A111D2 mOT7^ NBS

PUBLICATIONS

NBSIR 82-2525

An Assessment of Correlations

Between Laboratory and

Full-Scale Experiments for the

FAA Aircraft Fire Safety Program,

Part 4: Flammability Tests

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Washington, DC 20234

July 1982

Sponsored by:

U.S. Department of Transportation

.Federal Aviation Administration

Technical Center

Atlantic City Airport, NJ 08405

1^62

C.Z

NBSIR 82-2525

AN ASSESSMENT OF CORRELATIONS

BETWEEN LABORATORY AND

FULL-SCALE EXPERIMENTS FOR THE

FAA AIRCRAFT FIRE SAFETY PROGRAM,

PART 4: FLAMMABILITY TESTS

0* a'rAwr»^itw.: ^ ViU»«AiiT

1 n 1382

OoA- 0

C I M’S"!?

c, R.

James G. Quintiere

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Washington, DC 20234

July 1982

Sponsored by:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Technical Center

Atlantic City Airport, NJ 08405

•‘^'Uao o» *

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

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Dinctor
• r -i£3aM

'/ ^'A "" ::

^ .it::::UKi

A-

:A

i

.^'\K.’.i i--

•' . h^rxi , ,.^ v ?v.:

: y ^>h '' ' - . » -.•‘•5

C.v>>V.: - '-' '"•

- A AA

„M...

'

. 1^' "

v'!i^ 4s-:-r''A. ^.s;;,S.iiJ' .

^ '•

' ’< 'A' ' ' •'
An Assessment of Correlations Between

Laboratory and Full-Scale Experiments

For the FAA Aircraft Fire Safety Program,

Part 4: Flammability Tests

by

James Quintiere

ABSTRACT

A review is made of studies in which full-scale fire growth was compared

with laboratory test data on materials. Both room and corridor fires are included in which primarily interior lining materials have been the com- bustible element. The studies include standard test methods and other

laboratory devices used in the United States and other countries. An

effort was made to intercompare experimental results in a common basis.

For example, maximum room temperature data are compared with ASTM E-84

flame spread classifications for several full-scale tests which involved

nearly the same room geometries and same fuel arrangements.

Keywords: Compartment fires, correlations, fire growth, flammability

tests, flashover

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

Purpose 1

Background 1

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 2

CONCLUSIONS 5

REFERENCES 7

1
LIST OF ILLUSTRA.TIONS

Figure

1 Corner and Room Temperatures compared with ASTM E-84 Ratings

2 Maximum Room Temperatures compared with ASTM E-84

3 Maximum Room Temperatures compared with Energy Release Data

4 Incident Flux Compared with Critical Flux for Spread [15]

5 Critical Flux for Spread compared with Actual Fire Spread on Floors [13]

6 Room Temperature compared with Radiant Heat Release [23]

Page

14

15

16

17

18

19

ii
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Comparison of ASTM E-162 with Room Temperature [11] 9

2 Comparison of ASTM E-162 for Corridor Fire Spread [12] 10

3 Corridor Spread Compared with Early Version of BS 476 pt 1 [16] 11

4 Room Wall Lining Tests Compared to BS 476 pt 1 Class [17] 11

5 Corridor Wall and Celling Spread Compared with BS 476 Part 6 [19] 12

6 Flashover Time in 1/3-Scale Compartment Compared with C of

Epiradiateur [21] 12

7 Energy Released in Aircraft Tests Compared to Laboratory

Test Results [25] 13

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study was sponsored by the Fire Safety Branch of The Federal Aviation

Administration Technical Center at Atlantic City, New Jersey. The author

gratefully appreciates the advice of Mr. R. Hill, the technical monitor,

and also the assistance of Mr. C. Sarkos of the FAA.

