

weights ranged from 5.7 to 23.0 oz/yd 2 with the average weight measured

at 14 oz/yd2

. In addition to the test fabrics, each laboratory was furnished with glass fiber board substrate material, sheeting fabric (for

F-7
6

covering test cigarettes), cotton batting, and test cigarettes. For

record purposes , these materials are identified as follows

Glass Fiber Board - Nominal 2.5 cm (1 in) thick with a density of

40 ± 8 kg/m 3 (2.5 ± 0.5 lb/cu ft). The board was Form A, Class I, plain

faced, and meets Federal Specification HH-I-558B.

Sheeting Fabric - One hundred percent cotton, white in color, weight

125 ± 28 g/m 2 (3.7 ± 0.8 oz/yd2

) washed and dried once, in a home washer

and dryer before use

.

Cotton Batting - Nominal 5 cm (2 in) thick with a density of 32 ± 8

kg/m 3 (2 ± 0.5 lb/cu ft). The batting was made of at least 75 percent

linters and 25 percent cotton staple and was not treated with any material to impart fire retardancy.

Test Cigarettes - 85 ± 2 mm (3.4 ± 0.1 in) long without filter tips.

Materials--Upholstered Furniture Mock-Up Test Method

\\

Table 2 lists all of the materials supplied to each participant for

ji the furniture mock-up test. These materials included full-size upholstered urethane foam seat cushions; eight different upholstery fabrics
7

(selected from the fabric classification test listing); and three types

of filling materials —cotton batting, urethane foam, and polyester fiberfill. Sufficient material was furnished to allow for the construction of

11 different furniture assemblies.

The urethane foam cushions and foam pieces for side panels were in

the density range of 24 ± 0.4 kg/m 3 (1.5 ± 0.2 Ib/cu ft).

The polyester fiberfill supplied was nominal 2.5 cm (1 in) thick.

Materials—Full-Size Upholstered Chair Test Method

Table 3 lists a complete description of the materials used by a furniture manufacturer in fabricating 18 full-size upholstered chairs for

test. All filling materials used in their construction were the same

type as those selected for the mock-up furniture tests . Two chair styles

were made --one with loose or unattached seat and back cushions and the

other with tight or attached seats and backs. The four upholstery fabrics selected as cover materials for the chairs were chosen from the fabric classification test listing.
Test Methods

Fabric Classification Test Method

The test method and procedures used in the interlaboratory study are

described in complete detail in the proposed standard (see Appendix).

Briefly, cigarettes are burned (covered by a piece of sheeting material)

in the crevice location of two abutting fabric covered test panels. Glass

fiber board and cotton batting are used as the substrate materials in the

test. Based on length of char or ignition measurements, test fabrics are

rated as Class A, B, C, or D materials.

Upholstered Furniture Mock-Up Test Method

The test method and procedures used for conducting the Upholstered

Furniture Mock-Up Test Method are described in complete detail in the

proposed standard. Briefly, cigarettes are burned (covered by a piece

of sheeting material) on the surface and welt edge of seat cushions and

in crevice locations where the cushion abuts mock-up vertical test

panels. The test procedure also calls for testing mock-up arm, top of

back constructions, and deckings of loose seat cushion furniture items.

Under the proposed standard, each cigarette test location must pass

(nonignition) the test.
9

Full-Size Upholstered Chair Test Method

t

The test method used for testing the upholstered chairs was the

same as used for mock-up testing.

Material Conditioning

All laboratories were instructed to condition all test materials,

upholstered chairs and test cigarettes, for at least 48 hours in a room

area at a temperature greater than 65° F and relative humidity (RH) less

than 55 percent, prior to testing.

Sample Preparation

Sample Preparation—Fabric Classification Test Method

Each laboratory prepared and cut samples of test fabric, substrate

glass fiber board panels, and cotton batting material for test, in

accordance with procedures outlined in the Fabric Classification Test

Method. Each of the 16 test fabrics required test panels for four tests

on glass fiber board substrates and four tests on glass fiber board/

cotton batting assemblies.

F-ll
10

Sample Preparation--Upholstered Furniture Mock-Up Test Method

Six of the upholstered furniture test mock-ups required full-size

seat cushions and the construction of vertical test panels. The loose

or unattached seat cushions were "factory made" and were supplied ready

for test. Tight seat constructions were made as required by each individual laboratory participant. Five other constructions required the

preparation of horizontal test panels for arm or top of back and decking tests. All test panels and tight seat cushions were prepared using

procedures and methods of assembly outlined in the Upholstered Furniture

Mock-Up Test Method.

Sample Preparation--Full-Size Upholstered Chair Test Method

No special preparations were required prior to test. Three laboratories each received six chairs for test, three of these were made with

loose or unattached seat cushions and backs and three were made with

tight seat cushions and backs.

F-12
11

Test Procedures

Procedure --Fabric Classification Test Method

Figure 4 in the proposed standard illustrates a glass fiber board

assembly for the fabric classification test. Each laboratory was

instructed to burn a single cigarette (covered by a 12.5 x 12.5 cm piece

of cotton sheeting) at the center of the crevice location of the test

assembly and to perform this test a total of four times on each of the

16 upholstery sample fabrics . After each test cigarette had burned its

full length (or extinguished), char measurements were made on the vertical and horizontal fabric surfaces and along the crevice from the butt

and tip ends of the test cigarette

.

Figure 5 in the proposed standard illustrates the cotton batting test

assembly for the fabric classification test. This test was also conducted

four times on each of the 16 test fabrics by each of the laboratories.

In lieu of char measurements, the laboratories were instructed to record

ignition or nonignition results for each test.

Procedure —Upholstered Furniture Mock-Up Test Method

Figure 3 in the proposed standard illustrates the mock-up upholstered furniture test assembly and the location of test cigarettes on

F-13
12

the construction. Cigarettes burned no more than 4 mm (0.16 in) before

placement were positioned on the test locations, covered with a piece of

sheeting material, and allowed to burn their full length (or to extinguishment) in the location. Laboratories were instructed to stop the

test at any point in time where an obvious ignition had occurred and to

record an ignition for that particular test location. In those cases

where no ignition occurred in a test location, char measurements were

made a) up the vertical side panel, along the crevice and horizontally

on the seat cushion surface; b) up the vertical back panel, along the

crevice and horizontally on the seat cushion; c) on the seat cushion

surface; and d) on the welt edge of the seat cushion.

Tests on horizontal panels for arms, top of back and decking assemblies were made in the same manner as on a seat cushion surface. The

mock-up is illustrated in Figure 3. Three cigarettes were burned on

each panel.

Each laboratory burned a total of eight cigarettes on each upholstered furniture mock-up construction and three cigarettes on each arm

and top of back assembly or decking construct:

Data sheets were supplied to all laboratories, and they were

instructed to fill them out and to submit the data to NBS for analysis

and review.

F-14
13

Procedure —Full-Size Upholstered Chair Test Method

/

Figure 8 (not shown in the proposed standard) shows the cigarette

test locations for the chairs tested by each of three laboratories.

Deckings were tested in the loose seat chair construction in addition

to conducting loose bolster tests on the chairs

.

i The procedures for conducting the tests on the chairs were the

same as outlined for the furniture mock-up tests

.

Interpretation of Test Results

Interpretation of Test Results —Fabric Classification Test Method

The schematic diagram (Figure 6) in the proposed standard outlines*

in detail, the means used to classify the test upholstery fabrics.

Briefly, Class A fabrics do not smolder on glass fiber board substrates

and do not ignite cotton batting. Class B fabrics do not smolder on

glass fiber board but do ignite cotton batting. Class C fabrics ignite

and smolder at least 3.8 cm (1.5 in) on glass fiber board and ignite cotton batting. Class D fabrics ignite and smolder more than 7.5 cm (3.0

in) on the glass fiber board and ignite cotton batting.

F-15
14

Interpretation of Test Results--Upholstered Furniture Mock-Up and FullSize Upholstered Chair Test Methods

A passing (nonignition) result was reported by a laboratory if the

test cigarette burned its full length on a test location and did not

ignite the test fabric or filling material used in the mock-up construction .

A failing (ignition) result was reported by a laboratory if a test

cigarette ignited the test fabric and/or filling material or produced

a char measurement greater than 7.5 cm (3.0 in) in any direction from

the test cigarette.

Test Results

Results--Fabric Classification Test Method

Table 4 lists the results of the Fabric Classification Test Method.

An analysis of the data from the 37 laboratory participants showed

the following:

F-16

I
15

Class MA"

Fabrics

# Labs

Reporting Class "A"

% Labs

Reporting Class "A”

i 1 Wool/Nylon Blend 36 97

8 Wool/Nylon Blend 31 84

9 Vinyl Plastic 37 100

Class MB" # Labs % Labs

Fabrics Reporting Class "B" Reporting Class "B"

7 Nylon 37 100

15 Nylon 37 100

11 Olefin 35 95

14 Nylon 35 95

2 Nylon 34 92

10 Rayon/Nylon/ 34 92

Polyester

Class "C" # Labs % Labs

Fabrics Reporting Class "C" Reporting Class "C"

13 Rayon 35 95

4 Cotton 32 90

12 Rayon 29 78

3 Acetate/Rayon 27 74

16 Rayon 27 74

6 Cotton 21 58

F-17
16

Class "B"

Fabrics

# Labs

Reporting Class "D"

% Labs

Reporting Class "D"

,5 Cotton 37 100

All 37 laboratories showed complete agreement in assigning four of

the 16 test fabrics to a particular fabric classification; namely, #5

to Class D, #7 to Class B, #9 to Class A, and #15 to Class B.

Ten of the 16 fabrics were placed in Class A, B, and D categories

with laboratory agreement ranging from 84-100 percent.

The six sample fabrics rated as Class C materials showed a wide

range (58-95 percent) in laboratory agreement.

This rather large spread can be attributed to certain test parameters introduced into the evaluation study.

These factors included fiber type in a test fabric, weave direction,

or orientation of a fabric when mounted in the test apparatus and an air

gap [an air gap here meaning a space or opening up to 1.8 cm (0.5 in)

between the vertical test panel and the platform support for the horizontal test panel in the test apparatus]

F-18
*

17

Each of these parameters will be discussed separately.

Fiber Type - An examination of the above listing shows that fabrics

in the Class C and Class D categories were cellulose fiber materials and

that fabrics in the Class A and Class B categories were synthetic fiber

fabrics or plastic material.

Test observations based on the fiber type in the upholstery fabric

sample materials are listed as follows:

Synthetic Fabrics —

1/

(a) melt

(b) scorch

(c) do not support smoldering combustion

(d) Class A rated fabrics did not permit ignitions in cotton

batting

(e) Class B rated fabrics allow ignitions in cotton batting

Cellulosic Fabrics —

(a) ignite when exposed to burning cigarettes

(b) once ignited, will support smoldering combustion

F-19
IS

(c) ignite and contribute to the ignition of cotton batting

(d) Class C and Class D ratings were based on length of char

measurement on glass fiber board and on cotton batting

ignition

Fabric Weave Direction or Orientation - Ten laboratories each were

assigned the task of testing the 16 test fabric samples in one of the

four fabric orientations:

Laboratories 1-10 warp/warp

11-20 warp/cross warp

21-30 cross warp/cross warp

31-40 cross warp/warp

An analysis of the fabric classification test results showed that

those laboratories who conducted tests in the warp/warp fiber orientation obtained the most reproducible results.

Air Gap - A total of 25 laboratories used 12.5 cm (5 in) wide pieces

of glass fiber board for horizontal fabric test panels and thus conducted

their tests with an air gap or spacing between the vertical fabric test

panels and the horizontal support for horizontal panels in the test apparatus .

F-20
19

Twelve laboratories used approximately 10.3 cm (4.5 in) wide pieces

of glass fiber board (cut to the same width as the horizontal platform)

for their horizontal panels and conducted their tests with essentially

no air gap or spacing.

At least two sample fabrics, #3 and 6, were found to produce fabric

classifications which could be directly related to the presence or absence

of the air gap.

Results —Upholstered Furniture Mock-Up Test Method

Tables 5 to 9 list the results of the furniture mock-up tests for

eight different upholstery fabrics on 11 different furniture constructions. Based on these results and those obtained in the Fabric

Classification Test Method, the following observations are made:

1. Class A fabrics #1 and 8 on mock-up constructions #2, 3, and 4

produced the following:
20

% Labs Reporting Ignitions

Construction #

Side

Back

Cushion

2 Cotton

Foam

Foam

3 Cotton

Foam

FF/Foam

4

1/2" Foam/Cotton

Foam

Tight Cotton

Fabric # S W C S W C S W C

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 51 0

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 3

S = Surface of Cushion

W = Welt Edge of Cushion

C = Crevice of Mock-Up Assembly

As shown above, all 38 laboratory participants reported that Class A

fabrics #1 and 8 did not allow ignitions on:

(a) foam urethane seat cushion surfaces or welt edges

(b) fiberfill/foam urethane seat cushion surfaces or welt edges

(c) cotton batting and foam urethane vertical mock-up panels in

combination with the above cushions

Two laboratories (^6 percent) reported that sample fabric #1 allowed

an ignition in the cotton batting seat cushion in construction #4.
21

One laboratory (^3 percent) reported that sample fabric #8 permitted

an ignition in the crevice location of construction #4 and burned the side

panel of the construction (1/2 inch foam urethane over cotton batting).

Both Class A fabrics (#1 and 8) allowed ignitions in the welt edge

of the cotton batting seat cushion of construction #4. (Actually, in

these tests, welt edges, per se, did not exist; however, some of the

laboratories burned cigarettes on the curved edges of the cushions .

)

2. Class B fabrics #2 and 7 produced the following results when

tested on mock-up furniture constructions #1, 3, 4, and 5:

Class B Fabrics

% Labs Reporting Ignitions

Construction #

Side

Back

Cushion

1

1/2" Foam/Cotton

Foam

Foam

3

Cotton

Foam

FF/Foam

Fabric # S W C S W C

2 0 0 0 0 0 60

7 0 0 9 0 0 72

F-23
Class B Fabrics (con't)

22

% Labs Reporting Ignitions

Construction #

Side

Back

Cushion

4

1/2 M Foam/Cotton

Foam

Tight Cotton

5 1/2" Foam/Cotton

Foam

Tight Foam

Fabric # S W c S W C

2 34 55 95 0 0 18

7 26 71 97 0 0 16

As indicated above, all 38 laboratories reported that Class B fabrics

did not allow ignitions to occur in:

(a) foam urethane seat cushion surfaces or welt edges

(b) fiberfill/foam urethane cushion surfaces or welt edges

(c) tight foam urethane cushion surfaces or welt edges

(d) crevice location of construction #1 (fabric #2)

Both Class B fabrics (#2 and 7) allowed ignitions to occur:

(a) in the cotton batting filled side panels of construction #3

(b) in 1/2 inch foam/cotton panels of constructions #1, 4, and 5

(c) in all locations of construction #4 where a cotton seat cushion

was used.

