NIST Technical Note 1798

Towards a New Approach for 

Evaluating Fire Blocking Barrier 

Fabrics

Shonali Nazaré

William Pitts

Shaun Flynn

John. R. Shields

Rick D. Davis

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1798

April 2013
NIST Technical Note 1798

Towards a New Approach for 

Evaluating Fire Blocking Barrier 

Fabrics

Shonali Nazaré

William Pitts

Shaun Flynn

John. R. Shields

Rick D. Davis

Fire Research Division

Engineering Laboratory

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1798

April 2013

U.S. Department of Commerce

Rebecca M. Blank, Acting Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology

 Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director
Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this

document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately.

Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the

National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the

entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1798

Natl. Inst. Stand. Techn. Techn. Note 1798, 35 pages (April 2013)

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1798

CODEN: NTNOEF
iii

Abstract

The objective of this study was to provide guidelines to quantify heat transfer characteristics of 

fire blocking barrier fabrics (BF) used in soft furnishings. Fundamental BF properties that 

influence the heat transfer characteristics as it relates to thermal protection of cushioning 

components in upholstered products are discussed. This is important to enable a priori selection 

of BFs such that a final upholstered product complies with full-scale, open-flame flammability

regulations. The report provides a brief review of existing test methods which generally use char 

length and/or mass loss as “pass/fail” criteria for assessing performance of BFs to be used in

finished products. Generally, in these test methods, BFs are tested in mock-up configuration as 

opposed to individual components as considered in this study. 

Basic heat transfer measurements are used to determine effectiveness of materials to be used as 

BFs. The document includes descriptions of flammability test methods used to characterize the 

ignitability, heat release rate, and heat transfer properties of BFs. Selected BFs have been 

examined for the aforementioned properties, and results are discussed. A new bench-scale 

composite test method is also described to assess qualitative performance of BFs. When tested 

for heat transfer characteristics, the area density and thickness of BFs show strong influence. 

However, when tested as a composite in a mock-up assembly, the BFs considered in this study 

showed a clear distinction between active and passive BFs. In the case of chemically active BFs, 

the construction parameters and material properties such as thickness, air permeability, and heat 

transfer were of little significance. In the case of passive BFs, however, these parameters 

became decisive. Results from this study suggest that if the BF is not an active fire barrier, then 

the amount of heat transferred through BF is critical, i.e, the material should be thermally thick 

to protect the underlying cushioning layers.

This document is intended to be a technical resource that provides a holistic approach to quantify 

the fire performance properties of BFs used in soft furnishings. As such, it does not provide a 

minimum standard for barrier materials. 

Keywords

barrier fabrics; soft furnishings; upholstered furniture; mattress; flammability; bench-scale tests, 

thermal protective performance, heat release rate, thermal degradation
iv

This page left intentionally blank
v

Contents

Abstract.........................................................................................................................................iii

List of Tables................................................................................................................................ vi

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. vii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations....................................................................................... viii

1. Background ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Existing test methods for BFs.............................................................................................. 1

2. The Rationale ........................................................................................................................... 5

3. Materials.................................................................................................................................... 7

4. Test Methods ........................................................................................................................... 10

4.1. Heat transfer....................................................................................................................... 10

4.2. Cone calorimetry................................................................................................................ 11

4.3. Composite test.................................................................................................................... 12

5. Results and Discussion............................................................................................................ 14

5.1. Heat transfer properties of BFs.......................................................................................... 14

5.2. Flammability of BFs.......................................................................................................... 22

5.3. Burning behavior of composite assemblies ....................................................................... 24

6. Concluding Remarks and Future Work............................................................................... 31

7. References................................................................................................................................ 33
vi

List of Tables

Table 1. Standards and test methods for assessing ignitability of BFs. ................................... 3

Table 2. Description of BFs used in soft furnishings. Uncertainties are reported as Type A 

uncertainties with experimental standard deviations................................................................ 9

Table 3. Heat transfer characteristics of BFs used in soft furnishings. Uncertainties are 

reported as Type A uncertainties with experimental standard deviations............................ 18

Table 4. Flammability properties of BFs under fully-ventilated conditions in the cone 

calorimeter . Uncertainties in measurement of PHRR and THR are reported as Type A 

uncertainties with experimental standard deviations.............................................................. 23

Table 5. Digital images of composite samples with active BFs exposed to 40 mm butane 

flame for 20 s. .............................................................................................................................. 26

Table 6. Digital images of composite samples with passive BFs exposed to 40 mm butane 

flame for 20 s. .............................................................................................................................. 27
vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Mock-up arrangement for UFAC smoldering ignition testing of BFs used in 

upholstered furniture.................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2. ASTM D 5238 test for smoldering ignition resistance of cotton batting: (a) start, 

(b) test in progress, and (c) end of the test. Cotton batting stack on left of (a) is placed on 

top of the cigarette/cotton batting stack on the right of (a) to form the testing setup in (b).. 3

Figure 3. Schematic of ASTM D 7140 test method for BFs. ..................................................... 4

Figure 4. Modified Cal TB 117 for testing barrier flammability: (a) vertical and (b) 

horizontal configuration............................................................................................................... 5

Figure 5. Schematic of TPP testing device................................................................................ 11

Figure 6. Specimen assembly for cone calorimetry experiments. .......................................... 12

Figure 7. Vertical flammability test rig developed for the ‘Mydrin’ test. ............................. 13

Figure 8. Correlation between TPP and thickness of BFs. Uncertainties are reported as 

Type A uncertainties with experimental standard deviations. ............................................... 15

Figure 9. Correlation between THT and TPP ratings of BFs. Uncertainties are reported as 

Type A uncertainties with experimental standard deviations. ............................................... 15

Figure 10. Thermal response of woven and knitted BFs......................................................... 16

Figure 11. Thermal response of nonwoven BFs. ...................................................................... 17

Figure 12. Correlation between THT and area density of the BFs. Uncertainties are 

reported as Type A uncertainties with experimental standard deviations............................ 19

Figure 13. Correlation between THT and thickness of the BFs. Uncertainties are reported 

as Type A uncertainties with experimental standard deviations............................................ 20

Figure 14. Ranking of BFs using thermal protective indices.................................................. 22
viii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ANPR Announced Proposal of Rulemaking

BF Barrier Fabric

BHFTI California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation

CAL TB California Test Bulletin

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission

FIGRA Fire Growth Rate

FO Flame out (s)

FR Flame Resistant

HRR Heat Release Rate (kW/m2

)

HTP Heat Transfer Properties

HTF Heat Transfer Factor

IR Infrared

LOI Limiting Oxygen Index ( oxygen fraction)

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

PHRR Peak Heat Release Rate (kW/m2)

PUF Polyurethane Foam

SPUF Standard Polyurethane Foam

THR Total Heat Released (MJ/m2)

THT Total Heat Transferred (MJ)

TPI Thermal Protective Index; the inverse of HTF ( ) 

TPP Thermal Protective Performance (cal/cm2)

TPT Thermal Protective Temperature ( oC)

TPF Thermal Protective Factor

TTP Time to Peak (s)

RUF Residential Upholstered Furniture

UFAC Upholstered Furniture Action Council

Second s

Joule J

Watt W
1

1. Background

The federal flammability regulation (16 CFR Part 1633 [1]) for residential mattresses, enacted in 

2007 by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), generated much interest in 

understanding the burning behavior of mattresses as well as in developing new materials for 

mattress construction. To comply with this open flame regulation, mattress manufacturers 

predominantly use fire blocking barrier materials [2]. Currently, there is no federal flammability 

regulation for residential upholstered furniture (RUF), but CPSC has proposed a regulation 

(CPSC 16 CFR part 1634 [3]) that defines a smoldering and open flame metric for these 

products. One option to comply with the proposed 16 CFR Part 1634 is to incorporate a barrier 

material, also called barrier fabric (BF), that has passed smolder and open flame ignition tests, 

into the RUF. BFs are expected to play an increasingly important role in reducing the fire 

hazard of soft furnishings. 

Strategically placed between the cover fabric (known as ticking in the case of a mattress) and the 

cushioning layer, the purpose of fire blocking BFs is to reduce the flammability of soft 

furnishings by preventing or delaying direct flame impingement and heat transfer from open

flames and smoldering cigarettes to the more flammable core cushioning components. In order 

to protect underlying flammable polyurethane foam (PUF), the BF should not ignite, or should 

be self-extinguishing; the BF should provide insulation against the heat released from burning of 

outer layers of upholstery; and the BF should remain intact when exposed to heat and/or flames. 

There are a significant number of commercial fire blocking technologies available to 

accommodate the vast requirements of consumers, manufacturers, and regulatory agencies. In 

order to accomplish comprehensive understanding of the BFs available in the market and their 

performance attributes required to comply with the current 16 CFR part 1633 regulation, NIST

reviewed [4] several fire blocking technologies, their effectiveness, and potential test methods 

for characterizing heat transfer. The heat transfer properties are a key aspect of BF performance. 

The review [4] discusses various fire blocking technologies with respect to material type, fiber 

content, and fire blocking mechanisms. The review suggested that successfully achieving the 

desired level of fire protection requires appropriate matching of the BF to the desired 

characteristics of the soft furnishing. Moreover, very little is known about fire performance 

requirements of these BFs that are critical to comply with full-scale fire regulations for 

mattresses and upholstered furniture, which makes a priori selection of fire barrier materials 

difficult. Selection of BFs is therefore a process of trial and error with current test methods that 

do not quantify barrier effectiveness in terms of thermal protection, gas permeability, structural 

integrity and residual strength, ability to extinguish, and/or lower the temperature of flames. 