Iv
INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to assess the nature of correlations

between measurements by fire flammability test methods and full-scale fire

results. By flammability it is meant that the concern is with fire growth,

energy development and the level of temperature or time to full-involvement

flashover in fires. The scope of the review was not to review all available

literature, but was to be sufficiently complete in order to draw some insight

into the success or limitations of these correlations. Underlying the nature

of fire growth are the elements of ignition, flame spread and energy release

for a material. Also the Influence of scale and enclosure heat transfer effects

hear on these processes. Since all of these processes are not completely understood it is understandable that fire test methods are empirical and their correlation with full-scale results will be tenuous. Nevertheless, the need to establish

fire safety requirements for materials requires vigorous pursuit and examination

of such correlations.

BACKGROUND

The dilemma in practice of establishing correlations is what to compare

with what. This is Illustrated in the study by Nicholas [1] of comparisons

among fire test methods (ASTM E162, OSU rate of heat release device, vertical

bunsen burner test, the limiting oxygen index test, and thermogravimetric analysis)

for twenty aircraft materials. He concludes that the rank order of performance

depends on the test and mostly the tests do not correlate with each other. In

reviewing correlations with full-scale results, various test methods will be

reported in this review. They will not be described fully and it will be assumed

that the interested reader understands these tests or has access to more information

on them. In many cases the tests have not been standardized or their procedures

have changed in time.

Nearly all of the studies to be reported involve lining materials for walls

and ceilings, and in some cases aircraft interior linings; others involve floor

coverings and one study involves matresses. For the room studies, the igniting

source used has been moderate in its Intensity and has varied from waste containers

to cribs, to gas burner diffusion flames, to radiant panels. It may be estimated

that these sources provided nominally 100 kW at 2 to 4 W/cm^ with flame heights

below the ceiling. For the corridor fire studies, usually fully- involved adjoining

room fires were the Igniting source. Also the room and corridor configurations

were of comparable size and construction in many of these tests so that intercomparisons are somewhat justified.

In general two distinct parameters could and have been used to evaluate

the fire growth characteristics in full-scale experiments. One parameter

is the maximum gas temperature reached in the experiment. The other is the

time to reach flashover conditions which could correspond to a temperature

level of 500 to 600°C. Other parameters have been considered, such as heat

1
flux, time for ignition, or time for flames to extend from the room; but the

temperature and flashover time appear to be the most significant. These

parameters will be prevalent in the analyses to follow.

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

An analysis of interior finish fires for a number of materials and

configurations was carried out by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. [2]. They

considered walls alone, corners with a ceiling, rooms and corridors. Their

ignition sources ranged from 1 kg waste containers to 23 kg wood cribs.

They developed data from laboratory test methods which included ASTM

E-84 (FSC) , ASTM E-162 (I ), and the OSU and NBS calorimeter devices. A

representative comparison of the results for the corner and room configurations is shown in Figure 1 in terms of maximum gas temperature and

E-84 FSC value. The selection of the thermocouple position to represent a characteristic temperature does influence the results. In particular, the

two "low" temperatures for the corner results at FSC '^jISS and 360 would be

higher using a thermocouple position at the center of the celling. This

selection issue is, of course, present in all of these comparisons and can

not be easily resolved. Excluding these two low temperature data points, the corner results offer a reasonable correlation but the room results do not.

A more extensive review of ASTM E-84 performance in correlating room fire

results has been presented by Parker [3]. Drawing on those assembled results,

which include the UL data [2], and results by Fang [4], Budnick [5,6] and

Beitel et al [7], gives the plot in Figure 2. Since all these room configurations and ignition sources were similar it is justified to plot the results as

shown. That is, the primary source of energy release contributing to the room temperature is a function of the lining material, and the effects of

ignition source and room configuration are expected to be less important for

these data. In fact, the contribution of the ignition source appears to

be roughly 150°C based on the intercept in Figure 2. Xlith the exception of

the low density foam data designated, a general correlation of E-84 FSC with

temperature is apparent.