F-24
23

3. Class C upholstery fabrics #3, 4, and 6 produced the following

results when tested on mock-up constructions #1, 4, 5, and 6:

Class C Fabrics

% Labs Reporting Ignitions

Construction #

Side

Back

Cushion

1/2”

Foam

Foam

1 Foam/Cotton 1/2"

Foam

Tight

4

Foam/Cotton

Cotton

Fabric # S W C S W c

3 3 75 97 73 93 100

4 9 84 100 —

6 9 92 100 58 100 100

Construction #

Side

Back

Cushion

1/2"

Foam

Tight

5 Foam/Cotton

Foam

6

Foam

Foam

Foam

Fabric # S W C S W C

3 6 6 100 6 78 97

4

- - — 3 81 97

6 3 3 100 3 86 97
24

(a) Out of a total of 38 laboratories, one laboratory (^3 percent)

reported an ignition in the foam urethane seat cushion covered

by Class C fabric #3, and three laboratories (%9 percent) showed

ignition in the same type of cushion covered by fabrics #4 and 6.

(b) The welt edges of the factory -made foam urethane seat cushions

were ignited by 75-92 percent of the testing laboratories.

(c) On a tight foam seat cushion, two laboratories (^6 percent)

reported ignition in the curved edge (welt) of the cushion cov- ered by fabric #3, and one laboratory (^3 percent) ignited the

cushion under fabric #6 cover.

(d) The crevice locations in all four constructions were found

extremely vulnerable to cigarette ignition. Except for one laboratory reporting nonignition, ignition of the crevices was total

(97-100 percent).

(e) Vertical mock-up panels filled with foam urethane or 1/2 inch foam

urethane/cotton batt were easily ignited by the Class C fabrics.

(f) The tight cotton seat cushion in construction #4 was found easily

ignitable by the Class C fabric materials.

4. Class D upholstery fabric #5 produced the following results when

tested on mock-up furniture constructions #1 and 6:

Class D Fabrics

% Labs Reporting Ignitions

Construction # 1 6

Side 1/2" Foam/Cotton Foam

Back Foam Foam

Cushion Foam Foam

Fabric # S W C S W C

5 63 91 100 90 94 100

F-26
25

(a) All 38 laboratories reported that the sample fabric ignited the

' crevice locations of foam urethane seat cushions and involved

the vertical mock-up panels filled with foam urethane and 1/2

inch foam urethane over cotton batt.

(b) Welt edges of the foam cushions were ignited by 91-94 percent

of the laboratories

.

(c) Seat cushion surfaces were ignited by 63-90 percent of the laboratories .

Results —Mock-Up Arm and Top of Back Test Method

Tables 10-13 list results furnished by 38 laboratories. Each laboratory tested eight different upholstery fabrics on four different mock-up

constructions, #7, 8, 9, and 10. An analysis of these data for percent

laboratories reporting ignition showed the following:
26

% Labs Reporting Ignitions

Constructions

Fabric

#

Fabric

Class #7

2 in

Cotton

#8

1/2 in

Foam Over

2 in Cotton

#9

2 in

Foam

Urethane

#10

1 in

Polyester Over

2 in Cotton

1 A 5 0 0 0

8 A 3 0 0 0

2 B 87 5 0 0

7 B 84 5 0 0

3 C 100 5 3 0

6 C 100 10 3 0

4 C 100 7 3 0

5 D 100 87 87 40

On construction #7 (2 in cotton batting), it is seen that the sample

fabrics produced the following:

(a) Of the 38 laboratory participants testing Class A fabric performance on cotton batt filled arms, two laboratories (~5 percent) reported ignition under fabric #1, and only one laboratory (^3 percent) showed an ignition for fabric #8.

(b) Class B, C, and D fabrics easily ignited the cotton batting

material

F-28
27

On construction #8 (1/2 in urethane over 2 in cotton), it was found

that

(a) Class A fabrics did not ignite the construction in any laboratory.

(b) Class B fabrics resisted ignition in all but 2 laboratories.

(c) Class C fabrics #3, 6, and 4 were reported by 2, 4, and 3 laboratories, respectively, to have ignited the test assembly.

(d) Class D fabric (#5) easily ignited the construction. Eightyseven percent of the laboratories reported ignition.

On construction #9 (2 in foam urethane):

(a) Both the Class A and B sample fabrics resisted every cigarette

ignition attempt by all 38 laboratory participants.

(b) Only one laboratory reported that Class C fabrics #3, 6, and 4

ignited the foam urethane substrate.

(c) Class D fabric (#5) was reported by 87 percent of the laboratories to have ignited the foam urethane construction.

On construction #10 (1 in polyester over 2 in cotton batting):

(a) Class A, B, and C sample fabrics resisted every cigarette ignition attempt by all laboratories

.

(b) A total of 15 laboratories (40 percent of total) reported that

Class D fabric #5 caused ignitions in the test construction.

F-29
28

Results —Decking Test Method

Table #11 lists results for tests on two decking assemblies.

Construction % Labs Reporting Ignitions

Sateen fabric over 97

cotton batting

Sateen fabric over 0

bonded cellulose

(a) As indicated above, all laboratories reported that no ignitions

were observed in the bonded cellulose assembly.

(b) All but 1 laboratory (^3 percent of total) reported ignitions

in the cotton system.

Results —Full-Size Upholstered Chair Test Method

The following tables list results of tests conducted by three laboratories on six full-size upholstered chairs and shows a comparison with

results obtained by the laboratories on similar constructions reproduced

in mock-ups.

F-30
29

Chair Tests

Class A Fabric (#1) on Construction #

Mock-UL Chair

Test Location Fill #29 31

Li 39

ab

#29 31 39

Surface of Cushion Foam N N N N N N

Welt Edge of Cushion Foam N N N N N N

Crevice —Side 1/2" Foam/Cotton N N N N N N

Crevice —Back Foam N N N N N N

Arm 1/2" Foam/Cotton N N N N N N

Top of Back Foam N N N N I N

N = Nonignition

I = Ignition

The above table indicates excellent correlation of test results. The

one ignition recorded by laboratory #31 represents a single ignition in

four tests

.

*/

F-31
30

Chair Tests

Class B Fabric (#2) on Construction #3

Mock-EEL Chair

Lab

Test Location Fill #29 31 39 #29 31 39

Surface of Cushion FF /Foam N N N N N N

Welt Edge of Cushion FF/Foam N N N N N N

Crevice —Side Cotton I I N N N N

Crevice —Back Foam N N N N I N

Arm Cotton I I I N N N

Top of Back Foam N N N N N N

Decking Cotton I I I I I N

F-32

fa
31

Chair Tests

Class B Fabric (#2) on Construction #4

Test Location

Surface of Cushion

Welt Edge of Cushion

Crevice—Side

Crevice —'Back

Arm

Top of Back

Fill

Cotton

Cotton

1/2" Foam/Cotton

Foam

1/2 M Foam/Cotton

Foam

Mock-Up

Lab

#29 31 39

N

N

I

I

N

I

I

I

N N N

N N N

Chair

#29 31 39

III

I

I

I

N N N

N N N

The above test results show unanimous agreement between laboratories

in all but the following test locations:

Construction #3

(a) Crevice of mock-up. -- The cotton filled vertical panel was

not ignited by 1 laboratory.

(b) Crevice of chair. -- The foam back was ignited by 1 laboratory.

(c) Decking of chair. -- One laboratory failed to obtain ignitions

on this test location.

F-33
32

Construction #4

(d) Two laboratories did not ignite a cotton batt tight seat cushion.

(e) One laboratory failed to ignite the welt edge of the tight cotton

seat cushion.

The obvious explanation for the nonignition results reported for items

#a, c, d, and e, above, would be that the laboratories were not proficient

in making tight cotton seat cushions and thus failed to obtain good "fabric

to cotton batt" contact in their mock-up constructions. This is shown by

a comparison of mock-up tight cotton seat cushion results (1 ignition/3

laboratories) with the "factory made" "tight cotton cushion" chair results

which show all three laboratories igniting the factory chair cushion.

No explanation can be given for the crevice "foam ignition" reported

by one laboratory on the test chair.

F-34

k
Chair Tests

Class C Fabric (#3) on Construction #6

Test Location Fill

Surface of Cushion Foam

Welt Edge of Cushion Foam

Crevice —Side Foam

Crevice —Back Foam

Arm Foam

Top of Back Foam

Decking Cotton

Mock -Up Chair

Lab

#29 31 39

N N N

Nil

III

III

N N N

N N N

III

#29 31 39

N N N

I

I

I

N N N

N N N

III
34

Chair Tests

Class C Fabric (#3) on Construction #5

Mock -Up Chair

Test Location

Surface of Cushion Foam

Welt Edge of Cushion Foam

Crevice —Side 1/2"

Crevice —Back Foam

Arm Foam

Top of Back Foam

Fill

Foam/Cotton

Lab

#29 31 39

N N N

N N N

III

III

N N N

N N N

#29 31 39

N N N

N N N

III

III

N I N

N I N

The above test results for Class C fabric #3 shows excellent agreement between laboratories except for three test locations where one of

the laboratories reported results differing from the .other two.

These test locations were:.

(a) Welt edge of a foam seat cushion in mock-up test. -- One laboratory reported no ignition.

(b) Foam filled "chair" arm. — One laboratory reported ignition.

L

F-36
35

(c) -Foam filled top of back "chair test". — One laboratory reported

ignition.

For item (a), the welt edge ignition is the result of a single cigarette ignition attempt by one laboratory.

No explanation can be given for one laboratory reporting ignition in

items (b) and (c) when that same laboratory reported nonignition results

for tests on the same fabric on foam urethane in mock-up tests.

Chair Tests

Class C Fabric (#4) on Construction #6

v'

Test Location Fill

Surface of Cushion Foam

Welt Edge of Cushion Foam

Crevice —Side Foam

Crevice —Back Foam

Arm Foam

Top of Back Foam

Mock-U£L Chair

Lab

#29 31 39 #29 31 39

N N N N N N

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I I I

N N N N N N

N N N N N N

F-37
36

Class C fabric #4 produced excellent test results with each laboratory reporting identical results for tests on the mock-up and fullsize upholstered chairs.

Summary

Based on results obtained in the interlaboratory evaluation study,

the following judgments are made:

Summary—Fabric Classification Test Method

1. An analysis of test results from 37 laboratories suggests that

for the Fabric Classification Test Method sample upholstery fabrics

should be tested in the warp/warp fabric direction.

2. The recommendation for warp/warp fabric direction (for test)

would agree with the industry practice of manufacturing furniture with

the upholstery cover fabric running in the warp "up the chair" direction.

3. The analysis also indicates that the test should be conducted

with no air gap or spacing between the vertical test panel and the horizontal platform support. This would mean that each laboratory would trim

F-38
37

the glass fiber board material for the horizontal test panel to the same

l dimension as the platform support.

4. Although results indicated that the air gap was more severe, the

absence of the air gap would remove any chance of bias in conducting the

test

.

5. Class A and Class B upholstery fabrics do not smolder and thus

exhibited excellent, repeatable and reproducible results for the within

laboratory and between laboratory comparison study.

6. Synthetic fiber type fabrics (nylon, olefin, etc.), vinyl plastic,

and wool and wool blends, with few exceptions, will generally be rated as

Class A and Class B materials.

7. Cellulosic fiber type upholstery fabrics--cotton, rayon, and

cotton/rayon blends- -will generally be found to produce Class C and Class

D classifications.

Summary- -Upholstered Furniture Mock-Up Test Method

1. A total of 38 participating laboratories gained valuable experience in using the mock-up furniture test method to make determinations

F-3'9
38

on how an upholstery fabric "Class" will perform on different furniture

constructions

2. Class A upholstery fabrics were found (by all laboratories) to

"work" favorably on mock-up furniture constructions consisting of foam

urethane or fiberfill/foam seat cushions in combination with vertical

test panels filled with cotton batt or foam urethane.

3. Class B upholstery fabrics were shown (by all laboratories) to

be acceptable as cover materials on foam urethane and fiberfill/foam

urethane seat cushions used with foam urethane filled mock-up panels.

4. A 1.3 cm (1/2 in) thick layer of foam urethane used directly

under Class B fabrics and over cotton batt helped to reduce the number

of ignitions in cotton batt filling material; however, these results

established the fact that the foam layer was "not quite thick enough"

to offer 100 percent protection to cotton underlays when Class B fabrics were used as the cover materials

5. Ninety-seven percent of the laboratories reported that Class C

fabrics work (pass test) on urethane seat cushion surfaces, but a large

number of laboratories observed ignitions in the welt edges of the seat

cushions. In crevice tests with this cushion in combination with foam

F-40

L
39

urethane and 1/2 inch foam urethane/cotton mock-up panels, all laboral tories but one reported ignitions in every test.

6. Class D fabric (test sample #5) produced ignitions on all test

locations of foam urethane seat cushions and like the Class C fabrics

,

ignited foam urethane and 1/2 inch foam urethane/cotton test panels

.

7. All fabric classes in combination with cotton batt seat cushion

construction and adjacent side panels permitted ignition.

8. Class A fabrics were reported by all but one or two laboratories

to resist ignitions on cotton batt seat cushion surfaces and crevices;

surprisingly, 30-50 percent of the laboratories obtained ignitions on

the curved edge of the tight seat cushion (edges are called welts in

the tables )

.

Summary- -Arm and Top of Back Test Method

1. Excellent, repeatable and reproducible test results were obtained

for tests on mock-up arm and top of back test panels

.

2. As expected, the number of ignitions observed in the test panels

was found directly related to the fabric class used as the cover material.

F-41
40

Class A fabrics were shown to be superior to the Class B, C, and D fabrics which respectively showed increasing numbers of ignitions in the

filling materials

3. The filling materials, if ranked on the basis of test performance,

would be listed as follows

# Labs Reporting Ignitions

Class A Class B Class C Class

#1 Fiberfill/Cotton Batt 0 0 0 15

#

Foam Urethane 0 0 1 33

#3 1/2 Inch Foam Urethane/Cotton 0 2 2-4 33

#4 Cotton Batt 3 8 38 38

Summary—Decking Test Method

1. Excellent results were obtained for tests of decking systems.

2. All laboratories (but one) reported ignitions in the cotton

filled decking system covered by cotton sateen fabric material.

F-42
41

3. All laboratories reported passing (nonignition) results for a

bonded cellulose system covered by the same fabric material.

Summary—Full-Size Upholstered Chair Test Method

A comparison of full-size chair test results with upholstered furniture mock-up tests on the same constructions showed excellent reproducible

results

.

1. Testing of factory made seat cushions in mock-up or on a chair

presents no problems; similar test results were obtained on both sets of

cushions

.