Current test methods for BFs are tested in mock-up configurations as opposed to quantification 

of an individual component. 

1.2. Existing test methods for BFs

Various test methods that are used to assess smoldering ignitability of BFs are listed in Table 1. 

All test methods essentially require testing of a barrier component sandwiched between a 

standard polyurethane foam (SPUF) and smolder prone cover fabrics (Class II cover fabrics [5]). 

The smoldering ignition assessment of a barrier component, as described in test methods listed in 

Table 1, is conducted on a small scale mock-up composite (Figure 1) and is voluntarily used by 
2

many upholstered furniture and fabric manufacturers. The mock-up consists of a wooden frame, 

a SPUF, BF, cover fabric, and a cigarette under a sheeting material. This test is based on the 

British standard BS 5852 part I test method [6] for the ignitability of an upholstered furniture 

composite when exposed to a smoldering ignition source (Source 0 in the BS 5852) [3]. 

However, the pass/fail criteria or the classification norms vary with the standardizing authorities. 

The barrier test method (Method 3 [7]) defined by the Upholstered Furniture Action Council 

(UFAC) specifies a maximum char length of 38 mm. The BF fails if the composite ignites or the 

vertical char length exceeds 38 mm upward from the crevice [7]. The ASTM E1353 [8],

standard test method for cigarette ignition resistance of components of upholstered furniture, 

classifies BFs based on a critical char length of 51 mm. According to the ASTM E1353, BFs

with char length of 51 mm or less are classified as Class A barriers and those which ignite or 

have char length in excess of 51 mm are classified as Class B barriers. The NFPA 260 [9] 

classifies barrier materials as Class I or Class II based on char length similar to that prescribed by 

ASTM E1353. 

Figure 1. Mock-up arrangement for UFAC smoldering ignition testing of BFs used in 

upholstered furniture.

The barrier test described in the proposed 16 CFR part 1634 uses mass loss as its ‘pass/fail’ 

criteria as opposed to a char length criteria as in the UFAC and similar barrier test [7]. The BF,

when tested with a cotton velvet cover fabric (a smolder prone fabric), passes the test if the mass 

loss of SPUF is less than 1% and the mock-up does not transition to flaming during the 45 min 

test duration. 

ASTM had a barrier component test (now withdrawn) to assess the smoldering ignition 

resistance of cotton battings. In the ASTM D5238 [10] test method a lighted cigarette was 

placed between precut and preconditioned pieces of cotton battings (Figure 2), and the length of 

char was measured as soon as smoke was observed. Failure was defined as char lengths of 

25.4 mm (1 inch) or greater. Boric acid treated cotton battings generally passed this test [11]. 

Class II cover fabric over BF

Wooden frame

Sheeting material cover cigarette 

Standard PUF
3

Table 1. Standards and test methods for assessing ignitability of BFs.

Issuing 

authority

Standard

[reference]

Type of 

ignition

Pass/fail/classification criteria.

UFAC UFAC Method 3 [7] Smoldering • Vertical char length < 38 mm.

NFPA NFPA 260 [9] Smoldering • Class I barrier material: Vertical char length < 51 mm.

• Class II barrier material: Vertical char length > 51 mm

ASTM ASTM E 1353 [8] Smoldering • Class A barrier material: Vertical char length < 51 mm.

• Class B barrier material: Vertical char length > 51 mm.

ASTM ASTM D 5238 [10] Smoldering • Char length < 25.4 mm.

CPSC 16 CFR Part1634 

(proposed) [3]

Smoldering • No transition into flaming during 45 min test duration.

• SPUF mass loss < 1 %.

BHFTI Cal TB 117 [12] Smoldering • No smoldering after the 45 min test duration.

• No transition into flaming during 45 min test duration.

• Char length < 50 mm.

BHFTI Cal TB 116 [13] Smoldering • No transition into flaming during test duration.

• Char length < 51 mm.

ASTM ASTM D 7140 [14] Flaming • Heat penetration (qualitative). 

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 2. ASTM D 5238 test for smoldering ignition resistance of cotton batting: (a) start, 

(b) test in progress, and (c) end of the test. Cotton batting stack on left of (a) is placed on 

top of the cigarette/cotton batting stack on the right of (a) to form the testing setup in (b).
4

In 2007, ASTM introduced a standard test for measuring the thermal penetration of BF for soft 

furnishings (ASTM D7140 [14]). The BF is exposed to a well-defined and controlled open 

flame heat source (with a heat flux of 46 kW/m2 (1.1 cal/cm2/s)) for 60 s (Figure 3). Such a 

flaming heat source is known to provide a 30% radiant heat and 70% convective heat flux 

[17]. This test method essentially measures the heat penetration through a BF when exposed 

to an open flame and determines whether the heat transfer through the BF is sufficient to ignite 

underlying materials. This approach is used for quality control assessment and screening of 

BFs measures the thermal penetration upon exposure to an open flame heat source. The 

standard, however, does not define a heat transfer threshold for textile materials that can be 

used as a criterion for fire barrier materials.

Figure 3. Schematic of ASTM D 7140 test method for BFs.

The California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation (BHFTI) has no specific 

test for a BF component. The smoldering ignition test for upholstered furniture described in Cal 

TB 116 [13] does not mention the use of a BF, but it does require the finished product or the 

prototype mockup to be tested with the actual components of the product sold, which may 

include, at the discretion of the manufacturer, a BF. The current Cal TB 117 [12] test method 

measure the tendency of the barrier material to smolder after exposure to a smoldering cigarette 

over a smolder prone cover fabric. A 2002 revision of TB 117 considered incorporating a test 

method specifically for highloft BFs (characterized by low area density, high thickness, and a 

greater volume of air than fiber) utilizing open flame ignition tests in both vertical and horizontal 

orientations. For the vertical orientation, the flame application time was 10 min with a flame 

length of 102 mm (4.0 in), and for horizontal testing a gas flame with an energy output of 

57.6 kJ/s was used. To pass this open flame ignition test, the highloft BF was required to selfextinguish by the end of the 10 min test time, and the mass loss allowed was limited to 4 % of 

the initial mass [11]. This test method was modified for BFs used in mattresses and was quickly 

adopted by the mattress industry as a quality assurance test for BFs [15], particularly cotton 

battings. The modified fire barrier test for mattress application uses a larger test specimen

Meeker burner

Sample

Heat sensor Sample holder
5

(30.48 cm x 30.48 cm (12 in x 12 in)) and a flaming ignition source that simulates the 16 CFR 

1633 burner with a gas flow rate of 350 ml/min. The flame is applied for a duration of 70 s. The 

specimen is tested in vertical as well as horizontal orientations (Figure 4). The temperature on 

the opposite side of the specimen is recorded using an infrared (IR) instrument. One of the most 

important observations during and after the test is a visual grading of the char formation. This 

test is material specific (exclusively for battings with at least 70 % cotton) and hence has a 

limited application. BFs with constructions other than nonwoven battings e.g., thermally thin 

BFs, may not withstand this severe test. The latest proposed TB 117 [12], however, primarily 

contains a cigarette smoldering test and has no provisions for an open flame test of the furniture 

or its components [16]. 

The ASTM, UFAC, and BHFTI tests described above are commonly used by industry in the 

development and quality control assessment of BFs. For non-woven, highloft battings, quality 

control measures generally include weight, thickness, uniformity, and a burn test as described in 

the 2002 revision draft of TB 117. The burn tests are qualitative, with specific guidelines for 

assessing fire performance of BFs. Since BFs are generally expected to be self-extinguishing, 

common flammability test methods for such materials include measurements of the time of 

afterflame and afterglow and the extent of fire damage in terms of char length, hole size, and 

weakened sample strength or embrittlement. The composite and component tests for BFs, 

described above do not quantify the fire performance of BFs. 

(a) (b)

Figure 4. Modified Cal TB 117 for testing barrier flammability: (a) vertical and (b) 

horizontal configuration.

2. The Rationale 

The purpose of this document is to provide the basis for guidelines to evaluate the 

performance of fire blocking BFs in soft furnishings. Fundamental BF properties that 

influence the heat transfer properties (HTP), as it relates to thermal protection of 

cushioning components in upholstered products are discussed. 
6

In this work, heat transfer characteristics of BFs exposed to combined radiant and 

convective heat flux are studied and reported for the first time. Similar studies by Shalev 

and Barker [17, 18] on heat transfer characteristics of protective clothing have been 

previously reported wherein heat transfer measurements were utilized to estimate the 

amount of time required to cause second degree burns on human skin. The focus on burn 

injury led to the use of a thermal protective performance (TPP) parameter, defined as the 

product of the incident flux and the time required for sufficient heat transfer through the 

material to induce a second degree burn on human skin generally estimated using a 

correlation provided by Stoll and Chianta [19]. 

A thermal protective performance (TPP) instrument developed by Measurement 

Technology Northwest was used, for the first time, to quantify the heat transfer 

characteristics of BFs. Earlier, such an instrument was used for characterizing the fire 

resistance of fabrics to investigate preventing or limiting burns to human skin. In such 

tests, a test fabric is exposed to a heat source, and the amount of heat transferred through 

the material is measured. Shalev and Barker [17, 18] have provided an excellent 

discussion of such tests for use with fabrics. 

There are clear similarities between the use of fabrics to protect human skin from high 

temperature sources and the use of BF to protect soft fillings in upholstered furniture 

from an external fire. However, in the case of upholstered furniture the goal is to prevent 

or limit the contribution of the filling material to the overall heat release rate of the fire. 