Another view of essentially this same data set for lining materials along

with the mattress fire results of Babrauskas [8] is presented in Figure 3 in

terms of energy release rates per unit area. These data were derived from

the NBS calorimeter devices at the irradiance levels indicated. Although they

depend on irradiance and time, these variations might be considered small

compared to the range of results possible for different materials. In the

mattress study by Babrauskas [8], a three-minute average value for energy

release rate was adopted and those values are plotted in Figure 3. Peak values

of heat release rate were considerably higher and do not correlate as well

with temperature. Despite these effects of clme, a correlation

appears reasonable except for some low density foam materials in the UL [2] and

NRC [3] studies. It is known that room temperature is directly dependent on

the total rate of energy release (for similar room configurations). Hence, a correlation with rate of energy release per unit area is only explainable if

the rate of spread is related to this rate per unit area. For wind-aided or upward fire spread, the energy release per unit area does control the rate

2
of spread along with other factors such as the density of the material. Lack

of accounting for all of these spread factors, In particular density, does

suggest the reason for an incomplete correlation In Figure 3.

Other studies related to ASTM E-84 were done by Christian and Waterman [9]

for corridor wall and ceiling linings, and by D' Souza and McGuire [10] for half

and full-scale corner-canopy tests. The first study found the times to achieve

extensive spread was inversely dependent on both the E-84 FSC value and on initial

fire intensity, the ignition source. The FSC values did not rank order exactly

with inverse time. The second study found that E-84 FSC did not correlate with

inverse time of ceiling flaming, but a modified E-84 index based on average spread

velocity in the E-84 tunnel did correlate. This study involved foamed plastics

and their potential for high spread rate needs to be considered in explaining their

fire growth behavior in rooms.

Limited results are available for the ASTM E-162 radiant panel test (index = I )

Williamson [11] tested candidate lining materials for rapid transit vehicles.

These results are shown in Table 1 for two igniting sources. Clearly the results

depend on the ignition source, and the data are too sparse to comment on an overall

correlation potential for E-162. Other work by McGuire [12] for corridor wall,

floor and ceiling materials Initiated by a room fire is presented in Table 2. These

results strongly suggest that combustible walls are more critical than, perhaps

ceilings, and definitely floors, in terms of fire growth potential. For these

elements alone, = 35 for walls led to extensive spread, while an Ig > 130 for

a celling and an > 435 for a floor appears necessary for extensive spread.

An extensive study by NBS of floor covering fire spread in corridors led to

a radiant panel test method for floor coverings (ASTM E-648 or NFPA 253 [13]).

It was apparent in that study that a complete correlation between the NBS corridor

tests and a variety of laboratory and standard test method results for the floor

covering materials did not exist [14]. It was clear, however, that radiant heating

was a significant factor in promoting floor covering spread. Consequently, a test was established which measured the minimum radiant heat flux necessary to sustain

flame spread. A demonstration of the applicability of this test result to full-scale

data is illustrated in Figure 4 and [15]. The measured (and calculated) heat flux is

shown for a point on the corridor floor 1.2 m from the doorway of the room fire.

For material 346, this flux did not ever exceed its "critical" flux to sustain

flame spread. Yet for the two other materials, 348 and 349, the critical flux was

exceeded and rapid and complete spread resulted in the corridor. Thus, this critical

flux gives an indication of whether spread will continue, but no indication of its

rate or intensity if it is exceeded due to the intensity level of the igniting fire.

A more dramatic view of that point is shown in Figure 5 taken from the commentary

on NFPA 253 [13]. There, a low critical flux tends to correspond with significant fire

spread more than high critical flux ratings in both experimental fires and actual fire

incidents; however, a high critical flux does not guarantee limited spread.