2. If anything, the mock-up arm test is more reproducible than the

chair arm test because in the mock-up test a better fabric-to-substrate

contact is achieved.

3. The test laboratories were not proficient in making tight cotton

seat cushions for test. More reproducible results were obtained in tests

on the factory made seat cushions

.

v'

F-43
42

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the results of the interlaboratory evaluation study to determine the feasibility of the proposed Fabric Classification and Upholstered

Furniture Mock-Up Test Methods in the proposed flammability standard

(smolder resistance) of upholstered furniture, the following conclusions

and recommendations are drawn:

Fabric Classification Test Method

1. Reproducible results between laboratories can be expected in the

Fabric Classification Test Method if the sample fabric is tested in the

warp /warp fiber "up the chair" direction.

2. The horizontal glass fiber board panel in the test must be cut

to the same width as the horizontal platform support for the horizontal

test panel. This should eliminate any air gaps and prevent any bias

which may creep into the testing procedure.

3. Synthetic fabric type materials are not subject to fiber orientation or air gap in the Fabric Classification Test Method.

4. Cellulosic fabrics are affected by both fiber orientation and air

gap, some more so than others. Lightweight, open weave fabrics were found

to be most susceptible.

F-44
5 . A knowledge of fiber type in a sample fabric should prove most

I helpful to manufacturers in helping them to classify their present or

future fabric inventories

.

6. As a general rule

Class A fabrics would include wool, wool blends, vinyl plastics,

and heavyweight synthetics.

Class B fabrics would include mid-weight synthetics and possibly

some lightweight cottons, rayons, and cotton/rayon blends.

Class C fabrics would encompass mid-weight cottons, rayons, and

cotton/rayon blends.

i - rv *

Class D fabrics would include heavyweight cellulosics; i.e., cottons,

rayons, and blends of these materials.

7. Topical treatments or backcoating of upholstery fabrics may be

investigated as a means for upgrading Class C and Class D fabrics to

Class A or Class B performance.

F-45
44

Upholstered Furniture Mock-Up Test Method

1. The laboratory participants had little difficulty in identifying

the safe (nonignition) and problem areas (ignition prone) in the mock-up

assemblies

2. The study showed that most present day (manufactured) furniture

can be easily ignited by burning cigarettes.

3. Upholstery cover fabrics were shown to play an extremely importan

role in determining whether a furniture construction will resist or allow

ignitions to occur in a finished furniture item. Constructions which

may work, "pass the test", with one fabric cover may not necessarily

pass the test when covered by a different class of fabric material.

4. Generally, Class A upholstery fabrics were found compatible with

most furniture constructions; however, the study did show up one problem

area, "the curved edge (welt) of tight cotton seat cushions". All fabric

classes permitted or contributed to ignitions of this assembly.

5. The ignition performance of Class B upholstery fabrics demonstrated a need for barrier layers between cotton batt and the cover

fabric.

F-46
45

6. Class C and Class D fabrics, because they often smolder when

exposed* to burning cigarettes, may require heat dissipating mediums

directly under the fabric in order to resist ignition.

7. Although the mock-up furniture test produced qualitative test

results which are not conducive to easy statistical analysis (statisticians prefer continuous quantitative measurement), the following statement can be made based on the go-no go test results obtained in the

testing program:

The furniture mock-up test is real, repeatable, and viable and

is capable of determining whether a furniture construction used

in combination with a particular cover fabric will pass or fail

a burning cigarette test.

Full-Size Upholstered Chair Test Method

1. The proposed test standard allows for the testing of full-size

furniture items in lieu of testing mock-up furniture constructions.

Given a choice, it is believed that the mock-up test would be a more

severe and reproducible test . This would be especially true where the

’’fabric to filling” contact is most critical. Non or difficult to ignite

materials wquld not be affected by this, but where easily ignitable or

combustible materials are used directly under the cover fabric, there

could be a difference in test results. Agreement between mock-up and
46

finished furniture piece test results was found excellent between the

testing laboratories . Where differences between laboratories were

noted, these differences were found directly related to the "fabric to

filling" contact described above.

General

The results and analysis of the interlaboratory evaluation study

indicate that the test methods in the recommended Proposed Standard for

the Flammability (smolder resistance) of Upholstered Furniture are repeatable and reproducible. It is recommended that the Proposed Standard for

the Flammability of Upholstered Furniture be published in the Federal

Register for comment.

F-48
List of Tables

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 11

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

- Listing of upholstery sample fabrics

- Listing of mock-up materials

- Listing of upholstered chair materials

- Fabric classification test results

- Construction #1, mock-up test results

- Construction #2 and #3, mock-up test results

- Construction #4, mock-up test results

- Construction #5, mock-up test results

- Construction #6, mock-up test results

- Construction #7, arm and top of back mock-up test results

- Construction #8, arm and top of back mock-up test results

- Construction #9, arm and top of back mock-up test results

- Construction #10, arm and top of back mock-up test results

- Construction #11, decking test results
1 P

ns CM

.X)

O >4

•H -V. k N a °

Cm

cnLoc^-cDooc^r't^THoaiiHuDOOTH

CMCMLncocMincr>cDi>cod-j-cnt^ir)co

rl

H

H rl

H rlHNrlrlHrldrl

rH o rH 53 a> 03 p i—i

03 0) P P

•H 03

p 03 “r|O >>

5m r; 54

O

p x: f—1

03 o s O i—1

CD 5 a) Sm

p 1—1 1 (1) H IP i i P CD o S3 bO IP 4P 0) S3 S3 p S3 1 C3 a) o p P 03 03 o P 3 0) P a> 03 T3 P a> co 03 T3 1—1 P 03 •H O <D p a> P

<u rH P p P 0)

O rH i—1 P 03

p rH

SP

m cd cp

O 04 CD PQm 5 PQ CD CO CD PQ

rH

a) rH•a

Ep 0) P P p P •rH 03 P P P

44 i—1 p 03 03 03 03 P P P P 03 03 03 03 P S3

03 >> 03 > > > > 03 03 03 CO 43 > > > 03 03 IP P > •—1

rH * 1 rH > > > 03 43 rH »—1rH > >

CO o 03 03 0) 0)

O

O

O rH •rH 03 03 0)

O o

>, > > > > & & CP IP > > > De P

03 P

CO r—I O

43

IPpo

4-1

dPO

dP

54(1) P

CO

a)>> i—1 p dP O SP

0) P p in rH s •rH 03 03 j- dP P 43 P dP 43 dP CM

03 •H S3 CM 53 P CM CM P ip O rH O O rH

03

O tP rH S3 53 S3 03 a S3 O O (P O O r-1

rHN

p

—1

•H >>

tp o\° dP dP S3 >H P S3 dP

S3 dP LO o o •1 1 dP S3 CO s. o o\° dP dP dP S O in o o p o 03 o\° o O O o O

dP o rH rH SP

O dP rH C- rH o o o O

00 rH 03 rH 00 IP ID rH rH rH rH

00

p S3 S3 S3 00 S3

S3 03

O

O

O S3 i—1

$3 •rl S3 S3 S3 S3 rH O p P P P O rH 0 4-i O O O O 0 rH 03 P P P rH O P 03 >> >1 rH <—1 o >, C3 O O O >> o •rl cfl <

1 03 03 >>

S3 < o C3

O iz; IS > SPO SP SP S3 :s co

•H o p

“rH (XJ p c

,q bO

o3 «h

(P co

ai Q

PCNooij-LncDr-oocnoP(Nooj-LncD

F-50

Rayon

100%

Pile

White

Floral
Materials

List

for

Mock-up

Furniture

Test

u

-Xu

rt3 co

CQ

• >H n4-> o

3

>o

•rH H

4-*> in II

°H

(Q <1

Yjo

V)c to o o

•H -5 £ c

0) f~< .5 c Q

isi

. O

Ki

a-n»

Vi

•§>

sO SO kT ikT

u

r3

^

fsj fsii Ki

CO OO QON

r**4 <rH irH Cs§

*+4u

•9

-o

«J

oe £

Ul

°<HI

t-3 O

3

r-« • > I I <—* I I I < I 1 I I 1 i I i

I to to O CO 1 ?Nlfslfsj(Njrjf-4fvlts8 I

vO O oo o • fNirsjrM(sirvJ(s>bj<s) t

• OVOOO I I i r-j i i

t N ^ O O I tOK5'^>cJ-rf'«3-<S!»S! 1

» f~v! •—( t l

X>. XXXXXX

bOesi CO r-t

rsjrxarxjrxjrj-^^-r^^r^r^r^r^r^ ir^ N(NN(NJfHHiHrHl/)rj(NrJCNNNMN oo rsj rH rs| XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXC^—i -5 x

psifvitNjfNitNjrjrNjr^i^r-irsitNjrsirvjfsjt^irJS O O cs rxi rsitvjcsifs)fNjrvi{Ni(NitOfvirsi<Nif^jfN)<sitsirsJt--c;c:uacsj n n

ft xO V) ®ir< •H d VS j-> »c u f-. CJ a M

3 E <—

O

> Jj 3 p o

o o ^ E U. O <-> u bO o

f3 ^ to rt e C (A o u, o o •-H ft o

u_, u_ *j to «tH <_> .r-I p—4 JZ »c o o D

*0 33 MU to «o <3 f-0rH

<U O •"> X d ,c B C r-4 fi f H M p—

o »—

co CxJ r^ 1*0 vO l~ •h y

0> 1) e—

v—' **: sr *v at ac at aa f- U M *J H « i””1 o w Q.

tn vi c C-l u o u U u U u U U c U1 "O rl r-. o o • u • *-4 i-l “ r— y o o ±j e

Xi X. *-> Z

E O ^ u U u u u u 'x, o •s> M-t "C

4-» ~ c ^ -C -C o r: u ca a

o o

U. C_> OO'-iCrtrotC^roc^to^ri—fVQO UiU,U.U-U_u,U.t-UU.U.U.U,UOC-COiJ«

NWvO'tt'OOO'fWOOONNNNOOfflrtrtrtt'JH

rH t

v~. t'J r-p f—1 fl—t p—t e—fl #*=$ p*S

F-51
Table 3

Materials List for Full-Size Upholstered Chair Test

Tight Seat —Tight Back Chair Style

Fabric #l--Wool 98%/Nylon 12%

4" Foam Urethane Seat

1/2" Urethane/2" Cotton Sides

2" Foam Urethane Back

Fabric #2—Nylon 100%

4" Cotton Batting Seat

1/2" Foam Urethane/2" Cotton Sides

2" Foam Urethane Back

Fabric #3--Acetate 55%/Rayon 45%

4" Foam Urethane Seat

1/2" Foam Urethane/2" Cotton Sides

2" Foam Urethane Back

Loose Seat —Loose Back Chair StylesFabric #2 —Nylon 100%

4" Fiberfill/Urethane Foam Seat

2" Cotton Sides

4" Foam Urethane Back

Fabric #3 —Acetate 55%/Rayon 45%

4" Foam Urethane Seat

2" Foam Urethane Sides

4" Foam Urethane Back

Fabric #4 —Cotton 100% (Pile)

4" Foam Urethane Seat

2" Foam Urethane Sides

4" Foam Urethane Back

F-52
TABLE 4 RESULTS or FABRIC. CLASSIFICATION TESTS IN

F-53

A.
TABLE 5 mock-up tfvt results ini

• UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE

construct/o/u &

/

-E7»ANdAQ( i-tTy

BACK- FOAM _R° UNX> j\08lN

SIDE- '4** FOAtyCoTTON

CUSHION -FOAM

FABRIC NO _7_ 3 „4_ LjL

LAB N&\ .S.V.l.C 5 VJ \

c

.5 Lw. C S _w. C ,vS_ _w. c ,4,. w c

_./9 N ; M LN N nJjbl. N_ |N, X N_. X X .nJ X ,x_ X X x_. _3.0 . N N : N N__ _N.i.N_

JNJjnL

,N Jl .1 N.. x I x jN X X N J X X

,A'__ Nj’ NJ,N_, N, .feLJJL i X_. .X, X N X i X

±~

3.3..., ;

1

l t J?J._ 6LlnJjnl_. .N_ w .Qv .ALL# I I jr "a/" xnr JL

A/ "I lx"

./vjjli/l al.j9 l_/V . nix X A/ IX

' X llJC jr

- - .zTZ. N * N i N N JS JJN N J.t II N I X JN! X x JLA/

T. 1 X

&J./L.L&L .5 IN... N II .X n Tr rxl hi] X I X _£JL N i jsl 1 N N i_N...l..N . N HI.. XL_ N I X N X r" X X X

_3X__ NLNJ...N.. N__ N j N N I _X N I x~ N~ N X InI jj X

25 J N IN 1 N M N 1 N N i N J. N ,XJ.X_

2,1 X__

N X X X

" x

_*3L__ _N_ j NJ f\l rsl M3N._. N | x I n3 N . “x jr N . 2 *x

N ! N | N rvJ N J N N J_N I... rsl I I N X r I X L x

9 i /V ! N N MJ N . i N I* I" y"x" X jy_

r

X

J X

„3.3 39 NJ N ! 9

N LbU N N

NJX_

N 1 N

9 ; 9

.till rt

/V.. N

I

I

..X._ X

,N_ N

XJ I_

I I J

x_

X

X

±

-Jl5L_ .N.±NjJCL

& Jj } N

1L N.J. N _ ,MJ I

.

I„. N, I X" NL

N.

X X I

rx

-.33? A/ /V l N J/J I J I N_ XJ X I X" X 'i i r"’ -21 N \bJ \N ,v_ 9. | H AA

j JT X X r X X X X -r _3i_. N_.LN.ifS N N J N N. I...I...

.

..x._ N X r i" N„ X X Li^ i"

39 /v • rv j /V N N i N X r X X _X_ LX _N x„ X

uro NJ.N.LN. NJ Nils N i JL. JN. _x. _x. ,X lX . X

w N | N ! N N N \ N nU i X M i X N X X N x X

92 5 LN i 9 N ,9 1 A/

n nr~

A/ IX r A/ x 1 X / X. X X X X

93 JJ aTT at Jy.... i/.. . X X A/ J/ .X X x ; _JV N |J? L/V jr l/'T* X // A/ X At X X x_^L?__ X

yrT N \ £ \ N aTTa/ N Tx L_X . X x 1 A/ X X X X X

_J/£ . _NJ_JNM N... _N„ M I N N i N X N_. N X N N J.4 N "n X

V7 n uLLn._ A/ N 1 X NIX L.x £f X X A/ X y r_ X

</* N ) N \ N M N 0/ i/J x.LX, R_. xL _.X aL r ix X X X'”

'99 N IN l N N N I Xs js Ul. X N x_.J N _XJLi I l3L. X

1 ! 1 i

1c ”*“37" N ;n 1 n N i N i N Jj-I X. X NIX X N X_ JL _N_ I X

N uN i N N Nl j N N ’ i r x -N_

N.