In practice, this requires limiting the amount of the filling material pyrolyzed to generate 

the potential fuel and/or limiting the burning of released pyrolyzate. Pyrolysis of organic 

materials is generally an endothermic process requiring the addition of heat. Thus the 

ability of a BF to reduce heat transfer to the filling is an important consideration. This 

suggests that one measure of the effectiveness of a BF is the amount of heat transferred 

through the material. In this work, a parameter based on the amount of heat transferred 

through a barrier during a 70 s application of a heat source is proposed as a suitable 

parameter. 

Since the focus of this work is to quantify thermal protection provided by a BF, we 

modified the NFPA 1971 [20] test method such that the specimen is exposed to a 

specified heat flux, for a given amount of time. Instead of TPP values, the results of the 

test were reported in terms of the heat flux passing through the material. The heat flux 

passing through the specimen is measured using a slug calorimeter. Low heat flux 

values imply good insulation properties, which help prevent heat and flames being 

transferred to the underlying cushioning. The test method is applicable to woven 

materials, knit materials, battings and nonwoven materials. 

Flammability test methods that characterize ignitability, and heat release rate, properties 

of BFs are also discussed. Cone calorimeter experiments were performed to distinguish 

between BFs with respect to ignition times, peak heat release rate (PHRR), total heat 

released (THR), and char yield. The time to ignition (TTI) relates to how quickly a BF 

can ignite if the ticking or cover fabric catches fire. The PHRR is related to the 
7

maximum heat released by the burning BF that maintains the fire due to a positive 

feedback mechanism involved in the burning process while the THR reflects the total 

amount of flammable content of the specimen. The fire growth rate (FIGRA) index

calculated by dividing the peak heat release by time to peak heat release (FIGRA = 

PHRR/TTP), can be used to estimate the predicted fire spread rate [30]. The higher the 

FIGRA index value, the higher the fire hazard. The char yield, both qualitative and 

quantitative, reflects the thermal protective property of the BF after it has been consumed 

in the fire. Thus, important information with regards to evaluating BFs can be obtained 

from cone calorimetry data.

A new bench-scale composite test method is also described to assess qualitative 

performance of BFs. Bench-scale laboratory tests for individual components are suitable 

for screening new materials. However, these component tests cannot characterize the fire 

hazard posed by upholstered composites, and, hence, composite flammability tests are 

essential to measure the fire performance under end-use conditions. Moreover, the 

flammability of upholstered products can be drastically impacted by the structure of BFs 

and of the finished product, and other factors, which may mean that it is not possible to 

predict the full-scale behavior of the BFs without testing them in the context that defines 

the final product. In addition, BFs could fail due to stress-induced separation/splitting 

that results in exposing the cushioning materials of the soft furnishing to high 

temperatures and flames. When exposed to heat and/or flames, BFs undergo chemical 

and/or physical changes (e.g., dissipation of heat, release of FR, and formation of a 

protective char), and these may cause the BF to shrink, become stiff and/or brittle, and/or 

become thinner. In an attempt to better understand the burning behavior of composite 

assemblies and for assessing fire performance of barrier materials a bench-scale 

composite test has been developed. Finally, general principles for engineering and 

evaluating the effectiveness of BFs are provided. 

3. Materials1

The types of BFs used in soft furnishings are mainly influenced by end user applications and 

cost. Most commonly, highloft, nonwoven fiber battings are used in residential mattress 

applications, whereas coated or laminated textiles are more common in institutional and 

residential upholstered furnishing applications [4]. BFs constructed from inherently fire resistant

fibers2 are frequently used in high-performance applications (e.g., aircraft seating, seating in 

other mass transport vehicles and public buildings). The range is indicated by list of 

commercially available BFs included in this study given in Table 2. The list includes a variety of 

textile structures including highloft, nonwoven battings, knitted, and woven structures used in a 

variety of applications. With such a varied selection of BFs, it was possible to identify the 

 1 Certain commercial equipment, instruments or materials are identified in this paper in order to specify the experimental 

procedure adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best 

available for this purpose.

2

 Fire resistant fibers self-extinguish upon removal of the ignition source, thus preventing flame spread, whereas flame retarded 

fibers burn slowly due to a flame retarding mechanism.
8

factors to which the heat transfer properties were related most significantly. The BFs varied in 

average thicknesses from 0.1 mm to 7.8 mm. The thickness of BFs was determined using a 

Check-line Digital Thickness Gauge (model 500-JD-A). This device uses the principal of 

capacitance and the circuits are designed to measure changes in capacitance with changes in the 

thickness of BF. The change in voltage due to change in capacitance is converted to a unit of 

distance. Since it is known that surface fibers play a significant role in the effective thermal 

thickness of the fabrics [21], the thickness of BFs was determined at a low measuring force of

0.6 N ± 0.3 N per unit area. In order to obtain consistent and more accurate thickness 

measurements of textile materials, a precision spring system [22] was used. 

The experimental matrix covers the most extensively used fibers and fiber blends in the BF 

industry [4]. These include boric acid treated cotton, flame retardant (FR) rayon, FR polyester, 

glass fiber, carbon fiber and blends thereof. The exact fiber blend composition are proprietary

and thus were not available. BFs made from the latest core-yarn technology and highperforming carbon fibers (oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers) were included.

Depending on the mode of fire blocking technology employed, the BFs in Table 2 are identified 

as active or passive. Active BFs have a chemical effect on the fire. The chemical activity of 

active BFs can be in the condensed phase through enhanced char formation (e.g., BF-1, BF-2, 

BF-3, BF-4, BF-5), gas phase via flame quenching and/or intumescence (e.g., BF-10, BF-11, BF12, BF-15), or both. For the purpose of this report, only the BFs that can extinguish the flames 

and prevent the outer upholstery from burning are classified as active BFs in Table 2. Passive 

fire barriers (BF-1, BF-2, BF-3, BF-4, BF-5, BF-6, BF-7, BF-8, BF-9, BF-13, BF-14, BF-16, 

BF-17, BF-18, BF-19) prevent or delay the ignition of interior cushioning materials; however, 

they do not prevent burning of the outer upholstery. Their effectiveness derives from serving as 

a physical and/or thermal barrier between some or all of the fuel and the potential ignition 

source. 

BFs can also be distinguished as thermally thick or thermally thin materials. A material is 

considered to be thermally thick if the heat penetration depth is less than the physical depth [23]. 

In thermally thin materials, heat absorbed on one surface of the material penetrates its thickness 

sufficiently rapidly, so there is no significant temperature gradient through the material’s depth 

[24]. 
9

Table 2. Description of BFs used in soft furnishings. Uncertainties are reported as Type A uncertainties with experimental 

standard deviations.

§ For textile materials, density is generally expressed as mass per unit area. The standard uncertainty (Type B) in measuring area density is about ± 5 g/m2.

Sample Fiber blend Structure Area density§, g/m2 Average thickness, mm Type of BF

BF-1 FR rayon/polyester Thermally bonded 

Highloft

155 4.1 ± 0.1 Passive

BF-2 FR rayon/polyester Thermally bonded 

Highloft

230 6.7 ± 0.2 Passive

BF-3 FR rayon/polyester Needle punched 240 7.8 ± 0.6 Passive

BF-4 Boric acid treated cotton/ FR 

rayon/polyester

Needle punched 

/Stratified

230 5.7 ± 0.1 Passive

BF-5 Boric acid treated cotton Needle punched 230 6.9 ± 0.8 Passive

BF-6 Carbon fiber Nonwoven felt 500 3.9 ± 0.2 Passive

BF-7 Carbon fiber Nonwoven felt 576 7.2 ± 0.1 Passive

BF-8 FR rayon/polyester Needlepunched 237 4.3 ± 0.1 Passive

BF-9 FR rayon/polyester Needlepunched 240 2.2 ± 0.1 Passive

BF-10 FR polyester /FR rayon Stitchbond 165 0.7 ± 0.1 Active

BF-11 Glass fiber core/ FR acrylic 

fiber

Knit Barrier using 

core yarn technology

186 0.9 ± 0.1 Active

BF-12 Glass fiber core/ FR acrylic 

fiber

Knit Barrier 237 1.6 ± 0.1 Active

BF-13 FR rayon/glass fiber/ poly 

lactic acid (PLA) fiber

Knit Barrier 165 1.4±0.1 Passive

BF-14 Carbon fiber Circular knit 250 1.2 ± 0.1 Passive

BF-15 Glass fiber core/ FR acrylic 

fiber

Woven Barrier 170 0.5 ± 0.1 Active

BF-16 FR rayon/crystalline silica 

fiber/poly lactic acid (PLA) 

fiber

Nonwoven 290 2.9 ± 0.1 Passive

BF-17 Glass fiber Woven Barrier 150 0.2 ± 0.1 Passive

BF-18 Glass fiber Woven Barrier 170 0.1 ± 0.1 Passive

BF-19 Glass fiber Woven Barrier 320 0.3 ± 0.1 Passive
10

4. Test Methods

4.1. Heat transfer 

A schematic of the TPP test apparatus is shown in Figure 5. It consists of two propane fueled 

Meeker burners and a bank of nine quartz radiant heating elements calibrated to provide 50 % 

convective and 50 % radiative heat flux. This heat source differs from the one used in ASTM 

D7140 described earlier in that the ratio of radiant to convective heat fluxes is different. 

However, studies [17] have shown that the heat transfer through test material is insensitive to 

changes in the radiant/convective ratio. 