It is interesting to examine some flammability test method developments

in other countries. A 1944 UK report [16] describes the development of the

Surface Spread of Flame Test BS476 part 1. This test uses a vertical radiant

panel with a test sample aligned normal to the panel. A classification method

is based on the extent of spread and time for spread along the specimen away

from the panel. Table 3 shows their results based on full-scale corridor tests

with combustible wall and ceiling materials. Later results [17] are shown in

Table 4 for wall linings in rooms.

3
In a CIB review paper on relating flashover with fire test methods,

Thomas [18] reports that model room experiments gave a range of flashover

times for materials of class 1 by BS476 part 1. These factors evidently

gave rise to BS476 part 6, the British Fire Propagation test. This test

has a 3.6 cm square sample exposed to a gas flame in a chamber in which

the exhaust gas stream temperature is monitored over time. The index (I)

is based on this time-temperature curve and its value above a reference

temperature curve (0) established for a noncombustible material. Thomas [18]

reports that flashover times correlated directly with the time for the test

temperature to reach 0 + 50°C and inversely with the time the test temperature

remained above 0 + 50°C. This suggests that time to flashover is inversely

proportional to total energy release and the rate of energy release; not an unreasonable result. Later, tests by Malhotra et al. [19] show in Table 5

the comparison of spread in a corridor lined with wall and ceiling materials

classified by BS476 part 6 (Index = I).

Another approach in correlating wall and ceiling lining spread in corridors

was taken in Denmark by Malmstedt et al. [20] . They found that the time over which the corridor material was exposed to the room fire before its ignition

was significant. They, thus, correlated the time integral of room temperature

rise up to the time of corridor ignition (t. ) divided by /t . with a laboratory

test that measured the minimum radiant flux^^o ignite the matirial after a twenty minute exposure. It can be shown [15] that their approach can be explained

in terms of ignition theory.

The French use the Epiradiateur test composed of an inclined specimen

exposed to a radiant heat source enclosed in a vertical chamber. Several parameters are measured and then combined to give a classification. They include

data on time to ignite (I), maximum flame height (S), mean flame height (H)

,

and the time integral of temperature rise over 20 minutes (C) . Bullen [21]

recently analyzed the results of Tourette [22] for correlation of the Epiradiateur with 1/3-scale wall lining compartment fires. He found that the C

(energy parameter) factor correlated best the time to flashover. Those results

are shown in Table 6.

A recent study in Australia by Moulen et al. [23] compared results of a corner-wall fire in a room with results from the test for Early Fire Hazard

Properties (EFH) : AS 1530 Part 3. The test method uses a radiant panel at

800°C to heat a vertical specimen which is moved toward it until it ignites.

Radiant flux from the specimen is measured as well as the temperature at the

exhaust port of the enclosure containing the components. The EFH test measures

time to ignite (t . ) (for the moving specimen) , time (after Ignition) to emit a specific flux (t^tf and a two minute integration (after ignition) of the flux

measured from the specimen. The tf represents the time to achieve significant

burning (after ignition) and was found to correlate very well with the time for

flames to reach the ceiling in the room tests following wall ignition. The

radiant flux Integral, since its taken over a fixed two minute Interval, yields

a measure of the rate of radiant energy release, not necessarily the total rate

of energy release. These results do not correlate very well with room temperature

rise. They are plotted in Figure 6 and are in contrast to those plotted in

Figure 3.

4
The problem of post-crash fire spread in an aircraft has stimulated some new

studies of test methods and their interpretation. Work by Speith et al. [24]

at McDonnell Douglas and Tustin [25] at Boeing Company comprise a similar approach.

They used an aircraft fuselage section with a fixed ventilation flow rate and

simulate the fire source with a large radiant panel located within the fuselage.

Large sheets of aircraft lining material were then tested over a range of flux

levels and distributions. The OSU calorimeter device with modifications was used to measure the energy and product release rates for these same materials.