N

x X_ X JL X J JE X

-5*/

(si 1 N i M

Nj.N.r.N...

N Nj.N

JSL

N

N j N

nin

N 1 N

N._LI_

N i I

i

X

X„

lx

X

X

LtN

-XJ,X„

N ( X

JL

X x

HJL

X

153" JN X.j_X. JL. X X X X „x., x_ X j:LX_

s5_£> . 9 N \M. 7/ J..3L ,.X]s_ Af %... _r j/_ _x_ .JEa X JL X

.37 NL N !/T /V ,.N Ln j/ !r

.

X N X X N N X x r

12?” N i N S N N n Ln rsl | H X N N ,'x“ N N I X N X

Hi i 1 J ^ t .

F-54
TABLE 6 MOCK-UP TEST RESULTS IN

PFF-fo-m - UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE

CONSTRUCTION #Zj

BACK- FOAM

S I.D£- COTroN

Cushiom-foam

FLAM MARI LI TV*

Round robin

construction *3

SACK-FOAM

5 / D £ - COTTON

CUSHION- FF/FOfrtA

RUBRIC NO / _a_ / .A.

LAB N0.\ 5 1 Wl .SlLwJ c_ ,S Lw_ c_ JS. _| ..w. _c_ _xS w Lc .iMLw c

IP N ! N i Avf /V I.N .N . .i7 _a7_ .n_. JL ./y„ jN_i X_ N Ai aJ ZO N i_N ! _N . M N .N... N N.. _N N.j N.

.N. .N_ N X, N N1 xA JU NllN_ N .N_ JM JN_ p>

_T_

N__ N..| |N..|

.... 1 w - N i I? AJ N ii

__4 ! 1

1 2.3 A' - 7/ 1 A/ N A/ A/.„ TV. A/ at A/ A/ IA/' A7 A/

” a/ :m.

if. 1MJ A/ N VN N .y V Nj A/ A/ 77 7 Tr, A/ A/ X,

JM! JN J N fs! N N _ N AJ j N pi N N N N Xj H ' N X)L

/v i/y hr N /v ./V . A/. AM AM b N A/ 7M JnZ r

A‘ 77

" Z7 N ! N J N .rM N |JN JN„ rvj N n N_. Nj

N ns In" x. 5 N x7

_JL£-_

N.JJNJ N JM N N ry N N N. .77“ rss A* PM N’ aM Tt N ! 7>U

_.NJ

N

Jsj . N

JN..

isl N

N

!.y._ N

JN_ N

Jj..

JJ

N

N

JN_

N

N

fN

lLM] N

N... N /M

fv* .I 5 . LTi.

i L

.fNllNM

Ki : m r. 3/ _N ! N INl N N N LN ..N N ry N r7 N rs/ N AJ x/

3Z> A/ ! A7 N N N N N A/ . A/ /y L.y /V A/ Af 7M Xu

„s33 a/ ! /M N N r a/ M A/ ..|7 7M A/ A7 A/ a; X, A/ A/ X, 3^ N i N N nL N N 1N_ N N N N N n ln..

N

.AM

A! N NJI _*3.M .N.JJM JM N..LN N N N _«N N 1 N N N N SM Xi..

N N N N N_ N N J N N N N N N N Ij. Ai X,

N _/y _N JM N /v

H A/ A/ A/ A/J A/ J7 aL /V A/ xs _^iL- N N N JN N N N N JNI _N N n fsl -N.-

,i7

Xj N Ni Xj

_>39 AM A/ iv JVL 77 .(7

.

N /y j7„. jy

.

A/ ,/yH . 77 . NAN.. A/

_JJO N N N N N N N rJ _N <7 N N NS «NJ rsJ N

v/ N JM .JN. N N fM N N N N N. N N j fN x.j . N Ai Xs & N Af N w ..amlN aT 77

' .M A/ N A/ A/ N Xx. V3 N f7 r7M jhL MJ N A/ jy N A/ N A/ aT A/ N X*. _jjj{ /7 .. .7/ N . N... N A/ i . .A/. A/ _ N A/ A/ Xi N J7 XL

%s

.

jN N /v A

/

A/ N. A/ A/ .A/.. AV N A/ _M_ A/. ...A/ // A/

h» N N JM N N N N N ssj N N ,N8 N /si N N X.u

•77 ./7 N I N jm ls N n j /y N ..N. N 77 JM A/ ^ aT // A/

y . N JV. y. J/ N A/ AM N A?_ jT JL. AP_X,. JN J_AL

vv N n" N N jM N JN lN_LN _ -N.~ N N. N N MM. rA pO : r ! I _

,5V isl 1 N !_R N" jN. H. NJ.NJ H N ML N N N r^i- N N X.s. S2> N N n' N N N N n h N N N N Ley... N_ N N /N jy_

“ST" N

~ N N N N N H N 1 H CM N r4 N _N_ N._ N r7 N N « H N N N f4 ! N N N N N N N r4 N N N

IN IN M rsi N N N N N N N X j N X5.

_slM_ 77'

£

LfcL ~N~ >7 a7~ J7.. A/JJ7 :c jy MJJL. A/ X.M

J7 N 1 A/ N N A/ a/. A/. ..b' 7V._ .77 TV. jMLTM A/ x/_ ~37~ N N ! N N Hi sN H H N H N M H N rsf Nl N N

l_l_ ....jL i L, i _

F-55
7 HOCK-UF TEST RESULTS in

PPF-&-79- UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE

FLAMMABILITY

CPMmMCr/ON *JL ROUND ROfi/N

SACK- FOAM

£ !X>E » Vi" FOAH/corroM

C USHiO^< - TNJWT £©FT©H

FABRIC HQ* _7_

_

a JL 7 6

LAE N0\ 5 !w ! C .s LvJ c_. s $ I w ' c s 6 lu/ jc

Z/jTL N L UV_ _NJ J.N__ lx. ! lx ! X Jl

_^o . N IxTn .. N i N 1 H N X | X J i X i J M l.x [x N J ix'"

N ! N > N N X. SJEL.

_ j 3

* N_jr ix N j !x

.

i l ! 1 —j

• ~7)~J T

Z 3 7/ 1 x i / V 1 X | A/ N r;Li A/ 1 X fl" x x ; x 1 x i 2 V

j

n Jjy lv /V IV IN N X i X f X ± X X x^x"

z s

. 2 6

N II IN

N '« /V i A/

N ! I : N

V ~N i V

N_

N

N i X

V 1 x

N_i X [ X

i x i x

-Xl

// ulJX.

X j X X]

A

7 I "Lx"

X j'x

_ Nil IN N.J.I J.N N .IJjf N i X f X Lx" X ! x N x \x

_5.SL N ! f>l I N HIM 1 N N_ N i X n in |r N N 1 X N 1 LI 29 n : n In N : N 1 N N N 1 X N i N i X X j i r I X IX

N.J LN__ _NL_i IN N -Jl_. N .L. j.x_ X t.X N" 1 X

3 1 N i X i N N 1 X ! M x~; x j x I 1 1 I X I u-1 ! 1 I x ; i 3Z V ; i ! V

7L oo

_N 'J#_j A/_

V , r ! v

V

X

*i.r„

/v i jr

_aM xj x

N i'l! X

X

X

.X_[.I

x I x

X

X~1

X iX

X 'I 39 N ! N ! N N_ IN] N -N i ) i N ( 1 IX N i ~nr N X ' x

r 35 N i i N n I »n N .~N._Lls_

x * r • x

N 1

1

N Tx~ 3 £> W i V | bf jV J N ! A/ N .. jQjlX ! X

X L x~j X X X IX

3 7 n M\n V 1 V IV X A/ |I !X X X | x X X IX

„3_&. N i IN N ,?l. LN J 1 X IT I!' i j x r 1 X

39... N i XT j /V N \ N 1 N A/_ xj X . A/ ! X j X > I 1 X n ; i ir ' Ho N * x : n N J.X L.JU T X : X N i N ' X x jr u. ij X [I...

97 N I.N ,NJ_ .. LN . J x__. N_.l_. ,U_ j , J x X Ix

HZ n i r i a/ V i X j A/] ?

> J l - N j X ! r ! 1

i H3 N : N i N N 1 N 1 A/ N x ' x V 1 V 1 X X X ! X X j X I X

j/iT. /v ! hJ i V N l'hf , N X X I X x : x lx X X J. XJ XJ x.\ r._

HS n j r | V A/ ! x ! A/ A/ N i / A/ j. I .LX . X r | x X X i X

Hlo

HI

H { N ! N

X i A/ ! x

N J N IN £j&Jd . N

X"

1 3JL. X ) X

N i X i X

N X j X

X

X X ; X

N_

i

_x . X

X 1 X

_J/8 A/ * X ! N V ! N V I ft? L%~ X ! X j X r i i x r x i r

H<± N 1 N J N N IN IN X i r i N 1 X ! X x .JLLS_ .X_.

~Z$° !

i i r J 1 * .... j !

i Si .NJ..n._Ln...

N ! N !

N

n ! N In

N X i.X N ! x I X„ X X : X N

jr. ^ sz N N 1 X N_.j.N_.LX„. NL .N..J N fi x

T53“' n j x In. N LX.J..N N X ' I _N [ xJ x N_. X i X N_ hX._'.X_. ”jr “33F" M 'N IN

.N_JtJ.IL

I !i !n

N ‘ N -i N

N_LNJ.N.I

V IX I V

X

I

N X

i Li

x ; XJ X

X. Lx jf jL

X ! X [ X

XJ.XJX..

XI III

X

x"

X -X

X 'X

Jf£~ X X i X X X ! X r.. 57 N i N ; V n i v r v N 5lS- xj x j x X X ! X X x \‘£

~T5S~ N fjS uN N ) N i N N N [_N i N N IfiLLX. .CL 1XJO-..

t i L__i J ::j ' l i ..

F-56
TABLE 9 MOCK' UP TEST RESULTS IM

PFF-&- IIP NQLST£R£P FURNITURE

CONSTRUCTION

SACK- FOAiNV

S i»e* '/g Fo^/con&s*

.£L/\MM/\6jLc jTY

round noa i hi

ctlSMJOH-TICMT
TABLE 9 MOCK-UP TEST RESULTS IN

P£hAz2!±

CONSTRUCTION * (o SACK- FOANV s ll>£- foam

Cushion- foam

UP/I OLSTETRED FURNITURE

PLAMMA8/UTY

ROUND RORlN

F-58
TABLE 10 ARM t TOP OF BACK T£&T RESULTS >M

PFF-i>~7Ll- UPHOLSTERED PURMlTURE.

RAMMABILITV ^

Construct/on & 7

2" 77J/CK. COTTON

:ab No/ / 8 . 7 3 6 5*

79. _JM j N i X X J X X

.J?<? ! N N N N J 1 X "x " _A/_j M* _ N | I N X 1 X X

1 _jy . rv L x . X _x X £ X

A/ N X X X X X x:

" N hi 4 . X X X X X

_/Z(o N N X X X X X X_

N N N X X X X X

_:Z8 N N x N £ r X X"

Z9 N N X X X X X X

30

h ^ N X X I X X X

31 1 N N X .. X X X X

' £"'

Nl N X X X X I

_y?3 1 -4_- N . X I X I X 1 X N N x X X X X r

N Jvl J N N X X X L 2

_s3 6.._ ...X bL x ... r . X X' X

’ _>3 r ... W N x J= X xr X xr N N X X X X X X

s3? N N X

r

. I X X ~~x X

VO N N I X X X

* xz: X _J/Z _ N X X X X X X X

jf~ 1„x „ X X X X """'.if

43 _ N N X X X X X X

_/y _ _JVL _ r X X X X X

_^5-_ M A/ X X X X X X

N M X X X X X X

V7 N a/ 1 .... - N $ —W ' x 1 X X X r

99.. N N J

"

" ' " X X X X X J

l. _ ! __ _ . .. IN N X _ X . X . X X X

N i N X N 1 X 1 X

X . IS. X X X

' X X X

's5“Vl _N jsl X . X X X X 2_

Cx«r N N X X 2 X X X

A7 a/ X X X X r IT

r^7"“ N N X X ~

X X X X

_4j?..JL N 1 N. N N 2 _ _ 1 . 2 _ X

F-59
TABLE 11 ARM # TOP OF BACKTEST RESULTS IN

PFF-6-7W- UPHOLSTERED furn ITHRE

PLA MMABILITY

- ROUND ROBIN

CONSTRUCT/OR # H

i/z" foam/cotton

PAmc N&

LAQHfc i .8 z . 7 1 3 J

Co R S

_V<iL_ CM . J N N N_ J N N N z

jeo R_._ J N ... N . n i N N N _jsl

jut N N N N 1 .. JN_. . N N X

zz

»

1 1 JZ*3 JJ N l N - H \ R N N. PC

Z^T R aT _.j R R 1 R R zc

zs

Z(p

N _JS .

I N.. ... N I N N _JS __N . M N ! _N tA 1 N 1

. NL N N r

£ 1 N N N N N _N X

~ ZB N N . _N N J N N . ._N X

Z9 N N N_ _ N_ . N ..N .. _.nZj N

30 N M J .__N N. _. N N N X

31 N _ N N . L...N ... ...Nl.. . N _N _ X

JZ N IN _N l N N N INI i

>33 _N___ N 1 N ! N N N N £_

.3 N N 1 N 1 N Nl . "jnl rN _ x_

. N . N J N .... L rM . N N N N

3G _jV N ... i N 1 R N N R~ X

3 7

38

R ( N I R N N ! R X

N N J N IN ..... _N. . N N X

N N _. N_ ! N _ N 1 N N x_ Vo N N 1 X 1 1 I 1 I I I

J// N N N ! N. N ... 1 N N X

vz> A/ i N N ... t _R. . I

J/3 M N N i N L .N. _ ! N_ . N X

J/V~ R N t N 1 N ! JR.

1 R

I N. N X

vs~ j_jV N ! N ! N

r>r:

1 X X X

VO N JS ! N i. CL i .JiL. N x_

_V7 .. V8

1i 1 i 1

1 A/"" ~hT \ n i jy _ L JZ J M AJ L_ N

V9 I _j\j _JN i i i i 1 X 1 X I X

so 1 L 1 1 1 S/ IN' i N

IN j Nl

N L N.._._ L _N I N L N

SZ ININ ! N 1 N _N J i

S3

sv

' N 1 N

. N N

N ' N

N • N

1 _.N .. N. .

' _ N

.!. R

. N._

-T- — N INS N i N ! N.„ 1 N._ —N)

X

SC,

S'f

N 1 N ; tf i K L. C? ... N ' N PC

N 1 N""T N ”! NT. - L N . .!