The Meeker burners were tilted at an angle of 45o from the horizontal (Figure 5) so that the 

flames converged at a point immediately under the test specimen. The propane burner flames 

were visually monitored to avoid any turbulence. The specimens were exposed to a total heat 

flux of 65 kW/m2 ± 5 kW/m2 for 70 s. This exposure condition represents the maximum heat 

flux that a mattress top experiences during a full-scale open flame test [25,26] as described in 16 

CFR part 1633 [27]. The total heat flux was calibrated every day prior to experimentation. 

The sample carriage consists of a frame for securing the BF specimen and a heat sensor placed in 

direct contact with the back of the BF. The heat sensor is a slug calorimeter embedded in an 

insulating board which is placed face down on the fabric assembly. The slug calorimeter 

consists of a blackened copper disc 40 mm in diameter with a thickness of 1.6 mm. Three 32-

gauge chromel/alumel thermocouples are mounted in the disk at 120° intervals. The heat flux 

sensor with calibrated slug calorimeter is connected to a data acquisition system which records 

the rise in temperature of the sensors as a function of time. Thermocouples secured in the copper 

slug calorimeter, which is in direct contact with the back surface of the specimen, measure the 

rise in temperature. The rates of temperature rise or the slope of the temperature versus time 

trace are used in conjunction with the calorimeter constants provided by the manufacturer to 

compute the heat flux received. The water-cooled shutter is pneumatically actuated and 

automated for precise control of exposure timing. It covers the heating elements to allow time 

for the sample carriage to move into position above the heat source. At the start of the test, the 

heat sensors are approximately at room temperature. The rise in temperature after exposure is 

calculated by subtracting the starting temperature from the recorded temperature. The 

ThermDac software generates data in terms of time to second degree burn on human skin and a 

thermal protective performance (TPP) rating. The TPP rating of the test specimen is determined 

by multiplying the recorded protection time by the heat flux exposure and has units of energy per 

unit area (cal/cm2). The higher the TPP rating, the better the thermal protective performance of 

the fabric assembly. A particularly useful feature of this test procedure is a continuous 

calorimetric trace useful for analyzing the fabric heat transfer characteristics.
11

Figure 5. Schematic of TPP testing device.

BF materials were placed on the sample holder in the same configuration used in full-scale open

flame flammability testing of a residential mattress, in that the ticking (fabric over the BF) is 

exposed to the heating elements and the BF is in contact with the sensor. This condition 

measures the protective characteristics of the total assembly. The ticking material used in this 

study was a stitchbond fabric containing 69 % rayon and 31 % FR polyester blend, and was kept 

consistent in all composite specimens. Such a ticking material was chosen to avoid any meltdripping of ticking and/or BFs, thereby damaging the quartz tubes. The use of a FR ticking, 

however, is not expected to interfere with measurements of the heat transfer properties of BFs.

Upon completion of the test, the slug calorimeter was carefully examined for any sticky residue 

or char from the degraded BF. Although prior studies have shown that the state of the copper 

surface has little influence on the measurement of heat transfer through textile materials [28], 

any accumulated residue was carefully cleaned from the sensor and sample holder surfaces. 

4.2. Cone calorimetry

The cone calorimeter was operated according to the procedures provided in ISO 5660-1 [29]. 

The sample was located 2.5 cm below the base of the cone. Most textile materials are thermally 

thin materials and have very high air-to-fiber ratio. This characteristic feature of textile materials 

makes it very difficult to maintain their configuration. Such materials often curl, melt, and char 

when exposed to high incident heat fluxes. The changing specimen configuration complicates 

interpretation of the experimental results. In order to limit configuration changes in materials

Shutter

Slug calorimeter

Radiant heaters

Gas burner Gas burner

Sample holder

Sample Carriage

Sample 
12

and improve measurement reproducibility, the specimen assembly [30] shown in Figure 6 was 

used. Fine wires passing over the top of the fabric provided additional stability. Pieces of 

ceramic blanket of various thicknesses were utilized to ensure that barriers were located at the 

proper height below the cone calorimeter.

An incident heat flux of 50 kW/m2 was judiciously selected, (1) because it represents a 

developing fire more than a fully developed fire at 65 kW/m2 [31], (2), this flux represents the

immediate reaction-to-fire when the BF is exposed to the burners in a full-scale mattress 

flammability test described in 16 CFR part 1633 [1], and (3), because the BFs are expected to be 

fire resistant and /or flame resistant materials, ignition of such materials at incident heat fluxes 

below 50 kW/m2 were not expected. 

Figure 6. Specimen assembly for cone calorimetry experiments.

4.3. Composite test

A modified “Mydrin test” [32] was chosen as the bench-scale test for the BFs. The Mydrin test 

was originally developed [33] as a simplified version of a Source 1 ignition condition in British 

Standard BS5852: 1979 [34]. Its purpose was to assess the flammability performance of FR 

cover fabrics used in upholstered furnishings. The test was considered to be an acceptable mockup test that inexpensively and accurately indicate the ignition behavior of full-scale products of 

complex structures when tested in accordance with BS5852 [32]. The test set-up is shown in 

Figure 7. A premixed butane gas burner was used with a flame height adjusted to 40 mm as 

specified in BS 5438 [35]. The flame was applied to the face of the composite for 20 s and then 

removed. If the composite continued to flame and/or smoke for more than 2 mins and/or, heat or 

afterglow for more than 15 min after removal of the ignition source, a “fail” was recorded for the 

test, otherwise a “pass” was reported. This test criterion, however, was limited to mock-up 

composites using FR cover fabrics. Since BFs were used in this study, the Mydrin test was 

modified as described below. 

94 mm

106 mm

54 mm

Ceramic blanket

Ceramic board

Steel frame

Fabric specimen

Steel holder
13

Figure 7. Vertical flammability test rig developed for the ‘Mydrin’ test.

The new bench-scale composite test developed for this study included a new specimen 

configuration including a piece of PUF (average density of 28.4 kg/m3 or 1.77 lb/ft3, and average 

air permeability of 0.33 m3

/min or 11.7 ft3/min) of approximately 220 mm x 150 mm x 22 mm 

dimensions as the flammable filling part of the composite to be tested. PUF samples were 

custom made according to NIST specifications in a small pilot plant by Foamex International 

Inc., PA (FXI). Manufacturing details and physical properties of PUF (formulation B12) are 

described in a previous report [36]. The BFs and the ticking were cut into pieces, approximately

264 mm x 194 mm and pinned onto the foam to form an upholstered composite. The BF was 

placed between the ticking and the PUF. The back side of the foam was not covered with BF

and the ticking. The fire blocking performance of BFs was tested with and without the ticking. 

The ticking selected for this composite test was a woven fabric with acrylic backcoating and had

a flame spread rate of 37 mm/s ± 3 mm/s in the vertical orientation when subjected to an open 

flame as defined in BS 5438 [35]. The ticking has an area density of approximately 200 g/m2

with a fiber composition of 77 % rayon and 23 % polyester. This particular ticking is classified 

as Class B according to its smoldering performance as defined in 16 CFR part 1632.6 [37]. 

Initially, the composites were tested as an assembly of PUF/BF/Ticking. Composite samples 

which showed self-extinguishing properties in the presence of a fairly flammable ticking were 

not included in further testing. The PUF/BF/Ticking composite samples that burned extensively,

primarily due to burning of ticking, were tested without tickings. Burning behavior was 

characterized in terms of duration of the flaming, thermal damage to the foam, and selfextinguishing behavior. 

The composite bench-scale test employed for this study is still in the developmental stage. The 

test method has its limitations with respect to sample size, edge effects, and orientation of the 

sample. Furthermore, PUF as a filling material has long shown high variability in such type of 

composite tests and requires extensive replication in order to obtain satisfactory results. The 

reproducibility and repeatability of the test therefore needs to be studied further. 
14

5. Results and Discussion

5.1. Heat transfer properties of BFs

The heat transfer characteristics of BFs have been assessed using the modified NFPA 1971 test 

method described in Section 4.1. The TPP ratings for BFs derived from the ThermDac software 

are given in Table 3. TPP rating, as defined in the NFPA 1971, is the product of incident heat 

flux and recorded tolerance time for second degree burn on human skin [20]. Thus, the higher 

the TPP rating, the better is the insulation of the material. For firefighter’s protective clothing, 

the NFPA 1971 requires TPP rating of 146 J/cm2 (35 cal/cm2). The TPP ratings for BFs range 

from as low as 38 J/cm2 (9 cal/cm2) for thermally thin BFs (BF-10, BF-11, and BF-15) to as high 

as 268 J/cm2 (64 cal/cm2 ) for thermally thick BF; primarily consisting of inorganic carbon 

fibers. A general trend of increasing TPP rating with BF thickness can be noted from Figure 8. 

BF-7 is an outlier in Figure 8 with its disproportionately high TPP rating compared to BF-2 and 

BF-5 with similar thicknesses of 7 mm. BF-7 consists of inherently fire resistant carbon fibers 

that do not thermally decompose and the thickness of the BF-7 is maintained throughout the test 

as opposed to BF-2 and BF-5. The organic fibers in BF-2 and BF-5 thermally decompose,

thereby reducing the thickness and TPP rating. No particular correlation was noted for TPP 

ratings and area density of BFs. Increasing area density may inhibit convective heat transfer, but 

may also enhance conductive heat transfer. 

