NBSIR 76-1030

The Effect of Sample Orientation

in the Smoke Density Chamber

Leslie Breden and Marts Meisters

Center for Fire Research

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

May 1976

Final Report

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

NBSIR 76-1030

THE EFFECT OF SAMPLE ORIENTATION

IN THE SMOKE DENSITY CHAMBER

Leslie Breden and Marts Meisters

Center for Fire Research

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

May 1976

Final Report

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Elliot L Richardson, Secr^tmy

James A. Baker, III, Under Secretary

Dr. Betsy Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Science and Techrwiogy

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Acting Director

CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES iv

LIST OF TABLES iv

Abstract 1

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. SMOKE DENSITY CHAMBER MODIFICATIONS 2 2.1. Horizontal 2 2.2. Horizontal Configuration and Load Cell 6

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 9 3.1. Comparison of Vertical vs Horizontal Configurations 9 3.2. Effect of Additives 9 3.3. Effect of Material Combinations 14

3.4. Mass Optical Density 14

4 . CONCLUSION 14

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 17

6. REFERENCES 17

APPENDIX 18

iii
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Vertical Flux Distribution W/cm^ 3 Figure 2. Excess Melt-Drip from Pan 4

Figure 3. Modified Vertical Holder 5

Figure 4. Horizontal Configuration 7 Figure 5. Horizontal Flux Distribution W/cm^ 8

Figure 6. Burning Rates 11

Figure 7. Evaluation of Smoke Suppressants to Polyester Systems ... 12

Figure 8. Smoke Suppressants for Flexible Polyurethane 13

Figure Al . Horizontal Configuration 21

Figure A2 . Horizontal Configuration 22

Figure A3. Assembly Sample Holder and Load Cell 23

Figure A4 . Sample Holder 24

Figure A5 . Cooling Jacket Assembly 25

Figure A6 . Cooling Jacket 26

Figure A7 . Sample Holder with Load Cell Spacer 27

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Comparison of Vertical and Horizontal Smoke Density Values

in the Flaming Mode 10

Table 2. Repeatibility 10

Table 3. Carpets and Underlayments 15

Table 3a. Carpet Description 15

Table 4. Structure and Mass Optical Density 16

Table Al. Horizontal Configuration, Component A 19

Table A2 . Horizontal Configuration, Component B 19

Table A3. Horizontal Configuration, Component C 20

iv
THE EFFECT OF SAMPLE ORIENTATION IN THE SMOKE DENSITY CHAMBER

Leslie Breden and Marts Meisters

Abstract

Smoke measurements were compared for various materials in

the vertical and horizontal positions. There appeared a significant difference for thermoplastic materials because of the

melting away from the incident heat flux in the vertical position. The horizontal mode in addition allows one to relate the

chemistry of polymeric materials to the amount of smoke production. Finally, smoke measurements are made of products containing various amounts of smoke suppressants.

Key words: Fire performance; horizontal and vertical smoke

measurements; smoke; smoke density chamber; smoke suppressants.

1. INTRODUCTION

It has been accepted by code and fire officials that smoke resulting

from a fire is hazardous [I]-'-. Traditionally, this hazard has been defined

in terms of light obscuration, which has been related to the ability of a person to locate a door, read an exit sign, recognize contrasting surfaces in

order to escape, or locate victims for rescue by fire personnel. This was emphasized by the following observation from Operation School Burning No. 2 [2] . "Smoke itself does not contain a high enough concentration of

dangerous gases to be lethal in the early stages of a fire.

However, the untenable smoke, by its irritant properties and

its obscuration of normal visibility does immobilize the occupants within the area of the building where they happen to be

located. They are then trapped within the building and unless

rescued promptly, may be killed by lethal heat and gases which

follow shortly."

Unfortunately, the presence of toxic species, physiological and psychological effects have not yet been adequately defined so that obscuration has

remained the principal factor in assessing smoke hazard [3,4].

The most widely referenced method in building codes, for measuring smoke,

is the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Test Method

E-84-70 [5] . In this test, samples of materials are burned and light attenuation measurements are taken through the combustion products when they are exhausted from a tunnel at a controlled velocity. The data from this test

can provide information about smoke production rate, time to achieve maximum

value, duration of maximum smoke production and a total smoke volume over a test period. The ceiling mounting position of the specimens causes poor

reproducibility for materials that melt and drip. This test method has been

used primarily for building construction materials.