1 N X

~sr~ N ; N ! N 1 N .. ] N .L. R -J N X

F-60
Table 12 ARM j TOP Of BACKTEST RESULTS IM

PFF~6~7Ll°e UPHOLSTERETD FURNITURE

FLA MMABILITY

ROIXA/D RQBiM

CONSTRUCT/OAJ & 9

2" FOAM

FABRIC NO.

LAB / _8 2 7 v3 6 5" -JS N N j _ W N . N N rT“ I

zo N N _JN - N ... .fci N_ N I

Z! JbJ __M_| N N N N X.

1

! _£3 N A/ N N N N N X

N A/

| N N/ __JZ N N XI

zs N N N N N N M X

_A6 N N N bJ N N X

JZT \ M _]n} N h!_ .. N N N X

_jea N . N . N .... M_ . tvL__. ..... N .. X

Z9__ N _ N _N . bi _bL N N I

30 fN fcJ __N „ .N. . ... N N N I

3 / 1NJ _ N N N N X

JJU__{M fcJ

_. _

. N N N N X

43 \ _N .....l\l — N ,_N N N_ N 34- fcl J_N_ . .M ! N. ___ . N JN1_ N X

.3S N _K N ... . JS . . __XL. __N _N N

XL6_ R 6? 4_ N A/' N X 37 ._aCZ., N _AL. . ... __A/ /v N N nr _3.8_. K_ N N .. _n _ N N Js| 1 39 N fcl . w _. __N . N N >| X

Jtp N N N _ N .. N N N X

JfJ _ N 1 .__jbL N h3

X iz .

i. N N A/ N N nxrr~

73 —fV

. N fT N N N N x .._ 4"T . N N H I N . N N x . is N N N X X X

HJo N N i N N ... M N N .. cy _ J/7 N i AT R 1 A/ N N X . 73 N N K * a/ 1 /y . N ~w~ ._ X

79 N N N _..__N. JbL N ._jC±_ X

.so

.s/ N N rsl . _N_ _ ... M . N N N

sz N N N 1 N I N N N X

S3

Si

N

! N

N..... N

j N 1 N

! N N

!.. . N ....

j. M

N

N

N

_N

.. X.

X

sir”1 N N .

i . . N i . !.. _bl .1 AJ | fyj X

SG_j £! A/ ! N 1 _/V; ....

j LJy_LJzr _ S7\ N N 1 N i is! ...

|V. .

1 IN .1 N_... Sg~i_]5L_ N N 1 N I±__ M N L_I

F-61
TABLE 13 ARM $ TOP Of BACKTEST RESULTS IK

/

PFF-6-7M- UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE

FLAMMABILITY

ROUND KOBlN

Construct/oaj -# /o

/" ff/z" Cotton

FABRIC10^. _ ... .. LAB No\l ___/, __ 8„ 2 7 3 1 (

o

4 5*

.75 N. .._.[ _N |

. JN LL .. Kl J N rsJ I l

ZO fN i N .. KL IN N | IN. . N 1 X

_2/_4 N N ) N N_ ...JN ! JNL rN N

t 23 ! N N N ffi. . a/ ._^T JN 1 K . Z*L ( F N . jy. „ /y . . a/ N.. A/

N N _jn ^. N. ... N ,N . Kl Kl....

26 I N KJ N IN Ki IN N,._„

2 7 1 K KJ JK. . N KL . Kl Kl. 31

" £8 1 N KJ . Kl.,. _ k n_. IN- . Kl ! Kl __x._

£9 ) N NO _n N . N __.n. _ KJ _ N_ ... "JO 1 Kl Kl Kl . _... N .. N _ JNL J LN _N.....

. 3_/_J IN. N . N. N N Ki. . . JN . IN...

32/ hi . K! .KJ. J. N.. ._ . N. __.N_ J JNl- N.

3.3 JN ._ .. IN . KL .. N . hi.. ... N N N

IN _ Kl ... KL. J Kl Ki _ KJ Kl N 35^ N... __ . N N N._ _ _N. j Kl N

%3 (o N ! N (J . M hi. A/ -£~ 37 . _£/ . _ N, .... aL . A/ ...... N N aL

.3.8 __JN . N N ! N N N N I

.j&l . JM i N . . N. . N N __N £} V

VO N N .... N N N „ N i

V/ N _KL N _ .N . - JN.. . _f± N N

N A/ a/ A/_ N N _ N . _ _X._ ... V3 N N N _ N._ N. . N ___N N __ VV N 1 jJ 1 M N . hf N . N .. V3r~ \ _N rjj l; r _ N ... N : atz___A/ A/

76 N 1 N N K _ N IN . JN —N —

77 N N N . M. _. _/< i_x . V8

“» \—ff _N~ N NJ N h/ l.__7VL_ _ V? N. 1 __N fN Kl JN_ ’ M I

v5"0 1

1 s/ N ! N 1 fT" Ki L_Kl- .. KJ N Ln_..

SZ> fsl 1 N ! ... N L_ LL. N__ • N___. KJ___ 1 JN_...

S3'. - N

i

• Kl

I N

_N

1 N .._

j N

N . ... N

1 N .

!. ..N

; in

1 .N

j N

I

1 _N

in | N i .__. N. _

j _ -N_ N„.1—N __1—7- - F(o 1 N

'

l N | N l . N L N, . N JN IX

57

58

> — - / •’ - —

i N 1 N N N. 1 N .. -N i N._ i N

J _N N. t N L _.N__ 1 K__iZ_N 1 N L_5

F-62
DECKING TEST RESULT'S IN

PFF-G-7V-UPHCLSTZRZV FURHITURL

FLAMMABILITY . ROUND ROBIN . CONSTRUCTION

LA8. NlO. cohoh

B0hlX>£2>

CFLLULOSt

.... 19.. X ... N . __3£_ X N

Z 1 I N

zz

Z3 X N

£ V X N

ZS’ I n

Z (? X . M

Z 1 X N

Z 8 X . N . . Z 9 X N .. 30 X N

31 X N

3Z X . N

.

33 I N

3H X N — 3S -_ I N

3t> X N

31 X N

X N

39 1 N

VO T N

V/ . N - N

V^

V3 X ... N. _ W 3T N

V.T X N

V6 X N

V 7 X N

V8 X .N

V9 X

" JSJ ^TO

SI X N

SZy X N..

S3 X . N\. .. S^T~ X N

ss r~ __JS X N

3*7 X JtN

__5J_ X IS
List of Figures

Note: See Figures 1-7 in the "Proposed Standard for the Flammability

of Upholstered Furniture" (Appendix C)

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Mock-up frame, upholstered furniture test

Mock-up panels, upholstered furniture test

Mock-up upholstered furniture test

Cover fabric, glass fiber board test

Cover fabric, cotton batting test

Cover fabric, classification test

Sample holder, cover fabric test

Cigarette location on test chairs
Figure 8. Cigarette Location on Test Chairs

F-65
ADDENDUM

Interlaboratory Program for the Evaluation of a

Proposed Flammability (Cigarette Ignition Resistance)

Test for Upholstered Furniture

Joseph J. Loftus

May 1976

The interlaboratory test report calls for testing upholstery fabrics

in the machine direction for the Fabric Classification Test Method and

the elimination of air gaps between the vertical test panels and the horizontal platform support for the horizontal test panels.

In the study, 10 of the laboratory participants used the machine fabric direction, and eight of these laboratories used no air gap.

The following table lists the sample fabric and the number of laboratories assigning each fabric to a particular fabric classification:

F-66
2

Class A -

k

Class B -

Class C -

Class D

Fabric Laboratories

# 1 10

# 9 10

# 8 9(A), 1(B)

# 7 10

#10 10

#15 10

# 2 10

#11 9(B), 1(C)

#14 9(B), 1(A)

# 6 6(B), 4(C)

#13 10

# 3 9(C), 1(D)

# 4 9(C), 1(D)

#12 9(C), 1(B)

#16 8(C), 2(D)

#5 10

F-67
3

A summary of data supplied by the laboratory participants showed the

following:

Fabric #8 , 1 Lab(B) - Reported a single cotton batt ignition.

Fabric #11 , 1 Lab(C) - Vertical char, three samples —1.5, 1.6, 1.6 in.

Fabric #14 , 1 Lab(A) - Did not ignite cotton batt in four tests.

Fabric #6 , 4 Labs(C) - This fabric is lightweight open weave cotton.

Two laboratories(C) used an air gap. One laboratory reported a single 2.5 in. char, and one laboratory reported that all four tests produced crevice chars >2 in.

Fabric #3 , 1 Lab(D) - This laboratory used an air gap, and one sample

charred 3.2 in.

Fabric #4 , 1 Lab(D) - This laboratory reported a single char measurement of 4.8 in.

Fabric #12 , 1 Lab(B) - This laboratory did not char 1.5 in., in four

tests

.

Fabric #16 , 2 Labs(D) - One laboratory reported a single measurement

of 4.0 in., and one laboratory reported two

measurements of vertical char >3.0 in.

Comments

1. The proposed flammability standard, as written, would allow three

of the sample fabrics, #8, 4, and 16, a retest to determine fabric class.

Each of these fabrics received a lower class assignment based on a single

char measurement by a single laboratory.

F-68
4

2. Results for fabrics #3 and 6, where the test was conducted with

an "air gap", would not be accepted under the proposed standard.

3. Results from one laboratory on fabric #11 show a measurement

judgment that chars are 0, 0.1, and 0.1 above the allowed limit of 1.5 in.

for a "C" fabric.

4. Results for single laboratory tests on fabrics #14 and 12 would

indicate that good fabric/filling contact was not achieved by the testing

laboratory. All nine remaining laboratories experienced little difficulty

in igniting cotton batt or measuring crevice chars >1.5 in.

F-69
,
APPENDIX G

Evaluation of Standard Class B and C Fabrics

for the Proposed Standard for the Flammability

(Cigarette Ignition Resistance) of Upholstered Furniture

Joseph J. Loftus

October 1976

Introduction

The Fabric Classification Test in the recommended Proposed

Standard for the Flammability (Cigarette Ignition Resistance)

of Upholstered Furniture, PFF 6-76, groups fabrics with similar

performance when exposed to burning cigarettes. However, the

fabrics within a class still exhibit a range of performance

from the lower to the upper classification criteria, as is true

with any classification scheme. Continuing evaluation of the

Fabric Classification Test indicates a potential problem with

Classes B and C if the manufacturer is free to choose any fabric within those classes to qualify his furniture mock-up; i.e.,

choose a fabric whose performance is near the upper classification criterion for the mock-up test . This could result in the

production of furniture, a high percentage of which would ignite

when exposed to burning cigarettes if tested.

G-l
Because of this problem, the National Bureau of Standards

(NBS) set out to locate and evaluate "Standard" Class B and C

fabrics for use in the mock-up qualification test in the proposed standard. This report describes the two fabrics selected

as Standards and their evaluation.

Test Materials

The upholstery fabrics and number identifications used in

this table are the same fabrics as were used in a recently completed 55-lab inter labor atory evaluation study to determine the

feasibility of the proposed flammability standard for upholstered furniture.

Class B Fabrics

oz/yd 2

# 2 12.5 100% Nylon

# 7 9.7 100% Nylon

#10 23.0 67% Rayon, 22% Nylon, 11% Polyester

#11 14.9 100% Olefin

#14 17.0 100% Nylon

#15 15.0 100% Nylon

"B" 5.7 Cotton/ Polyester Sheeting

Material

Standard

G-2
Class C Fabrics

ft 3

o z/yd 2

15.7 55% Acetate, 45% Rayon

tt 4 13.9 100% Cotton

# 6 5.7 100% Cotton

tt :12 14.1 100% Rayon

#13 13.6 100% Rayon

#16 13.1 100% Rayon

"C" 9.0 1 0 0 % Cotton Ticking Cloth Standard

Material, Federal Specification CCCC-436D, Type I, Class I Untreated

Test Method

The fabric classification test method in the proposed upholstered furniture flammability standard was used for conducting

the tests. Briefly, the method requires the burning of a test

cigarette (covered by a piece of bed-sheeting material) in the

crevice of abutting horizontal and vertical test panels (test

fabric covers on glass fiber board substrate), see Figure 1.

For the purposes of this study, three thermocouples

(Chromel and Alumel, 28-gauge) were located in the crevice

of the test panels, one couple 0.2 inch from the lit end, a second central (1.6 inch) to the test cigarette, and the third

G-3
0.2 inch from the butt end. A multipoint recorder was used

to record the output of the thermocouples when the test fabrics heated or smoldered on exposure to the burning of a cigarette. Peak temperature rises for each test location were

used to compare the smoldering performance of the various test

fabrics with the selected standard fabric materials.

Test Results

A total of 10 cigarette tests were made on each of the

test fabric materials. Fourteen fabrics were tested--six

Class B, six Class C, Standard Fabric B, and Standard Fabric

C. Tables 1 and 2 show average peak temperature values for

10 tests at the tip, middle, and butt end locations of the

test cigarette. Also included in the Tables is a comparison

of the average values for all Class B and Class C fabrics

with the corresponding standard class fabrics. Standard devi

ations are also listed for each test location.

Data listed for Class B test fabrics in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 2 shows that fabric #10 (the heaviest material

tested, 23.0 oz/yd 2

) produced the lowest temperatures for the

tip and middle cigarette locations (77-189° C, respectively)

whereas fabric #14 produced the lowest butt end temperature

(110° C).

G-4
By comparison, the Standard Class B fabric material showed

higher values for the tip and middle locations and a butt end

temperature average of only 6° C less than the average for the

six Class B fabrics. Five of the Class B fabrics were 100%

synthetic fiber materials and one (#10) was a blend of cellulosic and synthetic fibers.

Table 2 lists the temperature values obtained for tests on

six Class C fabric materials and the Standard Class C fabric.

Figure 3 illustrates the closeness of these values, especially

for the middle and butt end temperature measurements where the

spread is only 25 and 5° C. Although slightly lower in every

case, the Standard "C" fabric temperature averages were shown

to be within the standard deviations for the six other Class

C fabric materials. All of the Class C fabrics tested were

celluiosic fiber materials.

Conclusions

Class B Fabrics

The results of these tests give a clear indication of

what might occur if, for example, a good (low temperature)

fabric (#10) were used to qualify all Class B fabrics for

G-5
use on finished furniture pieces. As shown in Figure 2, all

of the other Class B fabrics produced higher temperatures than

#10 on the tip and middle cigarette locations and thus would

be expected to ignite furniture assemblies that would not be

ignited by fabric #10. By comparison, the sheeting material

selected as Standard for Class B mock-up testing produced the

highest temperatures on the tip and middle and greater values

than four of the six fabrics on the butt end.

These test results thus indicate that the standard fabric

for Class B (sheeting material) would be more suitable for

mock-up furniture assembly qualification than other Class B

materials simply because it provides for the "worst case" conditions; i.e., if a mock-up assembly passes the cigarette test

under the "worst case" fabric, then most other fabrics in the

Class B category on that same assembly would "pass" the test

if tested.