Since, TPP values are based on tolerance time for second degree burn on human skin and have 

limited applicability with regards to thermal protection of cushioning layers in an upholstered 

product, heat transfer characteristics of BFs were also assessed independently of the second 

degree burn criterion. The average rise in temperature, the heat flux recorded at the unexposed 

surface of a BF, the total amount of heat energy transferred (THT) through the BF, and the 

maximum heat flux measured at the unexposed side of a BF during a 70 s exposure time are 

given in Table 3. Figure 9 is a plot of THT versus TPP for various BFs. The results of a linear 

least square curve fit is shown as a straight line. The correlation coefficient for the fit was R2 = 

0.63 which indicates a relatively weak correlation between the measures of heat transfer. The 

weak correlation is due to the differences in limiting criteria for calculating the two measures of 

heat transfer as described earlier.

The increases in temperature of the unexposed surface as a function of time for thermally thin 

woven and knitted BFs are shown in Figure 10. BF-10 (a stitchbond material) is also included in 

this category of woven barrier materials since the physical characteristics are similar to those of 

woven materials. BF-10, BF-11, BF-12, BF-13, and BF-15 show instantaneous rises in 

temperature as opposed to BF-14, BF-17, BF-18, and BF-19, where rises in temperature at the 

unexposed surface are not seen until almost 20 s of exposure to the heat flux. The latter BFs 

have very low gas permeability and therefore very little, or no, heat transfer via convection. 

Heat transfer in these BFs is primarily by conduction and radiation. Moreover, conductive heat 

transfer is negligible under highly turbulent flaming conditions [17], thereby resulting in delays 

in temperature rise. 
15

Figure 8. Correlation between TPP and thickness of BFs. Uncertainties are reported 

as Type A uncertainties with experimental standard deviations.

Figure 9. Correlation between THT and TPP ratings of BFs. Uncertainties are 

reported as Type A uncertainties with experimental standard deviations.

y = 3.8x + 9.5

R2 = 0.6

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

TPP, J/cm2

Thickness, mm

BF-5

BF-2

BF-16

BF-3

BF-4

BF-7

BF-1

BF-6

BF-9

BF-8

BF-12

BF-13

BF-14

BF-11

BF-19

BF-17

BF-18

BF-10

BF-15

y = -1.3x + 72.1

R2 = 0.63

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Total heat transfered, J/cm2

TPP, J/cm2
16

Figure 11 shows temperature-time curves for nonwoven BFs. Generally, all nonwoven, highloft 

BFs show lower heat transfer as compared to thermally thin, woven and knitted BFs. Increase in 

temperature at the unexposed surfaces of thermally thick BFs are not seen until the BFs start 

decomposing. Thermally thin BFs show temperature rises up to 300 °C during the 70 s exposure 

time, whereas maximum temperatures recorded at the unexposed surface of thermally thick BFs 

are all less than 225 °C. For some BFs, the initial slopes of the temperature-time curves vary 

because the heat exposure produces fundamental changes in fabric thermal and spatial properties 

through mechanisms of pyrolysis, char formation, and shrinkage. This is particularly true in the 

case of highloft nonwoven BFs where the volume of air is larger than the volume of fiber.

Figure 10. Thermal response of woven and knitted BFs.

25

75

125

175

225

275

325

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Average temperature, °C

Time, s

BF-10

BF-11

BF-12

BF-13

BF-14

BF-15

BF-17

BF-18

BF-19
17

Figure 11. Thermal response of nonwoven BFs.

25

75

125

175

225

275

325

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Average temperature, °C

Time, s

BF-1

BF-2

BF-3

BF-4

BF-5

BF-6

BF-7

BF-8

BF-9

BF-16
18

Table 3. Heat transfer characteristics of BFs used in soft furnishings. Uncertainties are reported as Type A uncertainties with 

experimental standard deviations.

Sample 

specification

Average heating 

rate of heat 

sensors, °C/min

Maximum heat flux 

at unexposed side of 

barrier at 70 s, 

kW/m2

Total amount of 

heat transferred, 

MJ/m2

TPP,J/cm2

(cal/cm2)

HTF, J/g Description of char

Thermally thick, non-woven, highloft BFs

BF-1 160 ± 30 13.1 ± 0.4 52.0 ± 1.4 75 ± 4 (18) 335 Very thin, fragile 

BF-2 150 ± 18 9.3 ± 3.4 30.2 ± 17.5 113 ± 15 (27) 130 Thick, pliable

BF-3 115 ± 5 7.4 ± 0.9 28.5 ± 0.9 126 ± 7 (30) 121 Thick, flexible

BF-4 120 ± 5 5.9 ± 1.6 28.8 ± 6.8 113 ± 3 (27) 126 Thick, flexible char with no cracks or 

holes

BF-5 90 ± 5 5.2 ± 1.6 24.6 ± 3.2 151 ± 14 (36) 109 Several holes in the char

BF-6 100 ± 5 7.3 ± 0.4 26.0 ± 3.2 126 ± 8 (30) 52 Full thickness, flexible char with no 

cracks or holes

BF-7 50 ± 5 1.9 ± 0.6 4.6 ± 2.5 268 ± 3 (64) 9 Full thickness, flexible char with no 

cracks or holes

BF-8 140 ± 5 9.10 ± 0.3 43.4± 6.6 105 ± 3 (25) 181 Brittle char, little shrinkage and no 

hole formation

BF-9 150 ± 5 10.3 ± 0.9 30.4 ± 9.0 75 ± 1(18) 125 Brittle char, little shrinkage and no 

hole formation

BF-16 160 ± 5 11.0 ± 1.2 46.9 ± 7.9 92 ± 3 (22) 162 Brittle char, little shrinkage and no 

hole formation

Thermally thin, woven and knitted BFs

BF-10 260 ± 5 16.0 ± 4.9 70.5 ± 18.8 38 ± 1 (9) 430 Thin, permeable char

BF-11 250 ± 5 20.5 ± 0.2 87.5 ± 2.5 38 ± 0.4 (9) 473 Thin, flexible, permeable char

BF-12 220 ± 5 11.5 ± 5.8 52.1 ± 11.8 46 ± 1 (11) 219 Thin, flexible, permeable char

BF-13 220 ± 5 16.8 ± 0.1 66.0 ± 0.8 54 ± 1 (13) 400 Thin, flexible, permeable char

BF-14 205 ± 5 12.9 ± 0.9 38.4 ± 7.4 63 ± 2 (15) 152 Thin, flexible, permeable char

BF-15 230 ± 5 17.9 ± 0.6 75.4 ± 6.8 38 ± 1 (9) 441 Thin, permeable char

BF-17 205 ± 5 10.9 ± 1.7 43.3 ± 2.0 59 ± 2 (14) 287 Thin, non-permeable char

BF-18 190 ± 5 11.6 ± 3.0 30.0 ± 8.0 67 ± 5 (16) 176 Thin, non-permeable char

BF-19 240 ± 5 16.7 ± 1.9 70.3 ± 4.3 54 ± 2 (13) 219 Thin, non-permeable char
19

Data were analyzed to determine the relationship between the heat transfer through BFs and BF 

characteristics such as fiber content, area density and thickness. Figure 12 shows a plot of THT

through the BF as a function of the area density of BF and Figure 13 shows a plot of THT as a 

function of BF thickness. There is considerable scatter of data in the range of 150 g/m2 to 300 

g/m2 in Figure 12, suggesting significant influence of fiber content. However, total heat 

transferred through the BF was approximately inversely related to its thickness (Figure 13). 

Figure 12. Correlation between THT and area density of the BFs.

Uncertainties are reported as Type A uncertainties with experimental standard 

deviations.

Passive barrier materials BF-17, BF-18 and BF-19 have similar woven structures, fiber content, 

and thicknesses, but have different area densities. The amount of heat transferred and, hence, the 

thermal protective performance of these BFs containing inherently non-combustible glass fiber 

varies with the area density. The THT through BF-17 (area density = 150 g/m2

) was recorded as 

43.3 MJ/m2 ± 2 MJ/m2 whereas, BF-18 with higher area density (170 g/m2) has a lower heat 

transfer rate and the THT during the 70 s exposure was 30 MJ/m2 ± 8 MJ/m2

. The amount of 

heat transferred through woven glass fiber fabrics decreased with increase in their area density. 

However, for BF-19 (320 g/m2

), a significantly higher heat transfer rate was recorded. The high

heat transfer rate of BF-19 could have been due to higher thermal conductivity [38] of the 

densely woven glass fiber fabric. This suggests that there is a critical area density above which 

the additional benefit in thermal protection gained by the increase in area density is offset by the 

increased efficiency of thermal conduction.

BF-1

BF-6

BF-7

BF-8

BF-10 

BF-11

BF-12

BF-13

BF-14

BF-15

BF-16

BF-17

BF-18

BF-19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Total heat transfered, MJ/m2

Area density, g/m2

BF-5

BF-2 BF-9

BF-3

BF-4
20

Figure 13. Correlation between THT and thickness of the BFs.

Uncertainties are reported as Type A uncertainties with experimental standard 

deviations.

BF-15 and BF-18 had similar area densities, fiber content and woven construction. A lower 

amount of heat was transferred (30 MJ/m2 ± 8 MJ/m2) through BF-18, compared to BF-15, 

which was 75 MJ/m2 ± 7 MJ/m2. The higher heat transfer though BF-15 could be due to its 

higher porosity and hence higher permeability of the woven structure. The woven BF-15 was

more porous than the densely woven glass fiber fabric (BF-18). The pore size impacts the rate of 

air permeability, which in turn impacts the convective heat transfer. 