A distinct difference of this work compared to the required test for aircraft

materials, namely the FAR 25. 853 Bunsen Burner Test, is the large extent of

sample heated in the full-scale simulation and the attempt to predict the fullscale results from the OSU apparatus data. They demonstrate how to use the energy

and product yield test data to predict (average) temperature and specie concentrations in the exhaust flow from the full-scale experiments. They achieve mixed

success which suggests the approach may be sound, but the sources of error are not apparent. Tustin’ s [25] results comparing the total energy release in fullscale for two fire scenarios with data from laboratory tests are shown in

Table 7. The Bunsen Burner result does not correlate with the full-scale energy

release, th^ Q (energy release factor) of ASTM E-162 is fair, and the OSU result

at 2.5 W/cm irradlance does best. Spleth et al. [24] has good success at

predicting temperature with the OSU energy release data, but finds that the

thermal technique for calculating energy release rate in the OSU device gives

peak values that are nominally 50 per cent lower than peak values obtained

through using oxygen depletion calorimetry. Hence an issue of accuracy needs to

be addressed in these measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of energy release (per unit area) measured in a laboratory test

apparatus seems to be the most significant parameter in correlating full-scale

data on room temperature or time to flashover. This is reflected in the review

presented here. The rate of energy release is not always directly measured, and even when it is, there is no a priori method for deciding how to express it in

terms of time or exposure heat flux; for example, a peak value or three minute

average at 3 W/cm^ or 6 W/cm^, etc. In some experiments it is clear, due to

the nature of the materials or the test conditions, that other factors such as ignition and flame spread rate are important to achieve a full correlation. In

fact in some cases, that type of insight motivated a correlation strategy. The

importance of energy release rate in establishing the FSC of ASTM E-84 has been

made clear by Parker [3] so that energy release rate may be regarded as an alternative to FSC. Nevertheless without some insight and at least conceptual

modeling of the fire scenario considered for correlation, a correlation strategy

is purely empirical. It has no fundamental basis for success.

To develop a successful correlation, the dominant processes must be identified

and dealt with in as much quantitative detail as possible and practical. For the

FAA postcrash fire scenario (with no wind) these processes can be identified as follows:

5
( 1 ) Ignition (spontaneous or piloted) by radiation from the external pool

fire. This would apply to the exposed materials, namely the seats

and carpeting. The materials in the upper portion of the cabin

would be exposed to the pulsating door flames. This flame Ignition

phenomenon is less defined. A response to these processes is to

measure the time to ignite under heat flux levels commensurate

with the external fire characteristics. This is a simple test, yet

no standard test method exists for doing this.

(2)

Following ignition, a distinct area of material should quickly get

involved in combustion. This area, in particular for the seat

configuration, could be estimated from knowledge of the radiant

flux distribution due to the external pool fire and from a measurement of the minimum flux for piloted ignition (q . )•

Relatively rapid spread should extend from the ignition°^oint

to the position of minimum ignition flux. This initial rate

of energy release could be determined from additional measurements

of energy release rate per unit area, Q" l.e.

where W is width (assume one dimensional spread as observed on the

seat configurations).

(3) Subsequent spread will occur more slowly until radiant heating levels

Increase significantly as the cabin ceiling heats. Lateral and

horizontal spread rates on the seat materials could be determined

from ignition and flame spread data as outlined by Quintlere [27].

(4) Following ignition, flame spread on the upper cabin surfaces becomes

a significant factor. Other than the ASTM E-84 test, no test is

specifically designed to address this. It has been shown [3] that

this type of spread depends on energy release rate per imit area

6" and the material properties kpc, as well as flame heat transfer

rate. This problem has clearly not been solved. Nevertheless, an empirical manner for addressing this flame spread rate is to

consider it directly proportional to Q". That is, Q" would

reflect a measure of the flame spread rate for ceiling materials.

In summary, the sense of the review and its application to the post

crash fire scenario suggest that rate of energy release per unit area

ignition and flame spread characteristics, in that order, are the phenomena

that should be addressed in laboratory measurements and in correlations with

full-scale results.