Class C Fabrics

All Class C fabrics smolder in the crevice area in the

Fabric Classification Test and thus would not be expected to

produce a wide divergence in temperature measurements. This

expectation was proven in tests of six Class C fabrics and

the Standard C fabric material. Figure 3 illustrates test

G-6
results which show the Standard Class C fabric producing a median temperature in tip measurements, and low middle on butt

temperatures. However, the spread from the highest to lowest

temperatures recorded for all fabrics including the proposed

Standard fabric was only 46 and 26° C for the middle and butt

end temperature measurements. Such a spread of data is not

very significant, for this type of variance was noted for

tests on single fabric samples.

Although not recorded by the thermocouples in these tests

(because of their fixed location in the crevice) , but of great

significance to temperature rise was the fact that the Standard

C fabric produced highly visible glowing conditions on fabric

portions away from the couple location even after smoldering

in the crevice location had ceased. If the Standard fabric

selection was based simply on temperature measurements alone,

it would appear that one Class C fabric would be equal to any

other for qualification testing on furniture mock-ups; however,

because the Standard C material provided for an additional hazardous dimension (i.e., more intense glowing than other test

fabrics) it was chosen to represent all Class C fabrics for

qualification tests because it would indeed represent the worst

case condition for Class C materials.

G-7

l

1
Summary

Two fabrics have been selected as Standard Class B and

Class C materials

:

(a) Standard Class B fabric is a cotton or cotton/

polyester bed-sheeting material (3.7 oz/yd 2

) and is the same

material as used to cover test cigarettes in the proposed

standard test methods.

(b) Standard Class C fabric is a cotton ticking cloth

material (9 oz/yd 2

, Type I, Class I untreated) covered by

Federal Specification CCC-C-436D.

It is recommended that the recommended Proposed Standard

for the Flammability (Cigarette Ignition Resistance) of

Upholstered Furniture, PFF 6-76, be modified to require that

Standard Class B and Class C fabrics be used for all qualification tests of upholstered furniture mock-up assemblies when

the assemblies or constructions are intended for use with Class

B or Class C upholstery fabric covers. Under the proposed standard, passing results with the Standard fabrics would qualify

the constructions covered with fabrics from that class for the

production of full-size upholstered furniture pieces.

0-8
Table 1

Class "B K Upholstery Fabrics

Peak Temperature* Rise °C

Fabric #14 #15 #2 #7 #10 #11 Std. "B" Ave. 6 Fabrics

Tip 135 113 119 139 77 102 148 114

Middle 204 213 243 251 189 230 282 222

Butt 110 138 218 122 147 210 153 158

Std . °C

Dev. a

Tip 21 25 30 45 20 23 25 27

Middle 26 21 31 46 40 38 43 34

Butt 28 33 36 50 27 49 42 37

*Average for 10 Tests

G-9
Table 2

Class "C" Upholstery Fabrics

Peak Temperature* Rise °C

Fabric #4 #6 #3 #16 #12 #13 Std. "C" Ave. 6 Fabrics

Tip 522 318 534 235 261 484 373 392

Middle 581 T 57 572 556 543 550 535 560

Butt 594 586 568 581 582 583 577 582

Std . °C

Dev. a

•

Tip 21 85 27 107 143 37 90 70

Middle 23 36 20 13 50 26 36 28

Butt 15 20 23 21 16 16 44 19

*Average for 10 Tests

G-10
GLASS FIBERBOARD 8"X8'

CD

\ I /'

\i\

\)

!

Ml i

FABRIC 8"XI2'

FABRIC 8 "X 8

"

GLASS FIBER

BOARD 5" X

8"

/

\

\ i

3 ADJUSTMENT'

PIN

nucucTrucru —

i

i —if—

i!

|

’ “ - - .

~7

’ ~ ~F . - / j : . * - y

: *. * " s~ s-"' S' s- '

. i i

{

. '. i -V _-T rrT-ir-trr-'^- I-- ' - - • ' I' •• . ; .

*. - •• -l-'IIutpui:

c'L .< • r_ ! ( - ' -

• v ’ N

’

1 I

rO

-L 1- tR

To[^r rO

»sj- k- oi8

4

-tsFigure 1. Upholstery Fabric Test

Fabric/Glass Fiberboard Sample

G-ll
Jao

1

coo

•H

cO

pc-l

CQ

0» JO

TOc

cO

to

-H

c_)

o-c

x.0•—

1

a

of. w

F

Jo 'JdflIWJ,lW3L MV: Id

S-i -Q

CO Cd

co

co

co

i—

u

DO

TO

cO TOC

cO

4J

CO

o

!-i Pu

a;

>-i 3

4-1 CO

)-l <Ucxe

<y H

Cl)

V-i 3M

•H

G-12
G- 1

3

Thermocouple

Location

in

Cigarette

APPENDIX H

June 18, 1971

405.00

Results of Temperature Measurements Made on Burning Cigarettes and

Their Use as a Standard Ignition Source for Mattress Testing

L. James Sharman, Chief

Test Development Unit

Office of Flammable Fabrics

Abstract

Peak temperature rise measurements have been made on 32 different

brands of cigarettes. Results show that the non-filter tip cigarettes

burn "hotter" at the butt end then do the filter tips. The Pall Mall

cigarette (selected as standard for the mattress test) was shown to

produce a peak temperature at the butt end of 717°C or 58°C higher

than the average for 26 filter tip brands of 659°C. The average for

all king size non-filters tested exceeds the filter brands by 22°C.

(681°C to 659°C) . Measurements made at 1 or 2 inch distances from

the butt ends showed no significant temperature differences between

the two types of cigarettes.

Introduction

An evaluation study of cigarettes and the temperatures they develop

on burning was recently completed by the Test Development Unit. The

purpose of the study was to gain some background information on the

cigarette to determine if such an item could be used as a reliable

ignition source for ignition studies. The proposed Method of Test

for Measuring the Ignition Resistance of Mattresses calls for the use of a lighted cigarette as the source of ignition in the test,

i.e., it was deemed feasible to conduct such an investigation.

For this study, 32 different brands of cigarettes were purchased at

local retail outlets and included among them were 16 brands previously

reported to represent 81.3% of sales (Tobacco Reporter 1968). All

types of cigarettes were selected including regular and king size,

extra long (100 mm), slims, cellulose filter tip, cellulose plus charcoal filter tip and mentholated. Test results indicate that temperature measurement may be a useful and desirable means for evaluating

cigarettes under normal burning conditions. This report gives a description of the test method and an analysis of the results obtained.

H-l
Apparatus and Test Method

A 3 x 3 x 1/2 inch thick asbestos board (See Figure 1) was used to support three chromel and alumel 24 gauge (.020 inch) thermocouples. In

a typical test the couples pierce the cigarette cylinder wall to one radius depth at three locations, 1/8 inch from the butt end, and at

1 and 2 inch distances from the butt thermocouple. Butt end here means measured from the point where the tobacco ends and not from the filter

tip end. The cigarettes were tested in a horizontal position, were

ignited (with the aid of a vacuum bulb) and allowed to burn their full

length to extinguishment. Temperatures developed by the cigarettes on burning were recorded on a twelve point potentiometer recorder.

Results and Discussion

Table 1 lists the various brands of cigarettes tested and the measurements obtained. Table 2 presents a summary of test results and includes

the standard deviation for the butt end temperature of the burning cigarette.

The regular size (7.0 cm) non-filter tip cigarettes showed the highest

packing density (0.284 g/cm^), highest calculated heat value and the

highest butt temperature values. Heat calculations show 1006 cal/cm^

for the Pall Mall (standard for the mattress ignition resistance test)

and 1004 cal/cm^ for the average of 26 filter tip cigarettes.

As expected, the butt temperature of the non-filter tip cigarettes was

in most cases higher than that recorded for the filter brands. This

type of cigarette burns "hotter" because the butt ends have a freer access

to oxygen to complete combustion, then do the filter tip cigarette

brands where the filter hinders or retards the combustion process and

thus produces lower temperatures in the butt end.

Conclusion

A total of 32 cigarette brands (26 filter and 6 non-filter) on burning

produced butt temperatures ranging from 601° to 722°C. Records show

that the butt end was the "hottest" part of the cigarette. Because

these temperatures far exceed the ignition temperature of most mattress

fillings. Cotton Batting, 425°C; Foam Rubber, 420°C; and Urethane Foam,

435°C; it would appear that the type or brand of cigarette used as an ignition source in evaluating the ignition resistance of mattresses does

not appear critical. However, in an effort to provide the most severe

type of ignition source for the test, the use of a non-filter king size

H-2
(sic)

.(sic)

cigarette (Pall Mall - 717°C) appears to be allogical choice for

the ignition source. The Pall Mall cigarette produced the hottest

temperature at the butt end, from among all the king size and non- filters tested, and therefore, was selected to be used as the standare ignition source in the mattress test.

Joseph J. Loftus

Chemist

Office of Flammable Fabrics

Attachments

JJL :gh
<DD

i.

H-4

Figure

1.

Temperature

Measurements

Made

on

Burning

Cigarettes

Test

Apparatus
4J3 Oo

CJ

to TOOH

O

W

•J3

E*w>

PS

E3towHHM

03<OMO

TOMJ

•H

01

a * + - 11 & * 1 NO n CN | rH CN) in rH Nf

O Nf 00 00 rH CN CN CN rH pH o 0) CJ 5—

CN) 00 ON rH CN

m in rH ON 00 IN CN NO in vO 00 r>. rH TO NO

H ° NO NO NO t-^ 11

VO VO VO NO NO vO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO i^- vO vO

co 11

•k

@ 1 A-' O nO o CO NO rH in NO IN 00 00

O in COn ON ON CN CN rH vO CN in

O ON r". ON NO 1 CO 00 o rH Hf ON NO 00 ON |N ON 00 vr TO

O

O 00

0) rH

O ON ON ON o c ON ON o o O ON ON ON ON ON O' ON o o ON pH

O On

SC 03 rH rH rH 1 rH rH rH rH rH pH pH U 1

H- 1 4— 4— 1 in

4-1 • 00 00 i n in CO <r CN 00 rH On co in rH in o NO rH in cn <r CN

•h

a VO NO in i 00 00 | in NO NO in r-. NO in NO vO NO NO NO 00 NO as NO vO

CO CJ CN CNI CN CN CN eN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN C ">. e 1 O) 6C P) o O o o O o 11 o O O O O o o O o o O o O O o o o o o 11 o rH co 00 CN CN r-. 1 vO ON in rH On rH CN ON NT o n NO CN in CO CN CN o co rH ON CN rH O co 00 00 CO CO pH in IN On in NO NO rH CO TO NO NO •a

03 bC

O o OnO ON ON 1 in GO in IN I-'. in

N 6" 6" in r» r- 00 TO C". 00 P- r*- o rH H o rH o o | o O O o O o O o o O o O o O o o o o H 1

<y 1 •M +- 1 H Hf NO NT o 00 1 1". 00 ON in NO ON in On o CO CN CO On TO 00 in CO NO

0) On NO

m 00 in 1 1 VO vO NO CN o 00 o CN in vO On On to ON 00 ©N vO

>4 6£ o o o o as ON ON rH

O CN o pH rH o o ON as ©NOO On o ON On

G | 60 rH rH rH rH © o O rH rH rH rH pH vH pH rH o o o vH «H

O rHO

O

•H | a 1

TO 11 4J *3* <3* 'd- o o o o NT NT CN NT <r NT O' Nfi <r NT <3- <3* o M a 1 G O 00 00 00 00 r-'- in o o 00 00 00 00 03 00 ON 00 03 00 00 TO CO TO TO 00

<y v-' | pH rH 3 11 m | <a at a 60 rd 0) 1 •H TO

rH J»2 rHGum

w | CO EG aj <&

G

03 rH •H

MG 4J °H

G v-H <4-1 T3 4-1 | G <-Q CU r-H TO

G o G G u TO rH CO •H 0 G G •H H TO o 4J u G 2 03 60 o | G G G 60 o mh 60 4-1 H O o

P3 AJ •H o rH >n •H

O •H

G 4-1 •HG CO •H >N CfiB o u JO

«H Cfi <1! 4) J«2 | 60 Cfi rH 43 rH 4-1 (L) > rHGG 4-1 Q) pG pH

rH <33 .-1 "O

a CJ

M

G

G

G

M pHu 3 pH o rH 44 c sH

b

a 2h 02 TO G rH G 3 | •H G G G G 3 G U TO o G CO G a> G G •H G

Ph CJ Pi o CJ TO 11| > PQ PH > CJ S TOH 00 ^3 (2 hJH i*3 CO 25 > S

(S3 111 CM

01

W | M

a

H

H

•H TO ! H M Pi pH I WH a 1 TO o W 3 1 u*

H-5

These

amounts

are

not

legible

in

file

records.
TABLE L

(CONTINUED

4J (X * 0 * 00 CN r'- <r NO rH »—

on

0) cj> in on cn -cr •vj- o on

PQ

H o NO ID ID NO lO VO nO NO

wo<

Pm

on * 0

AJ CJ ON CN CN 00 00 o CN NO 1 *

03 CO On o r» rH o CN NO 1 0=) rH o S3 o ON o o o ON

PC 03 pH rH fH rH rH 1 o 1 J 1 +- 1 a

03 AJ 65 >n 1 AJ • 1 N AJ 3 vD <r CN rH o vO CN r''. rH 4) •H •H 0 r-' lO 00 NO vO f'~ m 1 cfl >-r 4*S 03 CJ CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN CJ 03 CJ C 1 60

03 03 6£

d o O o O o o o o

Oj

O 1 NO CJ

r-» 1 <T)

C

•H 1 It

O 4) O o NT o o sr CN CN NO 1 o rH

CJ tH rH o Nf ON

m 00

O CJ Cm

03 afl 00 00 1"- ON I-'- 1 o 3

43 03

O

O c o o o o o o o 1 43 CJ) AJ H o

4=

tc

6£

cj4=

aj ^ao 0 G cj

Q> rJ

r

onmonooNONomoo MHCNrsinOOHCN OfHOONOrHOO O iH rH iH r-t

<r<rMn<rco<TMf

OOOOOOOOOOONOOOO

13 Vj Vj C •H 4)

0)

C 03 •H

Vj o tH Vj 4) Vj PQ AJ CJ •H C 3 o

03 05 AJ 03 •H Crt ft. C Vj G i—

(X 4)

g 0

•H

OO 4) rH > CD 3 Q 2 PQ <3 PJ a H

P*5 WH

hJ

Pm

Co

•H

AJ

033

430ou

13c

0)