Niimbers in brackets refer to the references listed at the end of this paper.

1
Another test which is gaining acceptance for measuring smoke from building constiuction materials and other products is the Smoke Density Chamber

[6] . This method measures light obscuration by smoke from a vertically mounted

7. 6 X 7.5 cm specimen burned in a closed 0.5-cubic meter chamber. The specimen is exposed to a radiant heat flux of 2.5 W/cm^, as shown in figure 1.

This illustrates the heat flux distribution on the sample with lower heat flux areas in the corner. Smoke measurements are expressed in terms of maximum

specific optical density (D ) for flaming and non-flaming exposure conditions:

where

V = Chamber volume

. A = Specimen area

L = Light path length

T = Minimum light transmittance

The vertical sample mounting simulates a wall of a burning enclosure and

has been used primarily for evaluating construction materials such as wood and

gypsum board. Problems occur when the procedure is extended to include thermoplastics and other materials that melt and can drip during heat exposure.

Logically, then, the most useful extension of the procedure may require modification of the sample mounting system. One obvious alternative is use of a horizontal mounting system. This paper reports some observations of the

effects of the horizontal sample orientation in the Smoke Density Chamber.

2. SMOKE DENSITY CHAMBER MODIFICATIONS

-

: •; 2.1. Horizontal

As part of a continuing effort in the development of the Smoke Density

Chamber, it was observed that the maximum smoke production (Dj^) of polystyrene

in the flaming mode ranked significantly below that from ABS and rigid PVC

[7]. However, when samples of equal weights of these materials were burned

openly in the laboratory, polystyrene appeared to produce greater quantities

of smoke than either PVC or ABS. This anomaly can be explained by observing

the melting and dripping of polystyrene from the vertical holder, as shown in

figure 2. Because polystyrene melts and drips from the holder more rapidly

than either the PVC or ABS, it is not as completely burned, based on initial

sample weight.

To overcome this melt difficulty in the vertical specimen holder, a small

trough and multi-directional burner, as shown in figure 3, was developed for use with thermoplastic materials [8] . This addition was designed to trap the

melting material from these specimens in the trough and burn it completely.

However, when the material was in the trough, it was blocked from the radiant

source and was not completely pyrolyzed or was pyrolyzed under a less intense

heat flux. This problem was illustrated by burning equivalent amounts of

polyethylene in the vertical holder and in the trough. An 8.7 gram sample was tested in the standard configuration under the flaming mode; however, only

3.7 grams were consumed before the sample had dripped from the holder. The

was 69. Next, 3.7 grams were placed directly in the trough and burned

using the multi-directional burner and the radiant heater. The entire sample

was consumed but produced a D^ value of only 14. This indicated lower smoke

2
1.65

1.55

Top

2 .33

2 . 30

2.08 2.34 2.55 2.62 2.58 2.40 2.14

2. 45

2.16

6.4 cm

Figure 1. Vertical Flux Distribution W/cm^

3
Figure 2. Excess Melt-Drip from Pan
I
production from an equal weight of sample as it burned in the trough rather

than in the vertical holder. Clearly, the smoke generation characteristics

depend to some extent on whether or not the sample remains intact and is

exposed to 2.5 W/cm^ external heat flux for the duration of the test.

Based on these preliminary experiments, a horizontal sample holder and

heater configuration was constructed for the Smoke Density Chamber, as shown

in figure 4. The heaters are standard Smoke Density Chamber units with the

wire elements repositioned 3.8 cm closer to the front so as to decrease the

sample to heater distance. Two heaters inclined at 60° from the horizontal

minimize smoke impingement which occurs if a single heater is used parallel

to the sample surface. A water-cooled load cell is incorporated for continuous mass burning rate measurements. Flaming exposure is provided by a single

burner

.

Initial sample surface to heater distance was maintained constant at 0.6

mm regardless of the sample thickness by a lab jack under the load cell, as shown in figure 4. In general, the radiant flux distribution on the sample

was + 10% of the nominal 2.5 W/cm^ , as indicated by figure 5. Calibration

was accomplished by substituting a water-cooled radiant flux meter, 0.46 cm

in diameter, for the load cell and adjusting the lab jack so that the meter

corresponded with the sample height.

Solid specimens up to 7.6 x 7.6 cm can be accommodated in the modified

Smoke Density Chamber. The backs and sides of the samples are covered with

aluminum foil but the surface is left totally exposed. Liquids or powders

can be burned in aluminum weighing dishes.