Such a trend is also seen among the knitted BFs (e.g., BF-11, BF-12, BF-13, and BF-14). With 

similar fiber content in BF-11 and BF-12, BF-11 showed higher heat transfer rates. BF-12 has a 

higher area density (237 g/m2) as compared to BF-11 thereby inhibiting convective heat transfer. 

Amongst the knitted BFs, BF-14 with inherently fire resistant carbon fibers and with the highest 

area density (270 g/m2) has very low heat transfer rates. The THT value recorded for BF-14 was 

38 MJ/m2 ± 7 MJ/m2.

Amongst the nonwoven BFs, BF-1 and BF-2 have similar fiber content and highloft 

construction. The difference in heat transfer properties of BF-1 and BF-2 is primarily due to the 

difference in their area densities and thickness. With a rise in temperature of about 150 °C/min ± 

18 °C/min at the unexposed surface of BF-2, the THT value is recorded as 30 MJ/m2 ± 17 MJ/m2

. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Total heat transferred, MJ/m2

Thickness, mm

BF-18

BF-17

BF-14

BF-19

BF-7

BF-5

BF-3

BF-2

BF-8

BF-1

BF-6

BF-16

BF-13

BF-11

BF-15

BF-4

BF-9

BF-10

BF-12
21

BF-1, however, has a higher heat transfer rate, and THT through BF-1 is recorded as 52 MJ/m2 ± 

1.4 MJ/m2. The residual char of BF-2 was pliable as opposed to the thin fragile char of BF-1. 

Fiber type can be an equally important characteristic in nonwoven highloft BFs effectiveness. 

Nonwovens BF-2, BF-5, and BF-7 have similar thicknesses but different area densities and are 

constructed from different fiber blends. BF-5 has boric acid treated cotton fiber and shows 

significant enhancement in HTP. The rise in temperature at the unexposed surface of BF-5 is 1.7 

times slower (90 °C/min) as compared to that for BF-2 (150 °C/min). The higher heat transfer 

rate of BF-2 can be partly attributed to the high heat release rate (HRR) of FR viscose/polyester 

blends. In BF-5, the boric acid catalyzes dehydration reactions of cotton fibers and facilitates 

char formation [39]. When exposed to an open flame, the boric acid decomposes 

endothermically to release water and cool the flame [11]. The main drawback of BF-5 is that the 

residual char had several holes in it and this can have detrimental effects on the barrier 

effectiveness of a material. BF-7 is a nonwoven felt with the highest area density (576 g/m2

) and 

thickness (7 mm), and therefore lowest heat transfer rate, amongst all the BFs tested in this 

study. Moreover, the carbon fiber in BF-7 is inherently fire resistant and shows no signs of 

decomposition when exposed to a high heat flux of 65 kW/m2

. Compared to BF-7, a 43 % 

thinner carbon fiber felt (BF-6, 4 mm thick) had 5 times higher heat transfer (26.0 MJ/m2 ± 2.5 

MJ/m2

) suggesting a strong correlation between thickness and THT for BFs with similar 

characteristics (e.g., construction and fiber type). It is important to note here that the area 

densities of BF-6 and BF-7 are somewhat comparable.

The heat transfer characteristics of barrier materials depend on their thermal conductivity, 

density, thickness and thermal emissivity. In this study, thermal conductivity and thermal 

emission properties of barrier materials were not measured. However, the area density and 

thickness of BFs showed a strong influence on heat transfer properties. Thicker barrier materials

with temperature gradients behaved as thermally thick barriers and resulted in lower heat transfer 

rates, whereas thermally thin barriers with constant temperatures throughout the depth of the 

material resulted in higher heat transfer rates. Thus, for better barrier effectiveness, the material 

should have sufficient thermal thickness.

In addition to BF thickness, density and construction, other factors that influence heat transfer 

include thermal conductivity and heat capacity of fibers, the nature of the boundary layer formed 

at the fabric air interface, the extent of endothermic reactions occurring in the solid or vapor 

phase, combustion products formed and their thermal properties [18]. The mechanism of heat 

transfer through BFs comprises a more complex combination of absorption and re-radiation, 

conduction and perhaps forced convection. Surface transfer coefficients and surface optical 

properties affect, respectively, the convective and radiative heat transfer to the surface of the 

fabric. The process of heat transfer through the fabric is also affected by bulk heat capacity, bulk 

conductivity, fiber-to-air ratio and air void distribution. It is therefore more meaningful to rank 

BFs using protective index. Reported in Table 3 are the BF weight normalized THT value, 

termed as heat transfer factor (HTF) having units of J/g. HTF is the ratio of the THT value to the 

fabric area density in g/m2. The inverse of HTF can be arbitrarily defined as the thermal 

protective index (TPI) of BF. The ranking of BFs using protective indices is shown in Figure 14. 

Depending on the thermal thickness and fiber content, different BF types yielded different TPI 

values. The higher the TPI value, the better is the thermal protective performance of a BF.
22

Figure 14. Ranking of BFs using thermal protective indices.

5.2. Flammability of BFs 

Numerous researchers[31,30,40,41] have shown that cone calorimeter measurements on 

materials such as those considered in the current study can provide significant experimental 

challenges associated with the materials’ low mass, thickness, and burning behavior. Various 

approaches for improving the reliability and reproducibility of the measurements have been 

discussed. These same sample properties often lead to periods of heat release in typical cone 

calorimeter experiments that last on the order of seconds or tens of seconds. Such heat release

times are comparable to the response times of most cone calorimeters, with a value of close to 

6 s being typical. Recorded HRRs are known to be distorted from the actual time behavior when 

rapid changes take place over periods comparable to the response time. For the sharp peaks 

characteristic of these experiments, measured values of maximum HRR would be expected to 

underestimate the actual value, while the time required to reach the maximum value would be 

overestimated. 

The sample holder system shown in Figure 6 was designed to minimize problems associated with 

testing fabrics and barrier materials. Even though approaches have been developed for 

correcting for time response effects [30,42,43,44], such corrections were judged to be beyond 

the scope of this project, and the following results are based on the experimental data as 

3.0

7.7

8.3 7.9

9.2

19.2

5.5

8.0

2.3 2.1

4.6

2.5

6.6

2.3

6.2

3.5

5.7

4.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

Thermal protective index (TPI)

115.2
23

recorded. As a result, the findings represent relative characterizations of BFs and should not be 

considered as absolute values.

Various parameters derived from the cone calorimeter data including ignition times, peak heat 

release rate, time to peak heat released (TTP), total heat released, FIGRA indices, and char yield

are given in Table 4 for the various BFs. All the BFs had relatively short TTI values, but selfextinguished quickly (flame out (FO) time ≤ 50 s), have low PHRR, low TTP, and low THR 

values. The residual char after combustion was measured, and most BFs had at least 40 % of 

their original mass retained. Moreover, experimental times for such materials are relatively short 

where burning takes place at a high rate before the sample self-extinguishes. 

Table 4. Flammability properties of BFs under fully-ventilated conditions in the cone 

calorimeter . Uncertainties in measurement of PHRR and THR are reported as Type A 

uncertainties with experimental standard deviations.

 Sample TTI , s FO, s PHRR, 

kW/m2

TTP, s FIGRA, 

kW/s

Char yield, % THR, kJ

BF-1 6 24 134 ± 11 10 13.4 40 19 ± 4.0

BF-2 4 50 137 ± 3 6 22.8 39 43 ± 0.7

BF-3 4 34 104 ± 4 7 14.8 42 31 ± 2.6

BF-4 5 33 108 ± 4 8 13.5 37 35 ± 2.3

BF-5 6 35 108 ± 6 8 13.5 38 44 ± 5.2

BF-6 11 36 6 ± 1 8 0.8 68 32 ± 3.3

BF-7 - - - - - - -

BF-8 6 28 22 ± 1 13 1.7 21 41 ± 12

BF-9 6 30 143 ± 8 12 11.9 35 25 ± 1.6

BF-10 4 20 102 ± 8 11 9.3 42 17 ± 1.7

BF-11 8 10 74 ± 32 11 6.7 61 14 ± 3.2

BF-12 8 10 115 ± 3 12 9.6 58 23 ± 1.8

BF-13 7 12 141 ± 10 12 11.8 43 16 ± 0.9

BF-14 10 20 14 ± 1 14 1.0 46 40 ± 2.2

BF-15 7 10 7 ± 4 10 0.7 73 9 ± 3

BF-16 6 38 186 ± 20 12 15.5 43 27 ± 5.4

BF-17 - - - - - - -

BF-18 - - - - - - -

BF-19 8 10 6 ± 1 8 0.8 78 7 ± 0.8

- Not tested due to limited sample availability. 

In general, the TTI data suggests that the physical thickness does not influence the time to 

ignition of BFs under a given set of conditions. Time to ignition is higher for BFs containing 

inorganic fibers e.g., BF-6, BF-14, and BF-19. Barrier fabrics BF-6, BF-14, BF-15 and BF-19 

have small flaming periods and very low PHRRs (< 15 kW/m2) due to the presence of inherently 

fire resistant fibers. BFs containing organic fibers (BF-1, BF-2, BF-3, BF-4, BF-5, BF-9, BF-10, 

BF-12, BF-13, and BF-16) burn with PHRR values in excess of 100 kW/m2 ± 10 kW/m2 with the 

exception of BF-8. BF-8 has a very small PHRR value of 22 kW/m2 ± 1 kW/m2. BF-8 is a blend 

of FR rayon/proprietary inorganic fiber/polyester and has higher area density (~ 240 g/m2) with 

low thickness (4 mm). The proportion of inorganic fibers to the FR rayon fibers is proprietary, 

but the lower PHRR values suggest significant fraction of inorganic fibers in the blend. FIGRA 
24

values distinguishes BFs containing inorganic fire resistant fibers (FIGRA < 2 kW/s), BFs with 

active flame retardants (FIGRA < 10 kW/s), and passive BFs (FIGRA > 10 kW/s).