4J

J-J 3

43

AJ

oJ

<U X

43u3

oo

13

0)03

0) PQ

13

<u

Vj3

0334) a

13

0) AJ

03

03 O

033

0)o.0

0) H

H-6
TABLE l

COH

cnWHWHH

CM

W

pi<2Owu

>-l

Pi<22aP

CO i 1 3 ii • iH a i -a > •H o CO CO m 4-1 QJ 4-J o CN CO CN i CO P 3 + 1 l

4-4

a il 4-J B CJ 00 rH ON ON 00 3 3 o o CO i—! in l PQ H vO r- NO t-H i 3 1 3

-K CO 1 O -K B i NO

4-J 3 vO rH oo NT r^. 3 \ o On X O l cn 3 t—

o Os o o X CO rH r-H t-H i o o 3 l 33 l X o 00 Sh O a 3 4-t cn 00 CO ~cr i 4-1 a •H B VD 00 NO

co pi 3 3 CN CN CN CN i U-4 X O 3 • • • • O o 3 3 00 o O O O i H 04 O 3 i 3

r-H

O l 3 3 tH \D o o > 3 CO rH r-H 00 l 3 oc o o On 3

+J • • • • l O O rH rH O o tH

4-J

H l 4-J

X 3

OO l 3 H 3 X 3 4-1 i E 2 4-J <r 00 CN O 3 r>- in m l 3 3 0£ O o On o 3 • • • • l 4H

00 rH rH o t—

O uxu ^oo a 3 a

0) v-x rJ

O' O'

CO 00 o o o o • • • -U O

i-^ oo tH 33xe32 m

4-J 33H

CO 33333

PQ

r-- no oo oo

t-h cn

rH O' CN NO

CN

4-1 33

tH

X rH

cd 00 2 3 1 •rH rH 3 t—! 3 3

P-T 3)3 3 4-J 3 3

TJ t-H 3 3 i—1 3 3 t-H 3 3 M CJ

•K ** *3 3 a

rH 3 3 •H

rH 4-J 4-4

H 3 rH rH 2 H •H 3 1 P4 pH 3 T 1 1 1 4-J T 1 3 3 t-H 3 O O •H

P-4 2 2

H-7

APPENDIX I

Cigarette Ignition Resistance Tests

Twenty-Three Polyurethane Foams

of

Joseph J. Loftus

June 29, 1976

Abstract

A total of 2 evaluated for re when the materia

upholstered furn

using a Class D

foams smoldered

other foam sampl

3 different samples of foam urethane were

sistance to ignition by burning cigarettes

Is were used as filling material in mock-up

iture samples. Under conditions of test,

upholstery fabric on 12 of the samples, six

and eventually burst into flames, and six

es smoldered to extinction.

Eleven foams were tested as barrier (protective) layers

over cotton batting in furniture constructions using Class

B and Class C upholstery fabrics as cover materials.

None of the Class B fabric samples ignited, but all

eleven foams allowed or permitted ignitions in cotton batting under the Class C fabric cover material.

1-1
; ire-retardant treated foams did not appear to offer

any added protection to the furniture assemblies.

I ntroduction

One of the spin-offs from the development work on a Proposed Standard for the Flammability (Cigarette Ignition

Resistance) of Upholstered Furniture (PFF 6-74) was the

opportunity to make cigarette ignition resistance measurements on flexible urethane foam used in mock-up upholstered

furniture constructions.

tnormous amounts of foam urethane are used every year

in the construction of upholstered furniture. Seat cushions are almost totally made of foam, and large quantities

go into the fabrication of arms and backs of furniture

items. Often a piece of furniture will be made with the

foam material in combination with other stuffing or filling materials.

For the purposes of this study, two mock-up constructions were used: (1) foam seat/foam back and (2) glass

fiber board seat/foam barrier over cotton batting back.

1-2
All tests were made in the crevice location of the test

assemblies

.

The following is a report on results obtained in this

study

.

Test Materials

Table 1 lists the number, material description, thickness, and density for the 23 foam urethane samples. The

materials were supplied by six different foam urethane manufacturers. Six of the foams were furnished in nominal 4-

inch thickness, and the remaining pieces ranged from 1/2

to 1-inch thickness. Densities ranged from 1.0 to 4.1 lb/

cu f t

.

The numbers listed under material description were manufacturers’ numbers, and no identification of the manufacturer is intended or implied in this report.

The Class D fabric used for test was a cotton/rayon velvet material of 17.9 oz/yd 2

, a fabric which is particularly

susceptible to smoldering ignition.

1-3
The Class B fabric was a 100 percent nylon material

of 14 oz/yd 2

, and the Class C fabric used was a cotton/

rayon material of 14.1 oz/yd 2.

Test Method

With modifications, the test procedures outlined in

the Proposed Standard for the Flammability (Cigarette

Ignition Resistance) of Upholstered Furniture (PFF 6-74)

were used for conducting the tests on the foam materials

Sample Preparation

Foam/Foam-

Small-scale mock-up seat cushions were prepared for

test by cutting 4-inch wide x 6-inch long x sample thick

ness samples of foam from the slab stock furnished for

test

.

Each piece was covered by a 6 x 6-inch piece of

upholstery fabric, and the fabric was fastened to the

1-4
seat cushion with straight pins. Vertical panels were

made in the same manner.

For the nominal 4-inch thick foam samples, a 2 x 2 x 6-

inch cross section was cut out of a 4 x 4 x 6-inch piece of

foam, and the L-shaped samples were covered by the Class D

upholstery fabric and pinned.

Foam/Foam Over Cotton BattingFoam urethane barrier layer samples were prepared by

covering 8 x 8-inch pieces of 1/2-inch thick plywood with

2-inch thick layers of cotton batting followed by a layer

of foam urethane (range 1/2 to 1-inch thickness) and a 12

x 12-inch piece of cover fabric material. The fabric was

drawn tightly over the assembly and fastened to the backside of the plywood panel with staples. The seat cushions

used for the assembly were made by covering a 5 x 8 x 1-

inch piece of glass fiber board with an 8 x 8-inch piece

of upholstery fabric and using straight pins to fasten the

fabric to the board.
Test Procedure

- ' ; cf

The sample holder used in the Fabric Classification

Test in the proposed standard for upholstered furniture

was used to support the test panels for test.

Each test cigarette was well lighted and burned no

more than 4 mm (0.16 in) when placed in the crevice location of the test samples. After placement, each cigarette

was immediately covered with a 5 x 5-inch piece of sheeting material. The cigarettes were allowed to burn their

full length for test.

All tests were conducted within a fume hood provided

with an exhaust system to remove smoke and gases produced

by testing.

Test Criteria

Test

"failed"

samples which ignited and supported smoldering

the cigarette test.

1-6
Test samples which resisted cigarette ignition and

prevented smoldering in the foam urethane or cotton batting

substrate "passed" the test.

Test Results

Class D upholstery fabric ignited and smoldered on all

12 foam urethane samples tested. Smoldering involved the

foam materials, and copious amounts of smoke and gases were

evolved from each of the test materials.

The door to the fume hood was necessarily closed to

about a 1-inch opening across the hood width of about 61

inches for the latter part of each test, and thus air was

drawn past the samples at a fairly rapid rate. Under

these conditions, a total of six foam materials burst into

flames and six smoldered to extinction. Results of these

tests are listed in Table 2.

Of the glass fiber board/foam over cotton batting

assemblies, Foams #13 to 23 were not ignited when a Class

B upholstery fabric was used as the cover material.

\ However, all of these foams were ignited and smoldered

1-7
when covered by a Class C upholstery fabric. Results are

listed in Table 3.

Summary

1. Class D upholstery fabric ignited and smoldered on

every foam urethane sample tested. Six foams burst into

flame in times ranging from 24-40 minutes. Six foams smoldered to extinction and did not flame.

2. Fire-retardant treatments used in some of the foams

were not able to prevent smoldering ignitions in the foams.

3. One of the foams which did not flame was a conventional foam w/o fire-retardant treatment (Sample #5).

4. Class B upholstery fabric did not ignite, smolder,

or permit ignitions in the cotton batt substrates covered

by a barrier layer of urethane foam. These results were

repeated for all 11 foams tested in the thickness range of

1/2 to 1 inch.

1-8
5. Class C upholstery fabric did ignite, smolder, and

permit ignitions to occur in the same 11 foam over cotton

batt samples that easily "passed" the cigarette test under

Class B fabrics.

Conclusions

Urethane foams used in upholstered furniture can be

ignited by a smoldering cigarette if a Class D upholstery

fabric is used as the cover material on the furniture item.

Fire-retardant treatments tested were found not capable

of resisting or preventing ignition in foams covered by the

"D" fabric . ,

.

From results obtained in this study, it appears that

Class D and perhaps Class C upholstery fabric cover material

needs flame-resistant treatment or back-coatings to prevent

smoldering ignitions. Previous work has shown that heat

dissipating mediums perform quite well in preventing ignitions in foam with "D" fabrics.

1-9
The usefulness of the Fabric Classification Test in the

Proposed Standard for the Flammability (Cigarette Ignition

Resistance) of Upholstered Furniture was clearly demonstrated

in this testing program. Based on past experience, it was

expected that a Class B fabric would not ignite a furniture

assembly consisting of a barrier layer of foam urethane over

cotton batting and that a Class C fabric would ignite this

same type of assembly. Test results confirmed these expectations, the Class B fabric passed all tests, and the Class C

fabric failed all tests.

The various fillings and/or combinations of fillings

used in the fabrication of the test urethane foam samples

may provide for a positive functional purpose in regard to

comfort, decor, or esthetics, but none of the foam systems

tested provided superior smolder- res is tant performance. In

all cases where smoldering was observed, copious amounts of

smoke and noxious gases were produced.

Furniture items made with any

would, on smoldering, soon make a

able and dangerous to life.

of these foam materials

room or home quickly unten1-10
Urethane

Foam

Test

Samples
Table 2

Urethane F oam- -Flaming Test Results

Time to Ign

# 2 Additive 32 min

3 Grafted Polyo 1 24 I !

4 Convent ional and Additive 40 ! I

7 Filled 24 f t

8 Filled 20 f r

9 Filled 24 ft

Urethane Foam--No Flaming Test Results

# 1 Sand Filled

5 Conventional W/O Fire Retardant

6 Filled

10 #3436

11 #3385

12 26Y

1-12
Table 3

Results of

Glass Fiber Board/Foam Urethane Over Cotton Batting

; I Cigarette Tests

Foam

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Class B Fabric

N*

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Class C Fabric

I *

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

N - Nonignition

I - Ignition

1-13

December 12, 1974

°» Co

t* V . ^ V «T \ r >

• !•'-(

\ <4->

p« '/

lf^!TU9 PpTATES WpaOtMEFJT.’&

iV > "‘-'refill of Standards

VV..vii.fii|Uii. D.C. 20234

1= COMMERCE

received

MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard Armstrong , Director

Etc ?C 2 in Prf ’M

Eureau of Engineering Sciences g ^

1

: E A u.

From

Consumer Product Safety Commission' C ! Hr.Ef; IN

1 J f /*> L'I£MCES

James Winger, Program Chief

Program for Fire Prevention—Products

Programmatic Center for Fire Research

Wilts?

f

Through: Irwin Benjamin, Associate Director for Fire Technology r-fS

Walter Leight, Acting Chief, Office of Consumer Product/yV^^--

Safety

Dale Scott , Bureau of Engineering Sciences , Consumer

Product Safety Commission

Subject: Rationale Behind Some Decisions on What to Specify in

the "Proposed Standard for the Flammability of Upholstered

Furniture"

This memo is to give the rationale behind some of the important

decisions which were made in the recommended Proposed Standard for

the Flammability of Upholstered Furniture . For convenience , each

comment is identified by the paragraph number and title in the proposed standard.

.2 (a) Upholstered Furniture

Exclusions

The available accident information indicates that inflatable

furniture , dining room chairs , bar stools, etc . , are seldom the

first item to ignite in a fire accident and seldom contribute to

such an accident in any substantial way. The spacing between the

upholstered seat and vertical upholstered sides arid back was chosen as a way to differentiate between furniture which is unlixely

to suffer ignition: dining room chairs, bar stools, etc., and the

furniture which the accident information indicates should be included

in the standard.

Laboratory investigation shows the following reasons for excluding such furniture:

a) small mass of combustible material

b) lack of crevice areas, which have been shown to be the area most susceptible to cigarette ignition

J-l
2(1? Furniture Mock-up

Differences in Size and Shape

Differences in size and shape of furniture are not required to be

tested because the test in the crevice formed by horizontal and vertical surfaces is usually the configuration most susceptible to ignition

by cigarettes? i.e., this configuration is the most critical.

Substitution of Materials

Substitution, without additional testing, of materials which have

no effect on cigarette ignition characteristics is permitted, to reduce

the 'total testing burden. Some components of upholstered furniture can be changed without affecting the cigarette ignition characteristics, the

most obvious being springs and frame.

.3(b) Test Criterion

Three-inch Char Length

The intent of the criterion is to determine whether or not sustained

ignition occurs in the test. With char lengths of the order of 2 inches,

the test materials have been observed to <elf-extinguish. We have no evidence of self-extinguishment when the char has progressed to 3 inches.

.3(c) Acceptance Criterion

Zero Failures

Our investigations indicate that technology is available to the Indus

try so that furniture can be manufactured that will always pass the test.

Comments from interested parties and further investigation may indicate a need to permit a very low failure level (one test location) provided a retest of the same type of mock-up passes at all locations.

.4(a)(1) Specimen Support

Mock-up

A furniture design reproduced in mock-up was chosen as the item to

be tested for the following reasons*

J-2
3

a) Furniture is not produced on a production line basis; items of

the same design are not produced continuously. It is usually impossible to select a representative item of furniture from production.

b) Individual furniture items are expensive and flammability tests

are destructive.

.4(a)(2) Ignition Source

Cigarettes

Cigarettes are used as the source of ignition in the test because

accident information (Flammable Fabrics Accident Case and Testing

System) indicate that cigarettes are the ignition source in 80 percent

of the upholstered furniture fire accidents when the upholstered furniture is the first item to ignite.

.4(a)(3) Sheeting Material

Cover the Test Cigarettes

Covering the test cigarette makes the test more severe; i.e., ignition is more likely to occur. This is true regardless of what is used

as the cover material. Essentially, the same ignition results are obtained when the cigarette is covered with newspaper, soft tissue paper,

or articles of clothing. A cigarette-covering material is necessary in

the test to simulate this more severe condition which probably occurs in

many of the accidents. Bed-sheeting material is specified because it is

readily obtained, it is cheap, and it improves the reproducibility of the

test.

.4(b) ( 1) Qualification , General

Test Frequency

The test frequency is based on investigation which indicates that

normal purchasing and inventory maintenance in the furniture industry

are such that satisfactory component uniformty cannot be assured for

longer than 3 months. At the manufacturer's option and his records

indicating control over his materials, the frequency may be reduced

to 6 months.