2.2. Horizontal Configuration and Load Cell

A load cell incorporated in the horizontal configuration can be used to

explore alternative approaches for measuring smoke properties of materials.

Seader [9] has proposed the mass optical density concept expressed by the

equation

MOD

where

MOD

V

L

M

T

The fundamental difference between mass optical density (MOD) and specific

optical density (D^) is the use of mass burned rather than area burned as the

sample correlating parameter.

V T 100

=

, LM VF- '

= Mass optical volume

= Chamber volume

= Light path length

= Mass lost up to some %T

= Light transmittance

6
7
2.34 2.28 2.36

2.57 2.50 2.57

2.38 2.20 2.33

7 . 6 cm

Figure 5. Horizontal Flux Distribution W/cm^

8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Comparison of Vertical vs Horizontal Configurations

After construction of the apparatus, a comparison was made of the D^

values for materials of the same thickness (.15 cm) tested in both the

vertical and horizontal configurations , A summary of the results obtained in

the flaming mode with an irradiance of 2.5 W/cm^ on the sample appears in

table 1. It is significant to note the large differences between the vertical and horizontal D^ values when the sample materials have a thermoplastic

character. When materials of this type, such as nylon or polypropylene, were

burned in the vertical position they melted and flowed out of the externally

applied flux field. Thus, the D values were much lower in the vertical position for a given initial weight of thermoplastic material.

Better data correspondence is evident in the case of non- thermoplastics

tested in the horizontal and vertical modes. This is not surprising because

these materials remain intact for the duration of the test. Small differences which are observed may be attributed to sample holder designs and other

factors such as experimental repeatability which have not been fully evaluated.

The horizontal configuration also improves data repeatability for thermoplastics. Table 2 lists the results for polystyrene tested under flaming

exposure conditions in the vertical and horizontal modes. A coefficient of

variation of approximately five percent can be obtained routinely for thin

samples tested horizontally.

One fundamental difference between the horizontal and vertical sample

exposure is illustrated in figure 6. In general, materials burn more rapidly

in the horizontal than in the vertical mode. This may be at least partially

attributed to the heat sink effect of the larger metal holder used for vertical testing. In the horizontal mode, the sample rests directly on a preheated

asbestos-cement board block.

3.2. Effect of Additives

Another area where the smoke density chamber has been useful is in analyzing the smoke contribution by various components of a product to the total

smoke value. Figure 7 illustrates the effect of inorganic fillers on the

smoke production from thermosetting materials. Here the vertical mode was used because the materials remained in the holder for the duration of the test.

Basically, the filler effect is to dilute the amount of resin for a given volume of sample. Calcium carbonate, however, appears to show an additional

effect in the halogenized polyester systems by acting as a scavenger for HCl

and HBr, while the water vapor from the alumina hydrate combines with the HCl

and HBr to form, halogen acid aerosols which contribute to light attenuation.

It is suggested that water vapor from the alumina hydrate combines with the

carbon particles formed to yield CO and thereby decreases the amount of car- bonaceous smoke [9].

Other materials, however, cannot be tested vertically with adequate reproducibility due to the problem of melting and dripping. As an example, figure

8 shows the results from several flexible polyurethane foams containing smoke

suppressants. When tested in the vertical mode they could not be differentiated

because the variability masked the effect of the additive. The horizontal data

indicated that the smoke suppressants could decrease light obscuration by as much as 10% during the early stages of burning, and actually contributed more

smoke than the no additive sample during the latter stages.

9
Table 1. Comparison of Vertical and Horizontal

Smoke Density Values in the Flaming Mode*

Smoke

,

Dm

(Average of 3)

Horizontal Vertical

Thermoplastic

Polypropylene 398 57

Polyethylene 286 35

Nylon 6,6 264 48

Paraffin Wax 228 8 3 Non-thermoplastic

Phenolic impregnated paper 155 140

Vulcanized fiber 52 63

Elm (0.4 cm thick) 59 57

Balsa Wood 16 8

* Materials, except elm, were tested in 0.15 cm thickness.

Table 2. Repeatability

(Polystyrene, 7.6 x 7. 6 x ,008 cm, 4 grams)

D , Vertical

m' D , m Horizontal

1 221 421

163 449

233 423

226 446

253 393

231 421

236 421

223 422

X = 223 X = 425

a = 11.8% a = 4.1%

10

12
p

T—!