6
REFERENCES

1. Nicholas, E. B., "Evaluation of Existing Flammability Test Methods

by Comparison of the Flammability Characteristics of Interior

Materials," Federal Aviation Administration Report No. FAA-NA-79-46

(March 1980)

2. Castino, G. T., Beyreis, J. R. and Metes, W. S., "Flammability

Studies of Cellular Plastics and Other Building Materials Used for

Interior Finishes," Underwriters La. Inc. Northbrook, Illinois (1975).

3. Parker, W. J., "An Assessment of Correlations Between Laboratory and

Full Scale Experiments for The FAA Aircraft Fire Safety Program, Part 1:

ASTM E-84, National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR (to be published).

4. Fang, J. B. , "Fire Buildup in a Room and the Role of Interior Finish

Materials," National Bureau of Standards, TN 879, (1975).

5. Budnick, E. K. , "Fire Spread Along a Mobile Home Corridor," National

Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 761021, (July 1976).

6. Budnick, E. K. , "Mobile Home Living Room Fire Studies: The Role of

Interior Finish," National Bureau of Standards NBSIR 781530, (Sept.

1978) .

7. Beitel, J. J. and Herrera, W. R. , "Full-scale Fire Tests on Specific

Wall and Ceiling Materials of Mobile Home Modules," Southwest Research

Institute, SWRI Proj . No. 03-4736 (Jan. 1980).

8. Babrauskas, V., "Combustion of Mattresses Exposed to Flaming Ignition

Sources Part II, Bench-Scale Tests and Recommended Standard Test,"

National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 80-2186 (Oct. 1980).

9. Christian, W. J. and Waterman, T. E., "Fire Behavior of Interior

Finish Materials," Fire Technology , Vol. 6, No. 3, (Aug. 1970) p 165.

10. D'Souza, M. V. and McGuire, J. H. , "ASTM E-84 and the Flammability of

Foamed Thermosetting Plastics," Fire Technology , Vol. 13, No. 2,

(May 1977) p 85.

11. Williamson, R. B. , "Analysis of BART Fire Hardening Program, Report

to BART, (April 1981).

12. McGuire, J. H. , "The Spread of Fire in Corridors" Fire Technology , Vol. 4,

No. 2, (May 1968) p. 103.

13. Anonymous, "Flooring Radiant Panel Test 1978," National Fire Protection

Association, NFPA 253, (1978).

14. Quintiere, J. and Huggett, C. , "An Evaluation of Flame Spread Test Methods

for Floor Covering Materials," National Bureau of Standards, NBS Special

Publication 411, (November 1974) p. 59.

7
15. Quintlere, J. , "The Spread of Fire from a Compartment - A Review”,

Amer. Soc. for Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication 685,

(1980)

16. Anonymous, "Spread of Flames on Combustible Surfaces", Dept, of Scientific

and Industrial Research, Building Res. Station, Garston, Herts. V. K.

(April 1944)

17. Anonymous, Fire Research 1960 , Dept, of Scientific and Industrial

Research Organization, London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office (1961)

p . 24.

18. Thomas, P. H. , "Flashover and Fire Propagation Tests", Conseil International du Batiment, Paper CIB/FRWP25/UK (1957).

19. Malhotra, H. L. , Morris, W. A., and Hopkinson, J. S., "The Fire

Propagation Test as a Measure of Fire Spread. Correlation with Full-scale

Fires in Corridors", Fire Research Station, U. K. , FR Note NO. 876

(June 1971).

20. Hansen, G. , Jannerup, A., Less, H. G. , Hamman-Pedersen , 0., Jaul, H. , and

Malmstedt, K. , "Report on Tests Concerning Fires in Ships Corridors",

Committee of Association of Danish Shipbuilders and Marine Engineers,

H. Jaul, Chairman, Prindstrup (1958).

21. Bullen, M. L. , "A Comparison of Flashover Times in Small-Scale Fires

Using Test Data", Fire and Materials , Vol. 1 (1976) p. 74.