J-3
4

.4(d) Conditioning

55% RH, 65° F. + , 48 Hours

Our experience with products of this type (primarily with mattresses) indicates that the choice of any relative humidity below 55 percent has little effect on test results. The same can be said for temperatures above 65° F. Conditioning at high humidity and/or low temperature can permit items to pass an ignition test that otherwise would

fail. Bulky materials such as fiber batts or foam equilibrate with room

conditions quite slowly, the 48-hour conditioning time is required to

give some assurance that a condition approaching equilibrium has been

achieved.

.4(f) General Testing

Three Cigarettes

In order to satisfy statistical requirements, a minimum of three

cigarette tests is recommended for each type of test location. Further

study may show that a different number of tests is necessary.

Different Test Locations

In most cases, different upholstery materials are used for different areas of a furniture item. Therefore, in order to insure that

the furniture item is cigarette resistant, such areas where a cigarette

may come to rest must be tested.

.5 General Requirements, Fabric

Fabric Test

The fabric test is not intended to accept or reject any fabric.

It is intended to group fabrics with similar cigarette ignition characteristics. The reason for a fabric test which classifies fabric

is to reduce the testing burden on industry. If a furniture manufacturer tests and passes a furniture construction with a fabric cover

from a particular class, he then can manufacture that furniture construction with any fabric from the particular class without further

testing.

.6(b) Qualification

Test Frequency

Cigarette ignition characteristics of fabrics are dependent on the

fiber or blend, fabric construction, dye type, finish, and coating;

J-4
5

however, the ignition characteristics normally are not sensitive to

minor variations in these fabric parameters. Therefore, the ignition

characteristics usually are not affected by normal production variation. These fabric parameters can and do change, with time, to the

extent that the fabric cigarette ignition characteristics can be

affected. Therefore, it is necessary to repeat the fabric classification test at some low frequency to assure that the fabric continues

to be properly classified. The 12-month frequency was chosen to

eatisfy this requirement.

cci I. Benjamin

W. Leight

D. Scott

W. Thomas

J. Loftus

S. Greenwald

J-5

APPENDIX K

MEMORANDUM ON COMMENTS ON THE BUREAU OF DOMESTIC COMMERCE’S

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED STANDARD

FOR UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE

February 24, 1976

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. Walter Leight, Chief

Office of Consumer Product Safety

Center for Consumer Product Technology

From: Mr. James H. Winger, Chief

Program for Fire Prevention-Products

Fire Safety Engineering Division

Through: Dr. John W. Lyons, Director

Center for Fire Research

Mr. Irwin A. Benjamin, Chief

Fire Safety Engineering Division

Subject: Comments on the Bureau of Domestic Commerce’s Economic

Impact of the Proposed Standard for Upholstered Furniture

Attached are the Center for Fire Research's comments on the Bureau of

Domestic Commerce's impact report on the proposed standard for upholstered furniture. These comments were requested by Walter Thomas of

the Bureau of Engineering Sciences in a letter dated February 5, 1976.

Five copies of the comments are attached.

5 Attachments

bccDr . Lyons

Mr . Benj amin

Mr. Buchbinder

Mr . Davis

Mr. Greenwald
Comment?? on the Bureau of Domestic Commerce's

Report on the Impact of the Proposed Standard for the Flammability of

Upholstered Furniture

I. Introduction

The purpose of this document is to provide information helpful in evaluating

"Report on the Impact of the Proposed Standard for the Flammability of

Upholstered Furniture," prepared by the Bureau of Domestic Commerce

(BDC) . The National Bureau of Standards has gained considerable

background on the upholstered furniture industry and an understanding of

the potential impact of the proposed standard for upholstered furniture

in carrying out its responsibilities under the Flammable Fabrics Act, as delegated by the Department of Commerce prior to May 1973; and in consulting

for the Consumer Product Safety Commission since that time. The comments

offered below are based on this background and understanding,

C laments are offered on the need for an upholstered furniture standard,

the proposed provisions, and the means of compliance with the proposed

standard. In addition, several areas in the BDC estimates are identified

and discussed where the proposed standard will either have a substantially

decreased impact or some cases no impact at all. Cost calculations

based on these revised figures are presented, which lead to a greatly

reduced estimate of the economic impact of the proposed standard.

II . Need for a Standard

The CPSC has the responsibility to determine the need for a standard for

the flammability of upholstered furniture and has used NBS as a consultant in this work. In addition, in pursuit of the goal to provide

a technical base for reducing fire losses NBS has been studying the most

common types of ignition related to injuries; and from this work, some additional background concerning the need for a standard has been

developed

.

Data supporting the need for a standard has previously come from two

studies, the National Household Fire Survey, carried out by the Bureau

c " the Census, and the Flammable Fabrics Accident Case and Testing

System (FFACTS), developed by NBS and now maintained by CPSC. Together,

these studies make three points:

°Upholstered furniture is the item first ignited in 106,000 fires

yearly in the U.S.

°For f irst-to-ignite upholstered furniture cases i ivestigated in

depth, 54% involved personal injuries.

The r; K io of deaths to injuries in such fires is high: 43% of the

injured victims died.

K-2
NBS has interpreted these data as indicating that the control of ignition

in upholstered furniture may be one of the most effective available

means of reducing injury and loss due to fire in the United States.

Recently, additional evidence for the need for a standard has come to

light with analysis of the Fire Incident Data Organization, maintained

by the National Fire Protection Association. According to this study,

upholstered furniture is the item ignited in approximately 20% of U.S.

fire deaths.

For reference purposes, a brief description of the national Household

Fire Survey and of FF \CTS is presented in the Appendix. A preprint of

"Fire Death Scenarios and Fire Safety Planning," which discusses the

FIDO study, is also included.

III. The Recommended Proposed Standard

Provisions of Standard

The accident data indicates that the primary flammability problem with

upholstered furniture is ignition by cigarettes and smoldering combustion. The proposed standard includes a cigarette ignition test; and

is intended to reduce, to a very low level, the quantity of new furniture manufactured which would ignite from a cigarette and continue to

smolder.

The proposed standard requires that furniture constructions, be tested

in mockup form prior to manufacture and at 3 or 6 month intervals thereafter, depending on materials control. Because of component interaction,

e.g., cover and backup, testing the construction is required to predict

the performance of the product. To minimize cost, a fabric classification

test is also included in the proposed standard. This test reduces the

number of mockup tests which must be performed. All fabrics must be

tested and classified, generally by the fabric supplier. Mockup tests

are required of the combinations of a fabric from the class to be used

with each interior construction to be used in the production furniture.

Differences in the shape or size of furniture do not require separate

mockup testing.

Means for Compliance

From NBS research the following generalizations can be made regarding

constructions and materials:

1. Class A fabrics can usually be used over any interior

construction.

2. Cl ss B fabrics can usually be used over untreated

polyurethane foam, untreated polyester batting, and

untreated down; and over untreated cotton batting if one of the above materials is used as a thermal barrier

between the fabric and the cotton batting. Class B

fabrics can also be used directly over currently available treated cotton batting.

K-3
5, Class C fabrics require better thermal carriers than

Class B fabrics. Coating the fabric with a resin with

a high aluminum content is effective. A needle punched

nonwoven with aluminum as a barrier is effective. Class

C fabrics can also be used directly over currently

available treated cotton batting.

4. Class D fabrics can be used over a needle punched nonwoven

with aluminum as a barrier. It is difficult to design a construction using Class D fabrics that gives acceptable

comfort and aesthetics with the above exception.

IV. Specific Comments on the Bureau of Domestic Commerce Impact Report

The following comments are based on NBS experience with the test method

and with fire retardant fabrics.

1. Fabric Upgrading BDC estimated a $291M cost increase to

upgrade fabrics. Class A fabrics require no upgrading and

Class B fabrics probably require no upgrading. If a market

shift occurs, which is likely, from Classes C and D fabrics

toward Classes A and B, actual fabric cost may decrease in

conjunction with the increase in safety because fabrics that

currently fall in Class A and B are often cheaper than current

Class C and D fabrics. Chemical treatments for fabrics are normally about 40 cents/yard of fabric, maximum.

Fabric

Class

Cents/yd

.

Cost Increase

Yds. in

Use

Upgrading Costs

NBS Estimate BDC Estimal

A 0 17. 5M 0 1.4

B 0 87. 5M 0 13.1

C 40 70. 0M 28 79.1

D 40 175. 0M 70 197.7

98M $291. 3M

Fabric Test Cost BDC Estimated $278M to test fabrics

.

The BDC estimate is not broken down, therefore it is not

possible to verify their figures. For a "ballpark" estimate,

assume 50 fabric manufactures x 15,000 fabric styles

each x $15 per test equals $11.25M.

3. Cotton Batting BDC Estimated $82M to upgrade or find

substitutes for cotton batting. Cotton batting can be

treated so that the mockup test can be passed TT ith Classes

A, B, and C fabrics. Since a large portion of the cotton

batting is used in furniture locations not subject to test,

less than half the cotton would require treatment at about

20 cents/pound. 80M lbs. x 20 cents = $16M.
A. Polyester Eiberfill BDC Estimated $6M to upgrade polyester

f iberf ill . NBS tests indicate that polyester fiberfill

requires no upgrading, therefore no increase in cost.

5. Welt Cord BDC Estimated $1.3M to upgrade welt cord. The

mattress industry has forced the welt cord manufacturers to

cope with this problem. This estimate should be reduced by

at least half. NBS estimate $0.6M.

6. Polyurethane Foam BDC Estimated $127M to upgrade polyurethane foam. NBS tests indicate that polyurethane foams

require no upgrading, therefore no increase in cost.

It appears that BDC may have confused the California

furniture flammability requirements with the NBS recommended

proposed standard. Some polyurethane foams require fire

retardants to meet the California requirements. In fact, __ cost increases for fire retarded foam to meet the California

requirements are about 13% instead of the BDC estimate of 36%.

7. Muslin BDC Estimated $3M to upgrade muslin. NBS tests

indicate that muslin has little effect on mockup test results

and requires no upgrading, therefore no increase in cost.

8. Down BDC Estimated $50K to upgrade down. NBS tests indicate

that down requires no upgrading, therefore no increase in cost.

9. Mockup Testing BDC Estimated $285M for mockup testing.

A fabric frpm the fabric class to be used in the production

furniture must be tested with each interior construction. If

the fabric and interior construction passes the mockup test,

that interior construction can be combined with any fabric from

the class tested in production furniture without further testing.

Class D fabrics will probably all be upgraded to a higher class

or replaced with higher class fabrics leaving three fabric

classes to test. Few companies would have as many as ten

interior constructions. Testing is required quarterly. 3

Classes x 10 int. const, x $50 per test x A quarters = $7000/year

per furniture manufacturer.

Using the BDC industry information, 12 companies make up 6.3% of the

total industry volume; 12 x 7000 f 0.063 = $1.33M total industry cost.

Cost Summary

The following summarizes the cost estimates based on NBS expertise.

These estimates are about 12% of the BDC estimates. They assume the

most expensive case, no change in fabric mix and an upgrading of the

Class D fabric now being used. A product switch to the safer Class A

and Class B fabric would reduce the impact cost even more than the NBS

estimate shown here.

K-5
BDC Estimate

(Millions $)

NBS Estimate

(Millions $)

Fabric Upgrading 291.3 98.0

Fabric Testing 278.0 11.25

Cotton Batting 82.0 16.0

Polyester Fiberfill 6.0 0

Welt Cord 1.3 0.6

Polyurethane 127.0 0

Muslin 3.0 0

Down .05 0

Mock-up Testing 285.0 1.33

TOTAL 1,073.65 127.18

K-6
APPENDIX

A. National Household Fire Survey

This survey was sponsored jointly by NBS and CPSC and was conducted by

the Bureau of the Census. The following outlines the findings on upholstered furniture from the survey.

° Over 33,856 households were surveyed.

° Of these households, 2,463 reported having had a fire

during the pre 'ious twelve months. (Projected to national

figures, this represents an annual total of 5.6 million

fires in the United States.)

° The number of fires in which fabric items were first to

ignite is estimated to be 628,000.

° Upholstered furniture accounted for 198,000 or 31% of the

first to ignite items. (+ 35,000 are the 95% confidence

limits for this estimate.)

In 90% (178,000)of the upholstered furniture fire incidents,

cigarettes, cigars and pipes were the ignition source.

3. Flammable Fabrics Accident Case and Testing System (FFACTS)

FFACTS was developed by NBS in response to the DOC responsibility for

determining the need for standards under the FFA and to characterize

accident scenarios. The following outlines the upholstered furniture

information from FFACTS.

All Upholstered Furniture Cases

° Data are derived from the 3,347 fabric fire incidents

currently in the data base.

0 The total number of cases in which upholstered furniture was

involved (not necessarily first to ignite) is 305.

° Of the 305 cases, 186 (61%) involved personal inj ury .

° In 287 of the 305 cases, fatality information is available:

93 of the 287 (32%) cases had fatalities.

1st to Ignite Upholstered Furniture Cases

° Upholstered furniture was the first item ignited in 209 (69%)

of the 305 upholstery involved cases.

K-7
0 The ignition source is known for 198 of the 209 cases:

Cigarettes , cigars, pipes and unknown smoking materials were

the ignition source in 166 of the 198 cases in which upholstery

was first to ignite, that is, in 84% of the cases.

0 The injury disposition of the victims in the 209 fires was:

Died 49

Hospitalized 31

Treated & Released 21

First Aid 8

Unknown Injury 5

Total Injured 114

In 95 cases, there were no injuries.

° Fatality information was available in 199 of the 209 cases.

(The final status of 10 of the hospitalized victims was

unknown.) Thus there were 49 deaths out of 199, or 25% of

the cases in which it was known whether or not the victim

died. This compares to about a 20% fatality rate for first

to ignite sleepwear fires.

° The ratio of deaths to injuries is 49/114 which equals 0.43.

° Injuries occurred in 55% (114 out of 209) of the cases.
NBS-1 14A (REV. 7-73)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 78-1438

2. Gov’t Accession

No.

3. Recipient’s Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Back-Up Report for the Proposed Standard for the Flammability

(Cigarette Ignition Resistance) of Upholstered Furniture,

PFF 6-76

5. Publication Date June 1978

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

Joseph J. Loftus

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 492-2380

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Same as No

,

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

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

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

This report brings together data, information, and reports generated by the Center

for Fire Research (CFR) at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) and by others

during four years of work on the development of the test method. All of this

information was used in the preparation of a recommended Proposed Standard for the

Flammability (Cigarette Ignition Resistance) of Upholstered Furniture, PFF 6-76.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name, separated by semicolons) cigarette ignition; fabric classification; mock-up

furniture samples; smoldering; upholstered furniture; upholstery fabrics.

18. AVAILABILITY (V1 Unlimited

For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NT1S

|

1 Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402, SD Cat. No. Cl 3

| y 1 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

239

22. Price

$9.50

USCOMM-DC 2 904 2- P 7 4

* U. S- GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1978 261-238/167