5.3. Burning behavior of composite assemblies

Digital images of composite assemblies that exhibited self-extinguishing behavior when exposed 

to a 40 mm butane flame for 20 s in a modified Mydrin test are shown in Table 5. For all

composites tested, the initial flame spread was tilted slightly from vertical due to the direction of 

air flow in the exhaust system. All the composite assemblies in Table 5 had active BFs. As 

mentioned earlier, active BFs not only help prevent the ignition of interior foam but can also 

prevent the outer upholstery, i.e., ticking or cover fabric, from burning. 

Although BF-10 has a relatively high heat transfer rate when exposed to combined radiant and 

convective heat fluxes (see Table 3), the composite sample with the BF-10 barrier selfextinguishes when exposed to the open flame ignition source for 20 s. Under forced burning 

conditions, as in cone calorimetry, BF-10 had a PHRR of 102 kW/m2 ± 8 kW/m2 and the sample 

burned with a char yield of 42 % (see Table 4). The active (vapor phase) FR mechanism is 

operational only when the FR sample is exposed to an open flame. BF-11 is a knitted barrier 

using core spun yarn with a glass fiber filament and sheath fibers of modacrylic made from 

acrylonitrile and vinylidene chloride. The modacrylic fiber contains an antimony catalyst as an 

additive. The sheath fiber imparts active flame retardancy to the BF. Despite being thermally 

thin with high air permeability, all active barrier fabrics (BF-10, BF-11, BF-12 and BF-15) acted

as very good fire blocking fabrics when exposed to open flame ignition. 

Digital images of composite samples with passive BFs exposed to a 40 mm butane flame for 20 s 

are shown in Table 6. In general, these passive BFs prevent or delay the ignition of the interior 

foam; however, they do not prevent burning of the outer ticking or cover fabric. The duration of 

flaming for these composite assemblies is generally between 2 min and 4 min. Those with 

longer durations of flaming were extinguished manually. Ignoring the edge effects, most of 

these BFs burn with the ticking and form a char in place. The extent of damage to the underlying

foam primarily depends on the type and structure of the charred barrier material, which in turn 

depends on fiber content, structural attributes, and thickness of the BF. Composite assemblies 

tested with BF-5, BF-6 and BF-7 showed very little or no damage to the foam. Amongst the 

carbon fiber barrier materials, the knitted structure in BF-14 failed to protect the underlying 

foam. However, it can be noted from the images that the BF failed mainly at the edges. The 

more porous structure of the knitted BF-14 failed to protect the foam at the edges. The heat 

transfer in the case of BF-14 is also much higher than for BF-6 and BF-7. Thus it can be seen

that if the BF is not an active fire barrier, then the amount of heat transfer through a barrier is 

critical, i.e, the material should be thermally thick to protect the underlying foam. The extent of 

damage to the foam was much greater in the case of thermally thin barrier materials with no 

active flame retardants (e.g., BF-8, BF-9, BF-13, BF-16, BF-17, BF-18, and BF-19).

Digital images of PUF/BF composite assemblies tested without ticking are shown in Table 6. 

The composite assemblies were exposed to a butane flame for 40 s and the burning behavior was 

noted. In the absence of ticking, all PUF/BF composite assemblies exhibited self-extinguishing 

behavior. Depending on the type of BF, the extent of thermal damage to the PUF was evident 
25

from this experiment. Stratified BF-4 containing boric acid treated cotton and FR rayon 

performed best to protect the foam. Thermally thin, glass fiber containing barrier materials e.g., 

BF-17, BF-18, and BF-19 conducted greater heat to the PUF and hence there was more thermal

damage to the foam, as seen in Table 6. However, thermal degradation of the foam was not 

significant enough to be able to support combustion. The differences between the various BFs 

with regard to after-flaming time and char lengths were not considered to be particularly 

significant. 
26

Table 5. Digital images of composite samples with active BFs exposed to 40 mm butane 

flame for 20 s. 

Sample Full Composite 

(PUF/BF/Ticking)

PUF/BF PUF Comments

BF-10 Self-extinguished 

after 30s

BF-11 Self-extinguished 

in 40s

BF-12 Self-extinguished 

(as soon as flame 

was removed)

BF-15 Self-extinguished 

(as soon as flame 

was removed)

BF-10

BF-11

BF-12

BF-15
27

Table 6. Digital images of composite samples with passive BFs exposed to 40 mm butane flame for 20 s.

Sample Full composite samples tested with ticking Composite samples tested* 

without ticking

Full Composite 

(PUF/BF/Ticking)

PUF/BF PUF Duration of 

flaming, min

Comments PUF/BF PUF

BF-1 2.3 Self 

extinguished

BF-2 3.5 Self 

extinguished

Fail, foam catches fire

BF-3 3.4 Self 

extinguished

Not Tested (N/T)

BF-4 3.4 Self 

extinguished

Self-extinguished as soon as flame 

was removed

BF-1

BF-2

BF-3

BF-4
28

Table 6. Continued.

Sample Full composite samples tested with ticking Composite samples tested* 

without ticking

Full Composite 

(PUF/BF/Ticking)

PUF/BF PUF Duration of 

flaming, min

Comments PUF/BF PUF

BF-5 3.3 Self 

extinguished

N/T

BF-6 4.0 Self 

extinguished

N/T

BF-8 < 4.0 Foam ignites Self-extinguished 

as soon as flame 

was removed

BF-9 4.5 Self 

extinguished

Self-extinguished as soon as flame 

was removed

BF-8

BF-5

BF-6

BF-9
29

Table 6. Continued..

Sample Full composite samples tested with ticking Composite samples tested* without 

ticking

Full Composite 

(PUF/BF/Ticking)

PUF/BF PUF

Duration of flaming, min

Comments PUF/BF PUF

BF-13 - Foam ignites

Self-extinguished as soon as flame 

was removed

BF-14 - Foam ignites

Self-extinguished as soon as flame 

was removed

BF-16 - Foam ignites

Self-extinguished as soon as flame 

was removed

BF-13

BF-14

BF-16
30

Table 6. Continued..

Sample Full composite samples tested with ticking Composite samples tested* without 

ticking

Full Composite 

(PUF/BF/Ticking)

PUF/BF PUF

Duration of flaming, min

Comments PUF/BF PUF

BF-17 4.0 Self 

extinguished

Self-extinguished as soon as flame 

was removed

BF-18 4.0 Self 

extinguished

Self-extinguished as soon as flame 

was removed

BF-19 1.3 Self 

extinguished

N/T

o

BF-17

BF-18

BF-19
31

6. Concluding Remarks and Future Work

The purpose of a BF is to limit the cushioning material involvement in a fire by preventing 

and/or significantly delaying the ignition of core materials, lowering the heat release rate, 

reducing the rate of flame spread and/or extinguishing the flames. BFs must limit the heat

transfer into the interior foam via conduction, convection, and radiation. 

This work has demonstrated that the modified TPP test method allows critical BF heat transfer 

characteristics to be monitored and provides fundamental insight into BF thermal response as it 

relates to thermal protection of cushioning components (e.g., PUF) in upholstered products.

Thus, measurements of heat transfer rate in BFs are useful in assessing their effectiveness as fire 

barrier materials.

When tested for heat transfer characteristics, the area density and thickness of BFs have a strong 

influence. However, when tested as a composite in a mock-up assembly, the fire blocking

barrier materials considered in this study showed a clear distinction between active and passive 

BFs. In the case of active BFs, the construction parameters and material properties such as 

thickness, air permeability, and heat transfer were of little significance. However, in the case of 

passive BFs, these parameters became decisive. Results from this study suggests that if the BF

is not an active fire barrier, then the amount of heat transferred through BF is critical, i.e, the 

material should be thermally thick to protect the underlying foam.

BFs used in soft furnishings are generally porous materials. The size of the pores defines the rate 

of air permeability, which in turn impacts the pyrolysis rate of materials within the barrier. The 

permeability should be low enough to prevent flaming combustion inside the BF, especially 

when pyrolysis gases accumulate underneath the barrier. Permeability of a BF before and after 

heat exposure should provide insight into changes in porosity and whether or not the material 

will act as an effective barrier to gas exchanges. The other important measurement that would 

give deeper understanding into how BFs degrade in a TPP test is the retention of bulk density 

after exposure. Changes in BF density reflect changes in thickness and weight caused by 

pyrolysis and shrinkage effects during heat exposure. Since density is a critical quantity in a 

transient heat transfer measurements, these changes would be of greater interest.

BFs, when exposed to a fire, develop significant fire induced stresses and deformations, which 

should be properly accounted for in evaluating realistic response of barrier materials. 

Measurement of the breaking strength of BFs exposed to various heat fluxes may provide insight 

into the loss of tensile strength due to heat exposure. 

The composite bench-scale test employed for this study is still in the developmental stage. The

test method has its limitations with respect to sample size, edge effects, and orientation of the 

sample. Furthermore, PUF as a filling material has long shown high variability in such type of 

composite tests and requires extensive replication in order to obtain satisfactory results. 

Reproducibility and repeatability of the test therefore needs to be addressed. 
32

Since many factors can contribute to the capability of a given material to meet requirements of a 

BF, general principles for selecting BFs and engineering their fire safety need to be established. 