22. Tourette, J. C. , "L’ influence des revetements sur le developpement de

I’incendie Cah. Cent. Sci. Tech. Batin. No. 144, 1213 (1973).

23. Moulen, A. W. , Grubits, S. J. , Martin, K. G., and Dowling, V. P.

,

"The Early Fire Behaviour of Combustible Wall Lining Materials,"

Fire and Materials , Vol. 4, No. 4, (1980) p. 165.

24. Spieth, H. H. , Gaume, J. G. , Luoto, R, E. and Klinck, D. M.

,

"Investigate a Combined Hazard Index Methodology for Ranking an Aircraft

Cabin Interior Material for Combustion Hazards", Part 1 - Final Report

Draft, McDonnell Douglas Corporation (1981).

25. Tustin, E. A., "Development of Fire Test Methods for Airplane Interior

Materials", Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, NASA CR-14568 (1979).

26. Allen, S. , Nemeth, S. R. , Peterson, J. M. and Tustin, E. A., "Airplane

Interior Materials Fire Test Methodology", Boeing Commercial Airplane

Co., Doc. No. D6-46952, Draft Report (March 1979).

27. Quintlere, J. , "A Simplified Theory for Generalizing Results from a Radiant Panel Rate of Flame Spread Apparatus", Fire and Materials , Vol. 5, No. 2, (1981) , p. 52.

8
TABLE 1

COMPARISON OF ASTM E-162 WITH ROOM TEMPERATURE [11]

Material ASTM E-162

Is

Maximum

1 kg (<100kW) ignition

Room Temperatures (°C)

source 175 kW ignition source

1 2 250 800

2 7 — 250

3 41 150 800

4 50 200 470

5 55 200 900

6 59 200 900

9
TABLE 2

COMPARISON OF ASTM E-162 FOR CORRIDOR FIRE SPREAD [12]

ASTM E-162 (I ) Values

. 1 . S „ elllng Floor Walls

130 0 0

90 220 0

0 435 0

0 0 35

0 0 27

11 0 11

21 0 21

3 0 3

8 0 8

*Full length of corridor

Fire Spread Distance (m)

12.2

6.1

12.2

> 19.5*

3.7 ^ 19.5

6.1

2.4

> 19.5

10
TABLE 3

CORRIDOR SPREAD COMPARED WITH EARLY VERSION OF BS 476 PT 1 [16]

Test No Class Full-scale results

3 1 Did not spread

2 2 Did not spread

5 3 Small spread

1 4 Spread to end in 9 min.

4 4 Spread to end in 4 min.

TABLE 4

ROOM WALL LINING TESTS COMPARED TO BS 476 PT 1 CLASS [17]

Class Flashover time

4

min : s 6:45

3 8:15

1 9:30 and 12:00

non combustible 23:30

non combustible 8:00

11
TABLE 5

CORRIDOR WALL AND CEILING SPREAD COMPARED WITH BS A76 PART 6 [19]

Material BS 476 pt 6(1) Corridor Spread

Plasterboard 4.7 None

Expanded polystyrene 7.9 None

Expanded polystyrene 19.4 6 m in 14 min

Hatdboard 35.6 Full length (13m) in 9 min

TABLE 6

FLASHOVER TIME IN 1/3- SCALE COMPARTMENT COMPARED WITH C OF EPIRADIATEUR [21]

C Flashover time (min)

0 16

0.40 13.21

0.68 12.3

1.85 9.65

2.18 8.65

3.42 9.85

3.67 7.83

3.97 8.0

4 . 64 7.68

5.0 9.78

8.0 8.0

9.6 5.13

12
TABLE 7

ENERGY RELEASED IN AIRCRAFT TESTS COMPARED TO LABORATORY TEST RESULTS [25]