\—1

\—\—I—I—I—I—r—1—I—I—

r

1

I I I I I 1

I

I I I I I I

I 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 2S 30 32

TIME(s)

Figure 8. Smoke Suppressants for Flexible Polyurethane

13
3.3. Effect of Material Combinations

Layered products such as carpeting can be evaluated in the horizontal

mode. The horizontal sample configuration appears especially appropriate for

items normally used as floor coverings. Table 3 shows data from four representative carpets and three underlayments tested singly and in combination

under the flaming exposure mode. Specimens were 2.5 x 2.5 cm in order to

avoid saturation of the photometric system.

It is interesting to note the role of underlayments in the total smoke

produced by carpet/underlayment combinations. The smoke production of a carpet system can be drastically altered by the choice of underlayment

.

Table 3 illustrates the effect of underlayment on the total smoke produced

from several carpet/underlayment combinations. This data, however, applies

only to these specific samples and should not be extrapolated to other car- pets made from the same generic fiber types.

3.4. Mass Optical Density

Mass optical density can be related to chemical structure, as shown in

table 4. This data was obtained from 7.6 x 7.6 x 0.15 cm samples. Comparisons were therefore made on the basis of mass loss from equal initial volumes.

Equal volumes would be the method for substituting these materials in products.

The polymers listed contain singly bonded carbon backbones. The only

differences occur in the pendant groups. Polystyrene, with a pendant phenyl

group, exhibits the highest MOD. Styrene monomer is somewhat lower, perhaps

indicative of the effect of molecular weight or vaporization rate on smoke

characteristics. If the phenyl group is replaced by a methyl, one obtains

polypropylene, with significantly less smoke than polystyrene. If, in turn,

the methyl is replaced by chlorine, the resultant polyvinylchloride shows a further smoke decrease. It should be noted that the chlorine does contribute

significantly to particulate formation on an equal weight loss basis. The

MOD of polyvinylchloride is higher than that of polyethylene, where the

chlorine is replaced by hydrogen. This may be due to the formation of HCl

aerosol. Paraffin wax chemically is a low molecular weight polyethylene, and

again its somewhat lower MOD may reflect the effect of molecular weight.

Finally, polyoxymethylene was included to indicate what happens if the

carbon linking is totally absent. Essentially no light obscuring smoke is

produced

.

•. 4. CONCLUSION

The development of a horizontal sample mounting method for the Smoke

Density Chamber is an evolution of the method to provide better data for an extended range of synthetic materials currently finding applications in con- sumer products. In addition, the mass optical density holds promise in the area of fundamental studies and would extend smoke measurements to powders

and liquids.

The vertical mounting is appropriate for materials that remain intact

during the course of the test or for applications requiring data from a ver- tical product configuration. The vertical and horizontal sample orientation,

while yielding smoke values which are not always comparable, can be used to

complement each other.

14
Table 3. Carpets and Underlayments

(D , Horizontal Flaming Exposure)

^\Carpet

Under-

* * Wool Nylon Acrylic Polyester

layment ^ c D J D 54 U

c r\ r 606 1,006

Hair

Jute 151 642 645 809 928

Rebonded

Urethane 362 765 770 902 1, 058

SBR

Waffle 909 1,038 1, 042 1,312 1,402

*Average of three test results

** See table 3a (below) for carpet descriptions

Table 3a. Carpet Description

Face Weight

Fiber Type Construction (oz/yd2)

Nylon Level Tufted 28

Loop

Wool Plush Tufted 43

Acrylic Level Tufted 42

Loop

Polyester Shag Tufted 45

15
Table 4. Structure and Mass Optical Density

MOD

Material (cm^/g)

Polystyrene (CH—CH2)n 14,300

i

Styrene CH = CE^ 9,600

i

Polypropylene (CH—CH„)n 5,250

I CH^

PVC (CH-CH„)n 3,400

I

'

CI

Polyethylene (CH—CH2)n 2,800

Paraffin Wax (CH—CH2)<n 2,300

Polyoxymethylene (CH2— 0) n ~n

16
5 . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Robin McCoy and Michael

Bitzel for their efforts in the experimental phase and Thomas Lee for his

advice and heat flux measurements.