To engineer upholstered product safety, the BFs must be resistant to smoldering ignition sources 

as well as to open flames. Smoldering ignition studies of these BFs are currently in progress and 

will be the subject of a subsequent report. In developing further principles for engineering fire 

safety of BF, we propose two fundamental principles as important technical considerations. 

Firstly, BF is protective in its function and therefore it must not become involved in burning 

during its protective function. Secondly, the BF must be instrumental in extinguishing flames 

from burning of cover fabrics or tickings. Third, the BF must either provide adequate insulation 

to reduce heat transfer or have low permeability so as to limit rate of pyrolysis underneath the 

barrier. 

With regards to test methods for evaluating BFs, both vertical flame test and methods based on 

heat release have proved insufficient. Ranking of BFs based on heat transfer measurements 

seems acceptable. Further study is required to look at longer duration exposures and to probe the 

mechanisms of degradative heat transfer. Correlation between a bench-scale mock-up and largescale, if not full-scale, product testing is also required. 
33

7. References

 

[1] 16 CFR Part 1633 Standard for the flammability (open flame) of mattress sets. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission. March (2007). Available from: 

http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr06/mattsets.pdf.

[2] Damant G. Use of fire blocking and barrier systems to comply with fire tests for 

furnishings, Proceedings of the twelfth international conference INTERFLAM 2010, 

Interscience Communications, West Yard House, Guildford Grove Greenwich, London, 

UK. ISBN 978-0-9541216-5-5 (Vol 1).

[3] 16 CFR Part 1634, Standard for the flammability of residential upholstered furniture 

(proposed rule). Consumer Product Safety Commission. March (2008). Available from: 

http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr08/furnflamm.pdf. 

[4] Nazare S and Davis R. A review of fire blocking technologies for soft furnishings, NIST 

TN 1728, November 2011, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg 

MD. Published in Fire Science Reviews 2012, 1:1 (23 April 2012)

[5] Upholstery Furniture Action Council, UFAC Central Box 2436 High Point, NC 27261 

http://www.ufac.org/method1.htm

[6] BS 5852:2006 Methods of test for assessment of the ignitability of upholstered seating by 

smoldering and flaming ignition sources. British Standards Institution, London, UK.

[7] Upholstery Furniture Action Council, UFAC Central Box 2436 High Point, NC 27261 

http://www.ufac.org/method3.htm

[8] ASTM E1353-08a, standard test method for cigarette ignition resistance of components 

of upholstered furniture. ASTM Standards for Upholstered Furniture, Mattresses and 

Bedding, ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.

[9] NFPA 260 Standard methods of tests and classification system for cigarette ignition 

resistance of components of upholstered furniture, National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA), 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101 USA.

[10] ASTM D5238 – 10 Standard test method for smoldering combustion potential of cottonbased batting. ASTM Standards for Upholstered Furniture, Mattresses and Bedding, 

ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428-2959.

[11] Wakelyn PJ, Wolf S, Oliver K. Cotton batting fire-blocking barriers for soft furnishings. 

Presented at the 14th Annual Business Communications Company, Inc. (BCC) 

Conference on Flame Retardancy June 3, 2003. Stamford, CT.

[12] California TB 117-2013, Requirements, Test Procedures and Apparatus for Testing the 

Flame Retardance of Resilient Filling Materials Used in Upholstered Furniture. State of 

California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair 

Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation, 4244 South Market Court, Suite D, 

Sacramento, CA 95834-1243.

[13] California TB 116, Requirements, Test Procedure and Apparatus for Testing the Flame 

Retardance of Upholstered Furniture. State of California Department of Consumer 

Affairs, Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair Home Furnishings and Thermal 

Insulation, 4244 South Market Court, Suite D, Sacramento, CA 95834-1243.
34

 

[14] ASTM D7140 - 07 Standard test method to measure heat transfer through textile thermal 

barrier materials. ASTM Standards for Upholstered Furniture, Mattresses and Bedding, 

ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428-2959.

[15] Wallace M, Fire Barriers for Furnishings – Progress in Technologies and Fire 

Performance Testing of Barrier Fabrics Intended for Mattress and Upholstery Furniture 

Industries, Presented at NIST Fire Barrier Workshop, March 18 – 19, 2009. 

[16] Combs HE. Proposed California rule has 3 new FR tests. In Furniture Today, August 

2012. Available from http://www.furnituretoday.com/article/554143-

Proposed_California_rule_has_3_new_FR_tests.php

[17] Shalev I and Barker R. Protective fabrics: A comparison of laboratory methods for 

evaluating thermal and protective performance in convective/radiant exposures. Textile 

Research Journal. 1984; 54: 648-654.

[18] Shalev I and Barker RL. Analysis of heat transfer characteristics of fabrics in an open 

flame exposure. Textile Research Journal 1983; 475-482.

[19] Stoll AM, and Chianta MA. A method and rating system for evaluation of thermal

protection, Aerospace Medicine 1969; 40 (11):1232-1238. 

[20] NFPA 1971: Standard on protective ensembles for structural fire fighting and proximity 

fire fighting. National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Massachusetts , 2007 

Edition.

[21] Shalev I and Barker RL. Predicting the thermal protective performance of heat-protective 

fabrics from basic properties. Performance of protective clothing. ASTM STP 900, R.L. 

Barker and G.C. Coletta, Eds;, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 

1986: 358-375.

[22] Capacitive sensor operation and optimization. St. Paul, MN: Lion Precision. Retrieved 

June 6, 2012, from www.lionprecision.com

[23] Shields TJ, Silock GW, Murray JJ. Evaluating ignition data using the flux time product. 

Fire and Materials. 1994; 18 (4): 243-254.

[24] Ohlemiller T, and Shields J. One- and two-sided burning of thermally thin materials. 

Fire and Materials. 1993; 17 (3): 103-110.

[25] Ohlemiller TJ, Shields J, McLane R and Gann R. Flammability assessment methodology 

for mattresses, NIST Internal Report 6497, June 2000. National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Gaithersburg MD.

[26] Ohlemiller TJ. Flammability test of full-scale mattresses: Gas burners versus burning 

bedclothes, NIST Internal Report 7006, July 2003. National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Gaithersburg MD.

[27] 16 CFR 1663 Standard for the flammability of. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

USA, July 2007.

[28] Hoschke BN, Holcombe BV, Plante AM. A critical appraisal of test methods for thermal 

protective clothing fabrics. Performance of protective clothing, ASTM STP 900, R.L. 

Barker and G.C. Coletta, EDs., ASTM, Philadelphia, 1986, pp. 311-326.

[29] ISO 5660-1:2002 Reaction-to-fire tests -- Heat release, smoke production and mass 

loss rate- Part 1: Heat release rate (cone calorimeter method).

[30] Nazaré S, Kandola B, Horrocks AR. Use of cone calorimetry to quantify the burning 

hazard of apparel fabrics. Fire and Materials. 2002; 26: 191–199.
35

 

[31] Schartel B and Hull TR. Development of fire-retarded materials—Interpretation of cone 

calorimeter data. Fire and Materials. 2007; 31(5): 327–354. 

[32] Horrocks, A.R. and Kandola B., Flammability testing of textiles, Chapter 6, in Plastics 

Flammability Handbook, Troitzsch J., (Editor), Hanser Publication, Munich 173-188, 

(2004).

[33] Wang MY, Horrocks AR, Horrocks S, Hall ME, Pearson JS, Clegg S. Flame retardant 

textile back-coatings. Part 1: Antimony-halogen system interactions and the effect of 

replacement by phosphorus-containing agents, Journal of Fire Sciences. 2000;18: 265 -

294.

[34] BS5852: 1979, British Standard Methods of Test for the Ignitability of Upholstered

Composites for Seating, British Standards Institution, London.

[35] BS 5438: 1989, Methods of test for Flammability of textile fabrics when subjected to a 

small igniting flame applied to the face or bottom edge of vertically oriented specimens. 

British Standards Institution, London, UK.

[36] Zammarano M, Matko S, Kraemer RH, Davis RD, Gilman JW, Mehta SN, Factors 

influencing the smoldering performance of polyurethane foam, NIST TN 1747, 

September 2012. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg MD.

[37] 16 CFR Part 1632 Standard for the flammability of mattresses and mattress pads. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission. May (1991). Available from: 

http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/testmatt.pdf.

[38] Benisek L, Edmondson GK, and Philips WA. Protective clothing-evaluation of wool and 

other fabrics. Textile Research Journal 1979; 212-220.

[39] Dombrowski R. Flame retardants for textile coatings, Journal of Coated Fabrics 1996;

25: 224-238.

[40] Tata J, Alongi J and Frache A. Optimization of the procedure to burn textile fabrics by 

cone calorimeter: Part I. Combustion behavior of polyester. Fire and Materials 2011; 

35(6): 397–409.

[41] Lindholm J, Brink A and Hupa M. Influence of decreased sample size on cone 

calorimeter results. Fire and Materials 2012; 36 (1): 63–73.

[42] Lyon R E, Abramowitz A. Effect of instrument response time on heat release rate 

measurements. Fire and Materials 1995; 19 (1):11-17.

[43] Messerschmidt B, van Hess P. Influence of delay times and response times on heat 

release measurements. Fire and Materials 2000; 24 (2):121-130.

[44] Pitts, WM. Applied heat flux distribution and time response effects on cone calorimeter 

characterization of a commercial flexible foam. Fire Technology 2011; DOI: 

10.1007/s10694-011-0235-8.