Material

FAR

Bunsen

Burner

ASTM

E-162 OSU enejjjjy at 215b

OSU energy

at 300s2 . 5W/ cm

Full-sca’ .e Energy

2 . 5W/ cm‘‘‘ 5W/cm^ at 215s* at 300s**

cm - J/cm^ J/cm^ J/cm^ MJ MJ

412 8.47 4.82 23.9 1055 1986 1600 4.85 0.93

NO2 10.24 10.75 346 647 647 568 4.54 5.75

416 11.85 3.02 28.1 420 471 442 2.00 2.11

402 9.91 1.88 49.6 250 698 248 1.79 1.74

* Post crash fire simulation

** Inflight fire simulation

13
t/>

O O Q O

OO CO 9 CM

(3o) 3dniVU3dM3i SV9

Figure

1

-

Corner

and

Room

Temperatures

with

ASTM

E-84

Ratings
Figure 2 - Maximum Room Temperatures with ASTM E-84

15
1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

A

Low density foams

O

Irratfiance

Ref. (W/cm^)

0 4 6 • 4 6

A 2 6

3 2

6 6

8 2.5

100 200 300 400 500 600

RATE OF ENERGY RELEASE (kW/m^)

um Room Temperatures with Energy Release Data

16
(jiuo/AA) xmd iV3H INViaVU 1N3QI0NI

Figure

4

-

Incident

Flux

Compared

with

Critical

Flux

for

Spread

[15]
Figure

0V3ddS

3WV3J OldVd • <

0V3ddS o < 3WV3J M03S

05

05 1- — h- z

Z LJ 05

liJ hoc trLJ z

LJ

LJ Q. o

Q. X O

X LJ z

U105 E LJ m L£. z — L.

(S 9 N)

.Aooyij

JO QN3

(mill)

ONIdBAQO yOOHJ JO QN3

h

< <

< <

-»~n 3SnOH >IVWd30

(£) "I310H a33N0ld

OJ 00

d

tod

iZ) 3SnOH d3V\idVH I

(^) Sd3 M01 isiidve I

( 09d) 30Vdd 31 003301 I

3933300 3 dOV\iOI>IS

O

O

O

00

O

(0

O

OCJ

39NVH0 33VDS I 310N — O

— 00

— to

O

<

4>

<<

<

(\j

d

OJd

(^uuo/M) xn3 J INVIQV'J 3V0 lim0

- Critical Flux for Spread with Actual Fire Spread on Floors [13]

18

DISTANCE

BURNED

(m)
I vC (3c I 3SUI 3UniVd3dWai NOOd (1)

Room

Temperature

with

Radiant

Heat

Release

[23]
NBS-114A (REV. 2-80

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date

SHEET (See instructions) NBSIR 82-2525 DOT/FAA/CT-82/101 July 1982

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

An Assessment of Correlations Between Laboratory and Full-Scale Experiments

for the FAA Aircraft Fire Safety Program, Part 4: Flammability Tests

5. AUTHOR(S)

J. G. Quintiere

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No. national bureau of standards

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 8. Type of Report 8c Period Covered

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

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

Federal Aviation Administration

Technical Center

Atlantic City, N.J. 08405

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

[221 Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FlPS Software Summary, is attached.

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

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here) ^ review is made of Studies in whlch full—SCale

fire growth was compared with laboratory test data on materials. Both room and

corridor fires are included in which primarily interior lining materials have been

the combustible element. The studies include standard test methods and other

laboratory devices used in the United States and other countries. An effort was made to intercompare experimental results in a common basis. For example, maximum

room temperature data are compared with ASTM E-84 flame spread classifications for

several full-scale tests which involved nearly the same room geometries and same

fuel arrangements.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

Compartment fires; correlations; corridor tests; fire growth; fire tests; flammability;

flashover; interior finishes; room fires.

13. AVAILABILITY

Unl imited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS rn Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

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

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

15. Price

$7.50

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80

ii