6. REFERENCES

[1] Harrison, G. A. and Houser, J. L. , A Survey for the Collection of

Professional Opinion on Selected Fire Protection Engineering Topics

Fire Journal, Vol. 69, No. 2 (March 1975).

[2] Operation School Burning No. 2., NFPA Report Conducted by Los Angeles

Fire Department (1961) .

[3] Auticu, J. , Toxicology Aspects of Flammability and Combustion of

Polymeric Materials, J. Fire and Flamm. (July 1970)

.

[4] Jin, T. , Visibility Through Fire Smoke, Report of Fire Research

Institute of Japan, No. 33 (1971)

.

[5] ASTM E-84-70, Standard Method of Test for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, Part 18 (1974)

.

[6] Standard Test Method for Measuring the Smoke Generated by Solid

Materials, National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 258-T (1974).

[7] King, T. , Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Generation from Burning Selected

Plastics and Red Oak, Fire Safety Research, Proceedings of a Symposium

held at the National Bureau of Standards on August 22, 1973, Nat.

Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Special Publication 411 (Nov. 1974).

[8] Lee, T. G. Interlaboratory Evaluation of the Smoke Density Chamber,

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Technical Note 708 (Dec. 1971).

[9] Seader, J. D. and Chien, W. P., J. Fire and Flamm., Vol. 5, 151-163

(April 1974)

.

[10] Lawson, D. F., Kay, E. L. and Roberts, D. T. , Rubber Chemistry and

Technology, Vol. 28, 124-131 (April 1975).

17
APPENDIX

18
CD Uo

iJ

s:

-p to 3 "3 •H M i-l 0) (D -P iH (0 o s:

OJ 0

rHa, rH 6 H m -H W CQ c

0)co

a,eou

HpCco

-rH -pa

•H

iHO

It) d) Q

OJ -pM

^(^IrHr-HCNi—l-^rH.—I.—liH

0)

0)

CO

0)c w u

01 -H c £1 ^ -p u

•H iH

-P (fl 5

in

0)cu

•H

i-H -P CO (d

1) in i-H CO (CJ in

d) CD OJ x>

+J CO 0 iH 0

C/^ es St c

•H in in>x

CO 0

CO CJ c CO

p 0

i-j CD -H •H CO CO CO c

(fl e CD CO •H 0 c pl rH (0 X! tr 0) m rH ^H C/3 C !h cr c pi

(C Q; •rH CDmC •H (CJ

(/I H-)

U (Cu •H XI rH 0 C/) (U P> u X! Vh :3 o, p Q) P> Crt CO CD Q) w r-H m Eh a CO

CD X! Ti ro

a CO CO X3 (D cu CD m rH CO 0 CO (C3

(/I

MC P CM CO

u ITJ <C CJ •H (C m U (13 1 C/3 x: 00 Sh %f

-P

u \ um \ c Ti m 1—I

CD rH ro

CD (0 s -p \ 1 Sh \ e CD X c» CO IT) (N 0) rH

CD ffi \ •H 0 00 u P

<N\ >^iH

rH

X 001 X np

X

X

r-H

X

H rM

u CO \ t, 0) c Sh f—1 \

t,X rH1 (N

I-H \rH

X et ra te

m ro \ U 0 iH 1 e OJ 1 00 0; I-H rn 01 (C3 e 00 X pi X PJ iH pj •H rH fCj CD X c rH X QJ •H X e 0) X CU e 0) T) X (0 c u fC3 u

•H I-H 0 CM •H (N

X (M Tl \ a

m TD \ TS \ T! X) \ en r-H E 1 (0 iH rH (CJ fH iH 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 \ 1 00 .-H ro f-H U 00 0-) iH 00 00

cHrMi^-^inxir^oocTiOiHCNoo^

COH

Pl

(CJ !hD

U'- •H

UHcou

(0 pcoNH

ShO

a:

CM

XI

(0 Eh

0) u

T3

(00JPo

x;

p) CO •H iH 3 (CJ H

Sh Sh

OJ CD P

.H (0 0 S

HH

01

O e -1

COm

PQc

OJcoeou

>1

pl •H

•pc

(0p

CDi coH

-pa, •H

ShU

CO

CU Q

<XI r-H OJ

M

0)

01 PlCO

OJ CO Pl rH pi CO (0

OJ CO ,—1

0) iH

CD CU iH a, Pl CO fii u> C

C/1 CO Pi •H iH

0) CO (0 QJ

CO rH P OJ CO C CO CO p

CU •H CO CO rH (0 OJ c pi H CO •H CO C 0 CO

(CJ •H 0 Q) PJ (0 pi .H

CO 0) PJ CO c

pl CO •H

(CJ TD (C3 3 -1 C PJ

0) a, 0) CO

Sh

p 0 a (CJ CO 00 rH 00 \ Ol \ Xi iH iH

(CJ 0)

X 00

X \ 1 iH (N

pJ X5 r\j

(C3 rHX

X <^

rH \ \

6h 00 Sh 1 CM 0) 1 00 \ pl 00

rH (U \ X e X

rH

X (0 -H

X x>

G CN rH 00

(M \ 00 00 <-{ ^ r-- 1 X) 1 00 1 H \rH 1 m

rH cNi

m ^ in

19
>.

-p •H

-Pc3o coHP

(0

S-l

•Hc0U co

i-H •H

(C -p

4-1 Cu C •H 0 s-l N u

UJ

u 0) 0 Q

iH

OJ <: u

0) iH n3 X! 0

fO Eh

u0 VI m .H

-P -H

<DM ^ Q) U -P

(0 (0 s C 0

•H

iH iH 0 -H U

4Jc

QJ e C <u 0 4J O. M e0u

.-I .H r-)

10

[fl CO

0) Q)

Q)

C

C ^ ^ U O -H ^ -p

-p

0) =

to tn

(0

!-i

O 0

to -H

&4 P

inO

02 » W

IJi (0 c u

•H PQ 3 -

E-t 0) -P

cn (T3 U) .-H

s-l ffl =

0)U S O 0) CO s-l o

H! to

Q) K

X

X

U5 1^

Q

X =00

S^ \CD p I 0) CM e

to

X

HQ =

+J

Q) AtUO = W

ro = \ CO

ro \rH ro X X

W= <X> \ CN

O

r~ iH r~- ro I I W I I I ro n rH ro ro >sD 'l'

i-H CN ro IT) r~

,—(

til (U 1 1 <D

(U 4J pc CO

tri • r-l to U w

ni

r*i-t •H

CO tri

(-• +-' •H CO

CO , 1 \ — iH

1—1c

•H

X!3

Eh

(-H<D

(1) 4-1 CO 4JC

CO Qi CO cSc

(1) +J

I-H CO C 3

•H •i—i to T)

4J <:

CO e 4-> 0) x; M 0) W E •H

<: to OJ o 0) til (0 u o <D

to to 4-1 c c O a.

XI s-l V-i rH e

(0 3 3 •H to ij Cm fci 0. CO Q CD X

+J 4-1 4-1 4-) 4-) C C C c c

<U (D Q) QJ <u c C C C c 0 0 O 0 o

a. Q.

a

a e g e e 0 O 0 0 0 u U u u

20
coH

-pU

•HmCoU

(0 -pcoN

•Ho

S-l

21
22
23
24
o

UJ

DC

25
26
27
NBS-n4A (REV. 7. 73)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. I'UHl.U A TION OK KI J'OK I' NO. NBSIR 76-1030

2. (lov't Ac'c ( s s iofi No.

3. KiH ipu iit's Accession No.

4. rn ano .sum rn.iThe Effect of Sample Orientation in the Smoke

Density Chamber

5. Public.iiion Date May 1976

6. Performing Organization ( ode

7. AU'l"HOR(S)

Leslie Breden and Marts Meisters

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERKORMINC. ORCIAN l/.ATION NAME AND ADDRES.S

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 4927677

11. Contract /Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street. City, State, ZIP)

Same as No. 9

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTR.ACT (A 200-word or less factual sumrt^ary o( most si^Hicant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

Smoke measurements were compared for various materials in the vertical

and horizontal positions. There appeared a significant difference for

thermoplastic materials because of the melting away from the incident heat

flux in the vertical position. The horizontal mode in addition allows one

to relate the chemistry of polymeric materials to the amount of smoke production. Finally, smoke measurements are made of products containing various

amounts of smoke suppressants.

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 ) . . _ . Fire performance; horizontal and vertical smoke measurements;

smoke; smoke density chamber; smoke suppressants.

18. AVAILABILITY pCX Unlimited

I

' For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

I

^ Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402, SD Cat. No. C13

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

31

22. Price

$4.00

USCOMM-DC 29042-P74